Anti-Japan protests across China over islands dispute
View Single Post
08-23-2012, 11:47 PM
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: went out for a bite
Thanked 16,249 Times in 2,809 Posts
Originally Posted by
But of course, I don't think we can safely conclude that others' similar claims are genuine either. If they are, there would be no conflict in the first place.
From 1885 on, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had been thoroughly made by the Government of Japan through the agencies of Okinawa Prefecture and by way of other methods. Through these surveys, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been uninhabited and showed no trace of having been under the control of China. Based on this confirmation, the Government of Japan made a Cabinet Decision on 14 January 1895 to erect a marker on the Islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan.
Since then, the Senkaku Islands have continuously remained as an integral part of the Nansei Shoto Islands which are the territory of Japan. These islands were neither part of Taiwan nor part of the Pescadores Islands which were ceded to Japan from the Qing Dynasty of China in accordance with Article II of the Treaty of Shimonoseki which came into effect in May of 1895.
Accordingly, the Senkaku Islands are not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article II of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The Senkaku Islands have been placed under the administration of the United States of America as part of the Nansei Shoto Islands, in accordance with Article III of the said treaty, and are included in the area, the administrative rights over which were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands signed on 17 June 1971. The facts outlined herein clearly indicate the status of the Senkaku Islands being part of the territory of Japan.
The fact that China expressed no objection to the status of the Islands being under the administration of the United States under Article III of the San Francisco Peace Treaty clearly indicates that China did not consider the Senkaku Islands as part of Taiwan. It was not until the latter half of 1970, when the question of the development of petroleum resources on the continental shelf of the East China Sea came to the surface, that the Government of China and Taiwan authorities began to raise questions regarding the Senkaku Islands.
Furthermore, none of the points raised by the Government of China as "historic, geographic or geological" evidence provide valid grounds, in light of international law, to support China's arguments regarding the Senkaku Islands.
Time to introduce some facts into this discussion:
It is important to look at the current dispute between China and Japan in the light of the history of Chinese foreign policy. Chang Chi-hsiung of Taiwan’s Academia Sinica has argued that the pre-modern Chinese world order was based on status and stability (mingfen zhixu). Legitimacy rested not on physical control but on the recognition and enactment of the proper roles and duties appropriate to one’s status. Under the logic of this system, emperors extended their power beyond China’s borders not by force, but by their ‘benevolence’ or ‘virtuous’ rule, which Confucian thinkers believed would lead foreign states to acknowledge the emperor’s moral suzerainty. Thus, outside China proper, it was possible to rule even where there was no mechanism of physical governance in place. Practical benefits accompanied acceptance of China’s nominal status at the head of this universal structure: tributary trade with China was not only extremely profitable but also provided many goods that could not be easily accessed elsewhere. On the other hand, gifts and titles from the Chinese emperor allowed rulers to strengthen their own position vis-à-vis their subjects. Although Japan stayed out of the system during its Tokugawa period (1603-1868) the vast majority of states in east, inner and south-east Asia, including the Ryukyus (modern-day Okinawa), accepted a tributary relationship with China.
So while not directly a part of ancient China there is a long point in history when many areas, inclucing Taiwan, Korea, Okinawa and the Senkaku/ Diaoyu islands payed homage to and bowed to the will of, the Emperor of China. This changed between 1894-95 when China was defeated by Japan in Naval battle and Japan layed claim to the afore mentioned areas as their own.
Since the transfer of administration from United States to Japan in 1971, Japan's ownership of the islands has been disputed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, also known as Taiwan). The Chinese claim the discovery and control of the islands from the 14th century. Japan controlled the islands from 1895 until its surrender at the end of World War II. The United States administered them as part of the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1945 until 1972, when the islands reverted to Japanese control under the Okinawa Reversion Treaty between the United States and Japan.
So this is nothing new but after Chinas' invasion of Tibet heads are started to turn when China says they own someplace. They now have a recent history of backing up these land claims with weapons and force. The protests, (and of course they are promoted by the Chinese government), are nothing new either. Fact is Japan has the most recent claim on these islands and saying these uninhabited islands were on the route of those that payed us tribute in order to trade in the East China Sea a few hundred years ago so that makes them ours, is a pretty lame claim in my opinion....yet China is making it nontheless. China is a much more powerful empire then in the 14th Century so that if they are claiming rights to Taiwan, the Ryukyu Islands and Okinawa in rhetoric.....it just might be a good idea to take them seriously....just in case. It does not seem to matter that this is all over
7 square kilometres (1,700 acres)! And the majority of that is uninhabitable rock!
(figure an acre to be about the size of a regulation soccer/football field).
Given the facts I side with Japan on this one.
other good links of interest:
Be careful what you wish for..You just might get it, and then it's too late.
Last edited by Ceewan; 08-24-2012 at
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ceewan For This Useful Post:
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Ceewan
Find all posts by Ceewan