Five common myths about the Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands debunked.

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
It seems to me that most Westerners' views of the Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands are a gross representation of the actual situation, presumably propagated by the Western media. I've compiled several of the most common myths. I'm writing what I believe and if you are of a different opinion, please feel free to discuss them.

1. According to post-war treaties, the islands should be given to Japan.
That certainly is what the Treaty of San Francisco states. However, neither the PRC nor the ROC were invited to the signing of this treaty. This treaty is in violation of the Cairo Declaration and the subsequent Potsdam Declaration.

Extract from the Cairo Declaration:

It is their [ROC, US and UK] purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.


Extract from the Potsdam Declaration:

(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.


2. China didn't give a darn about the islands until resources were discovered around it in 1968.
Firstly, China did care about the islands before 1968, or it would not have expressed its opposition towards the San Fran Treaty. Secondly, the reason why China (both the PRC and the ROC) protested in 1971 is because this is the year the US decided to give the Liuqiu (Ryukyu) Islands to Japan, and the Diaoyu Islands along with them. If anything, Japan is the one reacting to the discovery of the oil reserves by erecting a marker showing that the islands belong to the city of Ishigaki in 1969.

3. China started the recent Diaoyu craze.
That is very far from the truth. China and Japan decided to shelve the dispute in 1972. From then, there were no major disputes until the enactment of the Law of the Sea, when Japan wanted to expand its EEZ based on its 'sovereignty' of the islands. While sailing to the islands, a Hong Kong activist drowned for his cause. Later, the lighthouse incident caused another surge of attention to the islands. Notice how Japan started it in both 1994 and 2005. So much for the 'shelved' dispute.

However, in 2010, Naoto Kan decided to further escalate the dispute by arresting Zhan Qixiong, the captain of a ship sailing to the Diaoyu Islands. Then Yoshihiko Noda wanted to 'nationalise' the islands, another provocation from Japan. Later, Hong Kong activists were arrested for sailing to the islands in protest. Again, Japan started all this.

4. China's only argument is 'I discovered it first'.
Apart from China's historical ownership of the islands and the post-war treaties above, the Diaoyu Islands are also outlying islands of Taiwan, NOT Liuqiu/Ryukyu.

5. The islands were legally ceded to Japan.
China and Japan agreed back in 1979 that the islands do not belong to Liuqiu/Ryukyu. After Koga Tatsushirō 'discovered' the islands in 1884, the Japanese government started investigating the islands in secret. In 1895, with the victory of the First Sino-Japanese War, the Japanese government secretly incorporated the islands in their territory without issuing a declaration of occupation or mentioning the islands in a treaty. In other words, the islands were illegally occupied.

Phew, that sure took long to write. I feel it's good karma, though, so it was worth it.
If you disagree, I will be very happy to discuss with you and maybe more myths will be uncovered in the process.
edit on 23-12-2012 by diqiushiwojia because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
None of that matters.

Chinas claim goes back a very long time. China owns the islands and always has.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by spangledbanner
 


Spot on! Thing is, some people believe in these myths, which are spread in the West. It's good to know that not all Westerners have been 'brainwashed'.
edit on 23-12-2012 by diqiushiwojia because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-12-2012 by diqiushiwojia because: Grammar



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by diqiushiwojia
reply to post by spangledbanner
 


Spot on! Thing is, some people believe in these myths spread in the West. It's good to know that not all Westerners have been 'brainwashed'.
edit on 23-12-2012 by diqiushiwojia because: (no reason given)


Israel would have to agree,.

The important thing is who is there first.

( and sorry, I didnt actually even read your thread before commenting. I thought you were an ignorant westerner or some anti-China propagandist. ATS is full of them. )



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by spangledbanner
 


It's OK. It's only my third day here as a non-lurker and I'm already feeling that.
edit on 23-12-2012 by diqiushiwojia because: Bad counting!



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by diqiushiwojia
It seems to me that most Westerners' views of the Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands are a gross representation of the actual situation, presumably propagated by the Western media. I've compiled several of the most common myths. I'm writing what I believe and if you are of a different opinion, please feel free to discuss them.

]1. According to post-war treaties, the islands should be given to Japan.
That certainly is what the Treaty of San Francisco states. However, neither the PRC nor the ROC were invited to the signing of this treaty. This treaty is in violation of the Cairo Declaration and the subsequent Potsdam Declaration.

Extract from the Cairo Declaration:

It is their [ROC, US and UK] purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.


Extract from the Potsdam Declaration:

(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.



OK, I'll bite.

The Cairo declaration and Potsdam declaration are irrelevant in this case, for the sole reason that the Senkakus were not part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki/Maguan (1895) that ended the Japan-China war and ceded territory to Japan. They weren't mentioned in the treaty, they weren't mentioned in the negotiations by either China or Japan.

If they were Chinese, why wouldn't the Chinese have at least brought them up in negotiations? I'd suggest that the main reason is that they were never claimed by China - and the fact that there is no evidence that any Chinese have ever lived or worked on the islands seems to support that.

Because they weren't mentioned in the treaty OR negotiations, they weren't - and aren't - considered to be among the lands acquired through warfare, and thus Potsdam, Cairo and San Francisco don't consider them spoils of war.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Okay, I'll defend my points now.



Originally posted by vox2442
OK, I'll bite.

The Cairo declaration and Potsdam declaration are irrelevant in this case, for the sole reason that the Senkakus were not part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki/Maguan (1895) that ended the Japan-China war and ceded territory to Japan. They weren't mentioned in the treaty, they weren't mentioned in the negotiations by either China or Japan.

The Cairo Declaration says 'all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese', not 'all the territories Japan has legally stolen from the Chinese'. Although the Diaoyu Islands were illegally occupied, they should fall under the category of 'steal'.


If they were Chinese, why wouldn't the Chinese have at least brought them up in negotiations?

That's because China (neither PRC nor ROC) was never invited to San Francisco. The islands were supposed to have been covered by Cairo but the San Fran treaty ignored that.


I'd suggest that the main reason is that they were never claimed by China - and the fact that there is no evidence that any Chinese have ever lived or worked on the islands seems to support that.

China has been administering the islands since the Ming Dynasty.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by diqiushiwojia
2. China didn't give a darn about the islands until resources were discovered around it in 1968.
Firstly, China did care about the islands before 1968, or it would not have expressed its opposition towards the San Fran Treaty. Secondly, the reason why China (both the PRC and the ROC) protested in 1971 is because this is the year the US decided to give the Liuqiu (Ryukyu) Islands to Japan, and the Diaoyu Islands along with them. If anything, Japan is the one reacting to the discovery of the oil reserves by erecting a marker showing that the islands belong to the city of Ishigaki in 1969.


China's opposition to San Francisco had absolutely nothing to do with the Senkaku islands. They were opposed because they weren't invited.

Secondly, the USA did not "give" Okinawa to Japan. This is international law, so word choice counts - the USA occupied Okinawa, and the USA administered Okinawa - but at no point did the USA incorporate Okinawa, and at no point were the islands ceded. They remained Japanese in the same way that Honshu remained Japanese during the post-war occupation. The USA returned control of Okinawa to Japan.

Thirdly, I've yet to see any document from either the PRC or ROC pre-1968 that refers to the islands by the Chinese name - they always used Senkaku.

Fourth, the reason Ishikaki erected its marker was as a reaction to Taiwan planting a flag on the islands a few weeks before.

Fifth - you've made the claim that China not giving a damn about the islands is a myth, but not provided any evidence to show proof of their claim pre-1969, and you seem to be suggesting that the silence of the PRC and ROC on the matter was due to the US occupation.

That silence makes absolutely no sense to me - if the islands belong to China (either one), surely the claim is as valid against the USA as it is against Japan. Granted, the PRC wasn't in a great negotiating position with the USA at the time, but the ROC certainly was.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by diqiushiwojia
3. China started the recent Diaoyu craze.
That is very far from the truth. China and Japan decided to shelve the dispute in 1972. From then, there were no major disputes until the enactment of the Law of the Sea, when Japan wanted to expand its EEZ based on its 'sovereignty' of the islands. While sailing to the islands, a Hong Kong activist drowned for his cause. Later, the lighthouse incident caused another surge of attention to the islands. Notice how Japan started it in both 1994 and 2005. So much for the 'shelved' dispute.

However, in 2010, Naoto Kan decided to further escalate the dispute by arresting Zhan Qixiong, the captain of a ship sailing to the Diaoyu Islands. Then Yoshihiko Noda wanted to 'nationalise' the islands, another provocation from Japan. Later, Hong Kong activists were arrested for sailing to the islands in protest. Again, Japan started all this.


OK, this bit is pretty funny. Zhan Qixiong rammed 2 Japanese patrol boats in waters that are - under international law - Japanese, and japan is at fault for arresting the captain? Please. And unless you're suggesting that the Japanese cops held that Hong Kong activist's head under water, I fail to see how his death is a provocation by the Japanese.

Here's the video.



To avoid escalating the incident, Kan had the captain and crew deported, rather than giving them a trial and sending them to a Japanese jail.

As far as Noda "nationalizing" the islands being a provocation, that's rubbish. they were owned by a Japanese family that wanted to sell - and to keep them from being bought by people who would have done things that would definitely be provocations (either the Japanese right or the numerous Chinese "businessmen" who had been harassing the family at home for the last 20 years) he decided to buy them and class them as natural resources.

China decided to "shelve" the dispute - but as far as Japan (and the rest of the world that could be bothered to care) there has been no dispute, because the islands are Japanese. If China has a claim, putting that claim on the shelf isn't the answer - there is a world court in the Hague that is designed to deal with territorial disputes. Instead of putting it on the shelf, why not just take the claims there?
edit on 23-12-2012 by vox2442 because: youtube



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by diqiushiwojia

4. China's only argument is 'I discovered it first'.
Apart from China's historical ownership of the islands and the post-war treaties above, the Diaoyu Islands are also outlying islands of Taiwan, NOT Liuqiu/Ryukyu.


Again, please post some data on the historical ownership of the islands. You're claiming to be debunking myths here.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by diqiushiwojia

5. The islands were legally ceded to Japan.
China and Japan agreed back in 1979 that the islands do not belong to Liuqiu/Ryukyu. After Koga Tatsushirō 'discovered' the islands in 1884, the Japanese government started investigating the islands in secret. In 1895, with the victory of the First Sino-Japanese War, the Japanese government secretly incorporated the islands in their territory without issuing a declaration of occupation or mentioning the islands in a treaty. In other words, the islands were illegally occupied.


What's this 1979 agreement? That's a new one on me - link to more info, please?

As far as your other points, I think I've covered those above. I'll just add that your claims of secrecy don't really hold water - they were incorporated as terra nullis (as there was no evidence they had ever been inhabited), and there were no counter claims by any other nation. The claims were recognized internationally, and the data was added to the navigational charts. Maybe you think there should have been more fanfare, but let's face it, these are islands that are about the size of the average Australian farm.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by diqiushiwojia
Okay, I'll defend my points now.



Originally posted by vox2442
OK, I'll bite.

The Cairo declaration and Potsdam declaration are irrelevant in this case, for the sole reason that the Senkakus were not part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki/Maguan (1895) that ended the Japan-China war and ceded territory to Japan. They weren't mentioned in the treaty, they weren't mentioned in the negotiations by either China or Japan.


The Cairo Declaration says 'all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese', not 'all the territories Japan has legally stolen from the Chinese'. Although the Diaoyu Islands were illegally occupied, they should fall under the category of 'steal'.
...
That's because China (neither PRC nor ROC) was never invited to San Francisco. The islands were supposed to have been covered by Cairo but the San Fran treaty ignored that.


I wasn't referring to the San Fran negotiations - I was referring to the 1895 treaty negotiations. The Senkakus were not mentioned in that treaty by anyone. Why not?

I'd suggest that the main reason is that they were never claimed by China - and the fact that there is no evidence that any Chinese have ever lived or worked on the islands seems to support that.


China has been administering the islands since the Ming Dynasty.


China has a very interesting definition of "administering". The only notes I can find are that they were described as landmarks.

And that's what is getting a lot of people in this part of the world on guard right now. China claims that anything seen by a Chinese person since the dawn of time is by rights Chinese. China is claiming that any area that once sent an envoy to China was under Chinese control, and any region that once paid tribute to China to ensure trade was administered by China - and is thus part of China's claim. Every country from Mongolia to Malaysia and Japan to India has had to deal with this.

The PRC is not the Ming dynasty any more than Italy is the Roman Empire.
edit on 23-12-2012 by vox2442 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
China's opposition to San Francisco had absolutely nothing to do with the Senkaku islands. They were opposed because they weren't invited.


Fifth - you've made the claim that China not giving a damn about the islands is a myth, but not provided any evidence to show proof of their claim pre-1969, and you seem to be suggesting that the silence of the PRC and ROC on the matter was due to the US occupation.

That silence makes absolutely no sense to me - if the islands belong to China (either one), surely the claim is as valid against the USA as it is against Japan. Granted, the PRC wasn't in a great negotiating position with the USA at the time, but the ROC certainly was.

The way I see it, the San Fran treaty worried the PRC for a multitude of reasons, e.g. they feared that the US would control all the Japanese-occupied islands, including Taiwan, Penghu, etc. As time went on, the only two worries that hadn't already been resolved were the Diaoyu Islands and the Nan Hai, and that's why China turned its focus to these two relatively late.


Secondly, the USA did not "give" Okinawa to Japan. This is international law, so word choice counts - the USA occupied Okinawa, and the USA administered Okinawa - but at no point did the USA incorporate Okinawa, and at no point were the islands ceded. They remained Japanese in the same way that Honshu remained Japanese during the post-war occupation. The USA returned control of Okinawa to Japan.

I may have used the wrong word, but my point still stands. The PRC and the ROC protested then because the rights to administer the islands was transferred to Japan.


Thirdly, I've yet to see any document from either the PRC or ROC pre-1968 that refers to the islands by the Chinese name - they always used Senkaku.

I didn't know about that, but I'm pretty sure every Ming and Qing Dynasty source refers to them as the Diaoyu Islands. In any case, Jiang Jieshi was a US lackey at the time and didn't want to annoy the US. As for the PRC, they probably just had more important things to worry about with all those political movements like the three red banners and the cultural revolution.


Fourth, the reason Ishikaki erected its marker was as a reaction to Taiwan planting a flag on the islands a few weeks before.


I can't find a source for that, but if you can, I'll concede this one. I did say 'if anything', though.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
This conflict really annoys me. This are just some small islands with some ressources. Both countries Japan and China should just calm down. The conflict does not exist because of the ressources, it exist because of the pride of boths nations.

I love Japan (and I am used to live there) and I have nothing against China, I even hate it when they are always the described as the bad guy... but this conflict is just absolutely insane.
Both somehow own them in a legal way. They should just somehow get along with it and see this as a good opportunity to make a big step towars some friendly relations and just share them. But they are too proud

edit on 24-12-2012 by aLLeKs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by aLLeKs
This conflict really annoys me. This are just some small islands with some ressources. Both countries Japan and China should just calm down. The conflict does not exist because of the ressources, it exist because of the pride of boths nations.

I love Japan (and I am used to live there) and I have nothing against China, I even hate it when they are always the described as the bad guy... but this conflict is just absolutely insane.
Both somehow own them in a legal way. They should just somehow get along with it and see this as a good opportunity to make a big step towars some friendly relations and just share them. But they are too proud

edit on 24-12-2012 by aLLeKs because: (no reason given)


It has nothing to do with pride.

It has to do with the economic zones that extand from the coastline. This is important because China owns resources off the islands. But more importantly, withthe decline of America and the rise of China, the Asia Pacific region is the centre of the world. The shipping lanes are all important.

There will be no sharing. Japan will fold. China knows that they are under pressure from the US. This will not last as America's influence fades with their economy.

China will be the nation with the heaviest influence on 'International Law' in the near future. They will use the issue to their advantage until that time.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by spangledbanner

It has nothing to do with pride.

It has to do with the economic zones that extand from the coastline. This is important because China owns resources off the islands. But more importantly, withthe decline of America and the rise of China, the Asia Pacific region is the centre of the world. The shipping lanes are all important.

There will be no sharing. Japan will fold. China knows that they are under pressure from the US. This will not last as America's influence fades with their economy.

China will be the nation with the heaviest influence on 'International Law' in the near future. They will use the issue to their advantage until that time.


Every American should read what you posted above. Talk about a warning shot.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
At this point, it seems as if China would be willing to let the islands fall fully into the hands of Japan if they get something in return. The situation has been getting pretty bad over there ever since former Tokyo mayor Ishihara came up with the idea of buying the islands form the private owner of said islands. For a long time the islands had been owned by the private land owner; which kept the situation cooled enough to prevent any serious political row.

Yet, Mr. crazy Japanese hard right-wing Ishihara decided to kick up the dust by twisting former PM Noda`s arm into buying those islands and putting under control of the Tokyo City government. Once that happened, China flipped, as they should have, over such a brazen action given the history of the situation. Now, that the islands are pretty much nationalized, China can really only go to war with Japan or take the issue to the UN international courts. War is not an option in Asia because China is not popular with nations which would normally support Chinese military action; Vietnam is currently really mad at China for bulling them over natural resources in Vietnam`s waters.

China does not want to go to the UN because the USA would have to get involved and the states will side with Japan over this issue. So, for now China can simply attempt to work out a deal with Japan; which is going to be hard considering that the J-gov will not even admit there is a problem.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I can't say I agree with every word you said. But, that's only because you did not proffer citations for your information provided and I don't have the inclination to go combing through copious Sino-Japanese historical geographic disputation documentation to confirm / deny what you've cited.

However, your post is well- presented and looks like it contains legit information; complete, incomplete, biased, neutral or otherwise. I also tend to to agree that the islands are probably China's by right, for that's worth.


The thing is, China aren't only in dispute regarding those islands--the Spratly Islands, too, are also an area of heated contention. Something China are raising the ire of many more of its regional neighbours over than just the historically animus Japan. This tells me there is likely more to China's claim to Diaoyu / Senkaku than mere historical precedents. Methinks its politically motivated and nationalism rooted. Resources would probably be down the list of reasons why China would want those islands [now].

The real issue of import, however, is to get this so far trivial dispute either blown back into the ether and forgotten for another century or somehow reconciled for good. With Japan's economy being the basket case its been for so long and it now electing a more right- leaning, nationalistic prime minister, coupled with the Chinese politburo's desire to flex its muscles and demonstrate regional supremacy to its people, add to that North Korea's continual machinations, and you have a region that's a powder keg that could potentially make the Middle-East look like a bunch of camel herders fighting over an oasis mirage! (...which they kind of are, in a manner of speaking).



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442

OK, this bit is pretty funny. Zhan Qixiong rammed 2 Japanese patrol boats in waters that are - under international law - Japanese, and japan is at fault for arresting the captain? Please. And unless you're suggesting that the Japanese cops held that Hong Kong activist's head under water, I fail to see how his death is a provocation by the Japanese.
To avoid escalating the incident, Kan had the captain and crew deported, rather than giving them a trial and sending them to a Japanese jail.

It's only Japanese under international law if you assume that the Diaoyu Islands belong to Japan. The fact is that they aren't, not unless you completely disregard the Cairo Declaration. Plus, the matter was supposed to be shelved. The ships collided because the Japanese ships tried to - illegally - chase Zhan's ship away.


As far as Noda "nationalizing" the islands being a provocation, that's rubbish. they were owned by a Japanese family that wanted to sell - and to keep them from being bought by people who would have done things that would definitely be provocations (either the Japanese right or the numerous Chinese "businessmen" who had been harassing the family at home for the last 20 years) he decided to buy them and class them as natural resources.

They were ILLEGALLY owned by a Japanese familiy that wanted to sell. If the Japanese government really wanted to avoid provocations, they would have just given the islands back. In any case, your government should have known all along that buying the islands would be SEEN as a provocation, whether or not they'd intended it to be one. Therefore, it was still them who'd triggered the protests.


China decided to "shelve" the dispute - but as far as Japan (and the rest of the world that could be bothered to care) there has been no dispute, because the islands are Japanese. If China has a claim, putting that claim on the shelf isn't the answer - there is a world court in the Hague that is designed to deal with territorial disputes. Instead of putting it on the shelf, why not just take the claims there?
edit on 23-12-2012 by vox2442 because: youtube


That's what your government claims and it's not true.

Japan's version of the conversation between Zhou and Tanaka in 1972:

田中:您對釣魚島怎麼看?不少人向我提到這個問題。

周總理:這次不想談釣魚島問題。現在談這個問題不好。因為發現了石油,這就成了問題。如果沒有發現石油,台 灣和美國都不會把它當回事。


This makes it look like that Zhou was abandoning the islands and there had never been a consensus to shelve the problem. Here's what the real version looks like:

田中角榮:藉這個機會我想問一下貴方對釣魚島的態度。

  周恩來:這個問題我這次不想談,現在談沒有好處。

  田中角榮:既然我到了北京,這問題一點也不提一下,回去後會遇到一些困難。

  周恩來:對。就因為在那里海底發現了石油,台灣把它大作文章,現在美國也要作文章,把這個問題搞得很大 。

  田中角榮:好,不需要再談了,以後再說。
[OK, we don't need to talk about that any more. We can discuss again later.]

  周恩來:以後再說。這次我們把能解決的大的基本問題,比如兩國關係正常化的問題先解決,不是別的問題不 大,但目前急迫的是兩國關係正常化問題。有些問題要等待時間的轉移來談。

  田中角榮:一旦能實現邦交正常化,我相信其他問題是能解決的。


Nobody in China trusts the Hague (or any Western country for their matter) for their integrity, so it isn't a solution. Plus, why didn't Japan take it to the Hague, then?
edit on 26-12-2012 by diqiushiwojia because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 




There are a plenty of Ming and Qing sources to prove the islands' ownership, but in case you don't buy them, Japanese sources before 1884 also show that. For example, Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu, a Japanese book, shows that the Diaoyu Islands are Chinese.



So does 唐土輿地全圖 (don't know the English name)





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join