Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Some intellectural article

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
coolstorm View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
  Quote coolstorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Some intellectural article
    Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 21:06

Diaoyu/Senkaku: To Whom do these Eight Isles Belong?


Eight small rocks. Many would barely call them islands. Yet these islands are at the heart of a heated debate in E ast Asia. The heart of the matter is sovereignty, more particularly, who has, or should have, sovereignty over these islets. The People's Republic of China, the Republic of China on Taiwan, and Japan all claim these islets as part of their territory. Whether you choose to call them the Senkaku islands, as do the Japanese, or refer to them by their Chinese name, the Diaoyu islands, one thing is clear: these eight islands rightfully belong to China.

A group of eight uninhabited, rocky outcroppings in the East China Sea, the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands lie 120 miles north of Taiwan and 240 miles south of Okinawa. Geographically, they are small and remote. They are of little strategic significance. In economic terms, however, the Senkaku dispute is extremely volatile . Based on the policies issued during the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, each country is allowed to claim a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea boundary in addition to a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone. This proves particularly touchy when applied to the continental shelf beneath the East China Sea and around the Diaoyu islands -- it is claimed to contain anywhere from 10 billion to 100 billion barrels of oil. The waters around the islands are also especially rich fishing grounds. With these resources at stake, each country has thrown in all their cards to try to gain possession of these islands.

Japan currently has sovereignty over the islands. It claims are based on the Senkaku's inclusion in the Ryukyu island chain, which includes Okinawa. Japan seized the Ryukyu islands, Taiwan, and the Diaoyu islands before World War II. Although they were forced to return Taiwan to China after the war, the language of the treaties did little to mention the status of sovereignty of the Senkakus. The Japanese use the Okinawa Reversion Treaty as further proof of their sovereignty over the islands. The Senkaku islands were included in the group of islands which the United States returned to Japanese authority in 1972. The Okinawa Reversion Treaty is intentionally ambiguous when mentioning the Senkaku islands. The United States never mentions which country it recognizes as sovereign power, but still hands over the Senkaku and the Ryukyu islands to Japan. The Japanese say this treaty proves their sovereignty. Nevertheless, when compared to those of Japan, China's claims for sovereignty are much more sound.

China has based its argument for sovereignty over the Diaoyu islands on four key points: geography, history, usage, and law. Geographically, the islands are closer to Taiwan. In addition to the shorter distance between Taiwan and the Diaoyu islands, the ocean between them is only 200 feet deep. Conversely, the seafloor drops to more than 1000 feet in between Diaoyu and Okinawa. Clearly, the Diaoyu are part of the Chinese continental shelf.

China has historically viewed the Diaoyu as part of the Chinese province of Taiwan. (This supports both the PRC's and the Republic of China's claims.) The name "Diaoyutai" first appeared in Chinese imperial records in 1403 under the voyage of Shun Feng Hsiang Sung. By 1534, all the major islands in the Diaoyu group had been identified and named by Chen Kanin in his book Shih Liu-Chiu Lu, or Record of the Imperial Envoy to Ryukyu. The Chinese continued to use these islands and considered them part of their kingdom. Chen Kanin's Record of the Imperial Envoy to Ryukyu helps explain the Diaoyu's position in relation to the Ryukyus. The Ryukyus were an independent kingdom up until their annexation by Japan during the late nineteenth century, and they regularly received envoys from the Chinese court on the mainland. These envoys used the Diaoyu as navigational markers during the China-to-Ryukyu voyages. Chen Kanin, sent by the Ming Emperor in 1534, wrote that the Ryukyu natives on board his vessel said nothing about reaching home until the boat neared Kume Island, further north from the Diaoyu. Nowhere in Chinese records are the Diaoyu considered the territory of Ryukyu.

It is not until the age of imperialism that things begin to get complicated historically. Western ideas flow into East Asia, Japan rapidly modernizes, and begins practicing its own imperialism. Japan annexes the Ryukyus, and aims for parts of Chinese territory. The Economist sums up this period quite well: The [Diaoyu] islands de facto became part of Japan when Japan seized all of Taiwan in 1895, and the Chinese argue that they became de jure part of China in 1945 when Japan surrendered at the end of the second world war. At that time China was ruled by Chian Kai-shek's Kuomintang government, which four years later fled to Taiwan to escape the victorious communists, hence the rival claims today from governments in both Beijing and Taipei to represent all China. The reality is that in 1945 the Americans took over the islands and returned them, along with Okinawa, to Japan in 1972, a year after the mainland Chinese government had laid formal claim to the islands (Senkaku Islands: A Sporting Effort). Although it reads like a complex soap-opera plot, this history created real problems that still exist today. Japan still holds sovereignty over the Diaoyu, and China refuses to surrender any part of its traditional territory. Still, historical records point to China's legitimate claim to sovereignty over the islands -- they were wrongly ceded back to Japan in 1972.

The Chinese have been using the Diaoyu islands for centuries. Traditionally, it has been the Taiwanese who have utilized the resources of the islands. Favorable currents invited Taiwanese fisherman to sail around the islands, to plant their nets in its abundant waters, to use them as shelter during storms, and collect medicinal herbs on the rocky shores. Both the PRC and the Republic of China consider Taiwan to be historically linked to the mainland as a Chinese territory. Since Taiwanese have traditionally used the Diaoyu islands, China has the right to claim them as its territory.

Finally, China can prove that it rightfully possesses sovereignty over the Diaoyu islands in law. This point is mainly proven through Japan's consent to the Potsdam and Cairo Declarations in 1945. In these treatises, Japan agreed to return all territory it wrongfully and forcefully took from China. After Japan signed the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Allied Powers in 1951, and the finalization of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty in 1952, Japanese annexation of the territory it acquired before World War II became void. This meant that Taiwan and "all islands appertaining" (Okinawa Reversion Treaty, 111) reverted to Chinese sovereignty. This included the Diaoyu.

Chinese arguments for sovereignty are solid, but several roadblocks still keep China from fully enforcing its claim. One of the most evident is the existence of two governments claiming to represent all of China. Both the PRC and the Republic of China on Taiwan claim sovereignty over the Diaoyu. The historical records prove that the Diaoyu are Chinese territory, but which Chinese government should hold sovereignty? Another problem arose from United States involvement. After World War II, the US Occupation Forces incorporated the Diaoyu into the occupied territory of Okinawa. They set up a missile firing range at the Diaoyu, and used it periodically. When it came to returning Okinawa to Japan in 1972, the US government included the Diaoyu in the package. Thus, sovereignty over the Diaoyu was given to Japan when it rightfully belonged to China through the Potsdam and Cairo Declarations.

During the 1970s, for the sake of regional stability and good foreign relations, China and Japan agreed to set aside the dispute. The PRC sought bilateral relations with Japan after its fallout with the USSR. The two countries underplayed their true feelings about the Diaoyu until several major outbursts occurred a few years ago. In 1996, when the Japanese government was considering officially recognizing a makeshift aluminum lighthouse erected on the main Diaoyu island by an Japanese extreme rightist group, the Chinese governments became infuriated. When a Japanese flag was raised from the lighthouse, the situation worsened. Anti-Japanese demonstrations ensued in front of Japanese embassies, consulates, and businesses in Beijing and Hong Kong. Flotillas of Chinese and Taiwanese ships went to the Diaoyu to plant their nations' flags, and reclaim their sovereignty over the islands. On several occasions, the Japanese have sent armed Self Defense Force ships to the islands to drive off fisherman, activists, and reporters. China has seen this as an all-to-real harbinger of Japan's remilitarization -- a scenario which the Chinese government, and many people in East Asia, greatly fear. The Chinese still vividly recall the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities they suffered under the Japanese invasion forces during World War II. Japanese remilitarization terrifies the Chinese, and the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands dispute brings this issue into the spotlight.

Chinese the world over are using the Diaoyu island dispute as a unifying campaign. In 1996, even with uncertainties about the future of their own democracy after the handover in 1997, Hong Kong was filled with activists supporting the PRC's claims to the islands. Taiwan also sided with the PRC, demanding that Japan return what was rightfully Chinese territory. Even Chinese groups in America actively voiced their distrust of the Japanese and support for China's claims to the islands. Despite the diverse circumstances in which many of the ethnic Chinese are living and working around the world, "belief in China's ownership of the islands transcends ideology" (Kang ). That same year, the death of Hong Kong activist David Chan inspired further unity among the world's Chinese. He drowned while trying to plant Chinese and Taiwanese flags on one of the rocky Diaoyu islands. Japanese patrol boats had stopped his flotilla, so he jumped into the churning sea. The dispute claimed its first victim -- a Chinese. Candlelight vigils were held in Hong Kong and Los Angeles. Chan's death was used as a rallying point.

Not every Chinese supports the PRC. The PRC's actions in regards to the Diaoyu islands are questioned by many, particularly those closely involved in PRC policies. Some mainland Chinese feel the PRC is not taking a strong enough stand. They wonder why the PRC is so harsh on domestic issues but idly sits by while a foreign power encroaches on Chinese territory. They think that the PRC should use action, like the missile practices in the Taiwan Straits the PRC used to influence Taiwanese elections in the mid-1990s. Chinese in Taiwan sometimes feel that the PRC is using the Diaoyu issue to place further pressure on Taiwan's return to the mainland. The PRC is not entirely trusted.

Even if the motives of the PRC are put to scrutiny, the evidence in the Diaoyu island dispute undeniably points to China as the legitimate sovereign of these eight rocks in the East China Sea. With that acknowledgement should come the rights and privileges associated with these islands, most notably the oil and natural gas lying under the continental shelf surrounding the Diaoyu islands. China has solid arguments grounded in ancient texts, tradition, and simple geography, while Japan bases its claim on the language, and quite often ambiguity, of international treaties. Whether the Diaoyu islands are returned to the PRC or the Republic of China, the world cannot keep ignoring the legitimate claims these two governments have presented. They have successfully proven that the Diaoyu are historically Chinese territory, and that they were wrongfully taken by the Japanese, and then the United States.


Work s cited and further reading:

Inoue, Kiyoshi. "The Tiaoyu Islands (Senkaku Islands) are China's Territory." http://www.interlog.com/~yuan/diaohist.html
Kang, K. Connie. "A Unifying Campaign." Los Angeles Times. Vol. 115, October 3, 1996. p: B3, col. 2.
Mufson, Steven. "Premier of China Joins Fray." The Washington Post. Vol. 119, October 1, 1996. p:A15, col. 1.
Okinawa Reversion Treaty. Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate. 92nd Congress, 1st Session; Ex J. 92-1.
"Senkaku Islands: A Sporting Effort." The Economist. Vol. 317, October 27, 1990. p: 37-38.
"You say Senkaku, I say Diaoyu." The Economist. Vol. 340, September 7, 1996. p: 34-36."

http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Shrine/2475/diaoyu.html

���DZj�~�� ��������
�� �� �C �q �D �� �� �� �� �T �� �� �g �A �� �� �� �� �� �U �N �� ��
Back to Top
chaeohk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 99
  Quote chaeohk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 21:11

getting fired up eh coolstrom...jk

i would think china cause its history supports it

Back to Top
coolstorm View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
  Quote coolstorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 21:13

getting fired up eh coolstrom...jk

i would think china cause its history supports it 

this article was constructed by western and japanese researchers with historical and legal materials from many sources including major well-known media such as the eocnomics.



Edited by coolstorm
���DZj�~�� ��������
�� �� �C �q �D �� �� �� �� �T �� �� �g �A �� �� �� �� �� �U �N �� ��
Back to Top
chaeohk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 99
  Quote chaeohk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 21:14
Originally posted by coolstorm

getting fired up eh coolstrom...jk

i would think china cause its history supports it 

this article was constructed by western and japanese researchers with historical and legal materials from many sources including major well-known media such as the eocnomics.

so its basically unbiased? also...i feel kinda stupid...what does prc mean? the people's republic of china?



Edited by chaeohk
Back to Top
coolstorm View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
  Quote coolstorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 21:18

so its basically unbiased?

the article simply illustrates what evidence both sides have.

There are even Japanese books saying that the Daioyu Islands do not rightfully belong to Japan.

You seem pretty nice. Where are you from?



Edited by coolstorm
���DZj�~�� ��������
�� �� �C �q �D �� �� �� �� �T �� �� �g �A �� �� �� �� �� �U �N �� ��
Back to Top
chaeohk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 99
  Quote chaeohk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 21:22

i am from south korea but i have lived in the us for the last 2 years,Michigan... where its really cold....

umm thanks



Edited by chaeohk
Back to Top
coolstorm View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
  Quote coolstorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 21:26
Originally posted by chaeohk

i am from south korea but i have lived in the us for the last 2 years,Michigan... where its really cold....

umm thanks

do u go to u mich?

it's pretty cold here in boston as well.

���DZj�~�� ��������
�� �� �C �q �D �� �� �� �� �T �� �� �g �A �� �� �� �� �� �U �N �� ��
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 21:27
Originally posted by chaeohk

[QUOTE=coolstorm][QUOTE]

so its basically unbiased? also...i feel kinda stupid...what does prc mean? the people's republic of china?



You got it


Back to Top
coolstorm View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
  Quote coolstorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 21:34

PRC = People's Republic of China, currently governing Mainland China

ROC = Republic of China, currently governing Taiwan



Edited by coolstorm
���DZj�~�� ��������
�� �� �C �q �D �� �� �� �� �T �� �� �g �A �� �� �� �� �� �U �N �� ��
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 23:53
The Chinese, we're the poor aggrieved party whine would hold more water were their army not currently camping it Tibet. Hypocrits or what?

Edited by Paul
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
demon View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Brazil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1185
  Quote demon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2005 at 07:22

Okay.  I've googled Senkaku islands, and check this out:

Originally posted by http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html

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.

Good old Japanese Claim from a .jp site.  So I decided to try out for a "neutral site".

Originally posted by http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/senkaku.htm

The United States kept that group of small islets for occasional bombing practice targets, largely for its Liu Chiu based Air Force. Japan claimed that the Diaoyutai Islands are part of Liu Chiu. 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.

According to China, Chinese historical records detailing the discovery and geographical feature of these islands date back to the year 1403. For several centuries they have been administered as part of Taiwan and have always been used exclusively by Chinese fishermen as an operational base. In 1874, Japan took Liu Chiu Islands from China by force. Diaoyutai, however, remained under the administration Taiwan, a part of China. Taiwan (including Diaoyutai) was ceded to Japan in 1895 after the first Sino-Japanese War. Originally, during the Japanese occupation of Taiwan, the Diaoyutai Archipelago came under the jurisdiction of Taipei Prefecture. After the close of the Second World War, when U.S. troops were stationed on the Ryukyu and Diaoyutai Archipelagoes, the KMT government which had received Taiwan did not immediately demand that that the US give them sovereignty. Diaoyutai was returned to China at the end of World War II in 1945 based upon the 1943 agreement of the Big Three in Cairo. Diaoyutai was part of Taiwan hence was included in that package.

So I think it's more like an overlap of agreements made by poor geography- intolerant politics. 

Grrr..
Back to Top
coolstorm View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
  Quote coolstorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2005 at 14:54

The United States's claim over Diaoyu Tai was illegal in the first place as it had already been part of China long before that.

The US point of view is not necessarily neutral. It all depends on which serves their country's interest the best.

Besides, if you google by its Japanese name, you are only going to get the Japanese point of view most probably.



Edited by coolstorm
���DZj�~�� ��������
�� �� �C �q �D �� �� �� �� �T �� �� �g �A �� �� �� �� �� �U �N �� ��
Back to Top
demon View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Brazil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1185
  Quote demon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2005 at 18:36

The US point of view is not necessarily neutral. It all depends on which serves their country's interest the best.

Besides, if you google by its Japanese name, you are only going to get the Japanese point of view most probably.

I would have appreciated your reply if you read my reply thoroughly before you hastenly replied to prove your ignorance.  The last quote in my last reply HAD the Chinese perspecitve- it even mentions the Chinese name - Diaoyutai.  And Common sense easily tells me that googling Diaoyutai ultimately would lead me into that same page. 

Grrr..
Back to Top
coolstorm View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
  Quote coolstorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2005 at 19:25

i'd appreciate it if you don't use ignorance to describe me once again.

why would i be ignorant to link your statement of being neutral and the us article while you directly placed the us article under the so called "neutral" site.

if it's under the title of neutral site, it means that you think the us site is neutral. you might wanna modify it and change the structure a bit before you start going against me again.

contradicting yourself with bad structure would not be a good idea.



Edited by coolstorm
���DZj�~�� ��������
�� �� �C �q �D �� �� �� �� �T �� �� �g �A �� �� �� �� �� �U �N �� ��
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2005 at 19:26
Originally posted by coolstorm

i'd appreciate it if you didn't use ignorance to describe me once again.

why would i be ignorant to link your statement of being neutral while directly placing the us article under the so called "neutral" site.

if it's under the title of neutral site, it means that you think the us site is neutral. you might wanna modify it and change the structure a bit before you start going against me again.

contradicting yourself with bad structure would not be a good idea.



What do you consider a neutral site?  I think Demon placed the American Article under "neutral" because it's not an acting party in the debate.
Back to Top
coolstorm View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
  Quote coolstorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2005 at 19:49

sorry i didn't proof read what i wrote so it's kinda confusing even when i read it myself after reconnecting.

the us is definitely a player in every issue in the world and this issue definitely has an impact on the us's interest.

although in public, the us says they have no stand on this, they are involved just by the fact that they wrongfully occupied the disputed area that rightfully belonged to china and gave it to japan.

plus, anything that can weaken china is in the us's interest.

therefore, the us is definately not neutral on this.



Edited by coolstorm
���DZj�~�� ��������
�� �� �C �q �D �� �� �� �� �T �� �� �g �A �� �� �� �� �� �U �N �� ��
Back to Top
coolstorm View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
  Quote coolstorm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2005 at 20:01
besides, some neutral objects would be historical and legal records and documents from the time period before the dispute happened.
���DZj�~�� ��������
�� �� �C �q �D �� �� �� �� �T �� �� �g �A �� �� �� �� �� �U �N �� ��
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.