The following short article is by Han-Yi Shaw, a Research Fellow at the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University, in Taipei, Taiwan. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times has decided to publish it on his blog, with a short forward. It is an important piece of work tracing the history of the ownership of the Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands, using both Chinese and Japanese official documents.
September 19, 2012
The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands
By HAN-YI SHAW
I’ve had a longstanding interest in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the subject of a dangerous territorial dispute between Japan and China. The United States claims to be neutral but in effect is siding with Japan, and we could be drawn in if a war ever arose. Let me clear that I deplore the violence in the recent anti-Japan protests in China: the violence is reprehensible and makes China look like an irrational bully. China’s government should rein in this volatile nationalism rather than feed it. This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling. The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war. This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case. – Nicholas Kristof
Japan’s recent purchase of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands has predictably reignited tensions amongst China, Japan, and Taiwan. Three months ago, when Niwa Uichiro, the Japanese ambassador to China, warned that Japan’s purchase of the islands could spark an “extremely grave crisis” between China and Japan, Tokyo Governor Ishihara Shintaro slammed Niwa as an unqualified ambassador, who “needs to learn more about the history of his own country”.
Ambassador Niwa was forced to apologize for his remarks and was recently replaced. But what is most alarming amid these developments is that despite Japan’s democratic and pluralist society, rising nationalist sentiments are sidelining moderate views and preventing rational dialogue.
The Japanese government maintains that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory under international law and historical point of view and has repeatedly insisted that no dispute exists. Despite that the rest of the world sees a major dispute, the Japanese government continues to evade important historical facts behind its unlawful incorporation of the islands in 1895.
Specifically, the Japanese government asserts, “From 1885 on, our government conducted on-site surveys time and again, which confirmed that the islands were uninhabited and there were no signs of control by the Qing Empire.”
My research of over 40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885.
Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”
In November 1885, the Okinawa governor confirmed “since this matter is not unrelated to China, if problems do arise I would be in grave repentance for my responsibility”.
“Surveys of the islands are incomplete” wrote the new Okinawa governor in January of 1892. He requested that a naval ship Kaimon be sent to survey the islands, but ultimately a combination of miscommunication and bad weather made it impossible for the survey to take place.
“Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted,” the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894.
After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.” The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.
Negotiations with China never took place and this decision was passed during the Sino-Japanese War. It was never made public.
In his biography Koga Tatsushiro, the first Japanese citizen to lease the islands from the Meiji government, attributed Japan’s possession of the islands to “the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces.”
Collectively, these official documents leave no doubt that the Meiji government did not base its occupation of the islands following “on-site surveys time and again,” but instead annexed them as booty of war. This is the inconvenient truth that the Japanese government has conveniently evaded.
Japan asserts that neither Beijing nor Taipei objected to U.S. administration after WWII. That’s true, but what Japan does not mention is that neither Beijing nor Taipei were invited as signatories of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, from which the U.S. derived administrative rights.
When Japan annexed the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in 1895, it detached them from Taiwan and placed them under Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, the Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. Half a century later when Japan returned Taiwan to China, both sides adopted the 1945 administrative arrangement of Taiwan, with the Chinese unaware that the uninhabited “Senkaku Islands” were in fact the former Diaoyu Islands. This explains the belated protest from Taipei and Beijing over U.S. administration of the islands after the war.
The Japanese government frequently cites two documents as evidence that China did not consider the islands to be Chinese. The first is an official letter from a Chinese consul in Nagasaki dated May 20, 1920 that listed the islands as Japanese territory.
Neither Beijing nor Taipei dispute that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands — along with the entire island of Taiwan — were formally under Japanese occupation at the time. However, per post-WW II arrangements, Japan was required to surrender territories obtained from aggression and revert them to their pre-1895 legal status.
The second piece evidence is a Chinese map from 1958 that excludes the Senkaku Islands from Chinese territory. But the Japanese government’s partial unveiling leaves out important information from the map’s colophon: “certain national boundaries are based on maps compiled prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War(1937-1945).”
Qing period (1644-1911) records substantiate Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands prior to 1895. Envoy documents indicate that the islands reside inside the “border that separates Chinese and foreign lands.” And according to Taiwan gazetteers, “Diaoyu Island accommodates ten or more large ships” under the jurisdiction of Kavalan, Taiwan.
The right to know is the bedrock of every democracy. The Japanese public deserves to know the other side of the story. It is the politicians who flame public sentiments under the name of national interests who pose the greatest risk, not the islands themselves.
Editors Note: The article is a summary of a much more comprehensive paper, archived on 6/26/2014 below.
Allen says
One of the editors / contributors here at HH found this, from a Japanese professor, refuting many of the revisionist by the Japanese gov’t:
http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/diaohist.html
Allen says
Han-Yi Shaw’s paper on the dispute. There are not quick soundbites here, just exhaustive presentation of historical details that many might find interesting.
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1151&context=mscas
Hong Konger says
Thank you for posting this.
“This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets.”
I agree!
China can prove it, it can claim the land, it can ask the international community to back its case — it can do many things to solve this.
But angry mobs calling for genocide, firebombing factories, attacking foreigners (now, no longer just Japanese, but other “non-Chinese” too) — this only hurts China’s case.
As for the boycotts and destroying factories, restaurants and shops — that only hurts China’s economy, as almost all of the workers, managers and consumers at those places are Chinese themselves.
What does it help to attack a local sushi joint in Shanghai or Beijing that has probably never employed a single Japanese person?
I don’t know how much to believe of the wilder accusations of people killing Japanese dogs, of kidnapping the small child of a mother who was driving a Japanese car, etc. But it really makes all of us Chinese look terrible.
On one hand, it’s really interesting to see Chinese, HK and Taiwan flags all flying together.
On the other hand, I feel bad that two Japanese Hong Kong residents here were violently attacked while walking on our usually peaceful waterfront.
Several months ago, yinyang wrote a nice blog post asking for China to stay calm during this. It’s amazing how well yinyang can tell the future! 🙂
Allen says
@Hong Konger
The author is a Research Fellow at the Research Center for International Legal Studies. He’s blinded to the framework of the International Court of Justice.
Before we go ah gaga to some sort of legal remedy, let’s take a step back. Submitting to a legal remedy is itself a political act – just as much as going to war is. China has not submitted to it for sea territorial disputes, and Japanese has not either – not unilaterally, and not for acts before 1958.
So even if you are a rule of law nut, it doesn’t apply.
The notion of appealing to law – the recent version of law that is set by the West – to solve disputes with claims going back centuries (half a millennium) before the law has not even arise – seems to me comical.
Sometimes people have this false perception that somehow submitting to an international tribunal is the right thing to do, the civilized thing to do. Far from it, submitting to a specific set of rule of law merely means submitting politically to a way of resolving a dispute. Just because in Quebec they wanted to hold an election (rigged in so many ways) to settle the Quebec independence movement doesn’t mean secession should always be settled that way. In the U.S., secession was dealt with through a Civil War, for example. Apartheid was not settled appeal to a court of “law,” neither was the Holocaust.
Justice need to be fought for, and then the codified into law by the victors. It doesn’t arise spontaneously by looking to others’ laws.
Thus it is, arguing for a specific set of settlement is itself a political act. It needs to be arrived. It’s not a starting point. The Diaoyutai dispute does not represent a genuine dispute that arose that need to be solved by an arbitrary 3rd arbiter party – just like one didn’t settle WWII or WWI by appealing to a panel of bureaucrats.
A couple of days ago, I was listening to NPR, and heard Fallows and this other guy pontificate about the Diaoyutai / Senkaku Island dispute. (I really need to find a link to the audio, maybe the transcript; if anyone can help, please).
Fallows said that the people in Japan were more “advanced” and “developed,” they don’t run around “protesting” like the Chinese. REALLY! I almost got knocked off my seat driving.
So now, protesting – a bedrock of democracy – has turned out to be a sign of backwardness?
Fallows also mentioned that the animosity is not “symmetric” – that Chinese are somehow urged on by the Chinese gov’t – even though he admitted that the Japanese has suppressed in the public conscience the dispute. He also accused the Chinese of being too stepped in history.
Why doesn’t Fallows say something like that about the Holocaust?
This is how one whitewashes guilt, history, justice.
Of course history matters for this dispute. History matters especially when current injustices / asymmetric distributions in power, wealth, fortunes can be explained in terms of that history. History matters when past injustices teach such lesson, leave such an impact on a society, that future generations promise to remember it so as to never let it happen again.
So yeh, Diaoyutai matters – not because of gas or fish there (I think the waters are pretty much overfished anyways, and any talk of gas has been speculative for decades) – but as a symbol of a particular history, of justice.
China’s rise – rise of 1/5 of the world’s population – is not just economic. It’s also about politics, of which Dioyutai is but one issue. There are many others.
China’s rise is not about the politics of domination, as the West fears. It is a politics of reverting wrongs. But if the West insist on perpetuating the world order that has the West as its center and final arbiter, and the rest of the world as its colony or semi-colony, or oppressed tributary, then it’s a justice that Chinese must fight for – to create a new world order and then codify a new set of norm in that world order.
No one else will do that for you. Certainly not another’s laws…
Black Pheonix says
A few years ago, Japanese Nationalists protested by ramming a bus into the Chinese Embassy.
I’m sure James Fellows would be civilized and “developed” enough to let a bus pass through/over him.
Rhan says
Well said Allen. Just compare some of this hypocrite comment when Chinese protest toward their government against the recent Diaoyu Island, the former is about democracy right and the latter suddenly become lack of critical thinking, full with nationalism and now even not advance enough? Rubbish.
Black Pheonix says
In the 1990’s, China sponsored a “Splendid China” Theme park in Orlando Florida.
That park was repeatedly targeted by US protesters who vandalized the property.
US police didn’t catch 1 single individual, even though the crimes were repeated and well reported even in the local newspapers.
All because of a park which was losing money, but accused as “propaganda”.
I guess at least the Chinese protesters are not as cowardly as US protesters.
HXM says
I think a lot of people get whipped up about this idea of China having many unresolved territorial claims based on history, especially when cases like this come to the surface…I am curious if anyone here would comment on China’s historical relationship with Korea, Vietnam, Outer Mongolia, etc., and how these may or may not differ from claims to Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, and various islands in the South China Sea or Pinnacle Islands?
YinYang says
@HXM
Actually, territorial disputes are a plenty around the world. China has settled all her land disputes except for with India, the latter being a mess created by the Brits – the McMahon Line. Just look at the U.S.’s dispute with Canada, not to mention Mexico or Cuba.
https://hiddenharmonies.org/2012/03/on-territorial-disputes/
Allen says
@Allen
So here is the transcript to that Fallows interview I heard on NPR.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/chinajapan2_09-18.html
I didn’t get the words quite right, but it’s close enough.
Below are some excerpts from that interview, preceded first by an excerpt from my comment above:
From the interview:
I did miss this part of the interview in my above comment though.
Mr. Fallows, Israel may not have a burning emotion against Germany because Germany does not claim any part of Israel. Germany has also officially repented. Its society for the most part understand the role it played in WWII.
Japan – as you acknowledged above – has not.
That makes a huge difference. There is no conundrum at all.
melektaus says
My thoughts about what Fallows said about China not being an “delevloped” society because they protest mirrors that of Allen’s. It exposes the contradictions and the hidden fascist leanings of Fallows. The man’s a scoundrel as I’ve already exposed. He has totalitarian leanings. Protesting to him is a sign of a lack of civility (instead of a sign of civil development).
The media is also missing the major elephant in the room that in almost all the major saber rattling events, China’s reaction has always been playing a tit for tat response. They have reacted to provocative and even beliggerent actions by desputent countries such as Japan. Japan is the instigator in almost all the instances in the Sino-Japanese territory despute. Just like this latest incident regarding the government’s proposed buying of the islands which instigated the protests. The instigator ought to deserve the principle blame but to do that is a sign of fairness and fairness is anethema to the western media.
Allen says
@melektaus
The provocation came in the form of increased and aggressive arrests of Chinese citizens in putatively disputed waters. If Japan wants to take the hardline act of arresting Chinese citizens with its patrol boats, China can, too – at least in principle – in the disputed areas. That’s true even if in the past it didn’t, it didn’t give up that right. As long as it has the military might, it can go into any disputed area and arrest citizens from other nations at will…
That’s the provocation.
Ray says
The current tension was started when Ishihara Shintaro proposed buying the islands through public donation. His action sparked the Taiwanese and then Hong Kong “Protect Diaoyutai” NGOs to send boats to the islands. In case you don’t know who this guy is, he is the one who co-authored the book “The Japan That Can Say No“. So he is one of the most radical right wing politician in Japan.
My take on why he kept peddling this Diaoyutai dispute is to put pressure on the current Democratic Party of Japan that is in power. His son, Ishihara Nobuteru has just been elected (Sept 2011) as the secretary general of the opposition Liberal Democratic Party (The LDP ruled almost continuously for nearly 54 years from its founding in 1955 until its defeat in the 2009 election. Prior to 2009, the party had only been out of power for a brief 11 month period between 1993 and 1994.)
Ishihara Shintaro intention was mainly to position his son as the future prime minister of Japan. However, in order to fend of this accusation of being soft on national sovereign issue, the current PM Noda Yoshihiko escalated the issue by “nationalizing” the islands. This action sparked the protest and stiff respond from the mainland.
In August, due to falling approval rating the S.Korean president also pulled a similar stunt by visiting Dokto, which raised his rating by 10 points. As we can see the current Japanese administration was under tremendous pressure to act, first by Ishihara then by the Korean. Unfortunately, his action also caused the Chinese side to react.
http://news.xhby.net/system/2012/09/21/014645422.shtml
Ray says
However, I am very optimistic there will be a peaceful solution to the Diaoyutai dispute. In many ways, the issue is very straight forward as the islands are uninhibited.
Here’s just three land disputes in SE Asia that are much much more complex. Malaysia/Thailand, Thailand/Kampuchea, Malaysia/Philippines.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NI22Ae01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NI21Ae01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabah_dispute
Black Pheonix says
@Ray
It will likely to be peaceful.
Japan have fewer ships by number, and specially fewer submarines. They can’t perform interdiction 1 on 1 against the Chinese ships (and perhaps the Taiwanese ships).
And if Japan fire upon a Chinese vessel 1st, it would shoot itself out of the “Mutual Defense” Treaty with US.
US won’t join the fight if Japan fires 1st.
China just needs to ignore Japan, and keep sending more and more ships (and subs) to the area. (And then, build a military installation on the islands).
*And then let’s see who gets Nationalistic.
Black Pheonix says
1 Possible “Peaceful Solution”:
Since Japan is in violation of Chinese territories by holding onto its pre-WWII claim on Chinese territories, Japan is technically in violation of its treaty obligations signed as part of its surrender at the end of WWII.
Technically, (and practically), that means Japan has disavowed its surrender, (being unrepentent).
Consequently, Japan, by its present actions, has also disavowed that it has committed any wrong doing in WWII.
China, (PRC and ROC), along with both Korea’s, thus have the option of reviving their claims of war crime charges against Japan as a nation.
As an option, (and I would recommend it, if nothing, for symbolic reasons), press formal charges of Genocide against Japan in the International Court.
And let’s face it, Japan didn’t actually pay for Genocide, and still denies the Nanjing Massacre.
*You know what, the People of Asia waited long enough!
It is time to bring Japan to answer for its past crimes in WWII in court!!
Otherwise, it will never admit that it was ever in the wrong! And it will never give up its past “claims”!!
raffiaflower says
Found this new post (Sept 24, propertyprofblog) by Prof Stephen Clowney, an asst prof of law @ Ky Univ, which shares Kristof’s (rare) opinion that leans in favour of China’s rightful historic and legal ownership of Diaoyu islands.
The best but shaky assertion that Japan can make for its case is probably the time factor, ie, the lapse since China began to stake its legitimate rights over DYT.
Japan disingenuously charges that PRC/ROC revived its claims only after oil was discovered – ironically, by a team that also included Taiwanese!
Actually China began its protestations when US handed administration of DYT to Japan: US obviously did not want to hand them over to a state with which it had no diplomatic relations, and not to ROC which in reality was just Taiwan.
As for the rest of time before, China was shut out of international fora, while ROC/Taiwan was basically under American protection. Their voices were muted, but there were protests, especially after the illegal San Francisco peace treaty.
Until 1945, China was a victim of Japanese aggression, and had neither will or power to cite ownership over DYT; the civil war following that, also distracted both PRC and ROC with more urgent matters.
But for no particularly long time – especially since China got back on its feet – has the country or Chinese people ever disavowed ownership of DYT.
Below is Prof Clowney’s article.
———————————————————————————————-
The Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands Dispute
There’s been a lot of coverage in the news about the protests in China over Japan’s attempt to sell the Senkaku Islands (as they are called in Japan)/ Diaoyu Islands (as they are called in China). Both countries claim sovereignty over the islands, and protesters in China claim that Japan’s attempt to buy them from private owners violates China’s claim over them.
Much of the coverage I saw last week (for example: The New York Times 9/19 and the BBC) was focused primarily on the nature of the protests. Not only were there demonstrations outside the Japanese embassy, there was “extensive rioting and vandalism” last weekend (The New York Times 9/19), and Japanese car manufacturers halted operations in China for a few days. Also, interestingly, evidently the Chinese government did not immediately shut down these protests (The New York Times 9/17).
Most commentators refrained from speculating on where sovereignty over the islands actually lies, instead reporting that both countries claim it – China on the grounds that they controlled the islands “since ancient times” and that the islands should have been returned to them after World War II (WWII) and Japan because of their control of them more recently. I thought I’d dig a bit deeper and see if I could find a clearer answer here. Actually, I thought that if we looked back far enough or with a neat property/ international law framework in mind, perhaps there would be an clear legal answer – an answer which would probably be complicated by politics or time – but an answer nonetheless. ..
As it turns out, the answer is not so clear, in part because politics and time are part of the determination of sovereignty in the case of claims over unoccupied land.
Luckily, there are a few journal articles which help explain the competing claims. In particular, an article in 1996 by the late Professor Hungdah Chiu of the University of Maryland School of Law explains the Chinese claims in detail, and I encourage readers to take a look in order to learn more (citation below).
As detailed by Chiu, there is plenty of historical evidence China controlled the islands from at least the 15thcentury – hence the assertion in the articles above that the islands are theirs “since ancient times” – and that Japan was aware of this claim. The press articles above and others seemed to gloss over the ‘ancient times’ assertion as a kind of awkwardly articulated legal claim, separate from the claim that post-WWII treaties should have been interpreted differently. A closer look at the history and China’s legal assertions prior to this event, though, show that these claims are hardly inseparable and in fact are stronger and more coherent when read together. China is basically claiming that the islands were always theirs, that Japan knew this and stole them after the Sino-Japanese War in 1895 and that Japan’s subsequent claim to sovereignty over them is illegal. As a result, China claims that these islands should have been returned to them under the post-WWII treaties in 1945. In support of this claim, China has actively protested alternate (Japanese or other) legal interpretations of the international law regarding international boundaries extending from their continental shelf and the ‘return’ of these islands to Japan in 1972 (as a result of post-WWII treaties).
Japan’s claims rest not only on a different interpretation of the post-WWII settlement, but relatedly on international law which recognizes sovereignty of uninhabited land (terra nullius) through occupation. According to Japan, an application of this law would necessarily find Japanese sovereignty over the islands because Japan surveyed them, found no trace of Chinese occupation , and then took control of them in 1895. Japan’s account of their survey and investigation in 1895 is disputed by (China and) Han-Yi Shaw, a Taiwanese scholar who recently wrote an article on Nicholas Kristof’s blog (citation below) . If Japan had in fact gained control over these islands terra nullius in 1895, then the islands wouldn’t be part of the land that required to be returned to China after WWII (Ramos-Mrosovsky, citation below).
So, the legal situation is unclear, in part because of the time and politics involved. (After reading through these materials, I don’t fault the press for glossing over the finer points of actual sovereignty.) What is actually stake? Not just uninhabited islands in the ocean and diplomatic relations – evidently in 1969 a UN Committee with members from Taiwan, Korea, the Philippines and assistance from the US concluded that the area might contain vast reserves of oil and gas. On that note, Japan also claims that China didn’t dispute their sovereignty over these islands until the 1970s, after the oil was (maybe) discovered. This part was really interesting. Could China’s “motive” be used to discredit them (legally or diplomatically)? Also, on the time factor, under the customary international law of prescription, “a state that fails to contest other states’ assertions of sovereignty over its territory can lose its rights for failure to insist upon them” (Ramos-Mrosovsky, citation below). However, the law isn’t clear as to how much time must pass in order for the invader to claim sovereignty. China’s repeated public assertions that they didn’t recognize Japanese sovereignty would of course cut against this claim; but if in fact they didn’t protest until the 1970s, then perhaps they waited too long? In any case, it looks like Japan is setting up an argument for their sovereignty on several (perhaps cloudy) grounds of international law, should this dispute end up in an international court (for more on this, take a look at their Ministry of Foreign Affairs on this subject, website below).
Allen says
To follow up on Fallow’s comment that Japanese don’t go marching around protesting against China, here is a recent pict:
melektaus says
Fallows is almost like a caricature of a journalist. It’s like he’s trying to lampoon the profession but failed at the humor aspect of lampooning.
YinYang says
On any given day, Fallows will come across as fair and objective. However, especially recently, he has trotted out some really outrageous – essentially racist – views.
melektaus:
https://hiddenharmonies.org/2012/05/fallows-defensive-gets-feelings-hurt/
by me:
https://hiddenharmonies.org/2012/05/lacking-insight-in-james-fallows-piece-what-is-the-chinese-dream/
Like Allen, it was on NPR when I first heard Fallows taking swipes, and in that instance accusing the Chinese outright ‘racist.’ This was about 3 years ago. I recall him saying it with so much of matter of fact, and he went on to ‘defend’ it by ‘explaining’ why the Chinese were such. I don’t recall the exact words. He was a speech writer for Carter. I guess making vicious views palatable must’ve come with that type of job. I was stunned while on the road!
YinYang says
Vice-Foreign Minister Fu Ying talks to Japanese journalists about current disputes and expresses Chinese concerns.
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2012-09/21/content_15772328.htm
China Daily Editor:
Proceedings below:
persimmon5 says
I believe the Japanese government urged the Kuriharas to sell to them rather than to the Tokyo mayor who was in the process of negotiating a deal, because they didn’t want a vocal nationalist in control of the islands. By buying the islands the central gov’t could monitor the islands better and control visits by Chinese protestors as well as rein in its own Japanese nationalists. Japan has its own internal problems and its government is not always at liberty to say exactly why it does what it does. It just doesn’t make sense to me that their motive was to provoke.
I think that each side has some valid points, and it may turn out that a COMPROMISE must be reached — yes a compromise, as opposed to having the “one correct viewpoint or line” win out. In Mao Zedong’s China there was/is a strong emphasis on uniting behind the correct line. In the main I actually agree with that way of thinking when it comes to many things. For instance, I who believe that the earth is round won’t compromise with someone who says the earth is flat by agreeing to agree that the earth is a disk. BUT there are some issues that are greatly subject to interpretation and misunderstanding and are colored by historical circumstances and context. I think this may be such an issue. So a compromise may be unavoidable. I hope that there will be a negotiated agreement — ideally one with a win-win-win outcome meaning everyone leaves at least a bit happy. I would add that there is actually a fourth party in this discussion and that is Mother Earth. I personally would be delighted to see countries peacefully fishing together (in a green way), but after seeing what has happened to New Orleans and parts of lovely Canada, I’m not enthusiastic about more oil drilling! Anyway, I think all countries would be exhibiting the ultimate in patriotism and internationalism by showing the world they have jointly come up with a creative, peaceful solution to this dilemma!
raffiaflower says
Persimmon, sometimes different parties will have their own Rashomon-like versions of events, ie, what and how things happened.
But Japan’s claim is weak,imo – based on a 1920s letter from the Chinese consul in Nagasaki, thanking the Japanese govt of the day, for the rescue of Chinese fishermen near Diaoyu. Given the arrogant and racist attitudes of the Japanese at that time, the consul probably had no choice but to write the letter to gain the release of the captives.
Against the total historic evidence, and also the WW2 Allied agreements, which China has produced, Japan’s citation of “international law” can hold up only with US backing that they are currently under their administration only, but with disputed sovereignty.
China has reason to suspect backroom deals between PM Noda and Tokyo’s Ishihara. As a commentor noted on another forum, Noda could have delayed the “purchase” by Ishihara by citing constitutional challenges (can Diaoyu fall under Tokyo city’s purview??), legal or even held back by environment assessment studies, etc.
At best, it is a quick political fix by Noda against very-near elections – in the same bracket as the alleged manipulation/organization of the anti-Japan protests by the Chinese govt. Yet the Western media has largely ignored that earlier part.
There is surely patriotism/nationalism on both sides. China is noisier, but it is driven by a sense of justice; the less charitable may call it grievance. This anger really runs deep, and not just channeled so-called `patriotic education’ in schools.
With Japanese nationalists, it is the pride – the belief that somehow, they never lost the war to China. That is a more self-indulgent sentiment, imo, and has weaker sustaining value if the countries really went to war. Superior arms alone never won a fight, eg, Afghanistan.
The compromise mooted by Deng Xiaoping for Diaoyu was the truce for decades, until Japan unilaterally broke it. So far, it is also the Japanese government that has refused to compromise, while pretending to hold itself up as the voice and face of reason.
persimmon5 says
Hi Raffiaflower,
With respect, we will never know the exact reason why the Chinese Consul’s 1920 (?) letter of thanks was addressed in a manner that acknowledged that Senkaku/Diaoyu was Japanese territory. I don’t think we can assume that the letter was written under duress or prompted by fear of ” arrogant Japanese.” I think to do so imbues an event in the distant past with a meaning colored by our own personal emotions and assumptions today about how people must have felt way back then, and is only speculative. The bottom line is that the Chinese official in Nagasaki sent a letter of thanks for the rescue of the fisherman, and the address of the letter seems to indicate he was aware that the rescue happened by Japanese on Japanese territory: the S/D islands.
Believe me, I understand the desire for justice and I think anybody who has done some study of the history of Asia knows that Imperial Japan wreaked havoc on China, but I don’t think it’s quite fair to say China’s claim is driven by a sense of justice, while the Japanese claim is based on national pride.
Just because a Japanese person feels that the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands belong to Japan doesn’t automatically make him/her a nationalist-type or right winger. Japanese are used to thinking of those islands as theirs since 1895 for all the reasons they give. One might not agree with those reasons, but I believe most Japanese have grown up with that assumption. So to them it feels like another country is trying to take away what was rightfully claimed by their country over 100 years ago. And that claim (via terra nullius) was reinforced by the fact the Allied occupying forces relinquish the islands to Japan in 1972. Japan has been administering the islands ever since and most citizens (many of who weren’t even born at that time) have just assumed it was part of their territory. So they feel they are simply protecting what is theirs. So yes, some may be virulently right-wing militarist types but I daresay most are just ordinary people who are rather bewildered by all the controversy. I understand China’s frustration that they were not present at the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, but that wasn’t Japan’s fault. Japan as a defeated power was not in a position to decide who was to be invited to the party! It was also not Japan’s fault that they were given back the islands by the Allied Occupying force in 1971 or 1972. This is my own speculation, but had the Allies decided the islands were to go to any other country Japan would have just accepted that fact. But Japan was given back the islands, and so they naturally assume it is their territory.
I still say the solution has to be some kind of creative compromise. It’s funny isn’t it how we human beings are so much better at waging war than waging peace. Waging Peace 101 should be taught in all the schools! And as a popular car bumper sticker says: Visualize Whirled Peas (world peace).
Tseng Kin-Wah says
I too was in Hong Kong in 1989 & watched the whole event unfold non stop on TV right up to the crackdown clearance on the 5th. I also did not see any “massacre” but I did see TV footage of a trapped APC being torched & later the burnt out corpse of soldiers right alongside their APC. During the days leading up to the 4th, I saw agitators (the most prominent being HK’s Lee Cheuk Yan) milling around & commiserating with the crowd as well as distributing tents/food. Up till today, I’ve always wondered how he could be back in HK on the 5th & without harm the moment things turned nasty. Same too with all those main characters who got out to the West safe & sound & rich. Now with hindsight & looking at the various coloured/flower revolutions, it’s easy to conclude that this “protest” had all the political hallmarks of an organised uprising which did not succeed & all those western vituperations were just sour grapes.
raffiaflower says
Persimmon, yes, there can be an element of speculation, which complicates the issue.
But this only validates the argument that Japan’s case is flimsy – it has deliberately chosen to complicate the matter with the “evidence” such as the letter from the Chinese consul; relatively minor against the body of historic and legal facts that China has assembled.
Whatever speculation there can be is mitigated by the circumstances and realities of that era – Japan was the ruling power of East Asia and brute force was its method to get the message across.
During that time, Japan had: 1. presented 21 Demands that would have turned China into a Japanese protectorate. 2. Grabbed more territory from China after World War 1, with the approval/complicity of US & Britain, though China was on the Allied side.
Given the fact that China was struggling for survival as a country, the possibility -as you suggest – that the consul wrote the letter under duress wouldn’t be surprising at all. This is not being emotional, but extrapolating from the situation in 1919.
At no point have I accused all Japanese of being right-wingers/nationalists, just as not all the Chinese who took part in the anti-Japanese protests are vandals.
Japan was never given the islands – it was only handed the administration – by US,not the Allied powers, of which China was one. Again,you have tried to obfuscate the issue.
There can be a compromise, but it is Japan that is saying there is room for none. That compromise was proposed by Deng Xiaoping, and is the baseline for rapprochement between China and Japan.
Moderators, plse get rid of that irrelevant comment by the troll at 25, thanks.
persimmon5 says
Hi Raffiaflower,
I didn’t think you were accusing all Japanese of being right-wingers, but yes I did think you were counter-posing Chinese claim as being driven by a sense justice versus Japanese claim as being a reflection of a dangerous nationalism. I re-read your post this morning, and I see now that you were comparing the origins or driving force between the two nationalisms. Sorry Raffiaflower, I should have read your post more carefully. I shouldn’t read and post at 2 am! But I wasn’t trying to obfuscate anything.
Curious. What was Deng Xiaoping’s compromise proposal? All I know is he wanted to postpone discussion of this issue until a time when everyone would be wiser and better equipped to come to a good solution.
I may not be able to post back. I have to get on with my Sunday. But it has been a pleasure conversing with you!
Ray says
@persimmon5
The problem lies mainly with the Japanese govn’t.
The Chinese position is that the islands belong to China but since it is disputed want to negotiate.
The Japanese position is that the islands belong to Japan and no negotiation is needed.
The Japanese hold the same position against the Korean and Russian too hence they are not making any progress.
persimmon5 says
@Ray,
I just saw this http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/business/AJ201209290044 It is strong criticism by the Japanese business community of the truculence and mis-handling (or non-handling) of this situation by the Japanese government. I take this as a positive sign.
BEIJING SHOTS says
ask urself this, my little honger, would you feel half as bad if a mainlander was beat up in a hong kong subway for eating?
ive also written about how the anti japanese protests in China were orchestrated by the ned, and the likes of optor. the u.s regime has been pushing for japan to remilitarise for decades. they need these kinds of uprisings to justify it. also, u.s. auto sales in China was up 40%, while japanese auto sales were down by just as much. looks like u.s. multinationals profit immensely from the disputes. i’d say it’s a rather lucrative investment to rent a mob, mainlanders, taiwanese, and hongers, all included in the rent a mob. 1 package deal. your mission- make your gwailo masters rich. by the way, it is not a coincidence that the biggest riots were in shenzhen, and guangzhou, very near to hong kong where the profesional protest coaches lay on stand by
pug_ster says
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2013-08/22/content_16914526.htm
Figures that there’s never a shortage of idiots in the American government. It seems that moron McCain thinks that Diaoyu Islands belongs to Japan.
Black Pheonix says
Revisiting an often cited Japanese nationalist assertion:
That China (and Taiwan) between 1950 and 1971 did not use Chinese names for Diaoyu, and used only Japanese names.
http://www.jfir.or.jp/e/commentary/110128.pdf
Well, part of the problem with that theory is, most of the Japanese names for the islands came from the original Chinese names for the islands.
FOR example:
Islands in the group
No. Japanese name Chinese name Coordinates Area (km2) Highest elevation (m)
1 Uotsuri-shima (魚釣島)[44] Diàoyú Dǎo (釣魚島) 25°46′N 123°31′E 4.32 383
2 Taishō-tō (大正島)[45] Chìwěi Yǔ (赤尾嶼) 25°55′N 124°34′E 0.0609 75
3 Kuba-shima (久場島)[46] Huángwěi Yǔ (黃尾嶼) 25°56′N 123°41′E 1.08 117
4 Kita-kojima (北小島)[47] Běi Xiǎodǎo (北小島) 25°45′N 123°36′E 0.3267 135
5 Minami-kojima (南小島)[48] Nán Xiǎodǎo (南小島) 25°45′N 123°36′E 0.4592 149
6 Oki-no-Kita-iwa (沖ノ北岩)[49] Dà Běi Xiǎodǎo (大北小島/北岩) 25°49′N 123°36′E 0.0183 nominal
7 Oki-no-Minami-iwa (沖ノ南岩)[50] Dà Nán Xiǎodǎo (大南小島/南岩) 25°47′N 123°37′E 0.0048 nominal
8 Tobise (飛瀬?)[51] Fēi Jiāo Yán (飛礁岩/飛岩) 25°45′N 123°33′E 0.0008 nominal
With the exception of islands #2 and #3, the other 6 islands all have Japanese names that came from original Chinese names!
So look at the Chinese maps cited in the 2011 Japanese study above, On pages 5 and 6.
Page 5, a 1960 PRC map, indicating #1 魚釣島 and #2 赤尾嶼. NOTE: the map didn’t use the Japanese name for island #2, 大正島!!
Page 6, a 1967 ROC map, indicating nearly all the islands (except #6-#8) by both Japanese and Chinese names. For a closer view, http://image.freejapan.info/Mizuma/jpg.ja/ja_20080806_sapio__P083.jpg
The fact that Japan still uses mostly Chinese names for the individual islands is acknowledgment of Chinese historical claims for the islands.
Black Pheonix says
Japan’s own maps prove Japan purposefully changed island names to lay claims.
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1784/ryukyurettou.gif
This map was published by Japan in use from 1946 to 1972, indicating #2 and #3 islands by their Chinese names, 赤尾嶼 and 黃尾嶼.
Later on, Japan changed the names of those 2 islands in the official maps to Taishō-tō (大正島) and Kuba-shima (久場島).
In fact, Japan has consistently used the Chinese names for these 2 islands ever since learning the Chinese names from China.
Check out all of these references in Japan referring to the Chinese name of 黃尾 for #3 island:
http://fmn.rrimg.com/fmn051/20110606/0730/p_large_tibv_59c90000cafe5c44.jpg
http://fmn.rrimg.com/fmn053/20110606/0730/p_large_IIur_47a60000caa95c71.jpg
http://fmn.rrimg.com/fmn046/20110606/0730/p_large_xHlZ_78680000ab5d5c74.jpg
http://fmn.rrimg.com/fmn052/20110606/0730/p_large_yia0_78200000ab665c74.jpg
Black Pheonix says
Inconsistent Japanese assertions: Japan calls the #3 island in Diaoyu as 久場島, but there is another 久場島 on the Japanese map, in the Kerama Islands group about 20 miles west of Okinawa.
In 1969, UN ECAFE 1st identified potential gas and oil in the area. Same year, May, Japanese government declares changes to the names of #2 and #3 Islands, and places markers with the new names on the islands.
http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kensetukan/30329136.html
Black Pheonix says
Additionally, Japan asserted that US military rented 久場島 from a private owner since 1960, http://blogimg.goo.ne.jp/user_image/38/81/47e86043f42c7179d7511dde528a3cbd.jpg
However, if there was another island with the same name near Okinawa, then the contract in 1960 was clearly NOT referring to the #3 island in Diaoyu.
Indeed, in WWII and after, US military commonly referred to “Kuba Island” 久場島 as the one near Okinawa.
Subsequently, after 1972, US military referred to the #3 island in Diaoyu as “Kobi-Sho”.
Allen says
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/february/1391173200/linda-jaivin/japan-china-senkaku-diaoyu
Another decent summary of the diaoyutai history to understanding today’s dispute between China and Japan, this time from Australia.