Japan did not take these islands as part of the Sino-Japanese war and they were not covered under the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Therefore, they cannot be returned under the Treaty of San Francisco.

The Japanese also never believed the islands were Chinese. MOFA at the time (1885) was nervous about occupying the islands because they were close to China and that action might make the Chinese nervous. It is not an admission that the islands were under the administration of China, only that China might perceive Japanese occupation as a threat.

There are no maps showing Chinese ownership of the islands. The only maps in which the islands appear are in travel maps that show the sea route from China to Okinawa and these don't really make any distinctions between the territory of China and the territory of Okinawa. The islands also make another appearance in a Ming Pirate defense map but this doesn't mean anything because it isn't the type of map that would make territorial distinctions. It's just a record of what is out there in the ocean. If the Ming ever built an actual base there... that would change things and we wouldn't be having this debate.

In conclusion, China never considered these islands to be Chinese and a part of their territory until 1970. From 1895-1970 they considered the islands to be Japanese and before 1895 they didn't bother to record the islands in any map of Chinese territory nor try to administer or regulate the sea around them. They were terra nullis when the Japanese showed up.

IceCream Wrote:The link from vix86 states:
http://www.tokyoweekender.com/2012/09/se...d-dispute/

The islands were also used by China as offshore defenses against Japanese pirates during the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368-1911). A Chinese map of Asia, and a map compiled by a Japanese cartographer in the 18th century, also show the islands belong to China.

1. The islands were never fortified or used against Japanese pirates in any way. They were just recorded as rocks in the ocean on a map.

2. "A Chinese map of Asia"....This map doesn't seem to exist. If it does, please post it. All Qing dynasty maps of Taiwan show Keelung as the northern frontier of Taiwan and the Senkaku islands do not appear on any of them.

3. Japanese cartographer map - This map is just a personal opinion of a Japanese samurai. And he also forgot to list Taiwan as a part of China too but people conveniently forget that part of the map.

This has been happening for years, decades to be exact. China and Taiwan began claiming the islands in 1972. However, Japan obtained them in 1895 just prior to annexing Taiwan. After World War II, Japan was forced to revert to its pre-Taiwan empire, which granted Japan Hokkaido, Okinawa, the Senkaku Islands and probably a few other small islands elsewhere. The US occupied the islands until 1972 before returning them to Japan.

The thing here to understand is that the Chinese government does not care about those islands at all. It cares about distracting its population from government corruption and growing economic inequalities with an election on the horizon later this year. Here are some good news reports on it.
http://youtu.be/581PqUuu4L4
http://youtu.be/S0bhYA4sE08

IceCream Wrote:How did this private owner come to have ownership of the island in the first place though? Surely someone would have had to sell it to them??

From 2002 to 2012, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications paid the Kurihara family ¥25 million a year to rent Uotsuri, Minami-Kojima and Kita-Kojima. Japan's Ministry of Defense rents Kuba island for an undisclosed amount. Kuba is used by the U.S. military as a practice aircraft bombing range. Japan's central government completely owns Taisho island.[25][26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands

@kitakitsune: Given that the Japanese claimed the islands in 1985, what are your reasons for stating that the lands do not count as lands claimed as part of the Sino-Japanese war? Why must the islands have been included in the Treaty of Shimonoseki for this to be so?

China did not / could not attend the Treaty of San Francisco, and therefore doesn't accept it's terms. There seems no reason why it should accept them either. The UK and USA should never have divied up land without China's attendance, that was absurd. But regardless of this, there are two other treaties that China can claim the islands under.

Given that the source I quoted quite clearly states that the Japanese government beleived the islands to be Chinese "our intention to occupy lands belonging to China", what is your reason for stating that they did not?

What is your source regarding these maps?

There's nothing in the Treaty of Shimonoseki on the Senkaku Islands. The Senkakus were annexed months before that treaty took place, and the islands were not inhabited by Chinese when they were annexed.

IceCream Wrote:Given that the source I quoted quite clearly states that the Japanese government beleived the islands to be Chinese "our intention to occupy lands belonging to China", what is your reason for stating that they did not?

What is the source of this quote, and is there a date that goes along with it? What I believe it means is that they did not want to occupy islands that were right next to China at that particular time, since it could potentially be viewed as an act of war. I'm presuming this quote came before war with China took place if this is a legitimate quote, and it should also be noted that what one Japanese government official says does not necessarily reflect government consensus.

IceCream Wrote:The UK and USA should never have divied up land without China's attendance, that was absurd.

Another interesting fact is that when the Treaty of San Francisco was signed the Communists had already defeated the KMT in the Chinese Civil War, and the KMT fled to Taiwan, which is why Taiwan's government is still called the Republic of China to this day. The US had primarily backed the KMT during WWII, so they had no problem recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign state. And if you're referring to the Senkakus there... They were never Chinese territory.

I've never seen the quote that says that the MOFA guy showed hesitation about occupying islands "belonging to China". All the quotes I've ever seen about that just talk about how it could be considered provocative occupying islands so close to China and that the Chinese were already complaining about increased Japanese activity in the area in general.

After that, the Japanese started studying whether or not the islands belonged to China.

prink Wrote:There's nothing in the Treaty of Shimonoseki on the Senkaku Islands. The Senkakus were annexed months before that treaty took place, and the islands were not inhabited by Chinese when they were annexed.

Yes, but the fact that they were annexed in 1895 seems to me to be exactly the same as any other land grab the Japanese government were doing at that time. It was just less important, since the islands were uninhabited.

prink Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:Given that the source I quoted quite clearly states that the Japanese government beleived the islands to be Chinese "our intention to occupy lands belonging to China", what is your reason for stating that they did not?

What is the source of this quote, and is there a date that goes along with it? What I believe it means is that they did not want to occupy islands that were right next to China at that particular time, since it could potentially be viewed as an act of war. I'm presuming this quote came before war with China took place if this is a legitimate quote, and it should also be noted that what one Japanese government official says does not necessarily reflect government consensus.

I posted the source at the same time as I posted the quote originally, it's on page 1 of this thread. Unfortunately, I can't read the original (it's posted on that page in Japanese, [unless that's something else??] and if anyone else can, that'd be great!!), but if it does say that, I don't see any good reason to suppose that it means anything other than what it says.

Yes, the quote came from before the war, and from the Foreign minister. The Japanese government then decided to ignore this, and take the islands during the Sino-Japanese war.

re: those videos, yeah, that's an interesting idea. It seems a little strange that Japanese would oblige by buying the islands from an "owner" just at the right time though.

IceCream Wrote:Given that the Japanese claimed the islands in 1985, what are your reasons for stating that the lands do not count as lands claimed as part of the Sino-Japanese war? Why must the islands have been included in the Treaty of Shimonoseki for this to be so?

Japan had to return everything taken with the Treaty of Shimonoseki. This treaty refers to the island of Taiwan and all islands associated with Taiwan.

The Senkaku's are not included in the Treaty of Shimonoseki because the islands were never considered to be part of Taiwan. Again, we have to go back to Chinese maps - where the Senkaku Islands do not make an appearance in any map of Taiwan.

IceCream Wrote:

prink Wrote:There's nothing in the Treaty of Shimonoseki on the Senkaku Islands. The Senkakus were annexed months before that treaty took place, and the islands were not inhabited by Chinese when they were annexed.

Yes, but the fact that they were annexed in 1895 seems to me to be exactly the same as any other land grab the Japanese government were doing at that time. It was just less important, since the islands were uninhabited.

You're right. Japan annexing the Senkakus was no different from its annexation of Hokkaido or Okinawa.

IceCream Wrote:I posted the source at the same time as I posted the quote originally, it's on page 1 of this thread. Unfortunately, I can't read the original (it's posted on that page in Japanese, [unless that's something else??] and if anyone else can, that'd be great!!), but if it does say that, I don't see any good reason to suppose that it means anything other than what it says.

Yes, the quote came from before the war, and from the Foreign minister. The Japanese government then decided to ignore this, and take the islands during the Sino-Japanese war.

re: those videos, yeah, that's an interesting idea. It seems a little strange that Japanese would oblige by buying the islands from an "owner" just at the right time though.

The original source is not listed in your link. Those pictures in Japanese are not the quote either.

If you look at other sources mentioning the same events, none of them show the minister admitting Chinese ownership over the islands.

kitakitsune Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:Given that the Japanese claimed the islands in 1985, what are your reasons for stating that the lands do not count as lands claimed as part of the Sino-Japanese war? Why must the islands have been included in the Treaty of Shimonoseki for this to be so?

Japan had to return everything taken with the Treaty of Shimonoseki. This treaty refers to the island of Taiwan and all islands associated with Taiwan.

The Senkaku's are not included in the Treaty of Shimonoseki because the islands were never considered to be part of Taiwan. Again, we have to go back to Chinese maps - where the Senkaku Islands do not make an appearance in any map of Taiwan.

Right, but even then, this just means the Treaty of Shiminoseki is totally irrelevent here, no?

ALL of the ownership of Japan's islands apart from the 4 major ones were to be decided by the Allies, including China.

IceCream Wrote:ALL of the ownership of Japan's islands apart from the 4 major ones were to be decided by the Allies, including China.

The Republic of China affirmed the Treaty of San Francisco with the Treaty of Taipei in 1952.

Note that they didn't try to get the islands then. Maybe it's because no Chinese government ever considered the islands to be part of Taiwan until oil was discovered there.

ohhhhh. Yeah, that would make a difference. What does the Treaty of Taipei say about the Daioyu / Senkaku islands then?

Nothing, because they were not considered to be part of Taiwan....until oil was discovered of course.

IceCream Wrote:ohhhhh. Yeah, that would make a difference. What does the Treaty of Taipei say about the Daioyu / Senkaku islands then?

Nothing.

And looking at the Treaty of San Francisco, it seems that nothing was specifically mentioned there either, only Ryuku and Daito. So we've really gone down an irrelevent path.

Supposing that the islands are not part of Taiwan, it seems that they have not been dealt with at all under international law then. Which means that it follows that China can legally make a claim under the Potsdam Declaration, no?

All islands were supposed to have been decided by the Allies. Those islands don't appear in any treaty, meaning that they still need to be decided.

IceCream Wrote:All islands were supposed to have been decided by the Allies. Those islands don't appear in any treaty, meaning that they still need to be decided.

It does not mean that. It means that there was no change of the territory's status. It still belongs to Japan.

prink Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:All islands were supposed to have been decided by the Allies. Those islands don't appear in any treaty, meaning that they still need to be decided.

It does not mean that. It means that there was no change of the territory's status. It still belongs to Japan.

On what basis can you assert that?

Potsdam Declaration Wrote: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.

The islands weren't determined to be left under Japanese sovereignty. Or anyone elses for that matter.

IceCream Wrote:

prink Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:All islands were supposed to have been decided by the Allies. Those islands don't appear in any treaty, meaning that they still need to be decided.

It does not mean that. It means that there was no change of the territory's status. It still belongs to Japan.

On what basis can you assert that?

Potsdam Declaration Wrote: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.

The islands weren't determined to be left under Japanese sovereignty. Or anyone elses for that matter.

The US handed over the islands to Japan in 1972.

yeah, the US can't legally decide to just unilaterally do that. It's not the USA's decision, it's all of the Allies.

And China objected before America handed administration to the Japanese.

I disagree, but I'm going to have to stop here. You're entitled to your opinion, but if that's the case, maybe China should be going after the US instead.

The islands were lumped together with Okinawa and China did not object to this when they concluded the Treaty of Taipei ending the war.

i think you've misunderstood what i'm aiming at here. I'm not trying to push my own opinion, i'm trying to understand the history of the dispute and understand what kind of legal claim both China or Japan can make on the islands.

That China wouldn't be interested in these islands were it not for the potential oil is clear. But that really doesn't have anything to do with the legality of the issue.

@K: Why would the islands suddenly be treated as part of Okinawa? Since they had historically never been part of Okinawa, that's a pretty big leap to not define that in the treaties.

EDIT: In fact, the San Francisco Treaty seems to be quite particular in it's wording:

San Francisco Treat Wrote:Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

IceCream Wrote:@K: Why would the islands suddenly be treated as part of Okinawa? Since they had historically never been part of Okinawa, that's a pretty big leap to not define that in the treaties.

What do you mean suddenly be treated as part of Okinawa? They were part of Okinawa for 50 years.

The key part here is that they were not historically considered part of Taiwan or any other part of China. They were terra nullis when the Japanese annexed them and this is why they get to keep the islands after WWII.

Yeah, i see. It's hard to see how it could be claimed that they weren't put under USA control given that quote above, unless they had not been part of Nansei Shoto, which, as you said, they had been for the past 50 years. It's just a sort of fluke of history that their acquisition went along with Taiwan rather than along with the Yaeyama / Miyako to begin with then, and therefore a shame they were never referred to directly.

Do you know the history of the Yaeyama / Miyako islands btw? Weren't they ever part of Taiwan?