What are people's thoughts on what's going on?

My main question i suppose, is WHY is the Japanese Government acting the way they are? It seems a bit like toddlers squabbling over a broken toy to me. (Yes, there's oil, but surely not so much as to make it worth destablising the region for??)

Why is this happenening now?

Also, isn't it just possible to take it to an international tribunal to solve?

***
My understanding of the situation is that it is another of those awkward situations caused by American mismanagement. My understanding of the history is:

- Japan asserts ownership of the island back in the 19th Century
- It gets taken away from them at the end of World War 2 and given to China
- The Americans had administrative control over the island, even though it's China's, and then decide to hand over control to Japan, but not ownership (since it can't). Japan thinks it's Japans.
- Japan then decides to buy the islands from a Japanese private owner. (how did this private owner come about??)

It actually surprised me to learn that history though, since China seems to enjoy taking bites out of other countries. (is the history correct btw? or have i read some propaganda? EDIT: i can't seem to find anything else saying that the islands were given to China after the war, so I probably did.) So, what are your thoughts? How will this end up?

Thank god they're not occupied...

From a negotiations standpoint, China's bargaining power is much stronger than Japan's. Economically, Japan relies more on China than vice versa. Militarily, China is also the stronger power (discounting any support from other countries). China's stronger position was already clear back when they halted rare earths exports to Japan, and it is even stronger today than it was then.

As for the outcome, I expect a similar course of action to before, i.e. discontinuation of rare earths exports or some other kind of economic offense. From there, either Japan will concede once more or they will respond in kind by cutting off supplies of advanced technologies to China, which are ubiquitous in Chinese manufacturing (in both the machinery and in the products being manufactured). Who knows what will happen from there, but it certainly won't be something pleasant.

.

The OP is wrong in asserting that China was given ownership of the islands after WW2.

China's cut off of rare earths to Japan was really a one off trick. I don't see any possible way for them to do it again without facing serious sanctions in the WTO.

Why do you think that Japan is the rightful owner though?

I tried to find out where this claim that Daioyu / Senkaku reverted to Chinese ownership after the 2nd World War comes from, and it seems to come from the Cairo declaration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration

Wikipedi Wrote:Summary

The main points of the document were:

The Allies are not fighting Japan for their own territorial expansion.
The Allies are resolved to bring unrelenting military pressure against Japan until it agrees to unconditional surrender.
All islands Japan had seized in Pacific from since the World War I in 1914.
All the territories Japan has stolen from China such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China.
The Allies are determined that Korea shall become free and independent.
Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.

So, it seems from this that the ownership actually should have reverted to China at that time (unless legally, a "territory" doesn't apply to islands?), supposing that China owned them before Japan took them. Japan of course, claims that it was no mans land before they claimed them as their own. China disputes this.
EDIT: i suppose it really depends on how far back that clause is supposed to refer though? It isn't explicit on Wikipedia...)

The Western press seems very much on the Japanese side on this, but i'm not sure... it seems like China does have a fair claim to me, and Japans' trying to buy the islands from a supposed private Japanese owner seems just weird and wrong, no?

the rocks really are tiny...

Natural gas nearby? http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org...urt-rocks/

IceCream Wrote:Also, isn't it just possible to take it to an international tribunal to solve?

There are tribunals and China also doesn't go to any of them because it apparently has a very unique view on territorial claims that are in serious conflict with the rest of the world and international law. Long story short - they don't press the issue in international court because half a dozen other countries are eagerly looking to press their own claims against China's claims in the South China Sea - most of which China would certainly lose.

IceCream Wrote:Why do you think that Japan is the rightful owner though?

I tried to find out where this claim that Daioyu / Senkaku reverted to Chinese ownership after the 2nd World War comes from, and it seems to come from the Cairo declaration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration

They didn't get returned along with Taiwan because no one had ever considered them to be part of Taiwan.

hmm, i'm not sure, re: Taiwan: http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2012/09/...n-yi-shaw/

Edited out wrong bit.

I'm still confused as to why Japan would try to buy what it thinks is it's own island. Seems pretty shady to me...

kitakitsune Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:Also, isn't it just possible to take it to an international tribunal to solve?

There are tribunals and China also doesn't go to any of them because it apparently has a very unique view on territorial claims that are in serious conflict with the rest of the world and international law. Long story short - they don't press the issue in international court because half a dozen other countries are eagerly looking to press their own claims against China's claims in the South China Sea - most of which China would certainly lose.

http://i.imgur.com/EzT8Cl.gif

hahah that map is so ridiculous.

If China can't respect international law, that's, um, pretty problematic.

If i were one of the countries China has taken a bite out of, i'd certainly be looking to press the case in an international court. Can a hearing not take place without China turning up? If I were Japan, i'd be looking to have international law on my side...

No one ever considered the Senkaku Islands to be part of Taiwan. Even the Chinese who only claimed them after oil was discovered there in 1970. Before that, the Chinese (both the PRC and ROC) considered the islands to be a part of Japan.

And the Japanese did not just come and pick up a Chinese island in 1895. Even the Qing dynasty did not consider the islands to be Chinese. Seriously, they do not show up in any map of Chinese lands produced by that dynasty, including maps of Taiwan.

They were Terra Nullis.

IceCream Wrote:I'm still confused as to why Japan would try to buy what it thinks is it's own island. Seems pretty shady to me...

It's not buying the property from itself, but from an individual. This happens all the time in other countries, and so there's nothing unusual about a government purchasing property from its own citizens.

Although, it looks like the Japanese government is trying to establish, or reaffirm, it's sovereignty over Daioyu/Senkaku by purchasing it from a Japanese owner.

3rd party arbitration of maritime disputes is rigged in that both parties have to agree to arbitration. Case in point would be Korea constantly rejecting arbitration over Takeshima.

That's a whole different story though - China doesn't go to the UN because they fundamentally disagree with the basic concepts of international law on the matter.

@ Kitakitsune: But in order for that to be true, it would basically have to be true that nobody knew the islands even existed prior to the Japanese finding them. There's no reason that Taiwan or China wouldn't have simply claimed them. But if that evidence i linked shows what it purports to show, it shows the Diaoyu Islands as being part of Taiwan in 1871.

Sure, China might not have cared before they found oil, but that really doesn't have an impact on the legality of the issue. They did register their discontent before the Americans handed the islands to Japan.

The government of Japan bought the islands to prevent their development. It was supposed to be a gesture of good will towards China in that the Japanese were not going to upset the status quo on the islands.

In case you guys haven't been keeping up with the Japanese news. The owners of the islands were originally going to sell them to the city government of Tokyo who were then going to build port facilities on the island. In order to prevent China from going apeshit over this move - the government of Japan decided to buy them instead. It didn't prevent Chinese anger though...

kitakitsune Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:Also, isn't it just possible to take it to an international tribunal to solve?

There are tribunals and China also doesn't go to any of them because it apparently has a very unique view on territorial claims that are in serious conflict with the rest of the world and international law. Long story short - they don't press the issue in international court because half a dozen other countries are eagerly looking to press their own claims against China's claims in the South China Sea - most of which China would certainly lose.

http://i.imgur.com/EzT8Cl.gif

I was going to post this. I thought it was something from The Onion when I originally saw it. Even though I don't know the background of the Senkaku Islands dispute, it's hard not to be sceptical of China's position just based on this. The way the Chinese public are reacting is quite disturbing though, assuming it isn't actually propaganda.

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??

IceCream Wrote:@ Kitakitsune: But in order for that to be true, it would basically have to be true that nobody knew the islands even existed prior to the Japanese finding them. There's no reason that Taiwan or China wouldn't have simply claimed them. But if that evidence i linked shows what it purports to show, it shows the Diaoyu Islands as being part of Taiwan in 1871.

Sure, China might not have cared before they found oil, but that really doesn't have an impact on the legality of the issue. They did register their discontent before the Americans handed the islands to Japan.

I'm not sure what that 1871 document is. Is that a newspaper? It doesn't change the fact that the Qing dynasty carefully recorded and mapped every single piece of territory they considered Chinese and the Senkaku islands do not appear in any of these historical documents.

I think that fact is one of the bigger reasons why China doesn't protest to the UN. They simply cannot produce a single historical artifact from a Chinese government claiming ownership over these islands - before 1970.

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??

The Japanese government sold them to a private individual.

Ah, i get it now about the buying, thanks.

re: the maps, according to China, it has both maps and references to the islands dating back to the 14th century. http://wiki.china.org.cn/wiki/index.php/Diaoyu_Island

The purpose of the treaty was that Japan give back everything they took, including those taken during the Sino-Japanese war, isn't it? Apparently nobody particularly cared at the time, but it seems like there's no reason those islands wouldn't be part of that.

I also find it very hard to beleive that any islands in that area would have been truly unoccupied before 1895.

So yeah, it seems it really does depend on the standards of evidence required by a court to determine whose it is, and what little bits of evidence either of them can bring out.

I have no idea which way it would go on the basis of whatever evidence they brought, but it does at least seem to be more complex an issue than it's often represented as. China is a greedy land grabbing country, but in this case, it seems like they could have a valid legal claim to the islands. Interesting...

This was posted on my Facebook earlier in the week and I think it gives a decent run down on the history of the islands such as when they first became references, what was done with them, who said who had them, etc.
http://www.tokyoweekender.com/2012/09/se...d-dispute/

I think the most damning bit of evidence was China basically letting the prior "private owners" of the island build factories and structures on the island. I was surprised to learn these disputes have been going on for a few decades now though.

Honestly the biggest issue at hand are the reserves under the islands. Japan has little to no energy reserves so they want anything they can get. China is China. The solution will be who ever puts weapons on the isle; or who ever gets the support of the UN (maybe).

If its true that China said the islands were Japan's and then didn't give a crap when Japanese built stuff on it, then its basically an admission that the islands are Japans. History of "who found what first" be damned.

IceCream Wrote:Ah, i get it now about the buying, thanks.

re: the maps, according to China, it has both maps and references to the islands dating back to the 14th century. http://wiki.china.org.cn/wiki/index.php/Diaoyu_Island

Yes, this is true. However, in ancient Chinese documents either during the Ming
or Qing dynasty, the islands, which were uninhabited, were only mentioned as
being visible in the sea on their way to the Ryukyu Kingdom. There are no documents in existence that show that the islands were under administrative jurisdiction of any Chinese government entity. Someone might point out a certain 1893 edict by the Empress Dowanger giving the islands to someone but this document is largely considered to be a forgery or at the minimum contains too many outright historical errors to ever be submitted as evidence in any kind of arbitration over the islands.

And I'd like to point out once again - in case it hasn't been said enough - there is no document in all of recorded Chinese history that shows the Senkaku islands as being a part of the territory of China. The first time the islands do show up in a map commissioned by a Chinese government entity - the islands are listed as belonging to Japan. The idea that these islands are an "integeral part of China since antiquity" is a figment of the Chinese imagination that only came into being after oil was discovered under the islands.

Also, discovery and naming of a place does not make it yours. A third component is also important and that is administration.

regardless of whose islands they are, the reactions in china are pretty shocking. whatever natural resources are in those islands, your average chinese attacking japanese people and businesses on the streets won't see one yuan of that. these people are like lemmings being controlled by their government... except for your handful of right-wing nuts you don't see the japanese getting worked up about this.

honestly the chinese come off awfully bad in pictures and the press... it doesn't help that the whole thing is going on at the same time as the equally senseless riots all over the muslim world right now. governments manipulating the emotions of their own people in order to maintain a fragile control. simple people in a frenzy of rage at another country, venting their anger by harming the economic potential of their own country.

america and japan have done some awful things historically but bear no responsibility for this protest nonsense.

@Kitakitsune:

Firstly, lets assume that you're correct in thinking that China has no evidence. (i'll come back to this later). This still doesn't justify Japan as the legal owners of the islands. The point of the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Treaty, etc, were that Japan should not keep the land it took during wartime, including that which it took during the Sino-Japanese War. The Daioyu / Senkaku islands were taken during this time. China objected before the islands were returned to Japan, and under the Potsdam Treaty, they appear to have exactly the legal right to do so.

Furthermore, there is evidence that the Japanese believed the islands to be Chinese when they took them, which justifies the view that they were part of Japanese war spoils:

Quote:http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2012/09/...n-yi-shaw/

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”.

Now let's return to your claim that there is no evidence. Again, it really depends on what standards of evidence are required, doesn't it? I'm not sure how an international court goes about this for stuff before the 20th Century, because it wasn't until the 20th Century that legality became more airtight, so the burden of proof should also be less, no?
The link from vix86 states:

Quote: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.

You say that there are no maps showing ownership of the islands, but other people say there are. What are your references btw?

I'm not trying to say that these islands actually are Chinese, but the evidence that there is seems to point that way. It doesn't seem clear that Japan has any legal claim to them at all. If the American transmission of administration was not legal (which, under the Potsdam Treaty, it should have been agreed by China, which it never was, due to China not attending that meeting) it's irrelevent who administers the islands at the moment, surely?