I think Japan is really the rightful owner of the islands and China is just trying to get a hold of them by making threats since the current ruling democratic party does pretty much everything what it is told by the Chinese government. There's some seriously plausible proof from the Japanese side and pretty much none from China, except "we thought we owned that thing", although it was not even mentioned anywhere. The Japanese emperor once seem to have said that the islands might be Chinese territory but "might" isn't the same "is". Oh and, it's really funny going to a Chinese restaurant and seeing all those Japanese deliciously eating food unlike those people on the television who burn down shops. The Chinese government usually suppresses such rebelions pretty quick and yet they don't right now. What a coincidence. I bet most of the people on the TV are hired as well.

Last edited by Arupan (2012 September 21, 9:07 am)

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.

the rocks really are tiny...

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

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.

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...

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.

@ 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.

Last edited by IceCream (2012 September 21, 11:09 am)

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.

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.

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...

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.

@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:

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:

http://www.tokyoweekender.com/2012/09/s … 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?

Last edited by IceCream (2012 September 21, 2:48 pm)