What's new

Japan China dispute over islands.

Gaki

Emperor Gakihito
3 Jul 2003
484
18
28
Didn't know which forum to put this in so I put it here.

Found out from my parents about this today, you can read the news here :

Articles

It's the first 6 or so articles.

I dunno where to stand on this.
On one hand, it seems correct for the Chinese to lay claim to the islands, on the other so do the Japanese. Very confusing situation...
 
I think, this site explains the dispute best:

Quote:
"None of the claimant's disputes that Japan exercised control of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands from 1895 until the Second World War. They differ on whether the islets were free for the taking in 1895, how Japan obtained control in that year, whether the islands were traditionally associated with Taiwan or Okinawa, and what the implications of various peace treaties and the 1971 Ryukyu Reversion Agreement are."

IMO, the Japanese position is better founded. But it all seems to depend on the interpretation of old treaties.

BTW, the official Japanese view:

 
Fantastic post by Bossel -

For me, this sums it up (from the first of Bossel's links)

"They had little value until offshore oil exploration began in the 1970s..."

Don't let all the right-wing nationalists fool you. You see a lot of flag burning and 50 or so people yelling at the embassy in Beijing, but if you listen close, both the Japanese and Chinese govenments are trying to make it as much of a non-issue as possible (that some Chinese people were arrested is the only reason this is even in the news again) while not giving any ground on their claims.

Just as a bit of advice - if you want to go around burning flags, you will look a bit less childish if you take the trouble to get cotton flags. They tear easier and burn nicer than polyester ones (if you have seen news footage recently you will know what I mean).
 
Links

From the US Department of State Daily Briefing
The Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the Government of Japan since having been returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972. Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security states that the treaty applies to the territories under the administration of Japan; thus, Article 5 of the Mutual Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.
Sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands is disputed. The U.S. does not take a position on the question of the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Diaoyu Islands. This has been our longstanding view. We expect the claimants will resolve this issue through peaceful means and we urge all claimants to exercise restraint.
Media's initial reports:
People's Daily Xinhua Asahi

Yomiuri Mainichi Kyodo


Activists' Site and Update News
 
Senkaku or Diaoyu

emperor said:
That is no doubt that Diaoyu Island belongs to China!!
What the Japanese government claims does not matter.
What the US government says DOES matter.

Let me recite the comment by Adam Ereli, US Dept. of State Deputy Spokesman:
Article 5 of the Mutual Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands.
The sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands is disputed.
This is the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America:
Article Ⅴ
Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
 
Last edited:
Yet Another Claim

It's Okinotorishima island this time.
location3-1.gif




Ocean research ship Dongfanghong No. 14

Now the answer from People's Republic:


United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Article 121 Section 3 says,
Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
It might be one of the rare cases where the Chinese claim makes sense, although it once was an island accepted among the international community before erosion, now protected with the concrete seawall and land covered with a titanium lid.

0007_04-1.gif
 
Background

United States returned Okinotorishima to Japan along with other Ogasawara islands in 1968. This is an excellent summary by Time Magazine.
At high tide they sit barely 2 ft. above the Pacific -- when the ocean is calm -- and are no larger than a pair of king-size beds. Yet the two coral promontories, known as Okinotorishima (Offshore Bird Islands), 1,300 miles southwest of Tokyo, are the southernmost points of Japanese sovereignty. Under international law, they provide the country with an exclusive, fish-rich | economic zone of 163,000 sq. mi., an area larger than Japan itself -- as long as they remain above water. The islands, which once covered several square miles, are eroding at an alarming rate.
Island Preservation Activity
 
Japan Seeks Deal on China Sea Gas Field (Yomiuri)
Following reports that China is moving to full-scale development of an offshore natural gas field near Japan's exclusive economic zone in the East China Sea, Tokyo is planning to seek a deal with Beijing over the ownership of the fossil-fuel reserves.
Related (old) news: Multi-billion-dollar Oil and Gas Deals Clinched (People's Daily)
UNOCAL, Sinopec, CNOOC and Royal Dutch/Shell somehow remind of the ABCD Encirclement...

Quoting United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Part Ⅴ Article 74, delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts
1. The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.

2. If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part ⅩⅤ.

3. Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation.

4. Where there is an agreement in force between the States concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of that agreement.
 
Last edited:
China Proposes Joint Gas Field Development with Japan
Li also mentioned the ceremony for the 60th anniversary of the Allies' D-Day landings that led to the liberation of France and the defeat of Nazi Germany, held earlier this month in France with the first participation of the German chancellor, and recommended Japan follow Germany's example in dealing with its Asian neighbors, the officials said.

He was quoted as saying European people were able to ''naturally deal with their histories'' with Germany because of how the country acted, suggesting Japan learn by looking at how Germany has admitted to its responsibilities in World War II.
Sounds like a very forward-looking natural resource talk.

China's Gas Proposal Needs Careful Handling: Gov't Officials
 
Govt Mulls EEZ Test-Drill (Yomiuri)
In an apparent response to Chinese explorations for natural gas near Japan's exclusive economic zone in the East China Sea, the government is considering conducting a test-drill inside the zone, government sources said Tuesday.

In a meeting in Qingdao on Monday, Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi told Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing that Tokyo wanted Beijing to submit information on drilling sites planned by the Chinese consortium. Li, however, did not reply to her request.

The government is planning its own test-drills due to concern that Japan could lose resources lying within its EEZ if it does nothing to counter the Chinese moves. According to the sources, it takes about six months to make necessary preparations.
 
Judging from the independent British site bossel provided, the islets quite obviously belong to Japan:
Clearly the US administered the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands with the Okinawan islands under Article 3 of the 1951 San Francisco Treaty and transferred the islets to Japanese administration in the 1971 Agreement. However, these provisions were not predicated on the transfer of sovereignty. It was in Article 2, not Article 3, of the 1951 San Francisco Treaty that Japan renounced rights to various areas, including Formosa (Taiwan). The Reversion Agreement cited Article 3. Therefore, the US action restored the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands to the administrative status they held before the war. Although the US agreement with Japan cannot be viewed as changing the true sovereignty of the dispute islets, the American inclusion of the islets in a geographic definition of the Ryukyu Islands clearly supports Japan's contention that these islets were associated with Okinawa.
 
no generosity between nations

02-07-04 17:50
canadian_kor China has such a vast landmass. I don't know why they are haggling over some islands. Just let Japan keep them.

Just to respond to canadiankor's theory, it is nothing to do with national generosity. deplomatics and politics are hardly to be explained after the simply question "why".
(I dunno how to cite a post, sorry about the mess.)
 
I personally feel that historically yes these islands were indeed belonging to china. However now since they were put into japanese possesion they belong to us. I do not think that japan should willingly hand these islands over to the chinese.
 
Lina Inverse said:
Judging from the independent British site bossel provided, the islets quite obviously belong to Japan

Ogumo said:
I personally feel that historically yes these islands were indeed belonging to china. However now since they were put into japanese possesion they belong to us. I do not think that japan should willingly hand these islands over to the chinese.

That's ridiculous. Just because the sovereignty was transferred by the US to Japan does NOT mean those islands rightfully belong to Japan. Let's say if Iraq's sovereignty was not transferred back to the Iraqi people but to another foreign power, would Iraq automatically belong to that foreign power? It's as if Child A has his toy snatched away from him by Child B, who then gives it to Child C. Does that toy now belong to Child C? No..the rightful owner will have the right to reclaim it. The Diaoyu Islands are a "oil-rich archipelago" (CNN). They're not just some masses of land that aren't worth fighting over, and according to Yomiuri Shimbun, Tokyo began renting the islands in April 2002 after signing an $188,300 one-year contract with the owner, and the Japanese government plans to renew its contract after the current lease expires at the end of March.
 
Those islands are officially a part of Japan.

China stop your land claim stealing. China already has very much land so stop trying to steal even more land with those ridiculous claims, you're just a bunch of expansionistic imperialists. You already invaded Tibet and Xinjiang that is actually Eastern Turkestan, what is next? You want to claim Siberia because of the oil reserves too?
China is a ULTRA Overpopulated country that sucks up very much resources like a ever growing BLACK HOLE. :D :D
 
Wang said:
Those islands are officially a part of Japan.

China stop your land claim stealing. China already has very much land so stop trying to steal even more land with those ridiculous claims, you're just a bunch of expansionistic imperialists. You already invaded Tibet and Xinjiang that is actually Eastern Turkestan, what is next? You want to claim Siberia because of the oil reserves too?
China is a ULTRA Overpopulated country that sucks up very much resources like a ever growing BLACK HOLE. :D :D

Steal land? Since when did China steal those lands?

Expansionistic imperialists? I don't call the Chinese emperor sending troops into Japan and slaughtering 35 million Japanese? Do you?

I don't recall China occupying any Japanese islands (as Japan occupied Taiwan and Hong Kong)? Please..read up on your history before you spew any of your hypocritical, bullshit theories.

The Tibet argument has been exhausted many times already, so I'll quote an online article:

You may have heard a lot about Chinese invasion of Tibet or sympathetic about Tibet Independent movement in Western media. Do you know that China has 56 nationalities and is never a racist country in history. Do you know that Tibetan immigrated to Tibet several thousand years ago from other part of China? Do you know that when the Red Army entered Tibet in 1951, they also recovered other part of China (Chinese army invaded China????). Do you know that before 1951, the feudal lords in Tibet who constituted only five percent of the population possessed 95 percent of the means of production. Do you know that Buddhism was brought into Tibet from China Proper before being developed into the current state? Read the Tibet history before passing your judgment about a nation you have been misled in centuries.)

A bit of history on Tibet's relationship with China can be found here. Not that you'd bother to read such a long article but I'll put it here anyway: Home - INDEX CHINA Medicine

Tibet has belonged to China for 700 years, so stop using your American or British propaganda as a source for counterargument. And get this: the country that sucks up the most world resources is the United States. The US, which only constitutes 3% of the world's population uses up to 30% of world resources. Talk about a black hole. Even if China were to catch up (and they ARE catching up), it's still not an issue because the US's population is incomparable with China's.

Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Your user name WANG is a Chinese name, and if you are indeed Chinese, then shame on you.
 
Wang said:
China is a ULTRA Overpopulated country that sucks up very much resources like a ever growing BLACK HOLE. :D :D

I think you're talking about America.
 
Back
Top Bottom