Japan China dispute over islands.

Tonysoong · 8 Jun 2005

bossel said:
Can't really follow your line of argument here. Ideologically different countries cannot be different nations?

OK, since you like to look at definitions (IIRC), let's look at the CALD:

nationalist:
- a person who wants political independence for their country

nation:
nation
noun
1 [C] a country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc [...]

2 ~~a large group of people of the same race who share the same language, traditions and history, but who might not all live in one area~~

Germans are more complex a case than you seem to think. Ethnically Germans (well, ethnically German...,you could even say that there are several German ethnicities) are members of a number of different nations (Germany, Austria, Italy, etc.). Eg. although Austrians are ethnically German, nowadays they mostly have a certain national Austrian pride & most do not want to be part of Germany.
In the GDR & FRG of the time of re-unification you had a large number of people opposed to unity. Even now there is a large minority of people in Germany who would like to have the separation back (for varying reasons).

PR China consists of a large number of ethnicities, all part of one nation. Taiwanese may for a large part be ethnically Han-Chinese (don't remember the statistics at the moment), but that does not mean that they necessarily belong to the PRC. Even if all Taiwanese were ethnically Han, that would not mean that they need to be part of a greater China.

Hard to follow your line of argument here,too.You seem to have failed to distinguish the two English words NATION and COUNTRY. I actually mean ideologically different countries are in fact one nation, as in the cases of the former two Germanies and the present two Koreas.

As for ethnical Germans, they do live in different countries like Germany, Austria, Italy, etc. But Wang seems to be trying to say that once a Chinese happens to be living in Taiwan, he should be regarded as a Taiwanese and not a Chinese any more.

In fact I tend to view Taiwan as a factual independent country which deserves the right to dialog with PRC on equal basis. But whatever political status Taiwan has or will have, people in Taiwan are still Chinese just as the Cantonese are Chinese too. Wang might be too extremist in denying the Chinese ethnicity of the Taiwanese.

Some (not all) politicians in Taiwan try to exclude Taiwan from China just in order to counter CCP's "one-China" policy which all countries that want deplomatic relations with CCP are forced to observe. Excluding Taiwan is just a deplomatic strategy, which many of us have miscinstrued.

Personally, I do think that Taiwan needs its independence to cope with PRC on equal basis and that people in Taiwan are Taiwanese just in the same sense as those in Guang-dong Province are Cantonese), Yet Taiwanese are still ethnical Chinese.

Actually, I really don't much care. China is already larger than it should be. I just enjoy arguing for what i take as truth. Oh, who cares?

Tonysoong · 8 Jun 2005

Wang said:
Taiwan never belonged to the People's Republic of China for a moment.

True, but Republic of CHINA.

PRC never equates China, Wang

budd · 8 Jun 2005

what? who the governing body of china?

bossel · 8 Jun 2005

Tonysoong said:
Hard to follow your line of argument here,too.You seem to have failed to distinguish the two English words NATION and COUNTRY.

Because the terms nation & country aren't completely distinct, they are interchangeable. There is even an overlap with ethnicity.

As for ethnical Germans, they do live in different countries like Germany, Austria, Italy, etc. But Wang seems to be trying to say that once a Chinese happens to be living in Taiwan, he should be regarded as a Taiwanese and not a Chinese any more.

I'm not sure, you're understanding Wang correctly. I doubt that he denies the Chinese heritage of a large part of the Taiwanese population. Acc. to the CIA factbook: Taiwanese (including Hakka) 84%, mainland Chinese 14%, aborigine 2% [Taiwanese & m.Chinese are ethnically Han, I think]
Heritage doesn't have anything to do with nationality, though.

As for Austrians, almost 90% are of German ethnicity, yet they have a different nationality & want to keep it.

people in Taiwan are still Chinese just as the Cantonese are Chinese too. Wang might be too extremist in denying the Chinese ethnicity of the Taiwanese.

Perhaps you should distinguish between Han-Chinese ethnicity & Chinese nationality? Could make it easier to come to an understanding with Wang.

Excluding Taiwan is just a deplomatic strategy, which many of us have miscinstrued.

Not just diplomatic. I know a few Taiwanese, & they feel very distinct from China. If asked "Are you Taiwanese or Chinese?", the answer is usually "Taiwanese".

Actually, I really don't much care.

Neither do I care whether China is a little bigger or smaller, but I do care for the right of self-determination.

Wang · 8 Jun 2005

The core of Taiwanese culture came from china but over the many years it has developed differently because of colonization, occupation and influence by various peoples. Therefore it is now a blend of all those sources.

The name Republic of China was brought to Taiwan by the Chinese Nationalists (Kuomintang) in 1949 who lost a civil war against the communists of Mao Zedong and escaped to Taiwan.
If for example after ww2 the people in Taiwan were able to choose a name themselves then it would be nothing like ROC.

Tonysoong · 8 Jun 2005

Wang said:
The core of Taiwanese culture came from china but over the many years it has developed differently because of colonization, occupation and influence by various peoples. Therefore it is now a blend of all those sources.

The name Republic of China was brought to Taiwan by the Chinese Nationalists (Kuomintang) in 1949 who lost a civil war against the communists of Mao Zedong and escaped to Taiwan.
If for example after ww2 the people in Taiwan were able to choose a name themselves then it would be nothing like ROC.

Over-indoctrinated by yourself if i'd refrain from employing the word "bigoted".

Colonization has happened in many parts of the world as well as in many parts of China. I really have difficulty understanding how colonization of Shan-dong Province (of China) by the Germans should've rendered it to be a foreign land. Or do you mean Chinese colonization of Tibet has rendered Tibet to be non-Tibetan?

Oh, who cares what you and i think? Let it go at that.

Tonysoong · 8 Jun 2005

I understand anything that comes out of sincerity, Wang. But what we need to work together to tackle is the tendency toward bias and alienation among humans as part of human nature, which has been giving rise to innumerable futile confrontations in human history.

Wang · 9 Jun 2005

What we need is democracy, freedom, respect for human rights and stop suppressing minorities, including religious minorities.

Being an independent country has nothing to do with if people like the culture or not. Let's take Singapore for an example. The majority of Singapore people are Chinese descendents. Culture-wise, they are quite Chinese. They enjoy Chinese new year, they celebrate Dragon Boat festival. They go to the ancestors tomb on Ching Ming Jie ﾂ青ｴ窶督ｾ节ﾂ。 They teach their children to be ﾂ孝顺ﾂ。 That's the Chinese culture in Singapore. But, Singapore is definitely not China. Speaking of if Taiwan has preserved some Chinese culture (Han culture from china). Taiwan is still using the Traditional Chinese characters and China has converted to the simplified ones. In this case, which one better preserve that culture? Let's take US as another example. The mainstream culture in the US is the Puritan from the Great Britain but US and UK are, of course, two independent countries. Let's put it this way, culture does not border-bound. There are also many immigrants bring their culture along to the US. They are also preserving the culture in another country. Of course Taiwan is not so China. The core of Taiwanese culture came from china but Taiwan also had much more exposure and influence from other cultures.

Tonysoong · 9 Jun 2005

Wang said:
What we need is democracy, freedom, respect for human rights and stop suppressing minorities, including religious minorities.

Being an independent country has nothing to do with if people like the culture or not. Let's take Singapore for an example. The majority of Singapore people are Chinese descendents. Culture-wise, they are quite Chinese. They enjoy Chinese new year, they celebrate Dragon Boat festival. They go to the ancestors tomb on Ching Ming Jie ﾂ青ｴ窶督ｾ节ﾂ。 They teach their children to be ﾂ孝顺ﾂ。 That's the Chinese culture in Singapore. But, Singapore is definitely not China. Speaking of if Taiwan has preserved some Chinese culture (Han culture from china). Taiwan is still using the Traditional Chinese characters and China has converted to the simplified ones. In this case, which one better preserve that culture? Let's take US as another example. The mainstream culture in the US is the Puritan from the Great Britain but US and UK are, of course, two independent countries. Let's put it this way, culture does not border-bound. There are also many immigrants bring their culture along to the US. They are also preserving the culture in another country. Of course Taiwan is not so China. The core of Taiwanese culture came from china but Taiwan also had much more exposure and influence from other cultures.

Bossel, you and I agree on -----

Taiwan is a factual independent country, and personally I do think it's a democracy that deserves international recognition. Ideological difference serves well the separation of a nation into two xountries, both of which deserve international recognition, as in the cases of N & S Koreas and the former two Germanies.

We disagree on -----

Whether people in Taiwan need to be regarded as non-Chinese for the sake of TW's independence, or whether they ARE simply ethnically non-Chinese.

If i have put it the right way, now allow me to confess that it's beyond our personal means to reach agreements in all respects.

shiroma · 3 Aug 2005

名無し said:
Shell, UNOCAL Exit China's Disputed Gas Project (Kyodo)

CNOOC to Develop Gas Field without UNOCAL, Shell (Bloomberg)

China's CNOOC Abandons Bid for Unocal Oil

With oil prices at record-high levels, the bid sparked opposition from members of the U.S. Congress. Some politicians said losing control of some U.S.-owned oil assets could harm the nation's economy and security.

The parent company of CNOOC is controlled by the Chinese government.

taishici · 25 Aug 2005

...i just want to ask those "taiwanese" people...does UN recognize Taiwan as a coutry? i can just sit in my house and say "oh this property is officially a new country now and is compeletly out of the control of Canadian Government..."?

shiroma · 2 Apr 2006

尖閣諸島

China Protests over Japan's Textbook Revision on Diaoyu Islands

The Chinese government Friday lodged a strong protest against Japan's latest revision of a batch of new senior middle school textbooks regarding the Diaoyu Islands.

Nothing strange about Japanese textbooks claiming that Senkaku belongs to Japan, the other way around too of course. That is the way how things are about disputed land.
Has China ever "lodged a strong protest" against Philippino or Vietnamese textbooks on Spratly.

Pitiful it is that they throw tantrum every time things do not quite go all Chinese way.

MajideSaiaku · 2 Apr 2006

Because the terms nation & country aren't completely distinct, they are interchangeable. There is even an overlap with ethnicity.

Country means more of an actual existing political entity, france is a country, china is a country, canada is a country.
Nation is a little less strict, for example, even though scotland is part of the larger country of the united kingdom, scotland is considored in an of itself a distinct nation within the UK.
The Kurds and the areas they reside could be loosely considored a Kurd nation but it certainly isnt a country.
Nation stands not only for territorial boundries but also the people who reside within it, indian tribes considor themselves nations despite the fact they dont actually hold any politically and economically independent countries.
Germany if i stand correct is a federation of german states, so while federal germany is a country, bavaria and the likes are nations within germany.

I hope ive cleared it up for you Bossel, so while nation is interchangable with country, country isnt as free. Nation can be used for scotland wales and england, or the british nation as a whole, while country specifically means the political sovreign entity of the united kingdom, this defenition also doesnt rely on the people, while nation can be used for a people alone, like the kurd nation, who have no actual country, country can mean iraq with or without an ethnic iraqi population, since the population are either kurds or arabs, and relies on the country actually physically existing, with borders, government, and being recognised as existing by the majority of the world.

Somalia as a country doesnt really exist, but the somali nation does since the population is ethnic somali.

bossel · 7 Apr 2006

nurizeko said:
I hope ive cleared it up for you Bossel, so while nation is interchangable with country, country isnt as free.

Thanks for the effort, but if you'd read the previous to my last post, you'd have seen that an explanation wasn't necessary. The interchangeable-comment was specifically about my argument there.

Germany if i stand correct is a federation of german states, so while federal germany is a country, bavaria and the likes are nations within germany.

Oh well, Bavaria. Actually it's more like a country, they even call themselves Freistaat (free country/state). The distinction between country (Land) & state (Staat) in German is probably even less distinct than between country & nation in English, but my translation isn't really to the point, anyway.

The 16 states are territorial states (Territorialstaaten), unlike a national state (or country = Nationalstaat). Freistaat is used by Bavaria (as well as Saxony & Thuringia) to stress their independent statehood (IE that they are countries which agreed to give some competences to Germany, but could always decide for independence).

MajideSaiaku · 7 Apr 2006

Cheers for the info.

shiroma · 17 Apr 2006

NHK news

China Bans Navigation inside Japan's Economic Zone

Chinese maritime authorities have issued a warning banning navigation in an area of the East China Sea that covers Japan's declared exclusive economic zone.

The area of the ban runs about 200 kilometers north to south and three kilometers wide on both sides of the median line that Japan says separates the two countries' waters. The area starts from China's natural gas field.

China's maritime safety administration says it is closing the area to ships to lay undersea pipeline and cables.

Last month, China rejected Japan's proposal to jointly develop natural gas resources in the East China Sea in waters on both sides of the median line. China instead proposed conducting joint development near Japan's Senkaku Islands, which are also claimed by China.

↓

China Moves Navigation Ban Zone North

China has notified Japan it will move north a navigation ban zone in the East China Sea it announced earlier, saying the location was wrong due to a technical error.

The correction excludes Japan's exclusive economic zone from an area the navigational ban will apply.

China's Foreign Ministry informed the Japanese government about the change on Monday night.

China's Maritime Affairs Bureau issued a warning last month that ships would be banned from an area in the East China Sea while it carries out work to lay pipelines as part of a natural gas development project.

Japan notified China that the designated area includes Japan's exclusive economic zone, and that enforcing the ban there would infringe on Japan's sovereignty and may also violate the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry said the coordinates given in the warning issued by Maritime authorities should have been slightly north, excluding Japan's exclusive economic zone.

Bluff&bargain tactics, the nuclear submarine intrusion was a "technical error" too.

mingo · 25 Apr 2006

200 nautical mile EEZ is the origin of trouble, esp. in small isles, no matter the size of isle, it just grant at most 120000 (Pi*200^2) sq. nautical miless (about 500K sq km) of EEZ.
if look at the figure,
Exclusive economic zone - Wikipedia
Japan have about 4.5 mil sq. km, that's about half of land area of china or US. while China only have .9 mil.
so I would be glad to see a revision on the EZZ esp. on the case involve small isle (e.g, less than 10 sq. km)
however, in term of Continental shelf, china clearly have the advantage on east china sea's resourse..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Elevation.jpg
PS: Republic of China also claim the Diaoyu isle on the similar bases of PRC.

窶督ｼ窶督ｳ窶堋ｵ said:
NHK newsﾂ?ｫBluff&bargain tactics, the nuclear submarine intrusion was a "technical error" too.

don't get other things involved, I can talk about war crimes and millions of lifes lost during WWII in china. but I won't 'cause we don't want any aggression between each other . I suppose most japanese people are very peaceful, right?

shiroma · 9 Jul 2006

白樺

NHK news

Japan-China Gas Talks End

Japan and China have again failed to narrow their differences over natural gas development in the East China Sea, but they have agreed to arrange a meeting of experts to discuss joint projects.

The sixth round of working-level talks was held in Beijing on Saturday and Sunday. The two sides discussed a Japanese proposal for a joint gas development project that would include areas straddling the median line between the two countries' exclusive economic zones.

The chief of the Foreign Ministry's Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau, Kenichiro Sasae, told a news conference that the two sides had discussed the matter but failed to reach a compromise.

The Director General of the Natural Resources and Energy Agency, Nobuyuki Kodaira, said he strongly urged China to stop the on-going development and provide relevant information.

But the two sides did agree to set up a meeting of geological and oil experts to explore the possibility of joint development projects.

They also agreed to step up contacts between their maritime authorities in view of the increased activities of ships and aircraft in the East China Sea.

The Chinese side promised to inform Japan in advance when a Chinese vessel passes Japan's exclusive economic zone.

shiroma · 27 Oct 2006

NHK news

Hong Kong Activists Leave Japan's Territorial Waters

The group of activists from Hong Kong that approached the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea have left Japan's territorial waters.

The Japan Coast Guard says the activists' vessel, Bao Diao Number 2, left Japanese waters before noon on Friday.

The ship entered Japanese waters near Uotsuri-jima, the largest of the Senkaku islands, at around 9:20 a.m.

The ship then stopped 13 kilometers west-southwest of the island, but began sailing west, away from the island.

The Coast Guard says patrol ships will continue to monitor the vessel to make sure it does not try to return.

The activists are the latest of a number of groups that have approached the Senkaku Islands to protest Japan's sovereignty of the territory. The islands are also claimed by China, and are called Diaoyu in Chinese.

Seven Chinese activists were arrested on suspicion of illegal entry on Uotsuri-jima in March 2004, and protesters from Taiwan threw stones at Japan Coast Guard patrol ships outside Japanese waters in August this year.

pharaoh21 · 27 Oct 2006

^ I don't get it. It should be the people from mainland China protesting about it, not HK. If the island is to be returned, China will be the one to claim it, not HK.

shiroma · 31 Oct 2006

长毛

pharaoh21 said:
I don't get it. It should be the people from mainland China protesting about it, not HK.

It was nothing more than yet another attention-seeking stage play by a young fenqing politician "long hair" Leung KwokHung, in order to get support of Hong Kong voters full of inferiority complex, chanting "Japanese pigs" mantra.

CBC Guy · 2 Nov 2006

长窶禿

BTW You probably shouldn't take this guy too seriously. He's kind of a joke figure in HK politics, he is a genunie socialist-democrat though, as in he truly believes in Marxist thought. (Most Chinese officials these days do not)

As for Diaoyu/Senkaku, as a Chinese I'll say that it was Chinese territory before Japan occupied it by force, and therefore it should be Chinese territory today. I'm not going to lose sleep if Japan builds a lighthouse or whatever on it though.

As for Taiwan, it is a de facto country and I'm ok with that, its just when they always shout out that the PRC are "evil Communist bastards" and that "we're not Chinese!" that I have a problem with them. I mean, just acknowledge that the majority of your culture comes from China, and be done with it. And Taiwanese politics is a farce, they accuse China of corruption (which is a warranted charge, I also think the PRC has WAY too much corruption), but they're not so clean themselves. Chen Shuibian is shaping up to have quite the loose fingers, as do his associates.

On the other hand don't believe that I am a mindless pro-PRC robot. I think the PRC shouldn't fret so much over Taiwan and various other islands. Concentrate on pragmatic economic policies, slowly overhaul your system, and I think China will do fine in the long run. It'll take many years to reach western standards though, look how long it took Britain.

Oh, and I almost forgot this is my first post on Jref! I don't usually like talking about Chinese/Japan/Taiwan politics because so many things in there make me angry and depressed when I think about it too long. (nanking massacre, Japanese amnesia regarding the war, extremist Taiwanese, and yes extremist Chinese as well)

And yeah Leong Kwok Hung's position should NOT be taken as representative of the Chiense and HK people.

CBT1979 · 16 Nov 2006

another complicated dispute over an ugly rock

There are only two solutions:

1. Use the Diayutai/Senaku Islands as neutral zone where only scientists are allowed and no military.

2. Bomb that piece of rocks skyhigh and we have no more need to discuss whether it belongs to China or Japan.

The disadvantag for China is that it didn't mark down its territory clearly during the Qing Dynasty which is/was a big mistake.
Because they did not know that territory disputes can become such a headache, they also did not say exactly about Vietnam and Tibet. Both regions were neither completely independent nor under complete Chinese rule.
The British would have made it smarter by setting their flag on everything they could claim as their territory back then.
China was too naive to do so.

Hiroyuki Nagashima · 16 Nov 2006

This is simple.
Both Japan and China are United Nations member nations.
China should present it to International Court of Justice.
The reason why China does not do it is that China side does not have evidence of a territory of an own country.

toddhubert · 6 Dec 2006

Hiroyuki Nagashima said:
This is simple.
Both Japan and China are United Nations member nations.
China should present it to International Court of Justice.
The reason why China does not do it is that China side does not have evidence of a territory of an own country.

Then how about Japan? Do your government has any evidence of a territory of an own country?

Japan China dispute over islands.

先輩

先輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

後輩

先輩

tsuyaku o tsukete kudasai

後輩

tsuyaku o tsukete kudasai

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

"Nani ga okashin desu?!"

先輩

TAN

後輩

Similar threads