Comments on: Evidence That Diaoyu Islands Really Do Belong To China, On Nicholas Kristof’s NY Times Blog [UPDATE]

By: jim

jim — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:54:42 +0000

Don’t talk trash. Show people you’re a learned man.

By: jim

jim — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:50:33 +0000

@Guy
The Diaoyu Islands were ceded to Japan after China were defeated due to Japan’s invasion of China starting in 1994 and ended in 1895. The peripheral islands of Taiwan (also was called Formosa), including the Diaoyu Islands were also included and are described in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, 1895. Taiwan does not have only one peripheral island, but a whole bunch. Why Japan selectively recognize the others but not the Diaoyu Islannds? Here is the history and why:
1895 -1945, Japan owned the Diaoyus as a result of the Treaty of Shimonoseki (booty of war).
1945 – 1972 (and up to now),the Diaoyus were returned as a result of the 1943 Cairo Declaration. The 1945 Potsdam Proclamation implemnets the Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender unconditionally implements the Potsdam Proclamation verbatimly. Japanese always also say the Chinese made no claims to the Diaoyus between 1945 and 1971. They just don’t see the Cairo Decl. has already returned the Diaoyus to China and there has not been a need to claim during peaceful times. Until the late 60s that The US and Japan (and the UN) found oil in the area. When Japan was trying to claim the Diaoyus, which were Chinese territory already, the Chinese had to refuse them and tell the whole world that the Diaoyus belong to China.

By: simon

simon — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:36:57 +0000

Tibet was never a seperate nation prior or after the Chinese civil war. Dalai Lama lost, too bad. You don’t just pull a civil war out and claim the loser as an independent nation. And I wouldn’t go for Lama. He has a terrible historical record, which is affirmed by both Chinese and non Chinese.

By: » Friday Links: Why China can’t create Gangnam Style, Chinese reactions to the US presidential debate, and the nastiest squid-ink hot dog Beijing Cream

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:54:55 +0000

[...] Islands again, this time from a Japanese scholar in response to this [sic]: “I do not evaluate here Mr. Han-yi Shaw’s selection and interpretation of documents [...]

By: » The Situation Is Excellent: The Week That Was At Beijing Cream Beijing Cream

Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:04:33 +0000

[...] was a lot of chatter about which country owns the Diaoyu Islands on this post. Kai Pan offered these words: Our justifications and rationalizations for the past will be used to [...]

By: KopyKatKiller

KopyKatKiller — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:43:22 +0000

When those Islands were owned by “China”, China was owned by “Manchuria”. So…

Hahaha: Just had a thought. The Japanese in China in WW2 were just trying to help return to the Manchu people what was indisputably there’s. Lol!

By: Kai

Kai — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:53:45 +0000

Measuring the justification of one country’s control’s control over a piece of land by how productive the inhabitants are is arbitrary. Same for economic performance. I was responding to “the pitfall of the spoils of war or might makes right rationale.”

I’m not commenting on the arbitrariness of borders. I’m commenting on the arbitrariness of the arguments people use to justify their positions.

You don’t see why self-determination wouldn’t be the default, while others don’t see why power projection (might makes right, spoils of war, etc.) wouldn’t be the default. That’s why I said, “what’s to stop someone else from…”

By: Andao

Andao — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 02:33:39 +0000

Well the US did that already in a really half-assed way, that’s why you have all these casinos in Michigan.

By: Andao

Andao — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 02:32:15 +0000

The distinction is not arbitrary. People in a territory who are unhappy with the rulers aren’t going to be especially productive. Uninhabited land is agnostic. The oil still comes out of the ground if it’s a Chinese drill or a Japanese one, but it seems very reasonable to suggest the Tibetan economy sucks more than it would if the Tibetans themselves were running the show. It’s easier to make a case for tax evasion, for example, if the leaders are “those evil Han Chinese” instead of a bunch of Tibetans.

All borders in all of history are arbitrary. Especially when dealing with uninhabited land when people aren’t directly involved. When there ARE people living in a disputed piece of land, I don’t see why self-determination wouldn’t be the default preference. Historical preference is useless in this case since it doesn’t do anything for the people on the ground who are directly impacted. It’s sort of like that island Japan and Korea are fighting over…why not just ask the few families living there which country they want to belong to? Problem solved.

By: Andao

Andao — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 02:23:18 +0000

I’d love to take a poll, I’m pretty sure that’s illegal in China though. Otherwise after all the unrest over there, you’d think the newspapers would try to figure out what the public was really thinking.

Look at other (normal) countries where a region doesn’t like the center very much. Quebec in Canada, Scotland in the UK, etc…either they push for independence or they elect parties that support greater autonomy. Which party in Tibet is pushing for “greater autonomy for ethnic Tibetans”? None, it’s all about what makes Beijing happy.

By: elise

elise — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 02:19:40 +0000

bdf: you are a big fucking lunatic yourself!

By: elise

elise — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 02:15:40 +0000

“Sure, legally Tibet is China, but owning a piece of land where all the people hate your guts isn’t worth bragging about.”

Did you take a poll with All the people in Tibet. All that hatred is in your mind!

By: narsfweasels

narsfweasels — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:36:10 +0000

Absolutely, let’s punish those MFs that had the audacity to split Pangaea from the Motherland!

By: huli dean

huli dean — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:01:40 +0000

If china gets the island back based on historical ownership, then the united states must hand their land back to the the natives.

Historically werent the land all connected before plate tectonic ran wild?

By: Tiu Fu Fong

Tiu Fu Fong — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:55:25 +0000

I’m indifferent on Tibet. If it’s going to handed back to anyone, may as well hand back the whole thing plus some of Sichuan too. Also slice off some of the Qing empire conquests like Xinjian which were clearly never “Chinese” (Jurchen at best by conquest).