› Login to comment

5 Comments

• 

  sharky1 at 11:58 PM JST - 10th December

  So the question remains...who's got gas? or Hu's got gas.

• 

  OssanAmerica at 01:22 AM JST - 11th December

  So according to the Chinese Government these two SURVEY SHIPS were on PATROL, not on a surveying mission. Note to all allied naval forces- beware Chinese "survey" ships.

• 

  Nessie at 01:44 AM JST - 11th December

  So according to the Chinese Government these two SURVEY SHIPS were on PATROL

  Almost as convoluted an excuse as scrumpdillyicious research whaling.

• 

  jaotsu at 03:06 AM JST - 11th December

  Actually the Senkaku islands are part of Japan. At the end of World War II in 1945, United Nations agreed that all Unequal Treaties forced to Chinese were abolished. The islands were given to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895.From 1945 to 1971, the Chinese remained undefined positions to claim back the sovereignty and administration on the islands. Not until 1971 when the US expressed its intention to hand over the disputed islands to Japan, both the PRC and ROC governments protested and reiterated their sovereignty over the islands. The Chinese claim came late and Japan used this chance to exercise administration on the islands.

• 

  gplee111 at 05:29 AM JST - 11th December

  At the end of World War II in 1945, United Nations agreed that all Unequal Treaties forced to Chinese were abolished. The islands were given to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895.

  The islands were not covered by the Treaty of Shimonoseki. They were incorporated into Japan by a separate Japanese cabinet order around the same time because they were not obviously an extension of the underwater mountain chain that includes Taiwan.

  The Chinese claims rest on i) their being geographically part of "Taiwan Province"; ii) inclusion of the islands in old maps, and accounts of their being used as navigational markers for tributary visits to the Ryukyu Kingdom; iii) advertising copy from the late 19th century for herbs allegedly gathered there.

  The Japanese claims rest on i) the islands having always been uninhabited prior to their economic exploitation by the Japanese; ii) a long period of habitation and economic exploitation by the Japanese, for guano mining; iii) certain Chinese maps showing the islands as part of Japan, as late as the 1960s; iv) the lateness of the Chinese claim of sovereignty, after a long silence on the subject.

  The Japanese claim would appear to be better supported in international law, as international law now stands. However, China has asserted that its claim predates modern international law.

  Use of pre-modern law in the Chinese claim is disturbing because China formerly viewed much of East Asia as its territory, even states like Japan that did not pay tribute to the Chinese Emperor. The status of regions that formerly did pay tribute, like the Ryukyu Islands, is particularly worrying. China has never renounced its claim to the Ryukyus and reasserted it as recently as the early 1970s. Anybody who wonders why this issue matters, take note.

Register or Login to leave a comment