A very dangerous proposition

The New York Times

September 19, 2012


I’ve had a longstanding interest in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the subject of a dangerous territorial dispute between Japan and China. The United States claims to be neutral but in effect is siding with Japan, and we could be drawn in if a war ever arose. Let me clear that I deplore the violence in the recent anti-Japan protests in China: the violence is reprehensible and makes China look like an irrational bully. China’s government should reign in this volatile nationalism rather than feed it. This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling. The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war. This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case. – Nicholas Kristof

The above article appeared in the New York Times and argued convincingly in favour of Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. The hard evidence was clear, and Nicholas Kristof was chastising the Chinese for protesting in the streets instead of taking the case to the International Court of Justice. On face value it is a very good and logical suggestion. In reality, it would be the most foolish thing for China to do so. The islands belong to China and were taken away as war booty by the Japanese who now insisted that the islands belonged to them. Why would China want to go to court with the robbers when the outcome could turn the other way? Why would China want to risk its territory in a court that China is not even convinced of its objectivity and neutrality? What happens if it turns out to be a kangaroo court? How high is the possibility of the judges being bribed and bought over by the Japanese? The Japanese would be very willing to offer the judges a sum that they could not refuse. Not possible?

The worst case would be for the court to try to appease both parties, like the Pedra Branca case, and apportion the islands equally to both parties. And China would lose, legally, half of its territories to the robbers and never think of getting it back anymore.

The fact today is that the robbers, Japan, are lying through their teeth and refused to acknowledge the truth, and are likely to do anything to keep the loot. The only way for China to take back its property is to do it the same way as the robbers, in a war, unless Japan is willing to return it voluntarily before it happens.

China must never bring the case to the ICJ. It could be a trap. It should do it the same way as the Koreans. It is their island and there is no dispute and no necessity to go to court. Chinese territories are not negotiable. They are setting China up for the kill.

PS. Never trust the Americans.


Anonymous said...

Yes, never trust the Americans. So the mainland Chinese...

Veritas said...

Not even in Diaoyutai. The whole illegally occupied South Tibet, now illegally named "Arunchal Pradesh", should go back to China according to jurisprudence. Below is what UK Foreign David Miliband's speach. It clearly spelled out positions of UK government that British India occupying of S Tibet and drawing the Mcmahon line is illegal.

Other countries have made similar points. But our position is unusual for one reason of history that has been imported into the present: the anachronism of our formal position on whether Tibet is part of China, and whether in fact we harbour continued designs to see the break up of China. We do not.

Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geo-politics of the time. Our recognition of China's "special position" in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China.

Very few people knows that UK has already stabbed India and Dalai Lama's independence movement at the back, by admitting the truth. This landmark speech is being hash up without much discussion by western press.

For me, this is a milestone development of China's development in Tibet. It shows fucking Indian government are aggressor and Dalai Lama's claim is filmsy.

Veritas said...

India has migrate to many FT Indians in S Tibet and conduct cultural genocide on Tibetan there. Dalai Lama keep quiet.

But I think even it is practically impossible to get back whole of S Tibet, China should get back Tawang. Today, all Tibetan living under Hindic culture are dead poor nad discriminated by racist Hindus. Places like Mustang in Nepal, S Tibet/Arunchal, Ladak, Sikkim....etc. China's involvement in Tibet while not satisfactory, but Tibet today is better in material well-being than many countries, especially than their brothers living poorly in India.

Dalai Lama has his reasons. (I can actually undetstand why Dalai want to do something). But I hope he can say more truth and talk more about Tibetan's plight in India. He has not really bad mouth China though. But Dalai's supporter has been giving China trouble.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

The Insidious Acts of the Americans.

'The United States illegally included Diaoyu Dao under its trusteeship
On September 8, 1951, Japan, the United States and a number of other countries signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan (commonly known as the Treaty of San Francisco) with China being excluded from it. The treaty placed the Nansei Islands south of the 29th parallel of North Latitude under United Nations' trusteeship, with the United States as the sole administering authority. It should be pointed out that the Nansei Islands placed under the administration of the United States in the Treaty of Peace with Japan did not include Diaoyu Dao.
The United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (USCAR) issued Civil Administration Ordinance No. 68 (Provisions of the Government of the Ryukyu Islands) on February 29, 1952 and Civil Administration Proclamation No. 27 (defining the "geographical boundary lines of the Ryukyu Islands") on December 25, 1953, arbitrarily expanding its jurisdiction to include China's Diaoyu Dao. However, there were no legal grounds whatsoever for the US act, to which China has firmly opposed.

The United States and Japan conducted backroom deals concerning the "power of administration" over Diaoyu Dao
On June 17, 1971, Japan and the United States signed the Agreement Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands (Okinawa Reversion Agreement), which provided that any and all powers of administration over the Ryukyu Islands and Diaoyu Dao would be "returned" to Japan. The Chinese people, including overseas Chinese, all condemned such a backroom deal. On December 30, 1971, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a solemn statement, pointing out that "it is completely illegal for the government of the United States and Japan to include China's Diaoyu Dao Islands into the territories to be returned to Japan in the Okinawa Reversion Agreement and that it can by no means change the People's Republic of China's territorial sovereignty over the Diaoyu Dao Islands". The Taiwan authorities also expressed firm opposition to the backroom deal between the United States and Japan.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

The western powers are very adept at signing treaties or drawing national boundaries to the disadvantage of the victim countries that are excluded from it or not even know what was going on. The MacMahon Line is another of the British trick to steal territories from a weak China, just like what the Americans did to China's Diaoyu and Ryukyu islands.

Anonymous said...

China and the Chinese people should not waste precious time talking so much. Instead just go on quietly, steadily and continuously build up the most powerful military in all military fields and the strongest economy in the world. Once China becomes the strongest and most powerful and adopt the Western and Japanese style of aggression and the motto of an eye for an eye and the forward policy of aggressive and fearsome attack against vicious enemies only then can the enemies open their eyes to a powersome China and behave accordingly. Thus only then can things fall peacefully in place . Remember a weak China is not an option. A weak China has no voice and no negotiating power. So China must wake up and be forever well armed and be the strongest and most powerful in both military and economy