Who owns those damn islands -china vs. japan?

14 Comments

Well, I know we got our hands full with the fucking fundamentalist lynching mob of free-speech-hating morons, protesting around the world... but still for those who take interest in Asian politics:

The tension between the China and Japan over those Senkaku/Diaoyu islands has never been worse.
The Chinese attack random japanese made cars on the streets and Japan is not willing to compromise any of its positions regarding the purchase of the islands.

And, throw Taiwan to the mix, that suddenly remembered to claim the islands as well. (Geographically, they are the closest to Taiwan, actually).

In my opinion they all make sense, so let's see what you think :

Who should get the islands?

Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 14 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • TerryVie
    11 years ago | pl

    Give Japan those damn Islands. While at it, give them back Formosa. The current state of it fits a whole lot better to Japan than China, and honestly, nobody really cares about what "Taiwan" says.

    Oh yeah, and free Tibet!

    *post may contain trace amounts of cynicism/sarcasm/irony, if you are considering taking it all too serious, be my guest*

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    0
    0
      -
    • Imposturously_yours
      11 years ago | pl

      LOl, I'm not an activist to take anything seriously :P

      Just want to see how other people veiw this conflict.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      Report
      0
      0
  • dinz
    11 years ago | pl

    The islands were uninhibited for most of its history except for a period during the late 1800 to early 1900s when a Japanese had a fish processing plant on the islands.

    What I don't understand is why didn't the ROC and PROC didn't actively protest for the islands until the late 1970s until after a report from the United Nations stating that there were potential gas reserves near the islands.

    And how would the islands be returned? Should it be returned to the ROC or the PROC - the original signatories in the Treaty of Shimonoseki ie. the Qing representatives don't exist anymore.

    But I call for more Chinese and Japanese dialogue on the matter, maybe it should be taken to the UN for consultation.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    0
    0
      -
    • bellzxt
      7 years ago | pl

      because China was not strong enough to protest for the islands before1970

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      Report
      0
      0
    • Imposturously_yours
      11 years ago | pl

      Obviously, Shimonoseki isn't worth much, since it's not only the Qing Dynasty, also the Empire of Japan doesn't exist anymore.

      You know what, it's not that much about the potential reserves, imho. There's a comment above about the military and nationalist dick measuring. Both nations excel in that -Japan historically, and the Chinese government brainwashes the citizens to hate the Japanese anyway.

      And that exactly makes the dialogue almost impossible at this point.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      Report
      0
      0
        -
      • dinz
        11 years ago | pl

        The problem is the Chinese and equally the Japanese don't seek international assistance due to it being an "Internal affair" the problem is that there will be no resolution if they continue to ignore eachother.

        China's other neighbours are watching the incident closely especially ones that has disputes with China such as Vietnam and the Philippines.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        Report
        0
        0
  • dappled
    11 years ago | pl

    Hugely complicated issue (which is perhaps why the dispute is ongoing, as well as because oil and gas have made people prick up their ears).

    Although it will never happen, the logical solution is for the islands to be shared or for one claimant to compensate the other two and then take ownership, which is perhaps closest to Japan's potential solution.

    Legally, I'd argue that China has a greater claim than Japan. How a dispute would be settled between China and Taiwan is a whole other kettle of fish, though. It really is very complicated and there are opposing arguments which all make sense.

    The problem isn't so much legal as face-saving. There is no magnanimity in world politics, only posturing. It'd be nice if the issue could be resolved without the added posturing of the deployment of warships (which is effectively what kicked the Falklands Conflict off, leading to 900 deaths).

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    0
    0
      -
    • Imposturously_yours
      11 years ago | pl

      It's funny you mentioned Falklands, I was just thinking about it today... I wonder if having chinese navy cruising around is such a great idea.

      I agree, it's fully about face-saving and nationalism on both sides. The islands are Chinese, historically, however giving it back to PRC would create even MORE problems with ROC.

      And if this dick-measuring is not enough, now they're gonna be at each other's throats for the natural resources.

      A. It's obvious they won't share.
      B. Don't suppose anyone ever listens to Taiwan, anyway.
      C. Japan is taking a very right-winged direction, but:
      D. Would you really engage China in a military conflict when all the force you have is JSDF?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      Report
      0
      0
        -
      • dappled
        11 years ago | pl

        That's exactly what went through my mind. One thing I didn't mention is that there's a "coming of age" moment for each new world superpower where they decide to flex military muscle against a creditable target (i.e. not Tibet). I'd hate to see Japan become the target.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        Report
        0
        0
          -
        • Imposturously_yours
          11 years ago | pl

          Yes! You just gave it a name now, lol.

          But then, as much as I love Japan -they have such a nasty history of expansionism (Dai Nippon era), war crimes and occupation that they kinda had it coming. Especailly when it's coming from the direction of "the sick man of asia". Ironic, isn't it?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          Report
          0
          0
            -
          • dappled
            11 years ago | pl

            And we go back to it being hugely complicated. One of the angles of this dispute is history. Another thing I read about (but don't know much about, so don't question me too much on it) is maritime law.

            Perhaps it's just expansionism in general. I often moan about my culture being wiped out due to American expansionism by non-militaristic means. I do feel it quite strongly. Yet my country did it in a much less moral way. I moan about that too, although it's kind of easier when you're on the side that is spreading their own beliefs.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            Report
            0
            0
              -
            • TerryVie
              11 years ago | pl

              Hu, yeah, it's quite fitting you say that here...it's kind of frightening that todays global players on the market with quasi-monopolies and basically "owned" workers(wether that be coffee plantations, cloths manufactories, oil companies or electronics companies) seriously remind me of the british east india company.
              Only they learned to have their "strong arm" be the nations they basically force into choosing their POV in any conflicts that arise.
              Yeah, i'm bitter.
              To the point i'd much prefer a machiavellian scheming dictator a'la Lord Vetinari to the governments we have now -_-

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              Report
              0
              0