|
Spaceman Future! posted:I mean, you're crying foul for poor little victim China here, obviously they would never do something so repugnant as seizing an entire country by military force and executing protesters, would they? Spaceman Future! posted:Everything I ever needed to know about seizing lands through military force I learned from China. Nobody is calling China a country of angels. I'm talking about the history of these islands. Spaceman Future! posted:Also, quit trying to shift the date, when I say over 100 years, I don't mean under 70. America had nothing to do with these islands in 1895, China was free to go grab them if they had the motivation to do so. I never America had anything to do with the islands in 1895 if you put some more effort in your posts would be more clear. Countries are not required to settle every single island they claim. There is a great deal of historical evidence you are willfully ignoring that Japanese considered these islands Chinese before conquering them.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 09:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
China was free to grab them long before 1895 and didn't bother with it either. These islands do not show up in any map as Chinese territory published by the Qing dynasty. And they made drat sure to include every other part of Taiwan in the Da Qing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 09:09
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:you are willfully ignoring that Japanese considered these islands Chinese before conquering them. The Japanese did not consider these islands to be Chinese. The Chinese also did not consider them to be Chinese either. They didn't belong to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 09:10
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:
As opposed to the calm reserve and quiet dignity of Chinese nationalists? quote:- It makes the already mentioned arguement that the islands were "terra nullis". Did you even read my previous posts? Why did the Japanese foriegn ministry warn their governor against aggression towards the islands? Did the Chinese not legislate concerning the islands prior to 1895? Who lived there? No one ever lived there full time before the Japanese as far as I can tell. How do you define terra nullis? A place that no one has ever seen or heard of? quote:- Your nationalists state matter of factly that the island are in Okinawa prefecture. Historically the islands were Chinese back when there was a Ryukyu kingdom even according to Japanese maps. You say that the islands were Chinese back when there was a Ryukyu kingdom. If by Chinese you mean 'associated with Taiwan' then maybe that's true. Taiwan however, has not actually been a part of China for 5000 years, and even in the late 1600s was considered by the Qing a 'foreign nation'. quote:- The thrust of the nationalists argument is that the islands were not effectively controlled by China. However if China didn't effectively control the islands why did Japan feel the need to force China to cede the islands in 1895? Perhaps you're not familiar with the way that Chinese politics worked at the time, you seem to be stuck in the past. Everything belonged to the Empire, things seen and unseen. The Emperor was a universal sovereign in concept. Nations like England, France and others were all considered tributary states. Why did England feel the need to force China to admit that they were equals during the Opium Wars? Obviously they were in practice, but they still felt the need to force China to admit it. It was about getting China to give up claims to things that it couldn't or didn't actually control. quote:- The video truly butchers the Palmas case. The judges standard for what should qualify as "exercising authority" over an island is extremely low, planting a flag was enough for him. Chinese references to, maps of, and accounts of vists to the island are numerous and date back to the fifteenth century. You are really selectively reading that quote. Here's from the wiki, pay attention... quote:However, the arbitrator noted that Spain could not legally grant what it did not hold and the Treaty of Paris could not grant Palmas to the United States if Spain had no actual title to it. The arbitrator concluded that Spain held an inchoate title when Spain “discovered” Palmas. However, for a sovereign to maintain its initial title via discovery, the arbitrator said that the discoverer had to actually exercise authority, even if it were as simple an act as planting a flag on the beach. In this case, Spain did not exercise authority over the island after making an initial claim after discovery and so the American claim was based on relatively weak grounds. If we accept China discovered the islands, they held the inchoate title. However, as there were no people living there permanently, a few mentions in historical annals over 5 centuries related to herbalism pales in comparison to the true exercise of authority taken by the Japanese when they occupied and built things on the islands. This is why the Chinese freaked out when the Japanese far-right were preparing to develop the islands, and it's the same reason that China has desperately worked to establish people living on their own claimed islands in the South China Sea like Huangyan Island. China knows and understands the law, and they're simply picking and choosing for their benefit. The use and active administration of what was previously a seasonal stopover point for drying fish nets and collecting flowers far outweighs a few characters on a 500 year old map in terms of international law. The Island of Palmas Case wiki point even has a clear link to a site taking into account the Diaoyu/Senkaku case and this is what they find... quote:Under currently accepted international case law, 121 Japan has a colorable claim to the Diayou/Senkaku Islands, because, as the Chamber of the ICJ has repeatedly demonstrated over the years, the exercise of sovereign authority over island territories is the key factor in determining ownership of islands.122 Therein lies the strength of Japan’s claim. Japan has exercised sovereignty over the islands peacefully and continuously since 1952,123 if not for more than a century. 124 Unfortunately for China, even if she could excuse her inaction in defending her claims to the islands in the post-War period due to extreme hardship caused a civil war and nearly twenty years of civil unrest, the Chamber of the ICJ hearing the dispute would not likely consider such extreme hardship as a valid excuse, because in the jurisprudence of territorial disputes over islands to date, neither civil unrest nor civil upheaval has been used to excuse omissions in defending territorial claims to islands.125 Therefore, if Japan and China submitted their dispute over the Diayou/Senkaku Islands to the ICJ, the adjudicating Chamber of the ICJ their dispute over the Diayou/Senkaku Islands to the ICJ, the adjudicating Chamber of the ICJ would primarily look to the recent historical record of the exercise authority by each sovereign over the islands.126 Though inequitable in a historical context, under the current law governing territorial disputes over islands,127 the ICJ would likely find that Japan’s post-War peaceful exercise of actual authority over the islands had extinguished China’s long historical claim. The finding is clear, even though it's probably not fair, the Japanese have the stronger claim. I agree with that, I don't feel like the Japanese deserve the islands because I love glorious Nippon or something, but from the legal standpoint accepted internationally, that's just how things are and how the law would be interpreted by all relevant authorities. quote:- Your nationalists cite 17th century Chinese documents asserting ownership of the islands west of the Okninawa Trough and then they say that's impossible because "the concept of 'territorial water' is quite modern and Japan was first to establish "a modern sovereign state." Seriously? quote:On September 13, China submitted its baselines to the United Nations in accordance with UNCLOS, which includes these islands. Prior to this the issue was shelved by both sides in the interests of peace. China submitting baselines to the UN doesn't make them true, it's just establishing what they say is their claim, and has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of the claim itself. Do you really not understand the difference? The decision isn't simply a matter of China saying something and it comes true, as much as the Chinese government would like that to be the case. Fall Sick and Die fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 09:11
|
|
Wow. A video by a bunch of Japanese nationalists this won't be riddled with bullshit. Oh wait it is. Are you loving serious?
|
PrezCamachoo posted:China was free to grab them long before 1895 and didn't bother with it either. These islands do not show up in any map as Chinese territory published by the Qing dynasty. And they made drat sure to include every other part of Taiwan in the Da Qing. The map of Asia published during the reign of Emperor Qianlong in the 18th century, shows the islands as part of China. Preceding that, there are other records concerning the border between China and Ryukyu which clearly put the islands in China.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 09:15
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:I never America had anything to do with the islands in 1895 if you put some more effort in your posts would be more clear. Countries are not required to settle every single island they claim. There is a great deal of historical evidence you are willfully ignoring that Japanese considered these islands Chinese before conquering them. I'm not willfully ignoring anything. China got it's landmass through military conquest, as did the roots of any modern nation. You're putting an arbitrary timestamp on when that should be invalidated and you're setting it as conveniently as possible to reinforce your argument. How far back should we be rolling back the map lines? Going to need a specific year, because man oh man the planet is going to look like a different place when we're done huh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 09:20
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:The map of Asia published during the reign of Emperor Qianlong in the 18th century, shows the islands as part of China. Preceding that, there are other records concerning the border between China and Ryukyu which clearly put the islands in China. Can you show us this map and what it claims does and doesn't belong to China? I am really interested to see... all the while not forgetting for one moment that these ancient claims have no bearing on modern international law! Maps are really fun like that, for instance, here is a map.  Everything east of the line belongs to Portugal. I'm sure we can find far more examples of Portuguese legislation relating to islands in these areas than Chinese legislation regarding the Senkaku. Does that mean all unoccupied islands in this area belong to Portugal? Of course not. Now here's the question... why? And how exactly is this different from the case of China? (hint, it's not functionally different) That's why they favor verified modern usage over ancient maps made by nations with unreasonable ideas about their own power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 09:24
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:The map of Asia published during the reign of Emperor Qianlong in the 18th century, shows the islands as part of China. Preceding that, there are other records concerning the border between China and Ryukyu which clearly put the islands in China. No Qing map showing the Senkaku Islands as being Chinese exists. If it does, please post the map and highlight where the Senkaku Islands are on it because I'm very interested in seeing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 09:27
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:As opposed to the calm reserve and quiet dignity of Chinese nationalists? I've done nothing but talk about the history of the islands, don't try to drag this into some pathetic squabble about who you like or don't like. Fall Sick and Die posted:Who lived there? No one ever lived there full time before the Japanese as far as I can tell. How do you define terra nullis? A place that no one has ever seen or heard of? No. It is "land belonging to no one." Maps and records seem to clearly show this land belonged to China. Fall Sick and Die posted:You say that the islands were Chinese back when there was a Ryukyu kingdom. If by Chinese you mean 'associated with Taiwan' then maybe that's true. Taiwan however, has not actually been a part of China for 5000 years, and even in the late 1600s was considered by the Qing a 'foreign nation'. They were part of Taiwan and Qing and Ming who used them as a staging post against pirates. Fall Sick and Die posted:Perhaps you're not familiar with the way that Chinese politics worked at the time, you seem to be stuck in the past. Everything belonged to the Empire, things seen and unseen. The Emperor was a universal sovereign in concept. Nations like England, France and others were all considered tributary states. Why did England feel the need to force China to admit that they were equals during the Opium Wars? Obviously they were in practice, but they still felt the need to force China to admit it. It was about getting China to give up claims to things that it couldn't or didn't actually control. No I'm referring to clearly the demarcated borders between China and Ryukyu and the maps showing the islands as part of China. Fall Sick and Die posted:If we accept China discovered the islands, they held the inchoate title. However, as there were no people living there permanently, a few mentions in historical annals over 5 centuries related to herbalism pales in comparison to the true exercise of authority taken by the Japanese when they occupied and built things on the islands. This is why the Chinese freaked out when the Japanese far-right were preparing to develop the islands, and it's the same reason that China has desperately worked to establish people living on their own claimed islands in the South China Sea like Huangyan Island. China knows and understands the law, and they're simply picking and choosing for their benefit. The use and active administration of what was previously a seasonal stopover point for drying fish nets and collecting flowers far outweighs a few characters on a 500 year old map in terms of international law. The Island of Palmas Case wiki point even has a clear link to a site taking into account the Diaoyu/Senkaku case and this is what they find... The Palmas analogy is terrible. I've been over this. You're talking about land that has never belonged to anyone. This was a shipping route between China and Ryukyu and there are many references to the island and maps showing who they belong to. Fall Sick and Die posted:Are you saying that the Chinese were had developed a system of oceanic territorial boundaries which they promoted and enforced? Please back that up. Are you saying Japan wasn't the first modern nation state in Asia in a recognizable sense, able to interact with and take part in international law according to the precepts set down by the Treaty of Westphalia? I mean I know it's not fair, it's an entirely European system and we're forcing other countries to play by our rules, but that's the game and China has accepted it as the way things are. Ya that ridiculous video even mentioned it. The Investiture records put Chihweiyu as the boundry territory. The Chinese government considers the Okinawa Trough the historical boundry. No I'm not saying Japan isn't modern, but modernity does not equal European culture. The crazy nationalists in that video seem to think that Japan's modernity justified it's conquests. Fall Sick and Die posted:China submitting baselines to the UN doesn't make them true, it's just establishing what they say is their claim, and has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of the claim itself. Do you really not understand the difference? The decision isn't simply a matter of China saying something and it comes true, as much as the Chinese government would like that to be the case. No poo poo. If you actually read what I wrote you'd see I was answering your question about China's position concerning the law of the seas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
I'm still waiting on the Chinese maps commissioned by the Qing dynasty showing these islands as being part of China. You keep saying they exist, I'd like to see them. And while you're at it. Are there any Japanese maps commissioned by the Shogunate government recognizing the islands as Chinese?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 10:34
|
|
|
I think the key here is that, according to the claimed standard, the mainland government is going to hand over control of China to the government on the island of Taiwan. That's how this standard works, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 11:22
|
|
|
PrezCamachoo posted:The edict you are talking about is largely considered to be fake and is full of historical errors. Please provide a source for this claim. I'm not attacking you; the herb edict was one of my reasons for changing my mind about who should have sovereignty and if it's fake I want to know about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 11:30
|
|
|
I'd like to note that the 'no protest until discovery of oil in 1968' thing is possibly coincidental, because it seems more likely that it's really 'no protest until it became clear the islands were going to be handed to the Japanese in 1972'. In any case, there's still no clear answer I've seen as to how much oil is apparently there - signs point to not that much, actually?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
Imperialist Dog posted:Please provide a source for this claim. I'm not attacking you; the herb edict was one of my reasons for changing my mind about who should have sovereignty and if it's fake I want to know about it. An overview of the problems - from Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands by Unryu Suganuma. You can read the passage in question on google books. . . . . . . Did the Chinese abandon the Diaoyu Islands after they ended their relationship with the Liuqiu Kingdom at the end of the nineteenth century? If the decree of the Empress Dowager Cixi is a genuine edict, this will unquestionably be the most important historical document of Qing times. This imperial order was issued to challenge the actions of the Japanese government, which began to build a territorial landmark on the Daioyu Islands. From both historical and international law perspectives, this edict can certainly refute the arguments of pro-Japan irredentist scholars, and it even might completely demolish the Japanese sovereignty claims over the Daioyu Islands. Unfortunately, this imperial edict also has limitations and is more problematic than other historical documents. First, the decree of the Empress Dowager Cixi does not have a precise date (it contains only the month and year). This decree is set up in an extremely unusual form compared to other Qing imperial edicts. As a pro-China irredentist scholar admitted, this is an informal imperial edict. For example, the seal on this decree is different from the official seal. Normally, the seal of a Qing edict contained two languages: Chinese and Manchu. The seal of Cixi's edict is only in the Chinese language. It is possible that the Chinese used a seal containing only the Chinese language. Indeed, according to Samuel S. Kim, "by the mid-19th century, the triumph of Chinese civilization over the Manchu was nearly complete, with the abolition of Manchu even as a secondary official language." The Qing government, ergo, might have used a seal engraved only in Chinese. In addition, this imperial seal is stamped in an unusual place. Normally, the imperial seal would be stamped at the end of the edict (or after the date of the edict), not at the top of the imperial edict as in this case. FUrthermore, some statements of this decree are contrary to historical facts. In this edict, which is dated 1893, Sheng Xuanhuai is referred to as Taichangsi Zhengqing (Chief Minister of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices) (or Minister of Posts and Communications); however, Sheng was not promoted to vice-minister of the Court of Imperial Sacrifices until 1896. Therefore, how could people refer to Sheng Xuanhuai as minister of the Taichangsi in 1893? Moreover, who issued this imperial edict? If this edict was issued by Empress Dowager Cixi herself, she would not call herself huangtaihou (Empress). If this edict was issued by the "puppet" Guangxu emperor, he would not use the word huangshan. Under imperial China, there were strict laws on the use of language between the emperors and Chinese citizens. For instance, when commoners mentioned the name of the emperor, they had to use the word such as huangshan, bixia, shengshang, and wansui, meaning "your Majesty." When the emperor referred to himself, he would use the word zhen, meaning the "Sovereign" or "We.". As this edict uses the word huangshan, it was not issued by the Guangxu emperor. If someone was ordered by either the Guangxu emperor or Empress Dowager Cixi to issue this imperial edict, there is a problem too. This person could not use the word qinci because qinci could be used only by the emperor as the last word when the emperor concluded the imperial edict. Who, then, did write or issue the imperial edict in 1893? Finally, the Empress Dowager's Decree suggests that Sheng Xuanhuai would establish a pharmaceutical company. But Sheng, according to Qingshi Gao, was a businessman who invested mainly in railroads, electronics, and some joint ventures with foreigners. There is no indication that Sheng ever did business in the pharmaceutical field. In addition, this matter was never mentioned in other historical works, including the Qingshilu. In any case, there is little doubt that this edict is an authentic document because it was discovered before the Sino-Japanese dispute started. Also it is important to note that during the Qing dynasty, many goods - including silver, land, and islands - were bestowed as gifts on Qing officials by the imperial family time and time again. It is possible that the "unworthy" (for the imperial family) Daioyu Islands were privately bestowed on Sheng by the Empress Dowager Cixi, and it might have been normal not to record such a gift in official documents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 12:02
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:I've done nothing but talk about the history of the islands, don't try to drag this into some pathetic squabble about who you like or don't like. Who is the one who is calling Japanese nationalists racists and imperialists and refuting their 'ridiculous' claims, you're pretty clear about whose side you're on. quote:No. It is "land belonging to no one." Maps and records seem to clearly show this land belonged to China. Land belonging to no one doesn't mean land claimed by no one. For example, the Svalbard islands were claimed by multiple nations but until Norway actually physically colonized them permanently no ones claim was seen as worthwhile, when Norway actually took it upon themselves to do the work of permanent colonization they were granted authority. Does it really need to be explained to you that of course the Chinese Empire is going to color in any little rocks around their country the same color as their maps? quote:They were part of Taiwan and Qing and Ming who used them as a staging post against pirates. quote:No I'm referring to clearly the demarcated borders between China and Ryukyu and the maps showing the islands as part of China. Who is making these maps? What is their methodology? As I showed you earlier, which you never responded to by the way, it's very easy to draw a bunch of lines on a map, it doesn't always reflect reality, especially in the case of what was possibly one of the most arrogant states to ever exist. quote:The Palmas analogy is terrible. I've been over this. You're talking about land that has never belonged to anyone. This was a shipping route between China and Ryukyu and there are many references to the island and maps showing who they belong to. So you quote the Palmas case, then when it's showed you misquoted, you throw it out? What should we be looking to then? What case is our precedent? If this case was taken for arbitration, what previous cases could we look at that would prove what you seem to take for granted? quote:Ya that ridiculous video even mentioned it. The Investiture records put Chihweiyu as the boundry territory. The Chinese government considers the Okinawa Trough the historical boundry. No I'm not saying Japan isn't modern, but modernity does not equal European culture. The crazy nationalists in that video seem to think that Japan's modernity justified it's conquests. Again, you are treating everything the Chinese government says as true without questioning the validity of the statement in the first place. When someone makes a claim, we have to look at their claim and say, "Why would they want us to believe this?" Why does the Chinese government get to say that the Okinawa Trough is the historical boundary? How were medieval Chinese people aware of the trough, and how did they demarcate it? Besides the fact that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea explicitly states that exclusive economic zone does not have anything to do with the continental shelf, but rather the exclusive economic zone of any nation in the water extends 200 miles from the baseline (shore). If the continental shelf extends further than that, the resources of the seabed itself can be considered exclusive to the nation, that means the stuff under the seabed like oil and minerals. China claims that the Okinawa Trough cuts Japan off from the continent itself, thus rendering Japan strangely in terms of Chinese 'law' a part of another, unknown continent, amazing.  Let's look at another example of a subsea trough that should also extend a boundary according to your and apparently the Chinese government's theory. http://goo.gl/maps/h3cU3 Hmm interesting, it seems the continental shelf of Africa extends directly to the shores of Sicily. Guess they're not really white after all! Looks like we should run Tunisia and Libya's EEZs directly up to Italy. Oh except that's not what anyone does at all...  How strange, it seems that the true boundaries are merely 200 miles from the shoreline or split the difference when the nations are closer than 400 miles together. How odd! Almost as if there's some kind of fairness factor involved that requires both sides to basically state that they will just split the difference rather than running the borders directly up against other nations. Oh but who would do that? Isn't it funny that when you base the border on the Okinawa Trough (which no one else on Earth would do or recognizes as valid when taking their own troughs into account) you get to claim land even closer to actual islands populated by living, breathing Japanese people. How can one justifiably claim that their 200 mile EEZ is less important than China extending their EEZ several hundred (or thousand in the case of the South China Sea) miles from their actual baseline? Why is the claim of the Chinese more important than that of the Japanese? Why shouldn't the difference be split? Why does the Chinese claim take priority over the Japanese in this simple matter? Because it hurts the feelings of 1.3 billion Chinese people if it doesn't?  Hmm mind if we run our borders right up against your country? We're just measuring from our baseline according to international law, this uninhabited rock in the middle of nowhere being our baseline. Sorry that 200 miles from there directly runs against your 12 miles of shoreline, even IF one accepted our claims over all of these island groups why shouldn't we split the EEZ difference like literally every country on earth does? Uh..... well... HEY foreigners are always bullying China!! You can not destroy the Children of the Dragon foreign scum! quote:No poo poo. If you actually read what I wrote you'd see I was answering your question about China's position concerning the law of the seas. China has no position on the law of the seas apart from the idea that everything they claim to be theirs is theirs and has been for 5,000 years. Just look at these maps of their claims and ask who is being unreasonable? How can any reasonable person think that this is negotiation in good faith? This isn't about imperialism or a Century of Shame, it's just law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 12:39
|
|
|
Let's take a look at some western preconceptions on this issue. And feel free to correct me if you think I'm overgeneralizing here. Firstly, the war. I know, never talk about the war, but we have to. Generally, in America, I believe that it is viewed that one of the things that came out of WWII is a certain hardening of boundary lines. After centuries of bitching over Poland and Alsace-Lorraine, of what was Germany and what was Italy, WWII re-wrote the globe, forming a final parceling out of where these lines were. Admittedly, then certain of the lines were promptly taken over by new ownership, and one specific set in the middle east was set up to fail by the British, thank you, Brits, and causes hell to this day. But the point is, after WWII, there is a sense that 'Okay. We now know where everything is, it's all mapped, and this is how it's shaped. Don't play that Great Game routine of wandering your army over and snatching up a town here, a town there.' Bitching about historical issues previous to the final accords seems to have less sway. And it's not like China wasn't on the winning side, there, either. If China wanted those islands, China could have yoinked 'em. So, these claims going back to 1400 don't have the weight that some Chinese appear to feel they have, to Americans. It's more 'well, that's impressive. Are you going to try to claim San Francisco next? You had an admiral that visited there, too.' It's not like we are unfamiliar with history, we just don't think the claim is all that relevant anymore. Secondly, there's the fact that, well, the current government of China is not the Manchu dynasty. Or the Ming dynasty. In fact, the direct successor to those dynasties is still around, just over on another island over that way. Let's play with a hypothetical. Let's say that in 1812, Maine got pissed at America, and said 'Screw you guys, Canada's taken me, I belong to them now.' It could have happened. Then the Civil War happens, and the CSA wins. What claim does the CSA have on Maine? What claim, come to think of it, does the CSA have on Canada? Canada and the US were viewed as the same possession once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 12:42
|
|
|
I don't understand your hypothetical and how it applies to China.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 13:05
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious that none of us are well-versed in international boundary laws and we should probably just stop making up random justifications. That's what makes people (China) look bad in these situations; not the claims themselves but the ad hoc justifications that are just kind of flailing for purchase in history, undersea geography, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 13:59
|
|
|
I hate to be trite, but isn't it possible that this is not about a clear, legal, universally recognized conclusion based on the value of historical precedent? The whole issue -- and its outcome -- is a measure of the ability of Asia's diplomatic players to bully, meddle, beg, whine, and threaten. The real value of the outcome here - whichever side gets recognized as 'real' claimant - is to establish the relative level of clout of players in Asian diplomacy for the next few years. Can the two arguing sides here agree on that before they get back to the various interesting historical and cartographic asides they're on right now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
I'm still of the opinion that this is about giving the Chinese people a bone to gnaw to keep them busy while the masters decide who will rule them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:04
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm still of the opinion that this is about giving the Chinese people a bone to gnaw to keep them busy while the masters decide who will rule them. This is definitely part of the popular protest and domestic side of it, my post above was more about the international law and diplomacy side most of the conversation on this page seems to have been focused on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
PrezCamachoo posted:I don't understand your hypothetical and how it applies to China. You don't? Well, that's okay. Why don't you talk about how you don't understand it. This is not a hard concept. BrotherAdso posted:I hate to be trite, but isn't it possible that this is not about a clear, legal, universally recognized conclusion based on the value of historical precedent? I was kind of making that point, yeah. But playing with the law is fun. http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Game-Struggle-Kodansha/dp/1568360223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348060695&sr=8-1 Just finished reading this. Amazingly hilarious yet horribly sad how much it parallels events of modern times. Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:This is definitely part of the popular protest and domestic side of it, my post above was more about the international law and diplomacy side most of the conversation on this page seems to have been focused on. At the end of the day, to the CCP, global politics is a zero sum game; you make up the rules as you go along and and whether other people obey those rules is a function of how big your dick is. GuestBob fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:I hate to be trite, but isn't it possible that this is not about a clear, legal, universally recognized conclusion based on the value of historical precedent? Anyone who would say it's absolutely clear is kidding themselves. There's no preordained conclusion, but there's a preponderance of evidence and the competing justifications are pretty clear once you take a look. China is trying to take as much as possible, Japan is attempting to maintain the status quo. The two competing justifications for these fights are not equal. The Senkaku islands are a part of China from 'ancient history' just like Tibet, Mongolia, East Turkestan and a host of other regions who, if they had actually gotten their say, would be free and independent nations right now (Mongolia was lucky that they had the Soviets to stick up for them) Japan is a nation-state in the modern sense, but China remains an empire, and still practices Imperial Thinking, as well as inculcates its people with a sense of deep shame at their national humiliation when they had to admit that actually they weren't the greatest people in the world but rather one nation among equals. So of course they're extra touchy about anything related to their territory, but as we've so often seen, what China considers its territory and what true justice would agree that China's national territory should be don't really meet eye-to-eye. There is absolutely no justification for many of China's ridiculous claims, which fly in the face of fairness or treating other countries as even technically equal, and to see that one need only look at China's South China Sea claims. There's no attempt to be even-handed and make the obvious compromise because they have no reason to do so when they have a fair chance of being able to bully it all out. Also Arglebargle not sure what you're saying, these is all too complex for you to understand so you think we should stop talking about it? Here's the basic argument... history counts for poo poo, facts on the ground are what real decisions are made on in the real world, otherwise Vietnam, N. Korea, large parts of Russia, Burma, Laos, India and Nepal would all return to Mother China as well. "Our Celestial Empire Used To Dominate This Land" can *not* be a system we utilize to determine which land belongs to whom nowadays, it's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:"Our Celestial Empire Used To Dominate This Land" can *not* be a system we utilize to determine which land belongs to whom nowadays, it's ridiculous. The rhetoric of the "Liberal Empire" worked in the C19th, despite a great deal of obvious human suffering to the contrary. Why shouldn't China's own sense of historical teleology work in the C21st? Because you don't agree with it? Who is the "we" that you refer to you? Which nation or group of nations does China acknowledge as its superior when it comes to judging the extent of its own territory? [edit for below] And the last people who care about that poo poo are the CCP. GuestBob fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
What I mean is that as long as none of us are international boundary treaty experts, we can argue until we are blue in the typing fingers and nothing will come of it because there are no defined terms or agreed-upon values. Everything is arbitrary. It's a useless argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Protip, Argle? Neither are half the people actually making the decisions. I've known people at State, and about half of them wing it. The other half are scarily good, mind you, and can cite your rear end twelve different ways. Either way works, if you can pull it off. You could make a much stronger point if you said that since none of us, as far as you know, are diplomats with the ability to actually do anything about this, nothing will come of it. Because we're just pushing electrons through the internet. It's all useless! All useless! Except it's not. I'm learning some interesting things about chinese perspectives here, and I'm trying to share American ones back. It's fun to expand your perspective on the world. It's healthy and educational to meet people who see things differently from you, to listen to their antithesis to your thesis and form a synthesis. You know, if you want to get all Hegelian about it. Dialectical materialism may not be a good way to record history, what _has_ happened, but it's not a bad way to examine what is happening. Personally, I like China. I admire its history, I love the culture, largely, though I don't agree with much of it. I _adore_ the art. Such energy! Such use of color! My family has a history of association with China going back... (this is the maternal side, not the barbarian side) (I love history partially because much of it involves, tangentially, my family either doing horrible things to people or having horrible things done to them, somewhere in the margins of the book. The more I research the more fun it gets.), I don't know, 500 BCE or so. Well, my family specifically, maybe not that long, it gets fuzzy, but we were there in the 1200s, on and off, and we were there before that, and after. (Which reminds me, I should get that goat statue of my great grandmother's identified. I'm pretty sure it's Mongolian, goes with the kumiss dish.) Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Because we're just pushing electrons through the internet. It's all useless! All useless! Nobody is arguing this. It's simply that talking about ancient maps and international treaties isn't going to conclusively prove who these islands belong to because that isn't how issues like this work around here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
GuestBob posted:The rhetoric of the "Liberal Empire" worked in the C19th, despite a great deal of obvious human suffering to the contrary. Why shouldn't China's own sense of historical teleology work in the C21st? Because you don't agree with it? Ok here's how it is, plain and simple. There's something called Democracy, and part of that idea is that people get to choose the government that they want. There's also an idea called National Self-Determination, which is the idea that if a few million of me and my friends in a loosely contiguous area where we form the demographic majority want to form our own country, we pretty much can. Now of course these ideas aren't perfect nor are they always implemented fairly, but they're pretty good ideas in general and they're about as close to ideas of justice and fairness as we can come up with. What 19th century Liberal Empires still exist today? And I'm not even sure, were you making an argument that because in the 19th century people argued for these governments that we should allow China to argue for a similar liberal empire today? Because that's part of the argument China makes against Tibetan independence, they'd just muck it up the poor bastards, too poor and stupid to rule themselves. The extent to which any empire still maintains its territory was the extent to which it either succeeded in assimilating or removing the previous inhabitants. That's a sad and deplorable state of affairs but that's history. The British Empire was the world's largest, but now it's essentially Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland. Those areas now self-identify with their conquerors. Should they be independent? If they feel like it, but if they choose to remain, that's their choice. Now look at China. China didn't assimilate people into being 'Chinese' in the sense of the nation but rather 'Han' in the sense of the ethnic group. Most of southern China was previously Yue people of one group or another, who were actively colonized or exterminated or assimilated over several thousand years. Now they think they're Han, great, they're Han, go China. Living in China I'm sure you recognize the extent to which 'Chinese' and 'Han' are conflated every day. Is China an empire or the nation-state of the Han? It has been and obviously continues to be an empire. National self-determination is a lie in China that was promised to the Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongols when Mao was powerless to gain their support and then reneged upon when he had control. Why shouldn't China's sense of what China is dictate what China will be in the future? Because it's essentially unjust and unfair. Look at the dispute with India over Arunachal Pradesh. China claims this territory belongs to China. Why? Because of Chinese history of course! 'South Tibet' is a part of Tibet and Tibet is a part of China. Why is Tibet a part of China? Because China conquered and dominated it a long time ago. Why should Arunachal Pradesh be returned to China? BECAUSE WE FUCKIN' CONQUERED IT!! YEAH!! Does this area actually have any ties to China? Only the most peripheral. Do the people there consider themselves Chinese? No. Do they want to be a part of China? No. Does China care? No. This is what I mean by imperial thinking. It's part of China because it's ours, and it's ours because we conquered it. They accept the validity of imperial conquest long before, but for some reason imperial conquest ceased to be valid as a method of territorial expansion as soon as it was done to the Chinese? How does that make sense? China is the biggest baby in the world when it comes to imperialism. While England and France and Russia were expanding their empires, so were they into Central and Southeast Asia. No one in a Chinese school learns about the conquest and pacification of Xinjiang (Which means by the way, New Frontier, isn't that very nice sounding, I wonder what the local people themselves used to call it?). Who remembers the Dzungur people, who China cleared out of the region, killing about 80% of their population and forcing the rest to flee so that 'not a yurt could be found'? Certainly not Chinese people, least of all the citizens of Urumqi whose homes are built upon the bones of the decimated peoples of the region. At least Americans and English kids learn about the conquest of their empires and are brought about to believe that in a sense they were morally wrong to do so. It was wrong of Europeans to conquer other peoples, to think that they could take their territory. China has no such sense of self-analysis. There is only China, constant and ever-present. Xinjiang has always belonged to China. Tibet has always been a part of China. The Diaoyu islands have always belonged to China. China's long history in a sense is really rough on the students because it all runs together in their minds. When did we conquer Sichuan? Was it during the Qin or the Qing? Oh well who remembers... doesn't matter. Except to the people who lived there and dealt with it, there's a big difference of 1700 years. Check out this brilliant dude, Wei Yuan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei_Yuan) He was an official in Xinjiang who was actively encouraging Han Chinese to move to Xinjiang after watching like 500,000 people get destroyed in their own homeland to secure the newly colonized area while at the same time whinging about the British. Bloo bloo bloo, cry me a river. So in the end, no, China should not get to use its past history of violence, coercion and domination to build their own imperial nation state while at the same time complaining that other people were mean to China. Yes, Japan was horrible to China. Should they apologize? Sure, absolutely, and sincerely too. Should there have been reparations? I believe so. But should China have apologized to every other nation and ethnicity they conquered on their path to 5,000 years of glory? Sure, why not, unless you believe in double-standards. But no one has called upon them to apologize for, suffer from or in any other way offer any feeling of remorse for several thousand years of horror for the less powerful of the non-Han people surrounding and incorporated into China. And no one ever will, especially while the government continues to beat the drum of 'China's Eternal Territory Rightfully Belongs To China As It Has For 5,000 Years'. Asking the people themselves what kind of government they would like is the only reasonable course for people to take today. It won't always be clean, but at least it can be applied equally. In regards to China, that would probably mean Tibet and large portions of Sichuan and Qinghai splitting off. Xinjiang has been sufficiently colonized that it's about half-half, and all economic power is in Han hands, so they'd probably never win a vote. Inner Mongolia and Manchuria are so completely colonized and assimilated into Han culture that they wouldn't want to be independent, such is their choice, as Scotland and Wales make today. But people should be given the choice. Valuing the idea of 'China' as if it were some omnipresent everlasting thing over the political rights and ideals of living, breathing people is a horrific ideal, but of course, very attractive to the Han themselves for reasons we don't need to guess at! Fall Sick and Die fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:Ok here's how it is, plain and simple. There's something called Democracy... Not here there isn't. Fall Sick and Die posted:So in the end, no, China should not get to use its past history of violence, coercion and domination to build their own imperial nation state while at the same time complaining that other people were mean to China. Yes, Japan was horrible to China. You aren't reading me. I am not arguing in favour of China. I am just pointing out the using terms like "fair" and "unfair" and saying what "we should" do about China's territorial ambitions is just so much hot wind on a summer's day. It doesn't matter if Japan can prove these island belong to them; that's not the game. Fall Sick and Die posted:Because it's essentially unjust and unfair. Yes it is. But that's the world we live in. As far as the CCP is concerned, this is China's time in the sun and everyone else can take a seat. Like it or not, they have a point. And if you want actual figures the ethnic split in Xinjiang is about 40.2% Han / 42% Uighyr with the remainder being Hui and Kazakh. This could be off though because these are numbers taken from a display board in the provincial museum in Urumqi (actually, the population of Han people was the only figure quoted as a percentage, I had to work out the rest myself). GuestBob fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:Both Roc and PRC are in agreement that it's part of the Taiwan entity, however there's this tiny little sticking point wherein Taiwan is part of China and Taiwan is not really a country. Of course Taiwan is a country. It's got an army, currency, it's own multi-level government, its own bureaucracy, and its own post office, and has for nearly seven uninterrupted decades. China's claim to Taiwan is roughly in the same ballpark as an American claim to ownership of Cuba.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
The thing about China is that they were at the literal height of their power, size and influence when all of a sudden some barbarians they'd barely heard of came along and toppled them from their position and they've simply never gotten over it. These weren't like the Manchu or the Mongols, they didn't assimilate and thus prove the inherent superiority of Chinese culture. They were so powerful that they were able to just do and say as they pleased, not even to attempt to destroy or seize all of China, but rather to ignore it. China's government and people of a traditional mindset are obsessed with a return to their previous position because to them it's the natural state of order, which had been upset by the uncouth savages who were so insulting merely by succeeding so easily. Chinese people whine about imperialism a lot more than any other people I have met previously, Africans, Middle Easterners, South Americans, because for China it truly was a complete thought revolution. They went from (in their perception) the absolute top to the absolute bottom in a generation. But because China experienced this attack from the outside, I believe they were never able to develop the self-reflection as to their own crimes and internal imperialism because their thoughts and attacks are always focused outwards on their victimhood, even though in historical terms it was such a temporary thing. China as a 'poor' country is such a historical anomaly that one would be troubled to find any other period in history where they could accept that title, yet that's how the Chinese people see themselves still, poor weak China, constantly bullied and harassed by more powerful nations. And at the same time they have this glorious history constantly foisted upon them. If a powerful China had actually had to look at its own past without the lens of victimhood they might have seen a far different history and faced up to some of the poo poo in their past, but they didn't, and by the time they do it will probably be too late for some of their victims who might have a chance now. But you're wrong when you say they have a point. The point they have is that might makes right, and that's never a historical lesson that passes down well through the ages. What nations do we remember fondly who forced their will upon weaker neighbors, who still exist today? Russia? France? Germany? Japan? If we think fondly of these countries, it's not for their imperial ambitions and arrogance. And I think China might be surprised when they find that the rest of the world is in no hurry to return to tributary status... If you want some fun ask your students (you teach uni right Guestbob?) if China has ever had a colony. Not now, don't bring up Tibet or anything like that, just ask... in the past at any time. 90% of mine said no while about 10% said that previously China was a colony of Mongolia. This is the imperial mindset. Our nation's territory is ours because it is ours and has always been, and rightfully so. Fall Sick and Die fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
FSAD who are you arguing with at this point? I don't think anyone would dispute that China is an empire. Chinese abilities of self-assessment are pretty poor because they're raised that way. It sucks. But what are you trying to prove?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
Well for one that you don't change minds without forcing people to confront reality? You don't think anyone would dispute that China is an empire? You just hurt the feelings of 1.3 billion Chinese people my friend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
What does that even mean? I assume you don't like party propaganda, so why are you throwing it out there? It's not like they're telling the truth when they say that all of China's feelings are hurt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
I hope Japan is planning something really great to troll these hanatics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
One good point is that I shudder to see China carrying such a mantle of victimhood into what it presumes to be its rise to be a superpower. I mean seriously, are they going to whine about the "hurt feelings of 1.3 billion people" when they start to throw their military weight around? They are going to eventually trend to overcompensating, and the world is going to have to deal with their bullshit. Honestly China, just go to therapy. My solution with the islands is to nuke it. Whoever stops the bombing and agrees to give it to the other side is the country that you give it to. You're welcome Asia!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
I'm surprised no one has brought up the long-running conflict between Taiwan and Japan on the Diaoyu islands. The western media has been playing this up as PRC vs Japan, which is understandable given the protests on the mainland. But given the island's close proximity to Taiwan and the fact that both Chinas agree that it's Taiwanese, Taiwan is the one that has skin in this game. Taiwanese reactions: Taiwan recalls its representative in Japan A bunch of protestors burn the Japanese flag Taiwan sends two coast guard vessels to skirt the perimeter of the Japanese claim Ma Ying-jeou speaks about Diaoyu islands: Ma Ying-jeou posted:We will never recognize Japan’s “nationalization’ Of the Diaoyu Islands. However, if the operations of fishermen in the waters off the islands are not affected in the future, we will then be able to recognize Tokyo's bona fide intentions. We have been fishing in the waters around Diaoyu Islands for over 100 year, which is recognized by Japan. The island is ridiculously close to Taiwan and ridiculously far away from Japan (not that distance counts for anything when it comes to imperial claims). I don't know much about military matters, but I'm assuming if push comes to shove, Taiwan's proximity will help it defend itself. I feel like the media is playing this up as PRC vs Japan to get the western audiences on Japan's side by using the PRC as a bogeyman. Mainland China has the bulk of the protests, but Taiwan is the most affected by this conflict. Well, geographically at least. Fall Sick and Die posted:Chinese people whine about imperialism a lot more than any other people I have met previously, Africans, Middle Easterners, South Americans Given your tone here I'm assuming whining about imperialism is different from legitimate critiques of imperialism. What makes China's experiences with Western colonialism less legitimate than countries in those regions you mentioned? Does Zulu subjugation of neighboring territories delegitimize their suffering under subsequent subjugation by the British? Fall Sick and Die posted:that's how the Chinese people see themselves still, poor weak China, constantly bullied and harassed by more powerful nations. I don't see how this is an inaccurate view of China. GDP per capita, China is still in the shitters. Millions upon millions still live in poverty. Infrastructure is not well developed, either. For all China's vaunted might, it's military power projection is extremely small. China's blue water navy isn't even strong enough to cross a small strait to threaten Taiwan. I do agree that China has an inferiority complex, but it's not inaccurate if you're living in a peasant cottage washing yourself in tiny tub. Fall Sick and Die posted:Russia? France? Germany? Japan? If we think fondly of these countries, it's not for their imperial ambitions and arrogance. If by 'we' you mean popular culture, I've observed the opposite. Maybe this is just because I play too many videogames, but there's quite a lot of mystique around the elite Nazi soldier and French Napoleonic genius that ignores the actual suffering imperial ambitions cause. Being an imperialistic culture ourself (referring to Americans here), pop culture disrespects France for their surrender in WWII, not for their colonial empire. Fall Sick and Die posted:You just hurt the feelings of 1.3 billion Chinese people my friend. If you're being serious, this is the epitome of essentialism. I'm sure all 1.3 billion Chinese automatons are feeling hurt because someone told one of them their country is an empire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:In regards to China, that would probably mean Tibet and large portions of Sichuan and Qinghai splitting off. Don't forget Gannan from Gansu and whatever random counties in Dechen Yunnan haven't been thoroughly assimilated yet, like poor Gyalthang... er, "Xiang ge li la"! I would love to see that if just for the wild ramblings about the CIA and the NED you'd hear from certain corners.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2012091801058 So loving smug right now. quote:Naha, Okinawa Pref., Sept. 18 (Jiji Press)--Information that a large number of Chinese fishing boats are heading for the Senkaku Islands in Okinawa Prefecture is false, the chief of a Japan Coast Guard office in the southern prefecture said Tuesday. Guys, while you may disagree with China's perspective on certain matters, the Chinese are not moustache stroking villains. Apply a little bit of common sense to what is going on, from time to time, and stop jumping on third hand reports from what a random Japanese newspaper reporter with a poor grasp of mandarin managed to overhear momentarily on the radio. And realise that really when it comes to China, a lot of western newspapers are really kinda lovely at applying due diligence to reports that tie in with whatever preconceived notions they might have. I expect a lengthy retraction and apoloHAHAHAHAHAHA. Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 23:51
|
|