The Japanese politics thread: Old men fucking each other ITT

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Japanese politics thread: Old men fucking each other ITT

Inu: Apr 26, 2002; Jump! Jump!

The plan also left plenty of loopholes in place, so 2030 isn't actually when the plants would all be shut down. That's just the number that the DPJ is going to use in its uphill campaign this coming year. In all likelihood if this plan went into effect as is, not all of the plants would actually be shut down until 2070 or something.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2012 01:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 04:57

Inu: Apr 26, 2002; Jump! Jump!

CronoGamer posted:

Senkaku question for you all. I'm cursorily familiar with the history of the islands, mostly from reading articles the past two weeks and browsing Wikipedia. What's confusing me is the insistence by the Chinese that they used to be part of China at all. Am I wrong in my understanding that they used to be part of Ryukyu? And that Ryukyu was a kingdom of its own but paid tribute to both China and Japan for centuries? Then Japan annexed Ryukyu at the end of the 19th century, taking the islands from Kagoshima all the way to Senkaku. Is that right so far?

Then why do China-supporters say it was taken over by Japan in WW2 and shouldve been returned? Did something happen between the annexation in 1895 and the outbreak of hostilities/expansionism that was Imperial Japan? Do I have the facts wrong or are people skewing them to make the claim?

Chinese sailors were in all likelihood the first to see the Senkakus. The Chinese put the islands on their maps and claimed them as Chinese, but never developed them in any way, and probably never even set foot on them. The islands were mostly route markers for ships going to Ryukyu.

The Japanese investigated the islands in the late 19th century and determined (properly) that they were terra nullis. They claimed the islands and Japanese people lived on them and developed them a little bit until WWII. 80 years after the Japanese claimed the Senkakus in the early 1970's, the Chinese finally got around to denouncing the Japanese claim. Surely the discovery of oil in the seas around the islands a couple of years before that was totally unrelated.

In short:

Chinese claim: We saw it first. Sure we didn't claim for 70 years and even recognized it as Japanese territory for much of that time, but it's totally an integral part of the Chinese motherland how dare you take it from us?

Japanese claim: We investigated the islands and found no one using them or claiming them. Our citizens actually lived on and developed the islands and no one questioned our claim until just a couple decades ago. There is no legitimate conflict here.

Few land squabbles are so black and white as this one, but in this case the Japanese are 100% in the right and the Chinese claims are 100% bullshit.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2012 11:50

Inu: Apr 26, 2002; Jump! Jump!

Arglebargle III posted:

That is really disingenuous or, if you're arguing in good faith, extremely biased.

First, the Japanese "investigated" the islands and miraculously found that there were no legitimate claims is ridiculous on the face of it. You said yourself that the Chinese mapped and claimed them long before the Japanese ever showed up. Put this properly in the context of Japan annexing Taiwan at the time, it's pretty clear that they didn't just find the islands and politely ask the Chinese about their legal status.

Second, of course the Chinese recognized the Senkakus as Japanese territory. The Chinese perspective is that the Diaoyus are part of Taiwan, which was ceded to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, to which the Qing Emperor acceded. So yes, the Chinese recognized the Senkakus as Japanese territory annexed from China in 1895. Their argument is that it should have been returned to China along with Taiwan.

Third, the idea that they waited around for 70 years without lodging a protest is simply wrong. The Chinese government protested immediately. The Treaty of San Francisco, which decided how Japan would handle the dissolution of its overseas empire and was basically dictated by the U.S., was signed September 8 1951. Neither the PRC nor RoC governments were invited. The PRC published denunciations of the treaty both during the negotiations in August, and on September 18th, ten days after it was signed. Neither the PRC nor RoC ratified the treaty. The PRC's position has been that the treaty is illegal since before it was even signed. The 1970s claim was prompted by the U.S. returning Okinawa to Japanese administration, but it was hardly the first.

Fourth, the only thing I can find about Japanese habitation or improvement of the islands is a WWII era lighthouse that has been abandoned far longer than it was in use.

What this really turns on is whether China can prove that the Diaoyus are part of Taiwan, instead of part of Okinawa as Japan claims. Because China was in chaos during the time when modern Western treaty law took hold in East Asia, the Chinese never had a chance to establish a claim in law even though they pretty clearly arrived first and own the nearest land mass. This is why you see the Chinese throwing out "bullshit" historical claims, because their government was a total mess from 1860-1960 and they missed the window to establish a claim in Western law.

Meanwhile, Japan's claim is really shaky too. The Japanese de facto claim to the islands came about basically because the Japanese told the Americans that the islands were part of Okinawa and there were no Chinese in the room to disagree. The Japanese "terra nullis" claim is obviously weaker than the Chinese claim on the same basis so the de facto claim is pretty much the important one.

You can disagree about who should be administering a few rocks in the ocean, but your characterization of the issue is deeply unfair.

On the first point I would say that the investigation was legitimate. It probably (probably! who knows really?) was China who first found the islands, but that doesn't mean anything in international law because China never did anything with them. When Japan looked at the islands in the 1890's, they found no legitimate claim to them. China's claim was not legitimate as they had never done anything other then write them down on maps. (And keep in mind that people couldn't even measure longitude accurately at sea until the late 19th century, so non-existant islands appeared on old maps all the time.) Basically, nothing that happened before the 1890's has reliable enough records to count for anything.

The Japanese did claim the Senkaku's around the same time as Taiwan, but it was a separate action from the annexation of Taiwan. China can say that they (or the Qing, rather) gave the Senkakus to Japan under duress with the rest of Taiwan, but why should they be able to determine which far-flung islands that they had no real control over were "part of Taiwan province"? That gives them ridiculous leeway to claim whatever they want on the basis that it was handed over "as part of Taiwan". The Qing didn't even control all of Taiwan for that matter!

This is why I don't see that the Treaty of San Francisco even matters unless you are willing to allow China to assign whatever islands it wants to be part of Taiwan Prefecture. And for that matter, Taiwan wasn't given to China in the treaty anyway. It was freed from Japanese control and the people of Taiwan should been allowed the freedom to choose their own government under UN law. But for reasons of (mostly US) convenience, the Republic of China de facto gained control of Taiwan. But, hey, it's all a moot point since randomly assigning the Senkakus to be part of Taiwan is ridiculous in the first place!

As for your fourth point, this was addressed already, but Japanese did actually live and work on the islands. There was a bonito factory. The Japanese did in fact develop the islands beyond just slapping up a lighthouse. However, even if they had done was put up a lighthouse, that would still be more than China ever did with the islands.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2012 01:18

Inu: Apr 26, 2002; Jump! Jump!

Zo posted:

That won't work because Japan is the only country that actually believes (or sets their official stance as) "there is no dispute". It's pretty funny and basically the political equivalent of covering your eyes to make the scary thing disappear.

It's actually a pretty legitimate stance to take considering that there was no dispute up until the late 1960's/early 1970's, with official Chinese maps (by both Chinese governments, mind you) clearly showing the islands as Japanese, with their Japanese names. If China started claiming tomorrow that Hawai'i is, and always has been a part of China, don't you think that the best response the US could make would be to ignore their "claim"? That's what Japan is doing with the Senkaku Islands.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2014 16:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Japanese politics thread: Old men fucking each other ITT