Chinese Geopolitics

Status
Not open for further replies.
SamuraiBlue

SamuraiBlue

Captain
In4ser said:
And yet the only reason Japan is able administer the island is by bilateral agreement between the Japan and the U.S in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, which neither Taipei or Beijing were invited.

The West has long history of backstabbing China and promoting favoritism of Japan for its own interests of a weak containing China, that most Chinese do not trust them to act as disinterested third-party. To them the West does not want a strong China as a potential threat and that they would much rather promote partition and containment under guise of their "International Community". Much like how that so called "International Community" in the Treaty of Versailles awarded Japan Shandong Province to Japan (instead of restoring Chinese sovereignty), without Chinese approval and despite both sides being allied together on the winning side against Germany in WWI.

For the average Chinese person, the island means much more than simply natural resources, but it is a old wound which Japan is rubbing salt on. Abe continues to downplay Japan's wartime actions during WWII and disrespect Chinese sovereignty, claiming as its own as it did during WWII. At the end of the day the symbolic meaning of the island means so much that China, that I think it is willing to risk war for it, if push comes to shove even if means losing Shanghai or Beijing in nuclear war.
Click to expand...

More the reason why PRC should lodge claim through ICJ but both you and I know the results on how it will be ruled don't we.
PRC only made claim AFTER UN survey in the late 60's suggested that there maybe some natural resources within the region before that all maps published under AUTHORIZATION of CCP clearly stated that Senkaku isles belong to Japan.
I believe a PRC citizen re-published those maps on the web which became a sensation before being taken down by PRC authorities so many PRC citizens are aware of this fact.
Why do many still insist going against FACT?
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
mr.bean said:
uh because this is a dispute between china and japan?

what's so NOT peaceful in china's actions in and around the DYT islands? sending unarmed Coastguard vessels to patrol in and around the islands is very peaceful. japan is doing the same thing so why is china's action non peaceful while Japan's is? I really don't get that.
Click to expand...

I believe the term is called "hypocrisy".

Japanese helicopters routinely buzz PLAN vessels during exercises, yet when China sends a radar plane to DYT, the Japanese call this "aggression" and "provocation". Their media even went as far as to manufacture statements from the PLA during the radar-painting incident.

This is not surprising, Japan was using the same tactics and rhetoric when it was invading China. Remember how the Marco Polo Bridge incident started? How about the Mukden incident? It seems Abe is a fan of Japan's wartime history.
 
M

montyp165

Senior Member
SamuraiBlue said:
More the reason why PRC should lodge claim through ICJ but both you and I know the results on how it will be ruled don't we.
PRC only made claim AFTER UN survey in the late 60's suggested that there maybe some natural resources within the region before that all maps published under AUTHORIZATION of CCP clearly stated that Senkaku isles belong to Japan.
I believe a PRC citizen re-published those maps on the web which became a sensation before being taken down by PRC authorities so many PRC citizens are aware of this fact.
Why do many still insist going against FACT?
Click to expand...

The Chinese claim was never dependent on the natural resources there to begin with, and also the Diaoyu Islands were also part of Taiwan's administrative zone to begin with, so whether or not the CCP actively pushed forward a claim is irrelevant to the basis of the claim.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
SamuraiBlue said:
Why do you insist on bilateral negotiation as if that is the only option on the table?
PRC can easily force Japan to the table peacefully without any of the present provocation by simply filing a complaint at ICJ in which Japan is a compulsory member. PRC only needs to become one as well.

No PRC can't have cake and eat it as well as long as she take a malevolent and hegemonic attitude.
Click to expand...

1) China already said it has problems with portions of the existing international order, because it wasn't invited to draft the rules in the first place. Therefore, limiting China to the IC at The Hague doesn't work. If Japan is serious about negotiating a settlement, then it must admit there's a argument to settle.

It's not clear why Abe reversed previous Japanese government stand on Diaoyu dispute by saying there isn't a dispute. It's a provocative move and forces China to react in kind- unless that's what Abe wanted all along.

2) Before we go too far on the "malevolent and hegemonic" spin, none of that was an issue before 2010. Something changed, and both sides need to get back to the point right before everything went bad.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
SamuraiBlue said:
More the reason why PRC should lodge claim through ICJ but both you and I know the results on how it will be ruled don't we.
PRC only made claim AFTER UN survey in the late 60's suggested that there maybe some natural resources within the region before that all maps published under AUTHORIZATION of CCP clearly stated that Senkaku isles belong to Japan.
I believe a PRC citizen re-published those maps on the web which became a sensation before being taken down by PRC authorities so many PRC citizens are aware of this fact.
Why do many still insist going against FACT?
Click to expand...

On to the breach dear Samurai. I hope you don't suffer ad hominids.

We could go back and forth to first Sino-Japanese war of 1274-1281, second Sino-Japanese war circa 1592-1598, and third Sino-Japanese war of 1895, etc., but they don't address the here and now. Relations between China and Japan has been, on balance, good from 1978 to 2010, but things went off the cliff after that. Both sides need to get back to the moment before the fateful arrest and trial of a drunk Chinese fishing boat captain, and do a reset from that point.
 
P

port_08

Junior Member
Blackstone said:
1) China already said it has problems with portions of the existing international order, because it wasn't invited to draft the rules in the first place. Therefore, limiting China to the IC at The Hague doesn't work. If Japan is serious about negotiating a settlement, then it must admit there's a argument to settle.

It's not clear why Abe reversed previous Japanese government stand on Diaoyu dispute by saying there isn't a dispute. It's a provocative move and forces China to react in kind- unless that's what Abe wanted all along.

2) Before we go too far on the "malevolent and hegemonic" spin, none of that was an issue before 2010. Something changed, and both sides need to get back to the point right before everything went bad.
Click to expand...

The US, Australian government are giving support to Abe administration because it is in their best interest using another Asian country to contain China rise. Japan seek leadership role in Asia. Partnership with current Japan administration is not possible with Abe being in charge and that's a good thing. Here, we could see the anti China forces under one nest and easier for China to find out who's their political nemesis in Japan. The current situation will continue as it is, and only China can do now is undermine Abe administration using whatever means necessary under their disposal. Probably the CCP have to wait a few more years. Democracy will change the Japan administration to a new one. Just have to wait it out.
 
SamuraiBlue

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Blackstone said:
1) China already said it has problems with portions of the existing international order, because it wasn't invited to draft the rules in the first place. Therefore, limiting China to the IC at The Hague doesn't work. If Japan is serious about negotiating a settlement, then it must admit there's a argument to settle.

It's not clear why Abe reversed previous Japanese government stand on Diaoyu dispute by saying there isn't a dispute. It's a provocative move and forces China to react in kind- unless that's what Abe wanted all along.

2) Before we go too far on the "malevolent and hegemonic" spin, none of that was an issue before 2010. Something changed, and both sides need to get back to the point right before everything went bad.
Click to expand...

Tell me how does ICJ does not work?
As I had posted Japan is a compulsory member so PRC does not require Japan's consent to go to court. Best example is the recent Australian claim filed against Japan over research whaling in the Antarctic seas.
Although I have never heard PRC and her minions ever mentioned this option. Basically the reason why PRC doesn't what to go with this option is because they don't have a leg to stand on with their claim and making baseless arguments so they are not forced into that option.
 
P

port_08

Junior Member
SamuraiBlue said:
Tell me how does ICJ does not work?
As I had posted Japan is a compulsory member so PRC does not require Japan's consent to go to court. Best example is the recent Australian claim filed against Japan over research whaling in the Antarctic seas.
Although I have never heard PRC and her minions ever mentioned this option. Basically the reason why PRC doesn't what to go with this option is because they don't have a leg to stand on with their claim and making baseless arguments so they are not forced into that option.
Click to expand...

Come on, let's be realistic. Court is just a game of opinion. 2 monkeys will always have greater say then a crocodile. That's the law of democrazy. Here, states will use whatever means necessary to follow only rules that benefits them. We are really in the law of the jungle. US breaks the rules all the time as well makes the rule. Not following the law is not following "my" law. Here, its the court of world opinion and that's where media hegemony and propaganda comes to play. Those that control the media, controls the court of world opinion.
Meanwhile, middle east is pretty bad shape and US foreign policies are in shambles over there. The arabs are inflamed and Israel bombing makes matter worst. Innocent and children die, and US media promoting the violence and siding Israel. So where's the court of justice?
Here PRC is not party of the "maker" of the rules, it's only when they are the rule maker they will play the game just like the US.
 
SamuraiBlue

SamuraiBlue

Captain
port_08 said:
Come on, let's be realistic. Court is just a game of opinion. 2 monkeys will always have greater say then a crocodile. That's the law of democrazy. Here, states will use whatever means necessary to follow only rules that benefits them. We are really in the law of the jungle. US breaks the rules all the time as well makes the rule. Not following the law is not following "my" law. Here, its the court of world opinion and that's where media hegemony and propaganda comes to play. Those that control the media, controls the court of world opinion.
Meanwhile, middle east is pretty bad shape and US foreign policies are in shambles over there. The arabs are inflamed and Israel bombing makes matter worst. Innocent and children die, and US media promoting the violence and siding Israel. So where's the court of justice?
Here PRC is not party of the "maker" of the rules, it's only when they are the rule maker they will play the game just like the US.
Click to expand...

So basically you're saying that PRC does not want to participate since PRC have no influence at court?
Sorry but court of laws are supposed to be unbiased and pass verdict based on fact not swayed by bribes.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
SamuraiBlue said:
Tell me how does ICJ does not work?
As I had posted Japan is a compulsory member so PRC does not require Japan's consent to go to court. Best example is the recent Australian claim filed against Japan over research whaling in the Antarctic seas.
Although I have never heard PRC and her minions ever mentioned this option. Basically the reason why PRC doesn't what to go with this option is because they don't have a leg to stand on with their claim and making baseless arguments so they are not forced into that option.
Click to expand...

Let's turn your question around; why shouldn't Japan return to the treaty that kept peace for over 30 years? It's reckless to abandon an agreement that has worked well since 1978 for a confrontational style that destroyed peaceful coexistence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top