Chinese Geopolitics

Blackstone said:

Japan isn't consistent nor credible if one government say there's a dispute on Diaoyu (since you refuse to use Diaoyu/Senkaku phrasing, I will drop the Japanese name from our future dealings), and another one says there's no dispute. Will the next government say, "maybe there's a dispute?" But, I agree to disagree on 2010 status quo vs. International Court in our two-way discussions. Thank you for remaining civil.

Click to expand...

No Japanese PM had ever officially stated there was a dispute so you are barking up the wrong tree.
Please provide evidence of document to prove otherwise.

Blackstone said:

Ah very good, thanks for providing the link to US Civil Administration proclamation No. 27. You've established US had administration rights and not sovereignty of said islands, including Diaoyu. And since then, US lawfully transferred administrative rights to Japan, but she left territorial sovereignty for China and Japan to resolve.

Click to expand...

Now I really doubt your comprehension skills. The US had never taken way sovereign rights from Japan in the first place as proclaimed in some PRC fan boy's loving proclamation the Cairo declaration.
It does however specified the boundaries in detail of the Ryuku Isles which was acknowledged as Japan's sovereign territory within the SF peace treaty which 40 nations had acknowledged and ratified by becoming a signatory of the treaty. So basically what you argue is basically null and void in the international stage of diplomacy.

SamuraiBlue said:

No Japanese PM had ever officially stated there was a dispute so you are barking up the wrong tree.
Please provide evidence of document to prove otherwise.

Click to expand...

Sure, here's the very word "disputed" from former Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama. Other former senior Japanese officials have also made similar statements as Hatoyama.

BEIJING--In meetings with senior Chinese officials, former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama called the Senkaku Islands a "disputed area," sources said, contradicting the Japanese government's position that there is no territorial issue between the two countries.

Hatoyama met with Jia Qinglin, chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, and Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in Beijing on Jan. 16 after arriving in the Chinese capital the previous day for "cultural exchanges."

"It is a fact that there is a dispute taking place," Hatoyama was quoted as saying.

He told the Chinese officials that both sides should acknowledge there is a dispute over sovereignty of the islands and seek a solution to the issue, according to the sources.

Hatoyama also said it is important to return to the diplomatic position that the territorial issue is shelved, one that China maintains was agreed upon between the two countries when bilateral ties were normalized four decades ago.

The sources said Jia and Yang agreed with Hatoyama's view.

The Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea are controlled by Japan but claimed by China.

Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Now I really doubt your comprehension skills. The US had never taken way sovereign rights from Japan in the first place as proclaimed in some PRC fan boy's loving proclamation the Cairo declaration.
It does however specified the boundaries in detail of the Ryuku Isles which was acknowledged as Japan's sovereign territory within the SF peace treaty which 40 nations had acknowledged and ratified by becoming a signatory of the treaty. So basically what you argue is basically null and void in the international stage of diplomacy.

Click to expand...

Doubtful comprehension skills? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Kindly show me where I said US took away anyone's sovereignty rights (after WW2). I said US granted Japan administrative rights, and left the sovereignty issue to be addressed by the claimants. PRC, ROC, and Japan are the claimants.

Blackstone said:

Sure, here's the very word "disputed" from former Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama. Other former senior Japanese officials have also made similar statements as Hatoyama.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Show me something while in office then we may have a debate but after he's out he has no official power and is a nobody.

Blackstone said:

Doubtful comprehension skills? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Kindly show me where I said US took away anyone's sovereignty rights (after WW2). I said US granted Japan administrative rights, and left the sovereignty issue to be addressed by the claimants, and PRC, ROC, and Japan are the claimants.

Click to expand...

The US doesn't have authoritative power to provide another nation sovereign territory that wasn't theirs in the beginning.
The US does recognize the boundaries of Ryuku Isles as shown within the document I had provided as Japan's sovereign territory which is also why it was specified and acknowledged within the SF peace treaty. How hard is that to understand?
Quite trying to twist fact.

SamuraiBlue said:

Show me something while in office then we may have a debate but after he's out he has no official power and is a nobody.

Click to expand...

You call a former Japanese Prime Minister "nobody" simply because you don't like his statements on the Diaoyu island dispute, not because he's wrong. For the record, former Prime Minister Hatoyama was present at the 1972 negotiation between Premier Zhou enlai and Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka on China-Japan normalization, and he said both sides agreed to shelf the issue for wiser generations in the future. Now why would Tanaka agree to put off Diaoyu discussions to future generations, unless he explicitly or implicitly believed there was a dispute?

The US doesn't have authoritative power to provide another nation sovereign territory that wasn't theirs in the beginning.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The US cannot legally give Diaoyu to Japan, since it belongs to China. Always has, and always will. Full stop.

The US does recognize the boundaries of Ryuku Isles as shown within the document I had provided as Japan's sovereign territory which is also why it was specified and acknowledged within the SF peace treaty. How hard is that to understand?
Quite trying to twist fact.

Click to expand...

Boy, this just gets better and better; and now you say US recognized Diaoyu as part of Ryuku Isles? Talk about twisting facts to suit your personal preference. For your information, US doesn't recognize Diaoyu as part of Ryuku sovereign territory, it was only included it in its area for administrative purposes. If, as you say, the US believed Diaoyu to be part of Ryuku, then why would American leaders say China and Japan should settle the territorial dispute in a peaceful manner? How hard is that to understand?

Blackstone said:

You call a former Japanese Prime Minister "nobody" simply because you don't like his statements on the Diaoyu island dispute, not because he's wrong. For the record, former Prime Minister Hatoyama was present at the 1972 negotiation between Premier Zhou enlai and Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka on China-Japan normalization, and he said both sides agreed to shelf the issue for wiser generations in the future. Now why would Tanaka agree to put off Diaoyu discussions to future generations, unless he explicitly or implicitly believed there was a dispute?

Click to expand...

No because after moving out of office and removed from government he becomes a private citizen, and part of the minority party. His words has as much weight as mine and/or any other private citizen of Japan.
As for him being present of Premier Zhou enlai and Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, completely off base since he wasn't even in politics then. He was a graduate student at Standford at the age of 25 for your information.

Blackstone said:

Agreed. The US cannot legally give Diaoyu to Japan, since it belonged to Japan from the beginning. Always has, and always will. Full stop.

Click to expand...

There fixed.

Blackstone said:

Boy, this just gets better and better; and now you say US recognized Diaoyu as part of Ryuku Isles? Talk about twisting facts to suit your personal preference. For your information, US doesn't recognize Diaoyu as part of Ryuku sovereign territory, it was only included it in its area for administrative purposes. If, as you say, the US believed Diaoyu to be part of Ryuku, then why would American leaders say China and Japan should settle the territorial dispute in a peaceful manner? How hard is that to understand?

Click to expand...

I wonder why then the US sent the boundaries to include Senkaku isles in the first place. You just can't admit losing can you.

SamuraiBlue said:

No Japanese PM had ever officially stated there was a dispute so you are barking up the wrong tree.
Please provide evidence of document to prove otherwise.

Click to expand...

Japanese government officials haven't said anything regarding Diaoyu ownership from 1978 to 2010 precisely because there was an agreement between China and Japan to table the disagreement for future generations. Abe has decided to be the generation to deal with Diaoyu by misrepresenting the issue and denying there was ever a deal between Zhou Enlai and Kakuei Tanaka.

By the way, you do admit PM Tanaka and Premier Zhou worked out an agreement to shelve the Diaoyu issue for future generations, don't you?

Now I really doubt your comprehension skills. The US had never taken way sovereign rights from Japan in the first place as proclaimed in some PRC fan boy's loving proclamation the Cairo declaration.
It does however specified the boundaries in detail of the Ryuku Isles which was acknowledged as Japan's sovereign territory within the SF peace treaty which 40 nations had acknowledged and ratified by becoming a signatory of the treaty. So basically what you argue is basically null and void in the international stage of diplomacy.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying US believes Japan has sovereignty over Diaoyu when US officials always say they take no position on that? Does it make it more believable if you say it to yourself over and over, even though you know it's false? America never took Diaoyu sovereignty away from anyone, since she doesn't have the legal right to do so. That's precisely the reason US officials have repeatedly said the US is neutral Diaoyu sovereignty.

Blackstone said:

Japanese government officials haven't said anything regarding Diaoyu ownership from 1978 to 2010 precisely because there was an agreement between China and Japan to table the disagreement for future generations. Abe has decided to be the generation to deal with Diaoyu by misrepresenting the issue and denying there was ever a deal between Zhou Enlai and Kakuei Tanaka.

By the way, you do admit PM Tanaka and Premier Zhou worked out an agreement to shelve the Diaoyu issue for future generations, don't you?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what I think or believe, there are no official documents to support your claim and without it there is no agreement. You'll just have to agree to disagree.

Blackstone said:

Why do you keep saying US believes Japan has sovereignty over Diaoyu when US officials always say they take no position on that? Does it make it more believable if you say it to yourself over and over, even though you know it's false? America never took Diaoyu sovereignty away from anyone, since she doesn't have the legal right to do so. That's precisely the reason US officials have repeatedly said the US is neutral Diaoyu sovereignty.

Click to expand...

It's not my belief, it's what's written within the document that I had posted. The US specified the boundaries of the Ryukyu isles in which was later acknowledged within the SF peace treaty as Japan's Sovereign territory which 40 nations are signatory of.

SamuraiBlue said:

It doesn't matter what I think or believe, there are no official documents to support your claim and without it there is no agreement. You'll just have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, we agreed to a civil debate, so we'll disagree without being disagreeable.

It's not my belief, it's what's written within the document that I had posted. The US specified the boundaries of the Ryukyu isles in which was later acknowledged within the SF peace treaty as Japan's Sovereign territory which 40 nations are signatory of.

Click to expand...

You're trying to attribute US actions in excess of US official statements. There are three primary problems with your statement;

1) Proclamation 27 deals with administration by an occupation force to a defeated nation, and not written to add territory to Ryukyu Isles.

2) Even if US "gave" Diaoyu islands to Japan, which it didn't, the act would have been illegal under international law, thus it's null and void.

3) If US recognizes Japan as legal owner of Diaoyu, why would three generations of American officials say the US takes no position on Diaoyu sovereignty dispute? Is the US talking about some other disputed territory between China and Japan?

Blackstone said:

You're trying to attribute US actions in excess of US official statements. There are three primary problems with your statement;

1) Proclamation 27 deals with administration by an occupation force to a defeated nation, and not written to add territory to Ryukyu Isles.

2) Even if US "gave" Diaoyu islands to Japan, which it didn't, the act would have been illegal under international law, thus it's null and void.

3) If US recognizes Japan as legal owner of Diaoyu, why would three generations of American officials say the US takes no position on Diaoyu sovereignty dispute? Is the US talking about some other disputed territory between China and Japan?

Click to expand...

No problems.
1. They didn't add anything, the US occupying force saw legitimate claim of Japan's sovereign territory and boundaries which they specified within the document.
2. Ditto as above
3.US is basically saying they do not want to get involved in the dispute as long as it does not become violent. End of story.

The biggest problem I see is that you start your argument believe from the beginning that Senkaku is sovereign territory of mainland china without any evidence that can be accepted by peers of the global community. What you lack is documents that can be verified otherwise.
It's basically the same as the ROK stating Takeshima is their sovereign territory even though they had invaded by force after the war in which no nation would acknowledge it as legitimate claim.

SamuraiBlue said:

No problems.
1. They didn't add anything, the US occupying force saw legitimate claim of Japan's sovereign territory and boundaries which they specified within the document.

Click to expand...

Proclamation 27 is for administration purposes and doesn't deal with Diaoyu sovereignty with China or japan.

2. Ditto as above

Click to expand...

Twice nothing is still nothing. America could not and did not gift japan something she doesn't own.

3.US is basically saying they do not want to get involved in the dispute as long as it does not become violent. End of story.

Click to expand...

Not even close. Three generations of Americans have said US takes no position on China-japan sovereignty disputes, because it's in US's national interests to say so. America might like japan better, but China is more important to her. End of story.

The biggest problem I see is that you start your argument believe from the beginning that Senkaku is sovereign territory of mainland china without any evidence that can be accepted by peers of the global community. What you lack is documents that can be verified otherwise.

Click to expand...

Let's not drag history all the way back to the Third Sino-japanese war of 1895, because both sides have lots of historical documents to present. Instead, let's stick with the 1978 Peace and Friendship Treaty, since it's the least controversial and best understood document in recent Sino-japanese dealings. Also, some of the 1978 negotiators are still alive and have given statements on the Diaoyu issue.

It's basically the same as the ROK stating Takeshima is their sovereign territory even though they had invaded by force after the war in which no nation would acknowledge it as legitimate claim.

Click to expand...

No reason to ensnare Dokdo Island into this discussion, but I'm perfectly happy to discuss Korea-japan sovereignty disputes in a different thread. By the way, does japan admit there's a dispute with Korea over Dokdo?