Guys, let's just ignore sam. There is no point continuing to argue with him anymore. His recent posts in this thread so far have not contributed anything useful, but only serve to further degrade his own reputation here.
Chinese Geopolitics
- Thread starter Major
- Start date
- Status
Guys, let's just ignore sam. There is no point continuing to argue with him anymore. His recent posts in this thread so far have not contributed anything useful, but only serve to further degrade his own reputation here.
lol, one of the most ridiculous arguments discussing if something belongs to one country or it doesn't - is it visible from X place?
I thought those arguments are good and work for children in in elementary schools. I thought that this forum is more serious...
While China is building her own version of "Diego Garcia" in the South China Sea, meanwhile, other nations eg. like Greece, Sri Lanka are welcoming PLAN to station there.
Recently US "propose" a moratorium to halt construction activities in SCS for fear China Diego Garcia base coming true. Meanwhile China is expediting the building phase.
Recently US "propose" a moratorium to halt construction activities in SCS for fear China Diego Garcia base coming true. Meanwhile China is expediting the building phase.
solarz
Brigadier
Very interesting news, it would give China a presence in the Mediterranean... although it would be a really long trip.
Far more importantly, it shows the Western claim that China is becoming increasingly isolated is just bunk. China is in fact building an ever-expanding network of partnerships.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
You could read it on pages 2 and 3 of an official US government publication called Senkaku (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) Islands Dispute: U.S. Treaty Obligations, by Mark E. Manyin, September 25, 2012. Here’s a link to the document:
The claims of China and Taiwan have a similar basis. China asserts that its Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) considered the islands part of its maritime territory and included them on maps and documents of areas covered by Ming Dynasty coastal defenses. China claims that the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) went further and placed the islands under the jurisdiction of Taiwan, which was a part of the Qing Dynasty. In 1893, the Dowager Empress of China, Cixi, made a grant of the islands to Sheng Xuanhuai, head of the Imperial Household, who collected medical herbs on them. However, although there are claims that Chinese fishermen used the islands as places of temporary shelter and repair, China never established a permanent settlement of civilians or military personnel on the islands, and apparently did not maintain permanent naval forces in adjacent waters.
Japan, which argues that there is no territorial dispute, laid claim to the islands in January 1895,
when the Japanese Emperor approved an Imperial Ordinance annexing them to Japan.5 Before
then, Japan argues, the islands were uninhabited and “showed no trace of having been under the control of China,” positions the Chinese and Taiwanese governments reject.6 In May 1895, Japan and the Qing Dynasty government of China signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki ending the Sino-Japanese war that had begun the previous year. Under the Treaty, which China today considers one of a number of “unequal treaties” forced on it by foreign powers, China ceded Taiwan (Formosa) to Japan “together with all the islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa.” The Treaty did not specifically mention the Senkakus (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) and the islands were not discussed during the negotiating sessions. Japan has claimed from this that its incorporation of the Senkakus (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) was an act apart from the Sino-Japanese War. In contrast, China and Taiwan argue that Japan used its victory in the war to annex the islands. They also argue that the intent of the Allied declarations at Cairo and Potsdam during World War
2 reasons I see:
First is about nationalism of theses 2 nations. So by far the greatest obstacle to Korean-Japanese cooperation is NOT Dokdo, but perhaps the deep-run historical mutual distrust between the two. If it were not for Dokdo, they would have found out another thing for disputes. It is reasonable considering Korea-Japnese war history of the last several hundred years.
Then is about Uncle Sam, in its nuances. Just imagine one day a perfectly peaceful and harmonous China-Korea-Japan relationship will NOT be in Uncle Sam's long term strategic interests, because there would be no need for US to station troopers in the region , hence no need for "Honest Broker", hence no easy $$$ because of no military control of the world's largest economic bloc any more...so on and so forth. How can that be allowed to happen? Any neo-con would be going nuts as it cuts dearly their military-industrial complex profits. The previous japanese Govt was pro-trade, pro-China, pro-East Asia economic integration, then he went powerless very quickly...you should now know why.
Last edited:
Skywatcher
Captain
If you bothered to read up on international law, the visibility of Dokdo from Ulleung Do demonstrates that the Koreans had knowledge of Dokdo, and used it before 1905 (fishing and seal grounds, guess what they did for a living on Ulleung Do for the past several millenia?), which shoots down the whole terra nullius fantasy.
shen
Senior Member
I was in an Asian history class with a Japanese exchange student. A very cool hippy guy, with very liberal views, but he knew almost nothing about the atrocities committed by the Japanese military around Asia. The Japanese education system only paints the Japanese people as the victim of WWII.
I wonder if it would be helpful for China and South Korea to take the message directly to the Japanese people, take out ads in the Japanese media, explain to the Japanese people directly what their government has been hiding from them. Tell them about the brutality of the occupation of Korea, the drug smuggling and prostitution ring ran by the Japanese military, Unit 731,etc.
Blackstone
Brigadier
- Status