★阿修羅♪ > 中国2 > 484.html
 ★阿修羅♪  
▲コメTop ▼コメBtm 次へ 前へ
米 The New York Times 論説 (尖閣問題は中国の主張に分がある)
http://www.asyura2.com/09/china02/msg/484.html
投稿者 びぼ 日時 2010 年 9 月 17 日 21:50:18: 0cYXJ4o7/SPzg
 

The New York Times
"Look Out for the Diaoyu Islands"

By NICHOLAS KRISTOF September 10, 2010

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/look-out-for-the-diaoyu-islands/#more-6399

Tensions have erupted over some barren rocks in the Pacific that you may never have heard of, but stay tuned – this is a boundary dispute that could get ugly and some day have far-reaching consequences for China, Japan, Taiwan and the United States.

The islands in question are called the Senkaku chain by Japan, the Diaoyu islands by China, and the Diaoyutai by Taiwan. All three claim the islands, which are really just five islets and three barren rocks northeast of Taiwan, 200 miles off the Chinese coast. The latest confrontation occurred when a Chinese fishing boat collided with two Japanese naval vessels trying to intercept it near the islands. The Japanese detained the Chinese captain for questioning and the two countries have been exchanging indignant protests.

The reason to worry is that nationalists in both China and Taiwan see the islands as unquestionably theirs and think that their government has been weak in asserting this authority. So far, wiser heads have generally prevailed on each side, but at some point a weakened Chinese leader might try to gain legitimacy with the public by pushing the issue and recovering the islands. It would be a dangerous game and would have a disastrous impact on China-Japan relations, but if successful it would raise the popularity of the Chinese government and would also be a way of putting pressure on Taiwan.

The other problem is that, technically, the U.S. would be obliged to bail Japan out if there were a fight over the Senkakus. The U.S. doesn’t take a position on who owns the islands, but the Japan-U.S. security treaty specifies that the U.S. will help defend areas that Japan administers. And in 1972, when the U.S. handed Okinawa back to Japan, it agreed that Japan should administer the Senkakus. So we’re in the absurd position of being committed to help Japan fight a war over islands, even though we don’t agree that they are necessarily Japanese.

In reality, of course, there is zero chance that the U.S. will honor its treaty obligation over a few barren rocks. We’re not going to risk a nuclear confrontation with China over some islands that may well be China’s. But if we don’t help, our security relationship with Japan will be stretched to the breaking point.

So which country has a better claim to the islands? My feeling is that it’s China, although the answer isn’t clearcut. Chinese navigational records show the islands as Chinese for many centuries, and a 1783 Japanese map shows them as Chinese as well. Japan purported to “discover” the islands only in 1884 and annexed them only in 1895 when it also grabbed Taiwan. (You can also make a case that they are terra nullis, belonging to no nation.)

The best approach would be for China and Japan to agree to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice, but realistically that won’t happen. And since some believe that the area is rich with oil and gas reserves, the claims from each side have become more insistent.

As Chinese nationalism grows, as China’s navy and ability to project power in the ocean gains, we could see some military jostling over the islands. You read it here first.
 

  拍手はせず、拍手一覧を見る

コメント
 
01. 2010年9月19日 21:22:04: PG1nqWSNAg
> Japan purported to “discover” the islands only in 1884 and annexed
> them only in 1895 when it also grabbed Taiwan.

この部分には事実誤認がある。

日本が尖閣を領有したのは、下関条約によってではない。従って、台湾と同時に
領有したというのは違う。

(尖閣諸島の領有権についての基本見解(抜粋):日本国外務省)
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/senkaku/index.html

「尖閣諸島は、1885年以降政府が沖縄県当局を通ずる等の方法により再三にわた
り現地調査を行ない、単にこれが無人島であるのみならず、清国の支配が及んで
いる痕跡がないことを慎重確認の上、1895年1月14日に現地に標杭を建設する旨の
閣議決定を行なって正式にわが国の領土に編入することとしたものです。

 同諸島は爾来歴史的に一貫してわが国の領土たる南西諸島の一部を構成しており、1895年5月発効の下関条約第2条に基づきわが国が清国より割譲を受けた台湾
及び澎湖諸島には含まれていません。」

問題は、この主張が米国で広まると、日本の尖閣領有は、ポツダム宣言に反する
という主張が出かねないことだ。

このように、誤った情報によって世論が形成されるのは、恐ろしいことだ。

NYTだろう。故意かもしれない。


02. 2010年9月20日 11:58:41: 2kygrfHAsQ
資本は、中国か韓国だろう?

アメリカの上海を巻きこんだ、パッチポンプとすれば納得だね。


03. 2010年9月23日 15:37:12: AcxNXHO5TM
ニューヨークタイムスの論説は説得力がある。日本人の自分でも態度を決めかねていたが、日本人も中国人も冷静になる必要がある、そこ尖閣周辺には地下資源が相当量眠っているとみられることから、ちょっとしたことでもナショナリズムがあおられのだろう。この問題は国際司法裁判所にゆだねて、実利的なことを話し合いで進めていくほうが両国と国民のためにもよいと思う。もっとも危険なことは、国益ををあおりたて軍事衝突へと突っ込むことである。これはかつての日本がたどった悲劇と悲惨のみちである。

04. 2012年9月14日 16:21:04 : FCxohXlVP2
It is said that the Senkaku Islands are shown in Ming's maps and others. Ming is China that has continued to exist until now, so they say the map is effective still now. But what is important is the history after Ming. In history later facts is more important than the older ones. Can Ching be said not to be China? Ching is also the same China. Then the decision of Ching that did not make Senkaku China's was China's decision. Senkaku was abondoned then. But now China is going to make Senkaku China's changing the Ching's decision. But time passed too long. Ching's decision was not changed rapidly. Long time passed and the fact that they are Japan's territory has been established completely. Ching's decision of the abondonment of Senkaku is effective. It's too late to cancell the decision. Prescription has been established. Until recently China did not cancell the decision. China only recognizes what is favorable (Senkaku's entry in Ming's maps) and negates what is unfavorable (Ching's abondonment os Senkaku), which is quite inconsistent and incoherent. The ownership in Ming's ages became invalid by Ching's abondonment. Later decision is more effective than the older one. Japan has never abondoned Senkaku since it began to own them. Japan has been their owner all through the times. China cannot cancell Ching's abondonment now.

05. 2012年9月17日 00:53:38 : FCxohXlVP2
Old China's seeming ownership of Senkaku Islands became invalid as Ching did not assert they belonged to it; i.e. Ching abandoned Senkaku. Therefore Senkaku's entries in Ming's and other navigational maps became completely ineffective. Besides Ching did not cancel the decision immediately and long time passed after that and prescriptin has establised. It is too late for the present China cancel Ching's decision and retrieve Senkaku. If China is convinced of the ownership of Senkaku it should appeal to the International Court of Justice, without making barbarous demonstrations. Instead of doing so Chinese have become mobs and destroying buildings and cars.Are they afraid of being defeated by debates using their brains without sufficient proofs. Destroying and injuring and threatening must not be right ways of solving the problem. Can they not be called coward mobs? Are Chinese not rational and theoretical? Do they have no ability to debate in public? Is violence the only measure that they have? Ching is also China. So what it once abandoned cannot be retrieved. Japan has long been Senkaku's legitimate owner; so trying to retrieve the islands is robbing; i.e., a complete crime. Do they not know the criminal law that prohibits one to deprive someone of the things that he has been approved to own. Ching's responsibility is China's responsibility. Why do Chinese try to use violence as a way of resolution? Incidentally the Senkaku area is the passage of typhoons, which means the getting oil there may be unstable and dangerous. The disaster in Mexican Bay is still new in our memories. The contamination of the sea is tremendous. Ching probably found no value in such desert islands, which is probably the main reason why Ching did not assert they belonged to it. The present China should be angry with Ching's failure. Chinese should stop such coward behaviors as demonstrations and violence. Are they not civilized, rational people? If they have enough intelligence why don't they use it and decide to which country the islands belong to with it? Or do they want just see other's blood, homicide being their taste? Are they poor at thinking over problems intelligently and theoretically? Do they lack excellent theorists with such a big population? Or is resorting to violence their fundamental method of solving problems?

06. 2012年9月17日 07:09:58 : FCxohXlVP2
Japan did not grab Senkaku Islands from China. After long years of envestigations Japan made the territorial declaration of Senkaku on Jan. 14, 1895 before the beginning of peace treaty talks on March 20, 1895. In details see 「尖閣諸島問題 日本の領有は歴史的にも国際法上も正当」2010年10月4日(日本共産党):Google. Can the poor brain of Chinese not see the exact difference of historical facts? Senkaku Islands were not included in Taiwan and related islands decided to be handed over to Japan in Shimonoseki Treaty. Ching did not make objection to Japan's ownership of Senkaku. Japanese ownership of Senkaku was firmly established. The present China is not permitted to change the historical facts to its favour. Chinese people's anger to Japan is built up on the erraneous information from Chinese government. If Senkaku had an entry in Ming's map, China did not rule them and they were desert islands. Do appeal to ICJ if Chinese are confident of winning the case without making barbarous movements.Judging the territorial problems is a theoretical problem that should be decided by intelligence not by violence. Does the confidence of Chinese come from New York Times? Don't they know "Even Homer sometimes nods"?

  拍手はせず、拍手一覧を見る

この記事を読んだ人はこんな記事も読んでいます(表示まで20秒程度時間がかかります。)
★登録無しでコメント可能。今すぐ反映 通常 |動画・ツイッター等 |htmltag可(熟練者向)|(各説明

←ペンネーム新規登録ならチェック)
↓ペンネーム(なしでも可能。あったほうが良い)

↓パスワード(ペンネームに必須)

(ペンネームとパスワードは初回使用で記録、次回以降にチェック。パスワードはメモすべし。)
↓画像認証
( 上画像文字を入力)
ルール確認&失敗対策
画像の URL (任意):
 コメントの2重投稿は禁止です。  URL紹介はタイトル必須
ペンネームの新規作成はこちら←  最新投稿・コメント全文ページ
フォローアップ:

 

 次へ  前へ

▲このページのTOPへ      ★阿修羅♪ > 中国2掲示板

★阿修羅♪ http://www.asyura2.com/ since 1995
スパムメールの中から見つけ出すためにメールのタイトルには必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
すべてのページの引用、転載、リンクを許可します。確認メールは不要です。引用元リンクを表示してください。

     ▲このページのTOPへ      ★阿修羅♪ > 中国2掲示板

 
▲上へ       
★阿修羅♪  
この板投稿一覧