★阿修羅♪ > 中国2 > 512.html
▲コメTop ▼コメBtm 次へ 前へ
米 The New York Times 寄稿 (尖閣問題は中国の主張に分あり その2)
投稿者 びぼ 日時 2010 年 9 月 21 日 22:12:58: 0cYXJ4o7/SPzg

"More on the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands"



I blogged recently about the dust-up in Asia between China and Japan over the uninhabited islands known as the Senkakus in Japan and the Diaoyu islands in China. Both claim them, as does Taiwan for good measure. I argued that China appeared to have a slightly better claim to them, although they might also plausibly be terra nullis, not belonging to any nation. Here’s the latest on the tiff.

Japan, which doesn’t even acknowledge that there is a territorial dispute, protested my blog post and wrote me a letter outlining some of its arguments. I’m not persuaded — it seems silly to say that China didn’t protest the seizure of a few barren rocks, when it was so weak that it had lost the entire province of Taiwan — but Japan does have valid points to make. I wish it would seek referral of the issue to the International Court of Justice, setting a precedent for legal judgments rather than brute force to settle conflicting claims.

I’ve been following the ups and downs on the islands since the 1980’s and wrote about them with my wife in our 2000 book about Asia, “Thunder from the East.” Alas, I’ve never found a way to land on them, and I do worry that the U.S. could be drawn into the dispute. As I noted in my previous item, the U.S. in theory is required to defend Japan’s claim to the islands, based on the wording of the U.S./Japan Security Treaty. In practice, we wouldn’t, but our failure to do so would cause reverberations all over Asia. In any case, here are excerpts from the Japanese letter of protest, apparently written at the request of the Japanese Foreign Minister (who knows who reads this blog?). Since I suggested that the islands were more likely China’s, I want to give them a chance to respond:

1) Since 1885, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had thoroughly been made by the Government of Japan through the agencies of Okinawa Prefecture and by way of other methods. Through these surveys, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been uninhabited and showed no trace of having been under the control of China. Based on this confirmation, the Government of Japan made a Cabinet Decision on 14 January 1895 to erect a marker on the Islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan.

2) Since then, the Senkaku Islands have continuously remained as an integral part of the Nansei Shoto Islands, which are the territory of Japan. These islands were neither part of Taiwan nor part of the Pescadores Islands which were ceded to Japan from the Qing Dynasty of China in accordance with Article II of the Treaty of Shimonoseki which came into effect in May of 1895.

3) Accordingly, the Senkaku Islands are not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article II of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The Senkaku Islands have been placed under the administration of the United States of America as part of the Nansei Shoto Islands, in accordance with Article III of the said treaty, and are included in the area, the administrative rights over which were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands signed on 17 June 1971. The facts outlined herein clearly indicate the status of the Senkaku Islands being part of the territory of Japan.

4) The fact that China expressed no objection to the status of the Islands being under the administration of the United States under Article III of the San Francisco Peace Treaty clearly indicates that China did not consider the Senkaku Islands as part of Taiwan. It was not until the latter half of 1970, when the question of the development of petroleum resources on the continental shelf of the East China Sea came to the surface, that the Government of China and Taiwan authorities began to raise questions regarding the Senkaku Islands.

5) Your column focuses on historical manuscripts such as “Chinese navigational records” and “a 1783 Japanese map” to make the point that China has a better claim to the Senkaku Islands. However, please note that none of the points raised by the Government of China as “historic, geographic or geological” evidence provide valid grounds, in light of international law, to support China’s arguments regarding the Senkaku Islands.

Your thoughts?


01. 2010年9月22日 02:44:00: ibwFfuuFfU

02. 2010年9月22日 13:42:17: OfHa8idmc6
本稿の著者NICHOLAS KRISTOは、中国系アメリカ人であるSheryl WuDunnと結婚している。中国の肩をもつのは当然か。

03. 2010年9月23日 06:57:13: DmCC9k6hHM
 アメリカは今、日本より中国との関係を重視しており、The New York Times自身は、かってのジャーナリズム精神あふれる新聞界のリーダーとっして君臨したが、現在は、マスコミの帝王・マードックが支配している子会社にすぎない。

04. 愛国純粋日本人 2010年9月24日 16:56:18: hsWK2FdO8Qo3k : NEGjO5uWog

05. ハマタク 2010年9月25日 08:15:10: Hc0RhTKzS8zME : o1mJqkXcK6
万事、裏表、陽と陰がある。過去3000年間、命をかけたすべての戦いは、正義など関係なく、すべて権勢と欲望の衝突ですよね。尖閣もまさに今日的な利権の闘い。互いの立場を主張して譲らないなら、一応国際裁判、これも両者で決定に従うという前提でなけらば意味がない。それより、発展的互恵を確認する当事者両国が粘り強く話し合う、互いに譲渡の余地を残す精神構造と態度が必要。これができなければ、いずれ戦争か戦争状態の継続でしょう。愚かな人間同士、どうやら数十年の戦いになるのでは。私が総理なら、尖閣は中国の主張に従う。何故なら、圧倒的に中国領土に近い。そして、米国も、日本の譲渡は遺憾だ、と公式発表しながら、影では you've done good job!とchinaにはほめ言葉を送るはず。尖閣をすてて、その10倍、100倍の利便を世界から、中国から得るのが先決。世界1、途方もない借金を抱える資源貧国日本の選択はそれしかない。共産国中国にマトモニ怒るのは愚の骨頂。米国の意見などに左右されるな。Outsmart them!

06. 2010年10月10日 10:33:04: l4qqm561UM
上杉隆氏がNICHOLAS KRISTOFの下で働いていたことは知らなかった。ただそれだけ。

Congrats to the amazing Liu Xiaobo for his Nobel Peace Prize. C'mon, China, let him out of prison!
uesugitakashiと100+人がリツイート Oct 10

Agree! Boss :-) RT @NickKristof: Congrats to the amazing Liu Xiaobo for his Nobel Peace Prize. C'mon, China, let him out of prison!


★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)
タグCheck |タグに'だけを使っている場合のcheck |checkしない)(各説明



( 上画像文字を入力)
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


 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

     ▲このページのTOPへ      ★阿修羅♪ > 中国2掲示板