★阿修羅♪ > 戦争b5 > 836.html
 ★阿修羅♪  
▲コメTop ▼コメBtm 次へ 前へ
原文+他のコメントを読んでみた ← アメリカは日本を助けない 中国の主張を支持が大多数 (ジャーナリズム)
http://www.asyura2.com/10/warb5/msg/836.html
投稿者 tk 日時 2010 年 10 月 03 日 03:46:46: fNs.vR2niMp1.
 

(回答先: アメリカは日本を助けない 中国の主張を支持が大多数 (ジャーナリズム) 投稿者 直人 日時 2010 年 10 月 03 日 00:12:21)

相当厳しい見方、というか意外な見方もあるみたいですね。

「2. JohnEx CA September 21st, 2010 9:14 am」(推薦者 41人)では、

Japan took it away through military force in 1895
日本は1895年に軍事力を使って、これ(尖閣諸島)を奪い取った。
this time Japan is using its military force again
今回もまた、軍事力を使った。
(海上保安庁は軍事力に含まれる)
on the other side, Chinese have been seeking a peaceful solution to this issue
それに対して、中国はこの問題に対して平和的な解決を模索し続けている。

「3. infinitime  California September 21st, 2010 9:15 am」(推薦者 47人)では、

In the same manner that a victim of mugging is in no position to question the mugger's claim over the watch which was just removed from the victim's wrist, China was in no position to challenge Japan in 1895.
中国が「抗議」しなかったのは、強盗の被害者が返還を要求できないのと同じだから、それをもって中国の領有権放棄の理由にはならないとしている。

The gist of the treaty is that Japan is to forego the spoils of its imperialism, which included Taiwan, the islands, along with all of its other holdings in Asia.
また、サンフランシスコ条約の趣旨は、「日本の帝国主義が獲得した領土の返還」だから
There was no need for a seperate provision under the agreement to deal with territory which it deems to be under the broader heading of Taiwan.
尖閣諸島も台湾と区別されるべきではない、としている。

「4. John D  NYC September 21st, 2010 9:21 am」(推薦者 23人)は日本擁護のようです。しかし、その理由は中国脅威論のようです。

「5. infinitime  California September 22nd, 2010 12:17 am」(推薦者 48人)は4の日本擁護論に対する反論で、倍以上の推薦者がついています。

中国はアメリカにとっての脅威ではない、という趣旨のようです。

ところで、中国は民主主義じゃなくて、日本は民主主義と言うけれど、自分は日本に数年間住んでいたけど、彼ら日本人の「民主主義」はアメリカのそれとは、全然違うよ。とも。

「6. DC  Central America September 22nd, 2010 12:17 am」(42人)も中国擁護ですね。伝統的に台湾の領土だった。という理由。

推薦者40人未満は省略。他のも読んでみると面白い。「3. WildLily  Taiwan」の台湾人から見た満州族政府(清)の話も興味深い。

本文は日本からの抗議文の紹介になっています。(here are excerpts from the Japanese letter of protest, apparently written at the request of the Japanese Foreign Minister)。

===

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/more-on-the-senkakudiaoyu-islands/?scp=1&sq=senkaku&st=cse

September 20, 2010, 2:05 pm
More on the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF

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?

−−−−

1.
David L.
California
September 21st, 2010
4:07 am

The Japanese government is good at re-writing history. And they did that literally a few years ago. They don't even acknowledge that Nanjing Massacre happened despite overwhelming evidence. I would not give Japanese government's argument much credibility. The fact is, both the Sino-Japanese wars were instigated by Japan's aggression towards China. Why should they benefits from the wars and keep the ill-gotten gains? Unlike Germany, Japan has never faced up to the history. They have never apologized to the Chinese except a few insincere attempts at expressing "regrets".

As for my Chinese friends, most of them admire the United States and are grateful for our role in the Pacific War. China also helped the US during the war by tying down the majority of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). The IJA killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians after some of Doolittle's crew were rescued by Chinese after the raid on Tokyo as retaliation. The US did make a mistake of giving the Islands to Japan in 1970 without consulting China. I guess that was the cold war and we wanted to drive a wedge between China and Japan. We in the US should take the moral high ground and not get involved when China takes the Diaoyu Islands back.

Recommend
Recommended by 62 Readers

−−−−

2.
JohnEx
CA
September 21st, 2010
9:14 am

You're right that the Japan's claim for the island is weak and silly, because they purported to discover the island only in 1884, but in 1783 their own map showed that Senkaku (Diaoyu) island belongs to China. The island had been China's territory for centuries, but Japan took it away through military force in 1895 - they same way they took massive land from Korea, China, Philippine, etc - which is illegal. Now, Japanese still use military force to occupy the island illegally; on the other side, Chinese have been seeking a peaceful solution to this issue. So relative silence over the issue has been made for years, but this time Japan is using its military force again - I don't see any difference between the current Japan government and the one which bombed the Pearl Harbor 59 years ago.

Recommend
Recommended by 41 Readers

−−−−

3.
infinitime
California
September 21st, 2010
9:15 am

Firstly, kudos on a very balanced assessment of the situation, particularly given China's unpopularity on the world stage today.

However, if we were to evaluate Japan's position on its merits, we note that there are several fallacies and flaws in logic. The most glaring is the notion that China did not assert her claim to the islands in 1895, when Japan purportedly "discovered" and claimed for its own the uninhabited islands.

This little tidbit of information needs to be assessed in the greater realm of historical realities. The First Sino-Japanese War (fought largely over the status of the Korean peninsula) resulted in the Qing Dynasty ceding to Japan as reparations - both the island of Taiwan (formerly a province of China) and territories under its jurisdiction. In the same manner that a victim of mugging is in no position to question the mugger's claim over the watch which was just removed from the victim's wrist, China was in no position to challenge Japan in 1895.

To suggest that the China did not challenge the islands being under US jurisdiction after WWII, as set out in the San Franscisco Peace Treaty, is also flawed. The treaty itself is silent on the island, but expressly acknowledges China's right to the island of Taiwan. There was no need for a seperate provision under the agreement to deal with territory which it deems to be under the broader heading of Taiwan. The gist of the treaty is that Japan is to forego the spoils of its imperialism, which included Taiwan, the islands, along with all of its other holdings in Asia.

Finally, the current position of the Japanese, as set out in the article "...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..." is untenable.

What other basis would a claimant have to assert soveriegnty, other than relying on historical documents. This is all the more telling in a case where much of the historical document relied upon are Japanese in origin.

It is perhaps also telling that Japan's current dispute with China, regardless of its merits, is framed in the broader campaign to paint China as a militaristic, expansionist power.

The current issue of Senkaku/DiaoYu Island must be viewed in the context of a Japan which is becoming increasingly fearful of its waning influence in Asia, which desperately sees the need to hinder the rise of China.

Clearly China is not taking the bait of being pushed towards engaging Japan militarily, as to do so would play right into the hand of Toyko's current efforts to foster ill will towards China.

Recommend
Recommended by 47 Readers

−−−

4.
John D
NYC
September 21st, 2010
9:21 am
Contrary to the writer's view, the United States is obligated to defend Japan from any foreign attack, and that the US controlled then handed the Senkaku Islands back to Japan in 1973 as part of Okinawa puts us in a position of not being able to evade that responsibility. Not to mention that our relationships with all of China's neighbors that are similarly threatened by China's militant expansionism are watching us to see if we are indeed good for our word. The author's pro-China writing does not bode well considering that Japan is our staunchest ally in East Asia and China's military trains with the United States as the designated "enemy". In fact, behind this territorial island issue and the natural gas fields are the Chinese PLA Navy's declared intent to replace the United States' strategic dominance in East Asia. Every democratic nation in Asia looks to the United States as the only viable ounter balance to the threat posed by the
militant Chinese dictatorship. Convicing America's corporations and media that China is not a threat is part of the all-encompassing warfare described by the Chinese military themselves.
Recommend
Recommended by 23 Readers

−−−−

5.
infinitime
California
September 22nd, 2010
12:17 am

John D., it is time to come out of your underground bunker... China trains with the US as the imagined "enemy" because we are the strongest military power in the world, without a doubt. By the same token, my Finnish friends tell me that the Finns also train with the US as the imagined "threat" coming over the arctic.... Certainly, I don't feel threatened by the Finns. Who do you think our troops put their sights on as the imagined "threat" in war games?

In terms of this notion of expansionism, this is largely fiction. Can you point to one instance of Chinese expansion in the last 100 years? The only conflicts I can think of involve participating in the Korean War - in which no Chinese troops remained in N. Korea after the war (Can we say the same for ourselves in S. Korea?), border disputes with India in the late 1960's and the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 70s (in both cases "responsive" campaigns), and an incursion into Vietnam in 1978, after the latter invaded Cambodia.

In that last instance, China didn't stick around after the conflict, adn quickly exited northern Vietnam within five weeks of the start.

Can we say the same for Japan, who has invaded basically every country in Asia, in the course of which killing literally tens of millions of civilians? I think the record speaks for itself as to which has a history of territorial expansion in Asia.

From an anthropological perspective, China has historically been an inward looking kingdom. The only significant periods of expansion were under the Yuan Dynasty and QIng Dynasty, in both cases the country itself was the subject of expansion, being taken over by the Mongols (Ghenghis Khan and company, who formed the Yuan dynasty) and later the Manchurians, who had established the Qing Dynasty. In other words, the only periods of expansion were during period under which the country was itself under foreign occupation.

As to the current issue, the fact that Japan is nominally a democracy does not necessarily make its position stronger on the merits of a territorial dispute. Certainly Hitler's Germany was a democratic state which it decided to absorb Czechoslovakia.

Similarly, the fact that China is not a democracy, as unfortunate as that may be, is irrelevant to the merits of its argument on the Sekaku/Diaoyu Islands sovereignty issue.

The problem is that too many of us in the West see right vs. wrong in the narrow context of poltiical ideologies, without considering that even non-democratic states may have legitimate position when it comes to territorial disputes.

BTW, having lived in Japan for a few years, I can tell you that their "democracy" is very different from the notion that we have in the US.

Recommend
Recommended by 48 Readers

−−−−

6.
DC
Central America
September 22nd, 2010
12:17 am

It might seem preposterous but Japan, an aggressor from 1895-1945, who caused upwards of 30 million Chinese deaths, billions in economic losses, who treated 15,000 Chinese as guinea pigs and has not paid reparations to China is demanding a piece of land that does not belong to it. Diaoyu has traditionally been part of Taiwan by proximity and also as a traditional fishing ground of Taiwan fishermen. When Japan lost the war, Taiwan and surrounding islets reverted to China.
Japan has no right to demand what is not hers. In fact, if it had any sense of morality it would have relinquished these claims long ago. China has not occupied Japanese land that did not belong to her, such as the Russians in Karafuto and the northern territories. When Japan surrendered China swifly repatriated millions of Japanese troops and did not keep them in Gulags to rot. It even issued a plea for the Chinese to forgive their aggressors. In this dispute, Japan does not have the moral high ground but is behaving just like in the 1930's. But this time China will not be slapped around.

Recommend
Recommended by 42 Readers

−−−−

7.
Peter
NJ
September 22nd, 2010
12:18 am

The author should investigate further. The Senkaku/Diaoyu Island were actually a part of the Okinawa Chain of islands. The real question is the status of Okinawa. The independent kingdom of Okinawa or Ryukyu was a close tributary of Qing China. 1872, Japan attacked and fully annexed Ryukyu over the objections of its king which offer to live under Qing China protection instead. Though Qing China was close to topple itself in corruption and wars such as the 2 opium wars, it accepted but send only words, not troops.

China had not brought up this point because it is biding their strength as Diaoyu island chains inevitably will lead to the status of Ryukyu kingdom to which Japan is still, after its long submission, trying to placate the local population away from Independence calls.

Recommend
Recommended by 7 Readers

−−−

8.
Anonymous
San Diego, CA
September 22nd, 2010
12:18 am

Whether Japan thinks so or not, the island is a disputed territory to the rest of the world. From the U.S long term security points of view in East Asia, 1) The U.S to continue to be the most powerful naion in the world, 2) Let China to be more powerful than Japan. With the above conditions, China will not attack Japan without thinking twice and Japan will have to keep relying on the U.S to provide security. The only bad thing about it is that some Japanese grivance about the U.S military bases in Japan will continue.

Recommend
Recommended by 0 Readers

−−−−

9.
storm
California
September 22nd, 2010
12:18 am

Most of the time there is no clear resolution to an argument of this nature. But I have to agree with John D that the previous blog and posts failed to mention something that goes beyond the test of legality, and has more to do with a test of might. So it is a little ridiculous to hear all these arguments concerning who has the proper claim. It is more relevant to analyze how certain outcomes will affect the balance of power in the Pacific.

Recommend
Recommended by 2 Readers

−−−−

10.
blendedpurple
Cebu
September 22nd, 2010
12:19 am

I assume that Kristoff is happy to cede the U.S back to either Mexico (taken by force) or any number of Indian tribes who signed treaties at gunpoint ?

Recommend
Recommended by 6 Readers

−−−−

11.
bea2003
Tokyo,Japan
September 22nd, 2010
12:19 am

Hello, everybody.

Senkaku Islands confirmed that there was not dominium of Qing(sino), and Japan was admitted based on law formally as a territory in 1895.

There is not one record protested by Qing(sino) which did not govern Senkaku Islands in those days.

For people of Ishigaki-jima Island having helped a victim (fishermen of huian country at fujian) cast ashore in the fishing island in 1920, a letter of thanks was handed to village mayors by the Republic of China.
By the description, it was specified Senkaku Islands with "Yaeyama-gun Senkaku Islands, empire Japan".

http://upload.wikimedia.org...
Recommend
Recommended by 8 Readers

−−−−

12.
xs
wi
September 22nd, 2010
12:19 am
#4.

Your position that since Japan is an US ally, then whatever they do, regardless of legality and reason, would need to be defended, is exactly the reason why US is disliked and hated by so much of the world.

I find your willingness to perpetuate a mistake, even at risk bring US into war with another nuclear power, disturbing to say the least. However, it does take a person with disturbed mind to believe China has strong militaristic tendencies and goes out of it's way to find trouble.

Recommend
Recommended by 24 Readers

−−−−

13.
WildLily
Taiwan
September 22nd, 2010
12:19 am

The Senkaku/Diaoyu are rocks in the sea and the only reason for all these claims is to get a piece of the pie, just as what is happening in the Spratley and Paracel Islands.
That said, if the Japanese are good at rewriting history, the Chinese are much better. Mao killed more Chinese than the Japanese ever did yet he is revered . . .and Japan is vilified.
The Qing were a Manchu Empire yet too many accept the court historian mentality and call it China. When the Romans conquered Greece and adapted much of their culture, as well as aspects from the other surrounding countries, historians still call it the Roman Empire. When the Mongols conquered everything from Korea to Hungary, it is calledt China and not the Mongol Empire. Get the picture. The same goes for the Manchus.
The PRC is trying to co-opt what the Manchus ruled in the name of Han China.

The Manchus repatriated any Ming loyalists from Taiwan way back in 1683; but the Manchus never ruled all of Taiwan, they only made the half that they ruled a province in 1885 ten years before they gave it to Japan. Japan would be the first country to conquer and subdue the indigenous people on the east side. Japan is the first country to control all of Taiwan.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty (1952) said Japan must give up Taiwan but it did not say to the PRC or the ROC; omitted in this is a third option--to the people of Taiwan.

Do you ever wonder why the cabal that rules China does not allow freedom of the press? It is easier to brainwash the massive minions if they cannot get other opinions except the government speak. Ask yourself how the Mongolians got out of this trap of being a part of China--they were lucky they had Russia (the USA enemy at the time) to help them.

For some different opinions on Taiwan come to Taiwan where we see part of it as a province of the Manchu Empire for 10 years and then a part of the Japanese Empire. But when you come, don't just talk to the carpetbaggers who came with Chiang Kai-shek; talk to true Taiwanese.

Recommend
Recommended by 23 Readers

−−−−

14.
On behalf of GOJ
Tokyo, Japan
September 22nd, 2010
12:20 am
Kristof,

In your previous blog post, you have stated "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."

Why won't happen? You must be smart enough to know the reasons and I suspect you know it. China is not willing to bring the case to international court in Hague because it is highly likely that Japanese occupancy stated by GOJ will satisfy the requirement of occupancy stipulated in the international law.

I think GOJ have complained you because you may be intentionally drop above reasons from your post which implicates you are biased.
Recommend
Recommended by 13 Readers

−−−−

15.
Lawrence
Toronto, ON
September 22nd, 2010
12:20 am

David L. ought to produce the details of proof on his overwhelming evidence in his statement "Nanjing Massacre happened despite overwhelming evidence". Several years ago, the book of the Nanking Massacre by Iris Chan has all doctored photographs originating form the Life magazines and others. I will also challenge him to show any example of his statement, "The Japanese government is good at re-writing history". On the contrary, I have seen the China's communists have been re-writing theirs concerning the Tiananmen Massacre and the Long March massacre as well as SAR's epidemic, for instance. I think China has been getting caught red handed so many times and we all know them Unlike in China, those who live in the democratic societies all know that it's obligations of the people making serious allegations that ought to bring forward to the world the clear evidences backing those allegations. The loud voices without substances that Chinese people are accustomed to deploy for witch hunting during the Cultural Revolution or even before are just not good enough here.

Recommend
Recommended by 15 Readers

−−−−

16.
f
CA
September 22nd, 2010
12:20 am

Japan is the best fabrication nation in the world

Recommend
Recommended by 10 Readers

−−−−

17.
Nyao
NY
September 22nd, 2010
12:20 am

The Chinese "dictatorship" government is good at re-writing history. After World War II, the China has invaded other countries for instance Tibet, Vietnam, Indonesia, India and East Turkistan.
The recent movement of China in the sea in Asia might be dangerous. Is the United States a country that cannot defend Treaty of San Francisco? If so, the United States might lost not only political credit but also our economic power against China.
See "BBC DEATH ON THE SILK ROAD" on the youtube. We should know what happened in the East Turkistan.

Recommend
Recommended by 16 Readers

−−−−

18.
Lawrence
Toronto, ON
September 22nd, 2010
12:20 am

To infinitime of California,

I commend you for your lengthy argument on this issue. However, your argument has no convincing point in light of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of which both China and Japan have been the signatories. The islands was uninhabited and unclaimed in1895 when Japan declared its possession according with the International law. Since then, Japan has maintained effective governance for nearly 3/4 century without seeing any other claimant on the islands. Shortly after ECAFE (UN Agency) published the report for the potential finding of oil and gas in this region in 1969, China decided and made statement through the department of Foreign Affairs in 1971 for the first time. Since both countries have place to dispute the claims of either side based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea at International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, it was unnecessary to quarrel in an unseemly manner single handedly this time.

Recommend
Recommended by 9 Readers

−−−−

19.
bonitoysexy
Chicago
September 22nd, 2010
12:21 am

Well, Japan and China is like the cats and dogs fight.
I would say just let them fight.
Japanese treats Chinese like shit. The only country Japanese can look up to is the U.S. And that is because they have to.
On the other hand, Chinese think they are the God of the world. And they have no moral and ethics. What all they care about is money.
For the U.S. benefit, U.S. can get into this issue on behalf of Japan to make things more complicated. The islands’ geographical location is very critical. If by any excuse U.S. can get the control of the area, that will help the U.S. long-term development and can contain both China and Japan.
U.S should never allow Japan to build military and China to go beyond the first see lane. Other than that, the U.S. should just wait and profit from the situation.
Recommend
Recommended by 2 Readers

−−−−

20.
from Japan
Japan
September 22nd, 2010
12:21 am
Japan has lost many its territory as compensation for the WWII.
Japan accepts them.

But I don't know the reason why besides San fransisco treaty you tend to thnk that the Japan territoy Senkau islands the Western had desided belong to Chinese.
You discover the history resource newly?
Otherwise, it must be your devotion to China.
In Ming era Chinese navigational records remarks to Senkaku islnads.
You know that Ming people know Senkaku islands already But the Ming government had never insisted their lands. No Cninese have lived there. You says they knew that islands already, they must want it naturally. I don't know why is must be.
Japan declare that the Senkaku belongs to Japan in 1895, and the Japanese lived there in the past.
As territory conflict this case is very simple case.
no historical Insistence by Ming, no Chinese live there, no claim to Japan From China till 1970 when UN discover the natural resource around Senkaku islands.

When Japanses territory is defined after WWII severely, any historic materials about Japan territory were examined by Westerner specialists at that time. So China does not claim to Senkaku.
Even if China suddenly insists on the dominium hundreds of years later from when China knows that the lands are, the lands belong to China. I don't think so.

And your remark "barren rocks" for Senkaku Island is not good. In the past the Japanese persons lived there. It's not appropriate remark.
Recommend
Recommended by 7 Readers

−−−−

21.
kazkaz
saitama
September 22nd, 2010
12:22 am

The territorial issue doesn't exist in Senkaku Islands!!!

http://homepage2.nifty.com...

【 photograph explanation 】Copy of kept "Letter of thanks". It is proven that China was acknowledging Japanese territory Senkaku Islands.

Historical materials is what the Republic of China garrisoned Nagasaki consul presented to Okinawa Prefecture stone wall village
(reality and stone wall city) villager at that time as "Letter of thanks" to the Chinese fishermen rescue on May 20,
year (1920 1920) in Republic of China 9. The content「31 people like fishermen and order of the district combination
in the Megumi Fujian down prefecture (vicinity of reality and fountain state) in China etc. met an accident in the winter of 8 years (1919)
in the Republic of China, and it was washed to [niaru] [wahiroshijima] of Senkaku island (reality and Senkaku Islands) of Japan (Uotsuri Island).
[Tamadaiikioimago] [tomonashi] of the stone wall village (the following assistant) nursed ardently,
and everyone was able to return alive energetically. Such nursing doesn't bear thanking and present the letter of thanks. 」The one.

つか反論あるなら日本語で言え
Recommend
Recommended by 3 Readers

−−−−

22.
kazkaz
saitama
September 22nd, 2010
12:22 am

08/Jan/1953 People's Daily (Chinese Central Committee's official publication) posted the article
titled "Ryukyu people's struggle against the American occupation", which explains the Diaoyu Islands as "Senkaku Islands" and a part of Okinawa.

Nov/1958
the publishing company in Beijing published "World map collection", which depicted the island as "Senkaku Islands owned by Japan".

Oct/1965
Ministry of National Defense (Republic of China) published the first edition of "World map 1st collection - East Asia",
which depicted the island as "Senkaku Islands owned by Japan".

Jan/1970
the first edition of Taiwanese government-designated textbook for secondary school's geography was published ,
and it explained the Diaoyu island as "Senkaku Islands owned by Japan".

1969-1970
the UN reported the reserve assessment of oil near to the Diaoyu Islands,
which is about 109.5 billion barrels (about the same amount of the oil in Iraq and more than Kuwait and UAE).

30/Dec/1971
Chinese government (Chinese Foreign Minister) officially staked a claim to the Diaoyu island in the first time.

According to China (and Taiwan)'s official perspective to this island,
it is pretty much obvious why China's started to claim that the Diaoyu Islands is owned by China.
Before the UN's report, China was not interested in those valueless small islands at all.
Recommend
Recommended by 9 Readers

−−−−

23.
kazkaz
saitama
September 22nd, 2010
12:22 am
It says again.
Senkaku Islands is the one of Japan for a long time.
There is no territorial issue in Senkaku Islands.
Were you able to understand?

Recommend
Recommended by 3 Readers

−−−−

24.
kazkaz
saitama
September 22nd, 2010
12:22 am

Chinese did not want Senkaku Islands until 1970.
..understanding.. at once, luxury [ya;ri] has come out when there is a resource in 1970.
Tokyo is foolish the one of China it. ..Senkaku Islands.. the one of China it
I am angry because of impudent of Chinese.

Recommend
Recommended by 2 Readers

−−−−

25.
Danny
Hong Kong
September 22nd, 2010
12:22 am

I like to reply to the John D above for his comments. Your points are valid, but you have simply choosing the route that seems most beneficial to America instead of doing what is right.

If the pre-1895 soveignty of the islands were with China, then the US simply made a mistake in returning the islands to Japan in its 1973 treaty.

If you support Japan simply because of the mistake on the 1973 treaty, then you will be making further mistakes to support your past mistakes. And if you are supporting Japan just because it is your Ally, then you are saying that you do not care about what is right or wrong.

Don't you American always value doing the right things? If you support Japan because of the reasons above, then American's are hypocrites for always bashing Iran, North Korea, China for its wrong ways.

Determining which country's view should be supported should be based entirely on whether China had pre-1895 soveignty over the islands, not which method is most beneficial to Americans.

Recommend
Recommended by 22 Readers
 

  拍手はせず、拍手一覧を見る

コメント
 
01. tk 2010年10月03日 03:52:39: fNs.vR2niMp1. : 0hWcXlALAw
There was no need for a seperate provision under the agreement to deal with territory which it deems to be under the broader heading of Taiwan.
尖閣諸島も台湾と区別されるべきではない、としている。

この部分の訳は自信なし。


02. 2010年10月03日 07:37:55: 9oOHTBv4UA
(コメント欄28番 28.A View from MyselfUSSeptember 21st, 2010)

県治処秘第十二号ノ内
復第百五十三号

久場島、魚釣島港湾ノ形状及其他ノ件ニ付秘別第三四号御照会ノ趣了承致候。然ル処該島ハ去ル十八年中、県属警部等派出踏査セシメ候、以来更ニ実地調査致ササルヲ以テ確報難及候得共、当時出張員ノ調書及回航船出雲丸船長報告書ハ別紙ノ通リニ有之候。条具詳写シ并略図相添ヘ此段及御回答候也。

  明治二七年五月十二日
             沖縄県知事 奈 良 原 繁 ㊞
   内務省県治局長  江 木 千 之 殿

追テ該島ニ関スル旧記書類及我邦ニ属セシ証左ノ明文又ハ口碑ノ伝説等モ無之古来県下ノ漁夫時々八重山島カラ南嶋ヘ渡航漁漁猟致シ候関係ノミ有之候条此段申添候也。


03. 2010年10月03日 07:51:20: 9oOHTBv4UA
(コメント105番より 105.A View from Myself US September 23rd)

十月廿一日発遣
親展第三十八号

                    外務卿伯爵 井上 馨
  内務卿伯爵 山県有朋殿

 沖縄県ト清国福州トノ間ニ散在スル無人島、久米赤島外二嶋、沖縄県ニ於テ実地調査ノ上国標建設ノ義、本月九日附甲第八十三号ヲ以テ御協議ノ趣致熟考候処、右嶋嶼ノ義ハ清国国境ニモ接近致候。曩ニ踏査ヲ遂ケ候大東島ニ比スレハ、 周回モ小サキ趣ニ相見へ、殊ニ清国ニハ其島名モ附シ有之候ニ就テハ、近時、清国新聞紙等ニモ、我政府ニ於テ台湾近傍清国ノ所屬ノ島嶼ヲ占拠セシ等ノ風説を 掲載シ、我国ニ対シテ猜疑ヲ抱キ、頻ニ清政府ノ注意ヲ促シ候モノモ有之際ニ付、此際ニ遽ニ公然国標ヲ建設スル等ノ処置有之候テハ、清国ノ疑惑ヲ招キ候間、差向実地ヲ踏査セシメ、港湾ノ形状并ニ土地物産開拓見込ノ有無ヲ詳細報告セシムルノミニ止メ、国標ヲ建テ開拓等ニ着手スルハ、他日ノ機会ニ譲リ候方可然存候。

 且曩ニ踏査セシ大東島ノ事并ニ今回踏査ノ事共、官報并ニ新聞紙ニ掲載不相成候方可然存候間、夫々御注意相成置候様致度候。

 右回答旁拙官意見申進候也。

追テ御差越ノ書類及御付候御落手相成度候也。


04. 2010年10月03日 07:59:45: 9oOHTBv4UA
(コメント114 Youjin Washington, DC September)

As a Chinese looking feverishly for any historical evidence that would prove China’s sovereign claim over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, I have to admit that my conclusion would favor the Japanese.

Not only was there no mention of the islands in the official histories of the Ming and Qing dynasties (明史, 清史稿), there was no indication of them being a part of China’s sovereign territory in either Chinese official atlases (坤舆全图, 1767; 皇朝中外一统舆图, 1863) or administrative maps (皇朝直省府厅州县全图, 1864).

Several Chinese travelogues and nautical charts (使琉球录, 1534; 日本一鉴桴海图经, 1556; 中山传信录, 1720) did mention these islands. But again I could find no evidence of them having been regarded as Chinese territories.

The two Japanese maps that many Chinese claim to be iron-clad proofs of China’s historic rights over these islands turned out to be questionable at best.

Military scholar Hayashi Shihei’s Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu (三国通覧図說, 1785) was based on one of the afore-mentioned Chinese travelogue/nautical charts (中山传信录), and was banned until Japan lifted its Isolation Policy in 1854.

The other, geographer Yamada Ren’s world atlas of 1810 (地球輿地全図, http://www.lib.meiji.ac.jp/perl/exhibit/ex_search_detail?detail_sea_param=4,12,0,a), like Hayashi’s map, seemed to indicate by coloration that these islands belonged to China.

But neither was official (in fact, the former was banned until Japan lifted its Isolation Policy in 1854). And in both cases, there were incongruencies. For example, in the former, Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands were colored red (China’s color) while Taiwan was colored yellow (Japan’s color).

One has to come to the conclusion that before Japan’s formal annexation of these islands in January 1895 (three months before the Shimonoseki Treaty), they were basically uninhabited and undesired “terra nullius.”


05. tk 2010年10月03日 10:56:41: fNs.vR2niMp1. : 0hWcXlALAw
「114. Youjin Washington, DC September 24th, 2010 12:55 pm」(推薦者 4人)

06. tk 2010年10月03日 11:12:19: fNs.vR2niMp1. : 0hWcXlALAw
「103. GB New York, NY September 23rd, 2010 5:34 pm」(推薦者 7人)

Have you ever seen a map of North America in 1783? All land west of the Mississippi and Florida were not yet part of the U.S.
(http://etc.usf.edu....htm)

あなたは、1783年の北アメリカの地図を見たことがありますか? ミシシッピーの西のすべての陸とフロリダは米国の一部ではありませんでした。

The islands in question weren't annexed by Japan until 1895, but Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii and Alaska weren't annexed by the U.S. until even later.

問題の島は1895年に初めて、日本によって併合されましたが、ユタ(オクラホマ)(ニューメキシコ)、アリゾナ(ハワイ)、およびアラスカはそれより遅れて初めて、米国によって併合されました。

I think adverse possession would be the apt legal principle to apply in this case. And I would think Japan has openly owned the islands for long enough to be considered the rightful owners.

本件の場合「不法占有」(の法理)が適用しやすいと思います。日本は十分に長期にわたって公然とこの島を保持していたので適法な所有者とみなされることになると思う。

* 「不法占有」は、おそらく、「悪意の占有者の時効取得」に似た理論だろう。

If we're going to apply maps from 1783 as justification for land rights, the U.S. has a lot of land to cede.

もし、土地への権利を正当化するために、1783年の地図が必要だとなれば、米国は割譲すべき多くの土地を持っていることになってしまいます。


07. 2010年10月03日 12:47:46: dyblxYihsY
>日本は1895年に軍事力を使って、これ(尖閣諸島)を奪い取った。

誰から? そしてその国はいつからどういう理由で領有してたの?
その証拠は?

なんにも無いでしょ? 脳内データじゃダメよ(冷笑)


08. 2010年10月03日 13:29:47: 6kuobrWeYc
>>07
もともとほか移動や沖縄も軍事力で奪い取ったものだろ。

09. 2010年10月03日 17:41:24: FqDvXxU8vI
沖縄人は薩摩侵攻と琉球支配もきっちり覚えてるし、きっとネイティブアメリカンだかインディアンだかも侵略の歴史を覚えてるだろう。
忘れるのはお目出度い侵略者側だけ。
勿論、日本人も基地の存在を片時たりとも忘れない。
売国奴以外は!

10. 2010年10月04日 07:53:03: GylRh4y3GQ
古賀辰四郎氏と沖縄
http://pinacles.zouri.jp/senkakushotounituite/kogatatusirou.htm

を読めば中国の言っていることなど戯言にすぎない。

中国政府が90年前に魚釣島や石垣島の島民らに送った「感謝状」に、『日本帝国沖縄縣八重山郡尖閣列島』と書かれています。

これを読めば中国の言っていることが、如何に「二枚舌の戯言」であるかが、一目瞭然です。

中国のウソ決定的証拠!「尖閣は日本領」認めていた(zakzak)
http://www.zakzak.co.jp/society/domestic/news/20100924/dms1009241604021-n2.htm


11. 2010年10月11日 08:20:22: CWsYOQr51A
元々、今の中華人民共和国地域だって、夏(商)が他地域侵略しまくった結果だからな。
さらに言えば、清と中華民国と中華人民共和国では上に立つべきもの自体すら違う。

まずは、どこまで年代をもどしたいか宣言してから、領土がどうの言ってもらいたいもんだ。


  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♪ > 戦争b5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♪ > 戦争b5掲示板

 
▲上へ       
★阿修羅♪  
この板投稿一覧