By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google Sign up with FacebookQ: who does the diaoyu island(s) really belong to?
both japan and china make ancestral claims (use it to blow your nose)
but in 1895 the qing dynasty signed those islands over to japan after losing the first sino japanese war.
after ww2 the islands were surrendered to the usa (blame america here)
when the treaty of san fran was signed both the prc and the roc were not invited, so they were not allowed to air their grievances.
the USA pressured japan into signing a separate peace deal with taiwan (1952) that was called the treaty of Taipei
here is where it gets interesting.
- Article 4
- "It is recognized that all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941, between China and Japan have become null and void as a consequence of the war."
- now this clause is in dispute between Japan and Taiwan. (conveniently japan denounced the treaty in 1972 because in order to have relations with china japan could not recognize taiwan, the usa tossed you a soft pitch and you screwed it up china)
- many scholars including the Taiwanese who negotiated the treaty claims the that agreements that were not completed could only be nullified (ex: the treaty of 1895 between japan and china also granted korea it's independence from china you cant unring that bell) as some former taiwanese presidents often say, diaoyu islands belong to japan. there are a few interesting twists i invite you to research on wiki for
- yourself
- but i want to point out something. i have asked many chinese why does diao islands belong to china ? most say in my heart ..... some try to make a valid argument based on bogus facts (china defeated japan)
- some will say silly things based on non reality.
- you see what i just did, i just made a solid logical argument based on the facts and reality. technically all 3 countries have a legitimate claim.
Interesting, though difficult for me to keep up with most of that, i'm not too good at focussing my mind to such stuff as this i'm afraid, but interesting nontheless. It does seem to suggest each country has a legitimate claim. Personally I think, given the obvious ambiguity as to who bares rightful ownership of the islands, they should give them to Colin. He's just a mate of mine. Keeps a large sheep farm. He could keep his sheep there. Yep, give 'em to Colin. Problem solved.
Who do you think has the stronger claim?
giadrosich:
MArtiAn. You are a jewel. In the rough, perhaps, but a jewel, none the less.
mArtiAn:
And you are a diamond, sir. No doubt about it. Give us a kiss!
mArtiAn:
Ok, enough of the public flirting, people will start to talk. I'll PM you. Kisses!
JacobJohn:
hahahahaahahahahahaah what a laugh on both your comment and the dialog between the 2 of you. hahahahahah LOL
Yes, it seems like all three have a claim to the islands. However, many people have considered them belonging to Japan for a long time now. So far Japan has done a half decent job with them. Very few people have ever lived or operated a company on the islands, no one has developed them. If China would take them back, what do you think would happen?
On a side note, I had a conversation with a friend and he became upset about the Diaoyu islands. He brought them up, so in my mind, if he's going to get angry, that's his fault. Anyway, I asked him what China would do if they had control of the islands, and he said they'd build a giant city there. The biggest island is only 4 km squared. Yeah, that'll be a big city...not.
philbravery:
But if they started a race of Pigmy Chinese they could get more on the Island
Just think any foreigner that visits could be called Gulliver
Me, they're mine
xunliang:
Hey, so long as you pay me, you can call me whatever you want.
xunliang:
They're not for sale. I plan to build a Jurrasic Park on them
I'm past the point of caring and have more or less resolved to not talk about this with any Chinese I know in real life. Any opinion other than they're Chinese and they need to be given back to China immediately and for free or else China is well within its rights to start shooting provokes the messiest adult temper tantrums that I have ever seen.
I'm off to take a look at them myself tomorrow and maybe put in a bid, if and when they go up for auction.. Will let you know how much I think they're worth. Certainly not blood.
Just doing a Crimo here - perhaps the question should be - who DO the islands belong to. (mirror)
The islands were owned by the Kingdom of Ryukyu which was based on Okinawa. It was a vassal state of China until being annexed by Japan. They NEVER belonged to China directly. So, Ryukyu is no longer a nation and Japan is the only claimant with legitimacy. China's just stamping its feet and shaking its fist for the simple-headed nationalists to score cool points.
A famous Chinese general once said, "He who gets there the firstest with the mostest, wins." We have another saying, "Might makes right!" and another, "Possession is 9/10ths of the law." I am sure many foreigners will try to claim these as their own too.(Learning sarcasm from Loke) LOL
Some might say, "It matters not who is right and who is wrong because strength not virtue will determine the result. Hawaii...Taiwan...The Falklands...Texas and New Mexico...North Ireland...who REALLY owns them? Britain leased Hong Kong for a long time...
In the end it is not about mutual benefit, co-operation and love.
America is happy to sell weapons to Japan to get benefit.
It is all about
oil, minerals, money and blood.
I've found new evidence.
Was in a toy store today, and this toy for little kids clearly indicates the islands are NOT part of China. All parts of China are puzzle pieces that can be removed, the islands are just a dot of paint. Could be a boogger from some stoopid kid looking at the toy for all I know.
Oh, the picture is deliberately unfocussed to keep the world in suspense for a bit more. I did take a focused picture and has specialists look at the text near the dots, they do in fact say 钓鱼岛. This might be a blow to the boogger theory, but I think this will not invalidate this new proof.
(sorry Taiwan)
Scandinavian:
As I dive deeper into the research of this new map.
Hong Kong is also NOT a removable piece. In fact, it has a dotted line around it.....
some might say that this is because too small pieces would provide a choking hazard to users of the map, but that is preposterous, we know how "Safety with Chinese characteristics" work.
The Republic of China is the closest political entity geographically speaking, but Taiwanese don't really care about it I think.
I would say Japan, they have been ruling over it lately. The claims of China are ridiculous, it's like if tomorrow Britain and France would claim the two thirds of the world because they ruled about a third each during the colonial era.
If you love somebody, let them go, for if they return, they were always yours. If they don't, they never were.
It's simple, both China and Japan should let the Islands go, and see who they come back to.