Author: abramicus

Japan Should Relinquish Diaoyudao Immediately . . .   [Copy link] 中文

Post time 2012-12-22 17:49:26 |Display all floors
Reminder: Author is prohibited or removed, and content is automatically blocked
Writer's real name is Lau Guan Kim.  lau_guan_kim is for commentary and analysis. He writes also under another alter ego jinseng. I will respond to good reasoned debate. Mudslingers shall be ignored. What I do not like are ignorance, stupidity, chauvinism and bigotry. The other party has as much right as I have until it resorts to insults and nuisance.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2012-12-22 22:00:11 |Display all floors
lau_guan_kim Post time: 2012-12-22 17:46
No. That is not international law.

Please cite one paragraph that international law rules Diaoyu b ...
If you cite international law, then the obvious ruling is that since the Cairo Conference 1943, and the Potsdam Declaration 1945, conditioned Diaoyu Dao,  being seize from China in 1895 together with other stolen properties, be returned to China.


I love it when you people repeat this lie, and when asked to mention where those treaties explicitely  mention diaoyu/senkaku islands you offer a bunch of incoherent non-sense as a reply.


If we follow your non-logic Greece should take back instanbul, because Constantinople (currently: Instanbul) was once clearly Greek. Funny thing is that Greece has more reason to take back Constantinople than China taking back those islands, because it's undisputable that Greeks built that city BUT what about your precious islands? Is it indisputable that they were once Chinese? :)

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 3Rank: 3

Post time 2012-12-22 22:11:03 |Display all floors
I think the issue they are raising, although I am not entirely sure, is that the Cairo and Potsdam declarations specifically declare that Japan must return the territories that it took. One such territory is Diaoyu island.

I don't see how there can be any further confusion on this topic.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

2016 Most Popular Member CD top contributor in April 2015 Most Popular Member Medal of honor Medal of honor

Post time 2012-12-22 22:17:05 |Display all floors
dusty1 Post time: 2012-12-22 14:34
International Law says the islands belong to Japan.

Which international law is that? The US declared them a Japanese protectorate but this was not agreed by China or most of the Western world at the time, by this token the US can declare anywhere belongs to anyone, it does not have the right to do this

Use magic tools Report

Post time 2012-12-22 22:23:32 |Display all floors
Reminder: Author is prohibited or removed, and content is automatically blocked
Writer's real name is Lau Guan Kim.  lau_guan_kim is for commentary and analysis. He writes also under another alter ego jinseng. I will respond to good reasoned debate. Mudslingers shall be ignored. What I do not like are ignorance, stupidity, chauvinism and bigotry. The other party has as much right as I have until it resorts to insults and nuisance.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 3Rank: 3

Post time 2012-12-22 22:29:32 |Display all floors
futsanglung Post time: 2012-12-22 22:17
Which international law is that? The US declared them a Japanese protectorate but this was not agr ...

The international law was the Cairo and Potsdam treaties which were signed by all of the major victors of world war two. I think thats a pretty persuasive document, don't you? ;)

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2012-12-23 01:42:43 |Display all floors
This post was edited by Eudaimonia at 2012-12-23 01:45
HardTruth Post time: 2012-12-22 22:11
I think the issue they are raising, although I am not entirely sure, is that the Cairo and Potsdam d ...
I don't see how there can be any further confusion on this topic.

The counter argument is that China never actually had control of those islands and never cared for them before there was the discovery that there might be natural resources looming under them. It's true that in this world caring for such islands is a very VERY recent development, that's why a lot of countries have such disputes with their neighbours... because they didn't bother mentioning worthless islands such as these in the treaties that they made. So, Japan surveyed the islands for years and saw noone there or around em so they declared them theirs and gave the rights to someone Japanese to make a factory on them which still exists.

Also, even if those islands were sometime Chinese (which in my opinion the Chinese haven't managed to prove) my instanbul example is in effect. The Chinese claim to have been in control in the 18XX year now it's the 20XX year... from then until now Japan was (is) in control. It is a well known fact that international law supports the one who excercises sovereignity, especially if he does it for many decades.

So, the side that wants to change the status quo and expand is objectively China, and China provides insufficient proof even for the claim that those islands were in the year 18XX Chinese.  Even if we take their best scenario they simply claim that those islands were used by Chinese fishermen sometimes, so the only country that ever really used them was the one that uses them now.

If China wants to risk a war with the U.S. then China can try to grab those islands but the case for China for these islands is very weak.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.