The Diaoyu Islands Conflict

[lirelou]

Yes, G-88, but Japan is claiming prior possession based upon the fact that the islands were uninhabited, ergo Terra Nullius in the early-mid 19th century. Now, if you go to this site, you'll see that there have been changes to how Terra Nullius is defined regarding Indigenous peoples.

http://www.nfsa.gov.au/digitallearning/mabo/tn_01.shtml

There are Taiwanese aboriginals inhabiting islands east of Taiwan, and obviously they are sea-going peoples. If any of those groups can establish a claim that they earlier inhabited the Daioyu islands, then they could well prevail in an international court. That being the case, Taiwan would emerge the winner, whether it remained the Republic of China or not.

Otherwise, due to proximity, I would favor Japan. That is my thinking now. There is no doubt that China claimed the islands, but there is no evidence that it ever settled them. The weakest claim for me is the PRC's.

Don, Taiwan legally remains the ROC. But whether or not it will continue to do so is a point of contention in Taiwanese politics. So the maintenance of any garrisons in the Spratleys is irrelevant. Considering that Taiwan possesses a large and vital fishing fleet, they might well decide to maintain any such garrisons after independence. Taiwan presently has the National Palace Museum, which was taken there in 1949. Until very recently it was the premier Chinese museum in the world. It may still be so. But independence would also open that bag of worms.

I see both Taiwan and Japan as having legal basis to their claims. However Japan developed as a maritime power before Taiwan did, and here I speak of Taiwan as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, largely underdeveloped on land, but heavily engaged in (often illegal) trade with links stretching from Northeast to Southeast Asia.

[GMan88]

Originally Posted by lirelou

Yes, G-88, but Japan is claiming prior possession based upon the fact that the islands were uninhabited, ergo Terra Nullius in the early-mid 19th century. Now, if you go to this site, you'll see that there have been changes to how Terra Nullius is defined regarding Indigenous peoples.

http://www.nfsa.gov.au/digitallearning/mabo/tn_01.shtml

There are Taiwanese aboriginals inhabiting islands east of Taiwan, and obviously they are sea-going peoples. If any of those groups can establish a claim that they earlier inhabited the Daioyu islands, then they could well prevail in an international court. That being the case, Taiwan would emerge the winner, whether it remained the Republic of China or not.

Otherwise, due to proximity, I would favor Japan. That is my thinking now. There is no doubt that China claimed the islands, but there is no evidence that it ever settled them. The weakest claim for me is the PRC's.

Don, Taiwan legally remains the ROC. But whether or not it will continue to do so is a point of contention in Taiwanese politics. So the maintenance of any garrisons in the Spratleys is irrelevant. Considering that Taiwan possesses a large and vital fishing fleet, they might well decide to maintain any such garrisons after independence. Taiwan presently has the National Palace Museum, which was taken there in 1949. Until very recently it was the premier Chinese museum in the world. It may still be so. But independence would also open that bag of worms.

I see both Taiwan and Japan as having legal basis to their claims. However Japan developed as a maritime power before Taiwan did, and here I speak of Taiwan as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, largely underdeveloped on land, but heavily engaged in (often illegal) trade with links stretching from Northeast to Southeast Asia.

Hi lirelou,

I would respectfully agree to disagree; personally I do not agree that proximity should be anyone's reason to strengthen/weaken any claim. But, thanks so much for your knowledgeable post.



Gman

[Persephone]

I would like to know "word for word" what's in the letter...

Japanese envoy Yamaguchi offers to shelve dispute over Diaoyus
Wednesday, 23 January, 2013, 12:00am

Japanese representative arrives in Beijing on mission to 'normalise ties' and plans to hand letter from premier Shinzo Abe to Xi Jinping

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/artic...e-over-diaoyus

[GMan88]

Originally Posted by Persephone

I would like to know "word for word" what's in the letter...

interesting! heck, I don't mind not word for word, even just the gist!

[IDonT4]

Don, Taiwan legally remains the ROC. But whether or not it will continue to do so is a point of contention in Taiwanese politics. So the maintenance of any garrisons in the Spratleys is irrelevant. Considering that Taiwan possesses a large and vital fishing fleet, they might well decide to maintain any such garrisons after independence. Taiwan presently has the National Palace Museum, which was taken there in 1949. Until very recently it was the premier Chinese museum in the world. It may still be so. But independence would also open that bag of worms. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by lirelou

Contention does not make it otherwise. The One China policy is the dominant diplomatic doctrine of most nation in the world.

I see both Taiwan and Japan as having legal basis to their claims. However Japan developed as a maritime power before Taiwan did, and here I speak of Taiwan as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, largely underdeveloped on land, but heavily engaged in (often illegal) trade with links stretching from Northeast to Southeast Asia.

I still don't understand the basis of why being a "historical" naval power gives Japan a better claim to the Senkakus. If China becomes a naval power in 20 years, does it give it a better claim to these islands 120 years from now?

[Persephone]

China have announced they will perform naval drills in the coming days, beyond where the Diaoyu Islands are located and where deep waters are ideal for anti-submarine drills.

China to go ahead with naval exercise amid East China Sea island dispute with Japan
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...te-with-japan/

[Pruitt]

I hope they can dodge the underwater reefs and rocks! They have to sail past them to get to deep water.

Pruitt

[Kevin Kenneally]

Just wish the nations that want to control these islands would settle the issue and be done with this.

Or maybe a little "incident" near/on the islands might make the nations go to the negotiation tables......

[GCoyote]

Are we seeing the run up to an 'incident'?

5 February 2013 Last updated at 07:25 ET

A Chinese vessel has locked its weapon-targeting radar on a Japanese ship, Tokyo says, amid mounting tensions over a territorial row.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21337444

[GCoyote]

Okay, after reading the new posts, this sounds like the PRC's best strategy:

1. Support Taiwanese claims to the Diaoyu Islands under the working assumption of eventual reunification.
2. Establish a nominally Taiwanese corporation to explore and develop any energy resources found.
3. The Taiwanese corporation signs long term contracts for oil and gas deliveries to the PRC.
4. PRC politicians rake off profits at every step.
5. PRC uses 'giving' on this issue to demonstrate its 'reasonableness' while pushing other claims in the South China Sea.

[GMan88]

It appears their "best" (non-military) strategy is for CNOC to form a joint venture with a Taiwan company for exploration and extraction, no need to form any new "nominal" taiwanese company, just deal with any of the current ones.

[PitchRate]

I have posted several of these videos in another thread below, however, I would recommend you listen to the remarks of CAPT James Fanell, Deputy Chief of Staff For Intelligence, U.S. Pacific Fleet. They occur in the video from approximately 21:13 to 32:00. It is a very interesting assessment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...kBBIqaOkbr85zb

[Persephone]

Originally Posted by GCoyote

Are we seeing the run up to an 'incident'?

5 February 2013 Last updated at 07:25 ET



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21337444

I'm still waiting for it to become a 'conflict'...

When the incident occurred, PLAN denied they targeted the Japanese destroyer...now Japan may release the radar data to prove their claim.

9 February 2013 Last updated at 00:30 ET
Senkaku/Diaoyu islands: Japan may release China radar data

Japan says it may release evidence to prove a Chinese naval frigate locked its fire-control radar onto a Japanese ship near disputed islands.
Tokyo said it might release the data after Beijing rejected accusations it had targeted the destroyer last month.
The incident would be the closest the two countries have come to exchanging fire in the reignited dispute over the islands in the East China Sea

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21392248

[Pruitt]

Why the delay after China denied the claim?

Pruitt

[Anacreon]

Originally Posted by Pruitt

Why the delay after China denied the claim?

Pruitt

My first guess is that the Japanese government were busy discussing whether they should respond to the Chinese denial, or if they should just let the latest incident die down.