[quote=“Hartzell”]What exactly are the arguments which say that Diaoyutai belongs to the Chinese?
(I don’t think it is of any value to assert pre-1895 arguments, because as I understand it, by the end of the 1800’s, Japan, all of the Ryukyus, as well as Formosa and the Pescadores were completely under Japanese sovereignty.)[/quote]
Good question. I’d like to know too. All the arguments I’ve seen place them squarely in Japanese hands. Tkacik at the conservative Heritage Foundation argues:
heritage.org/Research/Asiaan … /wm723.cfm
“China and Taiwan have expressed interest in the islands since only 1968, when a United Nations Economic Commission For Asia development report was released that suggested there may be large seabed hydrocarbon deposits near the islands. On June 11, 1971, the Republic of China on Taiwan formally claimed the Senkakus. Since then, both Taiwan’s “Republic of China” government and the People’s Republic in Beijing have made assertions of sovereignty over the islands based on undocumented ancient texts. After the United States returned the islands to Japan in the 1972 Okinawa Reversion Agreement, China lodged a formal protest with the U.S. government. Eager not to alienate Beijing just as President Nixon was beginning his opening to China, the U.S. State Department announced that the Reversion Agreement “did not affect the sovereignty” over disputed islands.”
Zmag on the left counters in favor of China
zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6269
"Major support for Chinese irredentism comes from the history of relations between Imperial China (Ming and Qing) and the Ryukyu Kingdom. The acknowledged boundary between China and Ryukyu until the demise of the Ryukyu Kingdom was somewhere in the sea east and south of the Diaoyu Islands (west and north of the Ryukyu Islands). This Sino-Ryukyuan boundary became a Sino-Japanese boundary when Japan took over Ryukyu and proclaimed it Okinawa Prefecture in 1879. After the incorporation of Ryukyu in the empire of Japan, the Japanese government turned its attention to other small islands in the surrounding seas. In 1885, Tokyo declared sovereignty over the North and South Ufuagarijima (today’s Daito) Islands and placed them under the jurisdiction of Okinawa Prefecture. About this time, the Japanese-appointed governor of Okinawa petitioned Tokyo for the take-over of the Diaoyu Islands. (Another uninhabited island to the south of the Daito Islands was added to the Daito group as Okino Daitojima in 1900.) The Japanese government hesitated, but decided to incorporate the Diaoyu Islands in Japanese territory in January 1895 in the midst of the Sino-Japanese War, which ended with the Treaty of Shimonoseki in November of the same year. The Treaty stipulates, among other things, that China cedes to Japan “the island of Formosa together with all islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa” [Article II{b}]. Whether the Diaoyu Islands, which were not called Senkaku by Japan until 1900, are implied in “islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa” is an unsettled question. China’s answer is affirmative, while Japan insists that these islands were terra nullius when Japan took over. Japan justifies its position by the international law of how terra nullius becomes a specific state’s territory. The legality of the Japanese occupation of the Diaoyu Islands on January 14, 1895 as well as the question of how these islands figured in the negotiation for the Treaty of Shimonseki deserves renewed attention. "
It seems we have “historical claims” vs. “possession by occupation.” Good luck adjudicating that one.
Michael
