True Taiwan patroits; Diaoyutai voyage


Five Taiwanese activists sailing a boat near the Diaoyutai (釣魚台) on Thursday morning were warned off from approaching the disputed island group by the Japanese Coast Guard.

Yonghe City Councilor Huang Hsi-lin (黃錫麟), a member of the People First Party, is also a member of Taiwan Safeguard Diaoyutai Movement Union. [/quote]
If that lame duck President wanted to truly make a mark in Taiwan history and have any sort of legacy. This should be the issue he should rally support behind. Diaoyutai belongs to Taiwan.

[quote]In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary, patriotism is deifned as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer, I beg to submit that it is the first.

Don’t the TI types believe that Diaoyutai belongs to the Japanese? One should never upset the masters. :smiley:

I think you mean one should not upset ones allies. Japan is a major ally of Taiwan. Of course, the Pro-Communist China crowd would love to see Japan pissed off with Taiwan, which is exactly why AC suggests Taiwan ppl to upset the relationship with Japan by pushing this issue. There are a lot bigger issues to deal with for Taiwan, like keeping the Commies at bay! You KMT folk use to care about such things too, now you are sleeping with the enemy. BTW: you can do business with China and not have to allow China to give it to you in the rear (Soong, Ma, Lien all bent over backwards for their Commie masters). That is something that President Chen needs to learn, I think he should more quickly open up to China economically, while maintaining a safe distance politically.

You KMT folk? You really mean the Greenies who keep pouring money into mainland, while trying to scare Taiwan’s underprivileged about how they are going to lose their shirts if they don’t vote Green. Alas, let’s not protect ROC’s land, because… Oh yes, it’s the friendly way.

May the KMT continue their reform and make the free Chinese and Huaren everywhere proud. :slight_smile:

What about all of the Taiwanese citzens who are not ethnically Chinese? Maybe they aren’t invited to the party, huh? Looking at the history of the KMT, looks like nothing much has changed there.

What about all of the Taiwanese citzens who are not ethnically Chinese? Maybe they aren’t invited to the party, huh? Looking at the history of the KMT, looks like nothing much has changed there.[/quote]

Are you talking about the Greenies who are going for the sub-ethnic divide or the Bluies who want to be all inclusive. Yep, nothing has changed, except the KMT reform. Go KMT reform. :slight_smile:

BTW, other than the 2% aborigines who are truely not ethnically Chinese, who else are you talking about?

Maybe you want to define what a “truly ethnic Chinese” is. Ethnicity, after all, is a lot more than “a long, long, long time ago my ancestors moved here from China.” Don’t forget that common cultural ties, behaviors, language, and religion play a role in determining ethnicity. Argue it to the end of time if you want to, but the bottom line is ethnicity is really how a people identify themselves. While some in Taiwan identify themselves as Chinese, there are a lot more who identify themselves as Taiwanese. Furthermore, last time I checked, it is not a requirement to be ethnically chinese or aboriginal to be naturalized as a citizen of Taiwan. Thousands of immigrants from all over East and Southeast Asia have immigrated to Taiwan and later naturalized as citizens. What say you to them? Of course, to the KMT, they were always inferior and persecuted, as were the aboriginals and pre-1949 immigrants to Taiwan. Lets hope hope they do reform, indeed. Maybe they could give back all of the money and property they stole too.

Well, I am glad you agree that descendents of people who immigrated from China long ago are ethnically Chinese or Huaren. As to what they think of themselves and how they rationalize it, that’s their own business.

As for the new immigrants, follow the aborigines’ example, vote KMT, they are not into that sub-ethnic divide stuff.

KMT, keep on reforming. it’s good stuff. P.S. Don’t give those properties back to those Japanese Imperialists. :slight_smile:

The “Japanese Imprialist” have already conceded Diayutai to Japan. What do you think would happen if the KMT gave property on the Taiwan island to these sort. Probably give away to Japan as well. Can’t trust those sneaky types.

The US has already conceded Diayutai to Japan after the end of WWII. As victors in WWII, what they say goes. Take it up with the US. Or, charter a boat right before election time for an inspection tour. Either way, who cares? Isn’t mainland China part of the ROC? Let’s focus on the big picture!

If the DDP can’t even win back Diaoyutai, they got no hope setting their goals on the mainland or TI. The big picture is let the KMT back in the driver seat. They use to kill Japanese and Communist for giggles.

Aw, come on now. They were ALL KMT back then in the good old days. How come the new generation of KMT is so afraid of the CCP though? So afraid to purchase the weapons needed to counter the threat from the Communists they used to kill for giggles?

Its a public relations ploy. Killed too many Taiwanese back in the days, so have to look pathetic. Once back in power they’ll use the slush funds to buy French frigates and whatnot again.

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.)

I applaud the Taiwanese’s patroit’s braveness but let me get this straight …Diaoyutai belongs to the island of Taiwan but Taiwan belongs to China so big fish gets all :slight_smile:

[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: … /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

"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.


How quickly we all forget.

Chen: Diaoyutais belong to Taiwan

Koizumi has more to worry about than to make a point of the issue by being (the first?) head of the Japanese state to visit Diaoyutai. On the other hand, staking claim on the Diaoyutias was a matter of concern for Chen Shui-bian. Japan clearly looked the other way to give Taiwan some face, but when that vessel waving ROC and New Party flags approached, you better believe Japan’s navy would intervene. Didn’t anyone else notice the yellow and blue New Party flag on the TV news footage of the boat? Maybe Taiwan has to put up with New Party antics because of freedoms granted by the Constitution, but Japan does NOT.