politics

Japan protests Chinese navy sailing near disputed islands

80 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

80 Comments
Login to comment

Is anyone listening?

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Put a manned Air/Sea rescue station on the dam rock and fly the Hinomaru!

16 ( +22 / -6 )

In the nature of 'disputed', I'm sure China doesn't publicly whine like a small spoiled child when a Japanese naval vessel happens to sail in the same area...

-16 ( +16 / -32 )

William Bjornson

In the nature of 'disputed', I'm sure China doesn't publicly whine like a small spoiled child when a Japanese naval vessel happens to sail in the same area

Maybe because even China recognised it is Japanese and they are just trying to steal it?

16 ( +27 / -11 )

Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Seiji Kihara told reporters that the islets "are Japanese territory from the viewpoints of both history and international law,"

But Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lìjian countered immediately, according to TV Asahi, that "Diaoyutai and the appurtenant islands are Chinese sovereign territory per se whereby China has right to patrol the area by sending warships there. Japan has no right to complain about the Chinese activities.

Thus, Japan and China are in diagonal opposition against each other as to the sovereignty of the island chain.

We should know whose claim is correct, China's or Japan's, and so a forum, either at a civilian or governmental level, must be held once again to clarify the problem before it flares up into a serious conflict. For starters, how about a discussion on this thread?

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

Next thing you know China will be building a little guardhouse (just for starters) there.

12 ( +19 / -7 )

Keyword in the article that some may have missed . ."disputed".

The Chinese see it as theirs.

A quick glance at the map shows it to be very near China.

-15 ( +11 / -26 )

"Islands"? More like "rocks with trees on them".

3 ( +10 / -7 )

move the US bases there

Lets see what the chinese will do

2 ( +20 / -18 )

The Chinese are upping the ante by using PLA naval assets. If it continues, the JCG will need an assist from MDF or USN assets.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

Next thing you know China will be building a little guardhouse (just for starters) there."

They wouldn't dare because they know the consequences - Japan would throw its almighty " it's totally unacceptable" stern statement at them. It might even roll out the big gun of " we will carefully monitor the developments ". Heavy duty stuff.

-7 ( +11 / -18 )

who cares of those rocks surrounded by sea....

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

It's better for both parties to put the territorial claims aside for now and agree on a resource development and economic development plan. It's mostly about undersea minerals development and fishing. Both countries are in need of these resources. Do it cooperatively, paying attention to environmental concerns.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

Hope next time they place exo in the side of the Chinese ship.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Hey @John-San, did you miss this part of the article?

"Contiguous waters are a 12-nautical-mile band that extends beyond territorial waters."

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

And we all know about Japanese history and who the original owners of those islands were.

The true owners were never allowed to lay claim to their ancestral homeland

-23 ( +2 / -25 )

Just park the USS Zumwalt near the island.. The Chinese then will stay away for sure..

8 ( +12 / -4 )

We will carefully monitor the developments

Yes very amusing thankyou and quite accurate

-16 ( +2 / -18 )

Time to put a base with some missiles there...

10 ( +15 / -5 )

Historically Chinese, but as its “disputed, both countries have the right to be there. They were taken off China and eventually gifted to Japan by USA, so China doesn’t recognize. Russia, well, that is a difficult one. Freedom of Navigation?

-16 ( +4 / -20 )

Weak Japan doesn't have a voice.

-21 ( +3 / -24 )

Just why are the Japanese not putting a (small) permanent JMSDF base on that stupid rock and be done with it? It did work for the Koreans with Dotko, didn't it?

And if they too afraid of doing that, then just lease it to the US forces in Japan to use it for exercise purposes as a shooting range for 99 years and be done with it.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Trade Okinawa for them. Denny has already sold them half anyway.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Aso likens Russian war in Ukraine to bullying of weak children

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Rodney

China took them from the Ryukyu kingdom ,

Japan took them from China,

USA took them from Japan.

USA gave them back.

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

Quite obviously Chinese territory, Japan hands off.

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

@Aly Rustom

Move the US bases there

Lets see what the Chinese do

Typical fem☆le scandalous inducing advice and a bad idea !

China has already Vowed to remove any structures or even signs from the contested islands

The USA agreement is for Japan's national security but not territorial security.

Thats the JSDF job.

-17 ( +0 / -17 )

Stop protesting! Just sink it!

6 ( +10 / -4 )

The largest island in the disputed island chain is called Diaoyudao by the Chinese while it's called Uotsurijima, used the same characters but read differently, by the Japanese, the whole island chain being called the Diaoyudaos by the Chinese and the Senkakus by the Japanese. Judging from the Chinese characters given to the island(s), 釣魚島, one might be tempted to think of it as so named because hermits lived on the island and spent days angling for fish. Of course, this is just a fantasy.

It was Chen Kwan, a royal mission head who came to Ryukyu to crown a king under a tributary system, who first documented the name Diaoyudao in his “Emissary’s Record of Ryukyu”, a record and a travelogue he submitted to the Chinese Emperor.

Apparently, he had Ryukyu seamen aboard the same tributary ship explain and describe the topology and geography of the island chain. In the local vernacular, the island was called either Yukun or Iigun meaning "fishing island". The waters around the island have been known well as rich fishing grounds, even to this day.

Chen Kwan must have thought of the famous historical site of Diaoyucheng back home when he heard about the description of the island's name from accompanying Ryukyu seamen and so recorded it as Diaoyudao after its namesake Diaoyucheng.

All in all, there is a lot of room to speculate about the origin and history of an island's name. It boils down that China cannot lay claim to an island solely on the basis of their claim that they were the first to have discovered the island(s) and so named them as Diayudai(s).

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Maybe a solution that would please everybody in Japan (and on this board), except, of course, China.

We have millions of cubic meters of radioactive soil and dirt nobody wants in their backyard on the mainland.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/11/fukushima-toxic-soil-disaster-radioactive

Store it on the Senkakus and be done with it. That should keep Chinese military and fishing vessels away.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

Typical fem☆le scandalous inducing advice and a bad idea !

I'm not a female genius.

China has already Vowed to remove any structures or even signs from the contested islands

let them try

The USA agreement is for Japan's national security but not territorial security.

In this day and age, its the same thing

2 ( +12 / -10 )

China and Russia again poking Japan in the face and stirring up trouble. It is well past time for Japan to do some poking of it's own and make China and Russia scramble.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

1) Carry out US-JPN joint naval exercises around the Senkakus.

2) Make it a standard patrol route for the JMSDF. It's no longer a JCG issue.

3) Japan needs to build on the island. Anything. ASAP.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

The best compromise between Japan and China is to Japan sell those islets. It's not worth wasting time and public money on this dispute.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

China took them from the Ryukyu kingdom ,

Japan took them from China

Ryuku Kingdom has never been owned by China in history, though they accepted the China’s tribunal system as other Asian kingdoms.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Keyword in the article that some may have missed . ."disputed".

The Chinese see it as theirs.

A quick glance at the map shows it to be very near China.

This is a stupid argument, a quick glance at the map will also reveal that Vietnam, Mongollia, Russia and India among others are "very near" China as well, it doesn't mean that their territory belongs to China as a result.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

Wrong. The US has taken no official position on ownership of these islands. It's a bilateral issue between China and Japan to work out.

In this day and age, its the same thing

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

When Japan and China normalized relations in 1972 they agreed to shelve the question of ownership of the islands. It was Japan that unilaterally broke this promise in 2011.

-17 ( +1 / -18 )

Poster who gave a negative assessment to my post above (today  12:35 pm JST).

What's your reason why I am wrong? Simply claiming a find is yours doesn't warrant the find is yours. You must prove, convincingly enough, that the find is truly yours.

What China needs to do now is just that: Prove that China found the islands first and gave them names accordingly.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

deanzaZZRToday  03:23 pm JST

Wrong. The US has taken no official position on ownership of these islands. It's a bilateral issue between China and Japan to work out.

The only reason that the US has not recognized Japanese sovereignty is because of Taiwan's claim. In reality, Taiwan;s claim was for fisheries rights and that has been settled with Japan directly. This does nor hekp China's case because Two US Secretaries of State, Two US Secretaries of Defense and a POTUS has declared that any effort to take the Senkakus by military force will invoke Article 5 of the US-JPN Mutual Defense Treaty. So for China, taking an uninhabited island may be easy, but it will start a shooting war with the United States.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Ryukyu kingdom has never been owned by China in history

I didn't say China owned the Ryukyu kingdom !

China took control of the senkaku.

Furthermore The Ryukyu kingdom was much more than just a tributary of China.

The royal Chinese bloodline was mixed with the Ryukyuans and the Chinese founded the government system and gave them a navy and much more.

Protection from pirates and together they ran much trading of goods in southeast Asia.

Ryukyuans even had hand cannons before the Europeans and the Ryukyu kingdom a rich source of bat guano and sulfur for gun powder.

Much more than just a tributary.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

Hello Kitty 321Today  03:34 pm JST

When Japan and China normalized relations in 1972 they agreed to shelve the question of ownership of the islands. It was Japan that unilaterally broke this promise in 2011.

Dead wrong. You are citing Chinese BS propaganda.

There are 5 islands that comprise the Senkakus. One was already owned by the J-govt. When the J-govt purchased 2 islands from their civilian Japanese Owners in 2010, to prevent Ishihara from buying them, China chose use this as an excuse to incite anti-Japan sentiment on tje grounds that Japan had "nationalized" the islands. But the truth is one of the islands was already nationalized going back to 1972. In fact the US military used the island as a live fire bombing training site. By China's argument, the US would have been bombing Chinese territory, but not a peep from China. This is because PRC maps as late as1969 showed the Senkakus to be Japanese territory.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

Dead wrong. You are citing Chinese BS propaganda.

There are 5 islands that comprise the Senkakus. One was already owned by the J-govt. When the J-govt purchased 2 islands from their civilian Japanese Owners in 2010, to prevent Ishihara from buying them, China chose use this as an excuse to incite anti-Japan sentiment on tje grounds that Japan had "nationalized" the islands. But the truth is one of the islands was already nationalized going back to 1972. In fact the US military used the island as a live fire bombing training site. By China's argument, the US would have been bombing Chinese territory, but not a peep from China. This is because PRC maps as late as1969 showed the Senkakus to be Japanese territory.

Thanks for setting things straight, @OssanAmerica.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

@OssanAmerica And yet Taiwan (Republic of China) still claims the Senkakau/Diaoyu, the South China islands as defined by the 9 dash line, and even Mongolia.

It is unsettled international law.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

China took control of the senkaku.

There is literally no evidence that anybody from China has ever even set foot on the islands, let alone "taken control" of them.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Taiwan and Japan enjoy good relations as you know. That said the agreement on fishing rights between the two do not equate to settling the territorial dispute: the issue is still outstanding.

Taiwan is just another version of China, not the Communist one, but the corrupt Nationalist one that pocketed American money, lost the war to the Communists with American support and artillery and fled, much like the Afghan President. The ROC/Taiwan still claims the Senkaku’s. This stems from the Chinese blood in them.

The extrapolation of the fishing agreement is way off and we should be careful in assuming the Taiwanese are not Chinese.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

deanzaZZRToday  04:32 pm JST

@OssanAmerica And yet Taiwan (Republic of China) still claims the Senkakau/Diaoyu, the South China islands as defined by the 9 dash line, and even Mongolia.

It is unsettled international law.

Taiwan is effectly irrelevant to the issue today because it is not pressig any claims against other nations and is certainly not militarizing the region through artificial islands. In fact Taiwan lives under the daily threat of Chinese invasion.

China's claims to the SCS/ECS, the riduculous 9-dash line is settled by International Law. It's just that China doesn't respect law.

"An arbitration court ruled in July that China has no historic title over the waters of the South China Sea and has breached the Philippines' sovereign rights with its actions, infuriating Beijing which dismissed the case as a farce."

http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/SOUTHCHINASEA-RULING/010020QR1SG/index.html

5 ( +5 / -0 )

rainydayToday  04:43 pm JST

China took control of the senkaku.

There is literally no evidence that anybody from China has ever even set foot on the islands, let alone "taken control" of them.

That is correct. The only record and evidence of human habitation are the remains of a Japanese Bonito factory and worker's dwellings. China's claim is hogwash.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

What is China and Chinese? One China Policy never defined IT. CCP 's definition is everything and everybody are Chinese under Sinocentrism regardless they are all different ethnic people , different religion, speaking totally non-communicatable language, look different, as long as people around IT are using Chinese characters: Kanji. No sweat, they could call Japanese Chinese and all of East Asia China in the ultimate.

Like Putin who can't stop thinking about and recovering Romanov dynasty, CCP just cannot forget yellow river civilization. Too much pride.

And yet, Asians all look alike...those who cannot tell Japanese or Koreans, Taiwanese, HongKongers ..etc from Chinese mainlanders, would never understand this point.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

How very regrettable.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

In a practical way it is only 170 km from Taiwan. Due to the fishing rights and probably, oil reserves in the sea there is a dispute. There is a long history of dispute described in Wikipedia, worth reading Senkaku Islands dispute - Wikipedia. It is a golden opportunity to change the pattern, instead of spending money to build war they should invest in shared exploration of the resources, a win-win negotiation where all save money and nerves.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

China's claims to the SCS/ECS, the riduculous 9-dash line is settled by International Law. It's just that China doesn't respect law.

"An arbitration court ruled in July that China has no historic title over the waters of the South China Sea and has breached the Philippines' sovereign rights with its actions, infuriating Beijing which dismissed the case as a farce."

That's just an arbitration court. And it's not an even an actual arbitration because China did not participate in it.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

And as fast as I know it's a court only in name, doesn't actually make judgements but supervises/facilitates arbitrations

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

quercetumToday  05:15 pm JST

The extrapolation of the fishing agreement is way off and we should be careful in assuming the Taiwanese are not Chinese.

The Taiwanese may be mostly Han Chinese by ethnicity. But they are anti-CCP as a nation. Best not to confuse the two.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@Nemo Little do you know but Japan has eyes in the sky 24/7. As a matter of fact (3) on a rotational basis, is it new technology YES and I am not talking about satellites. Please don't think they don't know. These eyes do not have to leave Japan airspace and can see into Russia, NK, S korea and China!!! Loose slips sink ships thats all I can say!!

The Chinese are upping the ante by using PLA naval assets. If it continues, the JCG will need an assist from MDF or USN assets.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

ianToday  09:39 pm JST

China's claims to the SCS/ECS, the riduculous 9-dash line is settled by International Law. It's just that China doesn't respect law.

"An arbitration court ruled in July that China has no historic title over the waters of the South China Sea and has breached the Philippines' sovereign rights with its actions, infuriating Beijing which dismissed the case as a farce."

That's just an arbitration court. And it's not an even an actual arbitration because China did not participate in it.

The PCA is most certainly a Court.

https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/

Any Court ruling, aribtration or otherwise, is not negated by the refusal of ine party to respond and answer to the claim against it. In any Court of law, failure to respond or participate results in a default judgement against that party.

Your post is characteristic of the very thing that China is doing, refusing to recognize the Court's jurisdiction and acceot it's ruling.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

ianToday  09:43 pm JST

And as fast as I know it's a court only in name, doesn't actually make judgements but supervises/facilitates arbitrations

"The judges issued a unanimous decision in favor of the Philippines on the overwhelming majority of the claims it made against China. They invalidated Beijing’s claims to ill-defined historic rights throughout the nine-dash line, finding that any claims it makes in the South China Sea must be made based on maritime entitlements from land features. The tribunal ruled that any other historic rights China might once have claimed in what are now the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) or continental shelves of other countries were invalidated by its ratification of UNCLOS."

https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-ruling-analysis/

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Well you know what an arbitration is.

If you're really interested in the rulings best to read it and not just the press releases.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The PCA is most certainly a Court.

You must ascertain first if the pca was involved in the so called rulings

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

And then ascertain if the pca is indeed a court

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

It's definitely an arbitration venue

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

In fact it's the physical venue/location of the the so called arbitration handled by the arbitral tribunal,I took a quick look at your link it's even there.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

FYI: My comment on the thread of "China justifies coast guard's entry into Japan's territorial waters", Japan Today: Feb. 11, 2021

Some say that the Senkakus/Diaoyudaos were ceded to Japan by China’s Qing dynasty in the Treaty of Shimonoski as a result of the First Sino-Japanese War. They then argue that since Japan accepted the terms of unconditional surrender stipulated in the Cairo Declaration, it should observe these terms and fulfil its obligation.

Japan was automatically stripped of Manchuria, Taiwan, Korea, the Pescadores and other islands in the South China Sea and the Pacific that it had taken by force. The Ryukyu Islands, including the Senkakus/Diaoyudaos, were separated from Japan and put under direct US administration.

Why weren't the Senkakus/Diaoyudaos returned to China when Taiwan was restored? Apparently, they were not considered spoils of war Japan had taken by force.

The international community took the post-World War II regime for granted. Even the People’s Republic of China, that had assumed power in Beijing in 1949, kept acknowledging the “status quo” until 1971.

The Jan. 8, 1953 edition of the People’s Daily described the island chain stretching between Kyushu and Taiwan, the Ryukyus, and called the island group in question by the Japanese name of "Senkaku Islands."

An article was discovered among Chinese government archives in December 2012 and was reported to describe the Senkakus as part of the Ryukyu Islands, which were a geo-political entity at the time.

The Treaty of Taipei signed on April 28, 1952, stated that Japan renounced all rights to Taiwan, Penghu, the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) and the Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands, 西沙群島), over which Japan no longer had any jurisdiction, but it left out the Senkakus/Diaoyudaos.

These documents and historical evidence seem to argue against China's claim that the Senkakus/Diaoyudaos have been China's sovereign territory since ancient times.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

These documents and historical evidence seem to argue against China's claim that the Senkakus/Diaoyudaos have been China's sovereign territory since ancient times.

You said ancient times so if China can find a record older than any of the claim evidences cited above then it would supercede those. Of course there's none(yet) else they would have presented it already

Anyway if the pca indeed have jurisdiction over disputes of this kind then an easy solution for Japan wouldbe to enter into dispute resolution with China. China would most probably not participate but then if China's participation is not necessary then all the better.

Should be an easy win

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Aly

It doesn't take a genius to realize you don't have to be female to make a feminine comment.

And no it is certainly not the USA military's agreement to defend an unpopulated contested Island between Japan and China

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

A better solution would be shelving the issue as Chou En-lai suggested in 1972 when Kakuei Tanaka brought up the topic of Senkaku/Diaoyudai on the negotiation table to restore Japan-China diplomatic relations.

This had worked well until Japan's Noda administration nationalized the main island of Uotsurijima/Diaoyudai in the Senkaku/Diaoyudai Islands in 2012.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The man who touched off the territorial matter of Senkaku/Diaoyudai was Shintaro Ishihara, former Tokyo Governor. In a speech he gave to an audience in Washington, D.C., he announced that Tokyo was planning to buy the main island of the Senkekus/Diaoyudais from a private owner and make it a tourist attraction.

My lingering suspicion is: Why did Ishihara make the announcement in the U.S. capital? Wasn't there a secret agent or broker behind the deal whose ultimate purpose was to jeopardize Japan-China relations?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

ianToday  12:00 am JST

Anyway if the pca indeed have jurisdiction over disputes of this kind then an easy solution for Japan wouldbe to enter into dispute resolution with China. China would most probably not participate but then if China's participation is not necessary then all the better.

China has already declared that it will not accept or recognize any rulings by any International Court or Forum when it concerns matters of it's Sovereignty.

This is why although the PCA ruled in favor of the Phillipines, China did not respond, participate or recognize the ruling.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Kyo wa heiwa dayo neToday  06:07 am JST

And no it is certainly not the USA military's agreement to defend an unpopulated contested Island between Japan and China

You are dead wrong as usual.

Two US Secretaries of State, two US Secretaries of Defense and Pres Obama have declared that the defense of the Senkakus falls under Article 5 of the US-JPN Mutiual Defense Treaty.

"New US defense chief reaffirms commitment to Senkaku islands defense"

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Biden-s-Asia-policy/New-US-defense-chief-reaffirms-commitment-to-Senkaku-islands-defense

"Japan and US to conduct joint drills for Senkaku defense"

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Japan-and-US-to-conduct-joint-drills-for-Senkaku-defense

4 ( +4 / -0 )

China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson explained and justified Tuesday that Chinese Coast Guard ships' unusual approach to Japanese fishing boats in the Senkaku/Diaoyudai waters was triggered by the fact that they trespassed China's territory, violently encroaching upon China's sovereignty over the area (TV Asahi: July 6).

What a sad situation! And a tragi-comedy, too. Dialogue is all the more needed now between the two countries.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

China is practising her : Freedom of Netvigation !

What does Japan wanna to complain about!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

And if they too afraid of doing that, then just lease it to the US forces in Japan to use it for exercise purposes as a shooting range for 99 years and be done with it.

The US Navy did indeed use several of those islands as bombing ranges till the end of the Vietnam War.

Funny, china didn’t protest their “sovereign” territory being bombed.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Why are these barren islands called "Senkakus" in Japan and "Diaoyudaos" in China?

Common nouns in a language are very ad hoc in naming objects. There's no reason why things are called as they are in languages. However, proper nouns are different from common nouns in that there's always reasons behind -- why they are called by such and such names.

Kubajima (久場島)or Huangwei Yu (黄尾鱮)in Chinese in the Senkaku/Diaoyudao Islands was an important landmark for ancient Ryukyu (Okinawa) seamen and traders navigating on the Okinawa-Fuchuan sea lane. These seafarers, who were thoroughly familiar with the Senkaku waters more than anyone else, called this landmark "Kubajima" because, according to one theory, the island was covered full with “kuba” (or Areca) palms. But I think it was called by that name because the island's shape is quite similar to that of another island called Kubajima, that is located about 40 km west of Naha, Okinawa Island, on the same sea lane. When necessary, the former was called "Iigun Kubajima" to distinguish it from the latter.

Wasn't the Chinese "Huangmao (Yu)" (黄毛)as recorded by Chen Kwan (陳侃, 1534)and "Huangwei (Yu)"(黄尾)as recorded later, meaning "yellow hair or tail", a homophonic translation of Kuba(-jima? Note that the k-sound of Japanese (and Ryukyuan) ordinarily corresponds to the h-sound in Chinese. For example, 上海, 海宝, 海南島, (中国)海警, 漢, 河南, 黄河, 中華, 華為, etc., in all of which the characters with the k-sound in Japanese are pronounced with the h-sound in Chinese. So it's very likely that Ryukyuan "kuba" was a homophonic translation haphazardly written in Chinese characters as Huanmaro (黄毛). Or did the ancient Chinese think the island was inhabited by mythic animals with yellow tails or hair and so they called it as such? 

The easternmost island in the chain is officially called Taishojima in Japan, but historically it used to be called Kumi-Akajima by Ryukyu seamen. Here, too, we see the same mechanism of nomenclature as in the case of Kubajima. There's an island called Akajima in the Kerama Islands whereby Kumi-Akajima in the Senkakus must have been named after this with Kumi added to differentiate it from the original.

The Chinese calls this island Chiwei Yu (赤尾鱮), meaning "red-tailed island." Does it mean the Chinese believed the island was inhabited by animals with red tails? Isn't it a semantic conversion of what Ryukyu seamen called Kumi Akajima (久米阿嘉島), which could mean "Kume Red Island" in folk etymology?  

The name "Senkaku" comes from English "Pinnacle Islands." The British ship, HMS Samarang, made a port at Ishigaki Island three times and on its second port calling in May, 1845, it launched out upon an exploration of the hitherto unheard-of island group which the islanders called Iigunjima. Approaching the islands northward from Ishigaki Island on May 8, they must have been struck with the similarity of the first approaching island to Bartolome Island in the Galapagos, which is famous for its Pinnacle Rock, thus calling the island group Pinnacle Islands. The Japanese name "Senkaku" was coined after this by a natural history teacher named Hisashi Kuroiwa, in 1900, who hailed from Kochi Prefecture in Shikoku and taught at Okinawa Normal School.  

The Meiji government called the largest island in the chain "Uotsuri-jma", which is an apparent translation from the Chinese "Diaoyudao". It also called the adjacent islands lying southeast of it "Kita Kojima" (North Islet) and "Minami Kojima" (South Islet) respectively. The Chinese names "Bei Xiaodao" and "Nan Xiaodao" definitely come from these Japanese names.

Why did the Chinese call the island (group) Diaoyudao meaning "fishing island"? Did unworldly men, as often depicted in Chinese drawings, go there and spent days angling for fish? Or have Chinese fishermen come here to engage in blue-water fishing since ancient times? Note, however, that blue-water fishing started only recently with the development of modern refrigeration technology. 

Isn't "Diaoyudao" a semantic conversion of what a Chinese royal mission to Ryukyu were explained to by Ryukyu seamen and traders traveling and navigating together aboard the same tributary ship? Note that Chinese royal envoys came to Ryukyu Kingdom 25 times during the period from 1373 to 1866. During the same period, Ryukyu seamen, traders and the Ryukyu King's appreciatory envoys sailed to China more than 200 times. 

All these linguistic and historical facts must be taken into consideration before anyone says anything definite about sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyudao Islands on the basis of the islands' nomenclature.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Taiwanese may be mostly Han Chinese by ethnicity. But they are anti-CCP as a nation. Best not to confuse the two.

Irrelevant. Taiwan still claims the Senkaku’s which you did not and cannot refute. Can you?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

quercetumToday  08:55 pm JST

The Taiwanese may be mostly Han Chinese by ethnicity. But they are anti-CCP as a nation. Best not to confuse the two.

Irrelevant. Taiwan still claims the Senkaku’s which you did not and cannot refute. Can you?

Taiwan's claim is what's irrelevant. Their claim was for fishing rights and that has been resolved. It was this claim that PRC usurped (on the grounds that Taiwan is part of China) for strategic purposes. Taiwan's claim is posing no poltical issues for either country. China's claim most certainly is.

Taiwan can not be considered the "same" as China based on ethnicity.

You can not refute either of these points can you?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The second largest island in the Senkaku/Diaoyudai Islands is called "Kubajima" or "Kubashima" in Japan and "Huangwei Yu" in China. Looking at a map prepared by the Chinese authorities on the Internet, I was dumbfounded. Almost all rocks scattered around the island's coast bore names. 

 

Have researchers gone there and conducted fact-finding surveys interviewing the island's old know-it-alls? That means the island has been inhabited by people since time immemorial. That's a piece of fake news, indeed.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Taiwan's claim is what's irrelevant. Their claim was for fishing rights and that has been resolved.

I don’t think we are discussing anything. I’m pointing out Taiwan is claiming sovereignty and territorial integrity for the Senkaku’s. You say no, they’re claim is for fishing rights. This is not true because even after the fishing agreement with Japan, they are up in arms and the President even claims the Senkaku’s as a part of Taiwan.

It’s not about Chinese ethnicity or Anti-CCP.

Taiwan claims the Senkaku’s as a part of Taiwan ROC territory. They claim the islands like Japan claims the northern territories. It apparent you’re not aware of this and no it’s not about fishing rights.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Ossanamerica

Here is the Taiwanese government’s response two days ago and not some fishing agreement years ago.

https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202207050011

Taipei, July 5 (CNA) Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) reaffirmed the country's sovereignty claim over the Diaoyutai Islands on Tuesday, after Japan, which controls the islands in the East China Sea, accused Chinese and Russian warships of operating near the disputed islands.

"It is an undisputable fact that the Diaoyutai Islands are an inherent part of the territory of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Any unilateral action taken by other parties will not change the fact," MOFA spokeswoman Joanne Ou (歐江安) said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The two islets that lie southeast of the main island of Uotsuri-jima/Diaoyu-dai in the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are called Minami-kojima and Kita-kojima in Japan. They were either barely visible or invisible for ancient seafarers navigating on the Naha, Ryukyu-Fuchuan sealane because they were hidden behind the dominantly large Uotsuri/Diaoyu island. Ishigaki islanders jumbled them, calling them Iigunjima altogether.                                       

The two islets thus remained nameless for a long time, whereby the Meiji government seems to have decided to officially call them "North Islet" and "South Islet" respectively. China calls them "Bei Xiaodao" and "Nan Xiaodao", which are no doubt translation from the Japanese.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reasons for ROC(Taiwan)'s claim to the islands in question must be the same as the PRC's because the two sides had shared history until 1946. Prior to 1945, that is, from 1895 to 1945, Taiwan was under Japan's colonial rule, whereby Taiwanese fishermen were free to engage in deep sea fishing in the Senkaku waters as if the area were their own backyard.

They were forbidden to engage in fishing there when Okinawa was returned to Japan in 1972. By a fishery treaty signed between Japan and Taiwan, though, the Taiwanese fishermen recovered their right to fish there rather freely and unrestrictedly than local Okinawan fishermen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites