Taiwan proposes peace initiative over island dispute

So what do they propose, turning the islands over to Taiwan? Then allow China to claim an EEZ to within 12 miles of what remains of the Okinawa prefecture? Do not see how "peace talks" will go anywhere. Perhaps I am mistaken. What are they offering as a start point in the talks?

Regarless of who is right, this seems like a good idea to help avoid escalation.

Taiwan proposes peace initiative over island dispute

I far prefer this over the American way!

So what do they propose, turning the islands over to Taiwan? Then allow China to claim an EEZ to within 12 miles of what remains of the Okinawa prefecture? Do not see how "peace talks" will go anywhere. Perhaps I am mistaken. What are they offering as a start point in the talks?

At least they aren't reacting like 5 year children squabbling in a schoolyard. One with their gang of bullies the other with their rich daddy's money. Then again, I think the children may be more civil.

Proposing something is better than nothing, no?

At least they aren't reacting like 5 year children squabbling in a schoolyard. One with their gang of bullies the other with their rich daddy's money. Then again, I think the children may be more civil.

Proposing something is better than nothing, no?

Yes, Tokiyo-san and it's far, far better than going in with all guns blazing!

The "American way" should be, to be fearless in promoting respect for democratic allies like the ROC and Japan, while clearly acting in a way that shows the mandarins in the ccp ruling mainland china that their days are numbered, that self rule by freely elected mainland chinese who respect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is inevitable. But, thats unfortunately, for now, just a pipe dream. Instead, the regimes in DC have sold out those American values and instead hush up and hope for another quick fix, on the way to big brother servitude, more debt and the loss of true sovereignity. Regarding "guns blazing", well, thats just a remark that displays more a personal antipathy against America, than anything proposed by the USG relating to Japans valid territorial claims over those islets. I doubt the expressed antipathy to "the American way" as stated merits further thoughtful discussion as it sounds more like a schoolyard taunt.

Now if the participants do this over the South China Sea...............

Would like to see more but Mr. President, natural resources 12 miles off of Okinawa Island do not belong to the PRC. Japans EEZ extends halfway to China, though a compromise might be that these islands are not the start of Japans EEZ. Thus a compromise can be done.

China's economy and ego is rising, they were not like this when they were not like this 30 years prior.. when capitalism did not exist there..

Only Taiwan is mature and sensible enough to offer such a proposal. Japan and China ought to be ashamed and embarrassed of themselves. A bunch of children run those two countries.

See Ishihara, this is how you NOT yell and scream and stomp your foot on the ground like a child when things don't go your way... ya freaking buffoon.

Thomas Anderson, perhaps youdidn't read the article.

"While renewing Taiwan’s territorial claim, Ma urged all parties to exercise self-restraint"

How mature is that, really?

170 km northeast of Taiwan and 410 km west of Okinawa

So they are much closed to Taiwan unles Taiwan is part of Japan too is it?

sourpuss

How mature is that, really?

????

Ma urged all parties to exercise self-restraint, shelve controversies and use peaceful means to solve the long-standing dispute.

Whatever is wrong with this?

So what do they propose,

Peace.

turning the islands over to Taiwan?

To nobody. No matter who has the custody of those stupid isla... oh, stupid rocks, not even islands. Share them. France and England could fight about the Channel Islands. But there is no point. Even if the majority of inhabitants there are French and it is very close to French coasts, we have let the Brits own them. Otherwise, since the English are notorious idiots, they'd go on war as they did for the Malvinas. and everybody would lose. There is a special autonomy status, which is enough to allow inhabitants to go on with their lives. That's a ridiculously small place at the scale of both country, and they have dozens of other islets. Like Japan, China and Taiwan each have thousands of other rocks in the seas. You don't even know how many and you're crying "Hey, 3 of my rocks are missing...! ".

natural resources 12 miles off of Okinawa Island do not belong to

Your husband son/brother/nephew 's life is worth how much ? 100 000 yen per death ? I mean in case a new Okinawa battle occurs to save resources. That makes how much in yuan and in Taiwanese dollars ? Is there one person in the 3 countries that values those rocks in the sea more than his/her life and his/her family's ?

China's economy and ego is rising,

I don't remember when China had a low ego. Actually, they get fierce when they have a complex of inferiority. Same for Japan. The problem of the Ishihara clique and their foreign clones is they are disappointed by economic downturn and level of life still being low for most in China. Taiwan is presently doing much better, so Ma can talk like the open-minded guy... If he gets an economic crisis in Taipei, the next day, you'll hear him discussing the military issue of those islets.

Japan's claim to these uninhabited islands are based on relatively recent history, and the fact that they have possession.

Geographically and geologically (continental shelf, etc.) , Japan's claim to sovereignty lacks merit.

Let's recall that Okinawa has only been a part of Japan since 1872, as "Ryukyu han", though there had been a tributary relationship since 1609, which the Ryukyu kingdom had long held with China.

So, I think that these islands (or rocks) represent a point of contention that presents an opportunity for cooperation in sharing something to which all three parties have a degree of legitimacy in laying a claim, with Japan's possession of the islands giving Japan defacto sovereignty.

Yes, Tokiyo-san and it's far, far better than going in with all guns blazing!

I far prefer this over the American way!

@ BertieWooster

From the US State Department -"The U.S. does not take a position on the question of the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands. We expect the claimants to resolve the issue through peaceful means, among themselves." So First the US called for Peaceful means now Taiwan...... so I fail to see how the US went in "all guns blazing".... I smell a contrarian troll

The Chinese and Taiwanese may well come up with a satisfactory compromise, well satisfactory to all except Ishihara. They sorted out a previous spat over islands by agreeing to take turns bombard them with propaganda. One day it was Taiwanese propaganda, the next Chinese.

The "American way" should be, to be fearless in promoting respect for democratic allies. It should indeed, but we must remember that Taiwan, The Philippines and South Korea have become democracies in spite of rather than because of American support, which backed dictators until the populations would accept them no more.

Sorry but Japan is the most mature stating from the start that THERE ARE NO TERRITORIAL DISPUTE OVER THE ISLANDS. End of story.

People coming to claim after 40 years is not what I call MATURE.

Still do not see the "compromise", Taiwan wants China to get those islands which are closer to the Okinawa island of Yonagugi shima than Taiwan. Remember the islands of Okinawa extend to almost Taiwan.

Sorry people the Okinawa people refuse to "share" our resources with the Chinese.

Sorry but Japan is the most mature stating from the start that THERE ARE NO TERRITORIAL DISPUTE OVER THE ISLANDS. End of story.

You broke in your neighbor's house, stabbed his back, took his Rolls Royce, show off to all your close friend.

Your neighbor spent 40 yrs in life support in a local hospital, unable to make counter claim.

You are the legal owner of that luxury car?

Sorry people the Okinawa people refuse to "share" our resources with the Chinese.

Taiwan is claiming the islands as Taiwan's.

Sorry but Japan is the most mature stating from the start that THERE ARE NO TERRITORIAL DISPUTE OVER THE ISLANDS. End of story.

Actually that is the most immature stance which leaves no room for doubt even without any evidence.

Look, just because some nationalists in Japan say that the islands belong to Japan, doesn't mean that it does. We'll need to look into history and I think that the history points to Taiwan's ownership of the islands.

Thomas they are Chinese too, the Republic of China vs the Peoples Republic of China. The Chinese claim to the 12 mile limit to the shores of the remaining Okinawa Islands. These islands are part of Okinawa and were part of the Ryukyu Kingdom. The way I see it is fight now or latter at a disadvantage. The Chinese will not stop with these islands. They want the entire Okinawa Prefecture.

enough already!!!!! sink them and no one can claim them. End of story.

the grouch, it is not the islands but the extent of the different economic exclusive zones. This does show that Taiwan has decided to support Red China. Soon perhaps they will be a part of it again. With the loss of the islands our fat will be in the fire! Okinawa does NOT want to be part of Red China!!!

The Chinese will not stop with these islands. They want the entire Okinawa Prefecture.

Emotions are obviously strong here in japan over these territorial disputes, but that assertion sounds like a hysterical fabrication, maybe even a little paranoiac.

Here's a passage from Wikipedia on the first recorded history of these islands/rocks, which include a Chinese book from 1403, and a Japanese book from 1785.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands#Geography

Records of these islands date back to as early as the 15th century. They were referred as Diaoyu in books such as Voyage with a Tail Wind (1403) and Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryūkyū (1534). Adopted by the Chinese Imperial Map of the Ming Dynasty, both the Chinese name for the island group (Diaoyu) and the Japanese name for the main island (Uotsuri) both mean "fishing". The first published description of the islands in Europe was in a book imported by Isaac Titsingh in 1796. His small library of Japanese books included An Illustrated Description of Three Countries by Hayashi Shihei. This text, which was published in Japan in 1785, described the Ryūkyū Kingdom.

@ubikwit

Which means NOTHING

Till the end of the 60's both Chinas confirmed that the islands belong to JAPAN. JAPAN is only reconfirming the claim supported by the view by BOTH CHINAS up till the 60's. Sorry but JAPAN is the rightful owner of those islands and the natural resources that comes with it.

" YuriOtaniAUG. 06, 2012 - 09:12AM JST So what do they propose, turning the islands over to Taiwan? Then allow China to claim an EEZ to within 12 miles of what remains of the Okinawa prefecture? Do not see how "peace talks" will go anywhere. Perhaps I am mistaken. What are they offering as a start point in the talks?"

Remain claim is the best policy !

the grouch, it is not the islands but the extent of the different economic exclusive zones. This does show that Taiwan has decided to support Red China. Soon perhaps they will be a part of it again. With the loss of the islands our fat will be in the fire! Okinawa does NOT want to be part of Red China!!!

Who is being immature now? Jesus Christ woman collect yourself! Name calling won't get anyone anywhere, making such gross generalizations of a entire nation is not conducive to finding a solution now is it?

I'll freely confess to not being an expert of East Asian politics, but this whole issue stinks of distraction politics. The fact is, the Chinese government is riddled with corruption and, although the Chinese economy is growing now, the political freedoms aren't keeping pace, which means that an increasingly educated and "world-savvy" population need to be distracted with a nice bit of patriotic sabre-rattling.

As for the Japanese, well, whether the PRC and ROC like it or not, the islands do belong to Japan, whether or not they have a historical claim to it is practically irrelevant, it'd be a bit like Spain claiming Florida because they used to own it, or, perhaps a little more recent, Argentina's claim on the Falklands, they can say that the islands belong to Argentina all they want it doesn't make it true. Claims are just words, but they are a nice way for a government to make it seem like they're actually doing something, as well as providing the masses with a distraction from things like the economy.

Chris Perry Aug. 07, 2012 - 02:38AM JST As for the Japanese, well, whether the PRC and ROC like it or not, the islands do belong to Japan, whether or not they have a historical claim to it is practically irrelevant,

Problem is that if Japan drills offshore oil well near Senkaku, it's really easy for hostile countries to destroy it immediately. So what good is it to take hard line? Right now, unless Japan has some type of mutual agreement with China, your really cannot do anything. Japan needs raw resources but investors will not do anything until settlement is reached. What good is it if you wait 20-30 years and nothing happens because of politics?

Yeah, let's all shout down the voice of reason.

Thomas AndersonAug. 06, 2012 - 12:36PM JST See Ishihara, this is how you NOT yell and scream and stomp your foot on the ground like a child when things don't >go your way... ya freaking buffoon.

If being a nationalist is the only requirement to be a buffoon then the entire Chinese CCP government and a vast number of it's people are buffoons. Far more than you could ever muster up in Japan or any other country.

ubikwitAug. 06, 2012 - 02:06PM JST Japan's claim to these uninhabited islands are based on relatively recent history, and the fact that they have >possession. Geographically and geologically (continental shelf, etc.) , Japan's claim to sovereignty lacks merit. Let's recall that Okinawa has only been a part of Japan since 1872, as "Ryukyu han", though there had been a >tributary relationship since 1609, which the Ryukyu kingdom had long held with China.

If you want to just keep going back, the PRC has never possessed Okinawa. Ryukyu was last a tributary to the Qing Dynasty which no longer exists.

tian4670Aug. 06, 2012 - 09:23PM JST You broke in your neighbor's house, stabbed his back, took his Rolls Royce, show off to all your close friend. Your neighbor spent 40 yrs in life support in a local hospital, unable to make counter claim. You are the legal owner of that luxury car?

Your example makes no sense since Japan never took the Senkakus from anybody and certaibnly not by force. That's whyy they were allowed to keep them agter WWII ended.

Robert RooAug. 06, 2012 - 12:38PM JST 170 km northeast of Taiwan and 410 km west of Okinawa So they are much closed to Taiwan unles Taiwan is part of Japan too is it?

No, 150 km from Yonaguni, part of Okinawa. If you want to harp on distances.

Taiwan should really get their act together. What good is claiming anything as "Taiwan's" when China continues to claim all of Taiwan is theirs? If Taiwan stood up for itself and declared sovereignty first as an independent country their suggestion would proibably be taken seriously by Japan.

SamuraiBlueAug. 07, 2012 - 12:04AM JST Sorry but JAPAN is the rightful owner of those islands and the natural resources that comes with it.

Confusion about where U.S. defense commitments apply to could lead to serious miscalculations by Japan claiming disputed Senkaku islands. Japan could become unwarrantedly provocative if they believe that they have U.S, backing. China could underestimate a U.S. response. There are times in international relations when ambiguity serves the interests of peace and security. This is not the case with mutual defense treaties. The people of U.S. and Japan deserve clarity about what and where they are pledged to defend.

TokiyoAug. 07, 2012 - 12:21AM JST "the grouch, it is not the islands but the extent of the different economic exclusive zones. This does show that Taiwan has decided to support Red China. Soon perhaps they will be a part of it again. With the loss of the islands our fat will be in the fire! Okinawa does NOT want to be part of Red China!!! Who is being immature now? Jesus Christ woman collect yourself! Name calling won't get anyone anywhere, making >such gross generalizations of a entire nation is not conducive to finding a solution now is it?

Just to interject, it is true that generalization, partiulary of an entire country is wrong and leads to misconception. However that holds true in free democratic societies where differing opinions are allowed to exist,. In the PRC its actually illegal and prosecutable to have and to express opinions counter to those of the State,. This is whyy censorship and human rights are an issue. In other words, China is one of the few countries where you CAN generalize amd not e too far off the mark. Just for your info,

Your example makes no sense since Japan never took the Senkakus from anybody and certaibnly not by force. That's whyy they were allowed to keep them agter WWII ended.

Other records state (of course from China) that those islands were lost to Japan after war with Japan around 1890s.

My own position:

China has no claim on disputed islands with Vietnam and Phillipine. Japan has no claim on these islands Russia has no claim on those islands disputed with Japan.

I am not pro-China or pro-Japan, neither against.

@Thomas Anderson

"just because some nationalists in Japan say that the islands belong to Japan, doesn't mean that it does"

Just because some guy said something belongs to Taiwan on the Internet doesn't mean it does.

At least Japan can claim ownership of Japan without having the threat of being attacked by a bully next door hovering over their every move.

Red China is claiming well past the 200 mile EEZ. Looking at their claim line and it is within 12 miles of the inhabited Okinawa islands. This is unacceptable to Japan. The claim map has no distances but it is to the east of the Senkaku islands.

YuriOtani

Thomas they are Chinese too, the Republic of China vs the Peoples Republic of China.

That's what the Chinese claim but the Taiwanese think otherwise.

Hide Suzuki

Just because some guy said something belongs to Taiwan on the Internet doesn't mean it does.

Then why don't you actually study the history.

SamuraiBlue

Till the end of the 60's both Chinas confirmed that the islands belong to JAPAN.

No, they didn't. Or you'll need cite your source.

But why do you keep insisting referring to them as "Red China"? is it just to stir negative emotions? It doesn't matter whether or not it is unacceptable to Japan nothing will change if no one budges. The fact is, Taiwan is not part of China, you should try to understand how frustrating it is for them. China indeed claims ownership over Taiwan and the Senkaku's but is it exactly the kind of stubborn Hysteric comments that make it difficult to have any sort of reasonable discussion.

OssanAmerica

In the PRC its actually illegal and prosecutable to have and to express opinions counter to those of the State,. This is whyy censorship and human rights are an issue. In other words, China is one of the few countries where you CAN generalize amd not e too far off the mark. Just for your info,

Right, and I bet that you've never even been to China.

Tokiyo because they are the communist China or Peoples Republic of China. Red China is shorter to write and they are the same government that killed so many Chinese. Toiyo, the name of the government in Taiwan is the Republic of China. I do not make this stuff up. They are the descendants of the government that fled the Chinese mainland in 1949.

Back to the dispute, China has not published a map to the extent of their claims. It is known they want unrestricted access to the Pacific by their navy. Problem the islands of Okinawa are in the way. Japan has proposed a compromise, split the difference but China demands the entire shelf and beyond.

For decades, PRC want to put this issue under carpet because internal problems and presence of US. The government had been telling its people to leave the problem in "government's hand". It only aimed to maintain 'relatively equally' presence on the island, ie, neither side get on the island. When Japan enforces its 'effective control' around that area, the problem can't be hidden anymore. I am not convinced if arresting of ship caption and visiting by Japanese MP are wise. PRC used to protest through Foreign Department. Now it has to escalate the confrontation to keep 'equal'.

A war/armed conflict will break out if Japan stations army on the island. If it does, Taiwan is 100% sure to be loser, as it has to choose between China and USA, and it is on the wrong side with Japan. USA has to give up Taiwan if it wanna to help Japan. China is sure winner, as it can take those stupid islands or Taiwan or both at the same time. Depending on the strength of alliance with US, it maybe a winner or a loser. US is sure to be a winner as it stands to gain something, without risk of losing any.

@OssanAmerica

I never stated that China had possessed Okinawa or should.

I simply mentioned that there had been a long standing tributary relationship with China, which continued even after Satsuma established a tributary relationship with the Ryukyu kingdom in 1609.

In a sense, you could say that Okinawa is to Japan what Hawaii is to the USA, though there is no secessionist movement in Okinawa like there is in Hawaii.

All I've done is to try and point out a couple of points that have a degree of validity under international law; i.e., history and geology (continental shelf, in particular with respect to the question of oil and other natural resources that must be mined or drilled for). A lot of these issues have become settled relatively recently, such as the the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

of which:

Articles 77 to 81 define the rights of a country over its continental shelf. A coastal nation has control of all resources on or under its continental shelf, living or not, but no control over any living organisms above the shelf that are beyond its exclusive economic zone. This gives it the right to conduct petroleum drilling works and lay submarine cables or pipelines in its continental shelf.

That means that China has a strong claim under international law to the resources under its continental shelf, of which these islands are a part.

I have stated that Japan has defacto sovereignty, so they have a strong negotiating position with respect to joint development and sharing of the resources. Maybe if the economic benefits can be shared an people can learn to coexist in that area, the sovereignty question won't be elevated to the status is has at present.

Here's a further clarification of the issue in terms of international law and the two countries positions, also from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_China_Sea

The dispute between the PRC and Japan concerns the different application of 1982 UNCLOS, which both nations have ratified. China proposed the application of UNCLOS, considering the natural prolongation of its continental shelf (advocating the possibility of extending it as far as the Okinawa Trough). Japan, based on UNCLOS, proposed the Median line division of the EEZ.

Under the United Nations' Law of the Sea, the PRC claims the disputed ocean territory as its own Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) due to its being part of PRC's natural extension of its continental shelf, while Japan claims the disputed ocean territory as its own EEZ because it is within 200 nautical miles (370 km) from Japan's coast, and proposed a median line as the boundary between the EEZ of China and Japan. About 40,000 square kilometers of EEZ are in dispute. China and Japan both claim 200 nautical miles EEZ rights, but the East China Sea width is only 360 nautical miles. China claims an EEZ extending to the eastern end of the Chinese continental shelf (based on UNCLOS III) which goes deep into the Japanese's claimed EEZ.

I (somewhat arrogantly) believe you guys miss the most important point. These islands represent natural resources for Japanese. They represent national security or safety for PRC.

US has been touting Chinese containment. PRC is already surrounded by US bases. How long does it take a F22 to fly over Beijing or Shanghai from Japan? It will be a major disaster if PRC gives up those disputed islands and let US build another base there. In that case, not a single part of PRC is not under threat of US bombers. CCP has paint itself as human kind, and only capable leader for Chinese, to prosperity, to resist aggression from Japan and US...If those islands are lost under its ruling, its legitimacy is in the water. A bloody revolution may follow.

Suppose you were a leader of PRC, how are you going to lose those islands and then your life?

I don't know about this national security argument.

Peace is the best guarantee of security.

Peace is the best guarantee of security.

Agree. But have a look at this:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/noda-says-sdf-may-guard-senkakus-against-intrusions-by-chinese-vessels

It will induce counter action from PRC if implemented.

Japan can enjoy 'peace' in his air conditioned room because it has protection of mighty USA. Something PRC cannot rely on, instead it is under constant threat from USA (from its own view, surrounded/contained by USA and allies).

National security is not an argument for legitimacy of sovereignty over the islands, but an important factor whether one party can give ground.

All I've done is to try and point out a couple of points that have a degree of validity under international law; i.e., history and geology (continental shelf, in particular with respect to the question of oil and other natural resources that must be mined or drilled for). A lot of these issues have become settled relatively recently, such as the the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,

The initial reaction by Ossan has more to do with your assertion of China's "discovery" which based on judicial prescedents don't amount to much unless you follow it up with the exercize of soverignty which includes admnistration of the territory (incorporation, construction, issuance of title, lease, business licenenses, property tax, etc.) all of which was done peacefully by Japan for 75 years before China's assertion of the claim.

Secondly, UNCLOS under article 15 state that

"Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith."

which means the current or future off shore development still stays on the China's side while Japan can conduct their own on their side, as well as the opposite side (east) of the islands.

If I'm not mistaken, the recent decision by the ITLOS between Myanmar and Bangladesh pretty much favors such "equidistant" principle so from an international law perspective, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that China won't be able to exercize their rights beyond the median line.

2.CCP has paint itself as human kind, and only capable leader for Chinese, to prosperity, to resist aggression from Japan and US...If those islands are lost under its ruling, its legitimacy is in the water. A bloody revolution may follow.

Which I believe does have its limits.

There was one poster who was looking at the discussion sites in China and stated that they could not believe Tokyo would consider purchasing the islands for they were under the impression that China possessed and administered those islands and the Japanese were infringing upon their soverignty.

Hence, the Chinese government will play this no bark, no bite intrusion into the coastal part of Senkaku's once in a while just to satisfy their people. But when Japan does in fact build a JMSDF base there, they will claim that Japan with the help of U.S. took the islands by force from them, playing themselves to be the peaceful victim.

this claim of "75 years"

the exercize of soverignty which includes admnistration of the territory (incorporation, construction, issuance of title, lease, business licenenses, property tax, etc.) all of which was done peacefully by Japan for 75 years before China's assertion of the claim.

doesn't seem to jibe with the following dates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute

The United States occupied the islands from 1945 to 1972 and holds a neutral stance on the dispute. People's Republic of China and Japan had expressed sovereignty claim on Diaoyu Island/Senkaku Island in United Nations to United Nations Security Council on 20 May 1972.

and the history is rather more complicated (from same Wikipedia page).

In 1885, the Japanese Governor of Okinawa Prefecture, Nishimura Sutezo, petitioned the Meiji government asking that it take formal control of the islands. However, Inoue Kaoru, the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, commented that the islands lay near to the border area with the Qing empire and that they had been given Chinese names. He also cited an article in a Chinese newspaper that had previously claimed that Japan was occupying islands off China's coast. Inoue was concerned that if Japan proceeded to erect a landmark stating its claim to the islands, it would make the Qing empire suspicious.[6] Following Inoue's advice, Yamagata Aritomo, the Minister of the Interior turned down the request to incorporate the islands, insisting that this matter should not be "revealed to the news media".

On 14 January 1895, during the First Sino-Japanese War, Japan incorporated the islands under the administration of Okinawa, stating that it had conducted surveys since 1884 and that the islands were terra nullius (Latin: no man's land), with there being no evidence to suggest that they had been under Qing empire's control.

After China lost the war, both countries signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki in April 1895 that stipulated, among other things, that China would cede to Japan "the island of Formosa together with all islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa (Taiwan)".

The treaty, however, was nullified after Japan lost the Second world war in 1945 by the Treaty of San Francisco, which was signed between Japan and part of the Allied Powers in 1951. The document nullifies prior treaties and lays down the framework for Japan's current status of retaining a military that is purely defensive in nature.

There is a disagreement between the Japanese, PRC and ROC governments as to whether the islands are implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa" in the Treaty of Shimonoseki.The Japanese government argues that the disputed islands were terra nullius and not implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa" but China and Taiwan both dispute the claim by citing Yamagata Aritomo's reasons and decisions to turn down the request to incorporate the islands in 1885.

doesn't seem to jibe with the following dates:

1895~1970 is 75 years, I believe. The minor islands were under "trusteeship" by U.S.

and the history is rather more complicated

Not really. What's not mentioned in the wikipedia is that fishing activities (bonita operation) was going on by Koga during the 80's without any disruption from China.(Qing) One could claim effective control back then but actions of individuals alone does not constitute soverignty but the point here is that it was terra nullius.

When both ROC and PRC mentioned the Senkaku's as Japanese territory as late as the 1960's, doesn't those above wiki entry sort of become moot?

i don't think i'd go as far as moot, but another factor to be considered.

the circumstances under which the remarks were made, transitory conditions, etc.

i also think that the fact that they predate the UNCLOS is significant, too.

nonetheless, japan has defacto sovereignty, and china does not seem intent on going to the international court.

on the other hand, a hard-line position by japan here has already had repercussions vis-a-vis the kurils.

i think that the chinese probably feel the same way about these rocks as the japanese do about the kurils, in light of the geographical proximity, etc.

nigelboy Aug. 07, 2012 - 11:41PM JST Secondly, UNCLOS under article 15, which means the current or future off shore development still stays on the China's side while Japan can conduct their own on their side, as well as the opposite side (east) of the islands.

As long as a border is not agreed upon by both sides, it doesn't mean anything. Japan cannot conduct anything. It is difficult to state any simple rule on how the disproportionate effect of such features is to be eliminated. Much depends on the circumstances of the case. When engaged in the task of delimiting the territorial sea, you need to seek to remove any inequitable effect of circumstances by modifying the equal distance line. However, modification of the provisional equal distance line may not be sufficient to achieve an equitable results. China and Japan has not maintain that equal distance as a agreeable rule in delimiting the territorial sea, and it would not be sufficient simply to adjust the provisional equal distance line but that special circumstances is required by the use of a different method of delimitation known as the bisector method, the line formed by bisecting the angle created by a linear approximation of coastlines. The bisector method of agreement might be a possiblity for China and Japan.

i also think that the fact that they predate the UNCLOS is significant, too.

What does that have to do with anything? I belive China is the signatory of UNCLOS so they accepted the rules set forth, did they not?

Isn't it painfully obvious that the only way China is going to get the EEZ they want is to attain soverignty over the islands which is by force or ICJ. Hence, since the wiki source you cited has very little chance of favoring China, there is a good reason why China hasn't even "suggested" the idea of going to ICJ to Japan.

sfjp330 copy/pasting again.

Believe it or not sfjp330, even China, despite their unruly take everything from other nations attitudes/actions in South China Sea, is practicing the median line in East China Sea. Their gas fields are located on their median side without any agreement. So yes. Without an agreement can mean something. You just have to show the other side how serious you are in protecting your EEZ.

nigelboy Aug. 08, 2012 - 05:05AM JST even China, despite their unruly take everything from other nations attitudes/actions in South China Sea, is practicing the median line in East China Sea. Their gas fields are located on their median side without any agreement. So yes. Without an agreement can mean something. You just have to show the other side how serious you are in protecting your EEZ

I don't think so. They still have disputes with defining what is a median line. Japanese does not recognize this. By the year 2020, which is only 8 years from now, China will import 70 percent of the oil from foreign source. This is up from current 54 percent. They are increasingly desperate to find other sources of energy and Senkaku island area is one of the areas they identified. This is why China has offered a joint exploration with Japan. So far, Japan has refused. Problem is if China cannot get their ways with Japan on the dispute, they will eventually force their objectives by military means.

@YuriOtani

So what do they propose, turning the islands over to Taiwan?

You know what Yuri, You're Right!

Why don't we just go back to the way it was in 1942-3, when Japan occupied 3X more real estate than was taken by Nazi Germany. So let's plan this... So this means, not only will Japan get those disputed Islands back, but the entire Island of Taiwan, not too mention Singapore and dozens of others.

What you're asking for is akin to the AUM perpetrators of Hibiya, asking for their Sarin gas back, after they are released from prison.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth...

don't forget, the harder you defend these islands, the harder you will get northern islands back.

nigelboy Aug. 08, 2012 - 05:05AM JST even China, despite their unruly take everything from other nations attitudes/actions in South China Sea, is practicing the median line in East China Sea. Their gas fields are located on their median side without any agreement.

What is your definition of median line? Japan's proposal, which has not been accepted by China, has been to divide the sea equally between the two countries, which would put China's Chunxiao claim only three miles from Japanese territory. When there is disagreement on the demarcation of EEZs between any countries, the law stipulates that the parties concerned should avoid anything that could undermine an eventual agreement. China's gas field drilling near the median line between the two countries is regarded by Japan as an obvious infringement of the spirit of this law.

the exercize of soverignty which includes admnistration of the territory (incorporation, construction, issuance of title, lease, business licenenses, property tax, etc.) all of which was done peacefully by Japan for 75 years before China's assertion of the claim.

I am not sure your definition of 'peacefully'. To Chinese, war with Japan only ended after WWII.

RooAug. 06, 2012 - 12:38PM JST 170 km northeast of Taiwan and 410 km west of Okinawa So they are much closed to Taiwan unles Taiwan is part of Japan too is it?

No, 150 km from Yonaguni, part of Okinawa. If you want to harp on distances.

@Roo and Ossan -- Not only that, but they're northeast of Yonaguni. Pretending that these islands are part of Taiwan means creating a national border that envelops Yonaguni on two sides (its north and west coasts). It would become a huge inconvenience for Yonagunians to avoid these "Taiwanese" waters when fishing, because the north and west coasts are the only places on the island suitable for ports. (The east and south coasts are rocky.)

Still, kudos to Taiwan for trying to be reasonable with this issue. It's really the PRC (whose ultimate aim is to absorb Taiwan into their country) that's making this dispute bigger than it should be.

What does that have to do with anything? I belive China is the signatory of UNCLOS so they accepted the rules set forth, did they not?

Yes, they did, and that is why China and Japan both declared sovereignty over the islands on the same day in 1972.

The fact that they apparently don't want to take it to the IJC is noteworthy, but maybe that will change at some point.

Was there any sort of international mechanism for handling such disputes before the 1982 UNCLOS?

Yes, they did, and that is why China and Japan both declared sovereignty over the islands on the same day in 1972.

U.S. relinquished their "trusteeship" in 1972. Another thing to point out is that China (either be ROC or PRC) had ample opportunity to claim soverignty over the islets after Japan's surrender and under the trusteeship. They did not.

Was there any sort of international mechanism for handling such disputes before the 1982 UNCLOS?

ICJ and inernational court of arbitrations, I believe.