And the links don't work, for me at least.
Correction: Posted before I saw your last post, the Canterbury-Link works.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Where is the legal footing for Japan to argue today with China, Korea and Russia (winning nations of the WW2) on any island disputes? How anybody with a right mind can support Japan’s argument?
The legal footing is that although Japan did give up Taiwan, it was unclear wether the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands were included in the forfeited territory, due to different interpretations of the peace treaty of Shimonoseki between China and Japan in 1895.
It's the same pat position as with the Kuril islands really, with Russia saying Japan forfeited their claim on the islands after WW2, and Japan stating that although that may be true, Russia did not at that point claim the islands for themselves.
On a sidenote, China, or better to say the chinese government rather than the people, became interested in the islands only after crude oil and gas has been discovered in the seabed near the islands in the 60s, with the drillings being organised on initiative of Taiwan, which has recently been pushed aside and forgotten in this debate over the islands.
1 ( +1 / -0 )