Anti Japan protests in your town? 钓鱼岛

[imron]

But that's the thing. China's claim to the islands is that they are a part of Taiwan ergo they are a part of China.

Whether the people in Taiwan see it like that or not, that's how the mainland sees it.

[liuzhou]

Yeah! Nothing to do with Taiwan and no one there is protesting.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3250439a-0624-11e2-bd29-00144feabdc0.html

What I took offense to was the implication that Taiwan is a part of China

It is official Taiwan policy that Taiwan is part of China. The Taiwan government (of all parties) just want to control all of it, the same as the communists do . The Taiwan nationalists even lay claim to Mongolia - and I don't mean Inner.

I've met utter idiots who think that if Taiwan won back power over the mainland, then Tibet and Xinjiang would be freed. Nonsense.

[OneEye]

Please show me where I said that nobody was protesting. I said specifically that there had been a few, and that some people believe Taiwan has a stronger claim than either of the other two governments involved.

Sorry, I'm not registering to read that article. I know about the boats. The few Taiwanese people I've talked to today thought that was a stupid move, and I agree.

You can talk about official policy in Taiwan all you want. I don't really care what the KMT's absurd stance on the issue is. It's all just a ridiculous attempt to save face from something that happened decades ago. The reality is, like I said above, most people (at least most people I know) don't want to be part of China, don't want the ROC to rule China, don't even want the ROC on Taiwan. I'm talking about the Taiwanese people here, not the Taiwanese government.

This thread, however, is not about Taiwan's political status, so that's as far as I go with it.

[liuzhou]

Sorry, I'm not registering to read that article.

I chose that one because I could see it without registering. But there are many others with the same story.

The few Taiwanese people I've talked to today thought that was a stupid move, and I agree.

So do I, but it happened.

[Scandinavian]

Alternate article about the same thing

edition.cnn.com/2012/09/24/world/asia/diaoyu-boats-taiwan/index.html?hpt=ias_c2

[stoney]

Hi, Liwei, I am afraid that Japan and Germany are incomparable in this regard. The atrocities committed by the Japanese army were times worse than the Germans.

Kenny2006woo; I was a little shocked to hear you make this statement. It seems very inaccurate to me. Can you explain where you get this idea from. Is it something that is taught in the Chinese education system, was it something you picked up through your own reading?? Perhaps it was lost in translation?

[imron]

The atrocities committed by the Japanese are fairly well documented, and horrific in nature. The book Kenny recommended above "The Rape of Nanking" is probably a good place to start. Whether they are many times worse than the atrocities committed by the Germans, I guess you will get a different answer depending on whether you ask a Jewish person or a Chinese person (and both will have ample evidence to support their claim), and I don't think here is really the place to discuss that (feel free to take it up via PM - but a public discussion in an already contentious thread is just going to attract more heat than light.)

[tokyo_girl]

This is a bit off the point of the riots themselves, though contributes to the background...

Something that is often missed with comparisons between Germany and Japan and post war attitudes is that the US occupied Japan after the war and imposed a US style constitution. In Germany, and a number of other European countries, Holocaust denial and Nazi symbolism is illegal. Japan, which had its post war constitution effectively imposed by the US has nothing comparable - in keeping with the US preoccupation with free speech. This was exacerbated by a very selective cleaning out of ministries that were responsible for the war - in many cases the architects and facilitators of the war returned to normal life.

I had lunch today with Chinese friends who were complaining that Japan is never sincere in its apologies. I see their point - with virulent nationalists its hard to see any sincerity. But any democracy that doesn't have legal constraints on expressing wartime nationalism will find it difficult to contain extremist opinions, especially when many of the nationalists were able to retain their positions.

[stoney]

To make it clear, I see the German and Japanese war crimes to be on par. I don't want Kenny to get the impression that I'm supporting what Japan did in the past. I'll just leave it at that.

[Outofin]

I don't think Taiwan is a bystander of this dispute. Their leaders clearly say the islands belong to China, China according to their definition, which I'm okay with. And a recent news that the Japanese were bullying Taiwanese fishing boats.

http://www.nytimes.c...rom-taiwan.html

But any democracy that doesn't have legal constraints on expressing wartime nationalism will find it difficult to contain extremist opinions, especially when many of the nationalists were able to retain their positions.

With or without legal constraints, it's up to the Japanese, as a people, to figure out whether is correct to enshrine and worship war criminals. With free speech, the world can see your true heart more easily.

[tokyo_girl]

With or without legal constraints, it's up to the Japanese, as a people, to figure out whether is correct to enshrine and worship war criminals.

This is was a decision made by a shrine. It was not a decision made by the Japanese people. When it was first created in the early Meiji period, Yasukuni was actually enormously egalitarian as the lowest ranked soldiers (who had previously received no recognition) were enshrined alongside army generals. It's such a pity that it has become the rallying point for political controversy. Most people that go there are doing so to worship / pay respects to ancestors not to make a political statement. Anecdotes reveal nothing about the general situation however I have not met a Japanese person in ten years of living here who stronlgy agrees with the decision to enshrine the war criminals. I've met people who are ambivalent - with the rationales along the line that in death people are equal, and I have met many who oppose it.

With free speech, the world can see your true heart more easily.

I don't think there is a "true heart" of Japan - if that means that all people have the same feeling about something. To some extent, post war Japan has a dichotomy - those who politically and military align with the US but claim victimhood in the war because of the double standard applied to western and Japanese colonization, and the left wing pacifists who reject US presence and dwell on victimhood of the nuclear bombs to illustrate the need for pacifism.

Despite losing the war, and having extensive civilian casualties from US firebombs and nuclear bombs, there is no particular bitterness towards the US. The nationalists get upset about the Russian occupation of the Northern Islands, but in the mind of the general population, the occupation is not really something that would incite widespread protests. In general, for better and worse, Japan doesn't spend much time thinking about history. There are a number of contributing factors to that, cultural, political, pragmatic. It is a great pity though for Japan, and for the region.

It would serve Japan's national interests to develop a constructive national narrative, but I don't see it happening. The current situation has been inflamed by Japanese nationalists. Ishihara is pushing the Japanese govt to the right, but the Chinese reaction is pushing Japan even further to the right. The common person in the street in Japan does not comprehend why the Chinese govt. does not act to ensure the safety of people and property and leave discussions of islands at a national level.

[Outofin]

Same thing everwhere. Every country has the left and the right.

In Germany, bad guys live in shadow and don't dare to propose their ideas to public. In the future, the country is very unlikely to repeat its nazi past. When we meet a German, there's much higher chance that he is a righteous person than a neo-nazi due to the environment he's brought up.

In the US, somebody made an anti-Islam movie. We all saw the protests and the horrific death of an American ambassador. The Secretary of State denounced the movie. That assures people that the US is in the right people's hands. There are anti-Islam people but they don't represent the Americans as a people.

In Japan, bad guys are very popular and some of them are powerful politicians. Compared to Germany, Japan has a much higher chance to be controlled by some vicious leaders. Consequently, we all should be alert to its moves. Maybe even in WW2, 90% Japanese were very peaceful people but why would that matter if they don't act up?

[studychinese]

Japanese atrocities during WW2 has nothing to do with the Senkaku Islands. How could it? Japan formally brought the Senkaku Islands under it's administration in 1895. It was only in the 1970s when potential natural resources were discovered that the Chinese government suddenly discovered that the Senkaku Islands are a part of China.

Perhaps the Chinese government should bring this to the International Court of Justice, for peaceful resolution.

[Kenny同志]

A bit history (source one, source two) on the islands might help.

PS: I don't want to be rude, but some posts really make me think that their posters should do a bit research on the matter before they post.

I said earlier that some of you might hear what Chinese scholars had to say on the matter. Well, perhaps you just couldn't care.

If we continue to debate with ignorance of the historical facts, I suggest Roddy close this topic so that we can do something else that is more meaningful.

[tokyo_girl]

Japanese atrocities during WW2 has nothing to do with the Senkaku Islands.

Yes and no. It does to the extent that it relates to the rioting and depth of animosity in China. China remains aggrieved at perceived injustices in the outcome of world war II - despite being an invaded country, Japan's post war alliance with the US and its economic recovery make it appear the winner of a war it lost. I often get the feeling that there is little reflection in China about the way the excesses of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution contributed to China's delayed economic development. Japan's post war recovery is due in part to hard work of its people, but largely due to much larger geo-political factors (particularly the cold war).

Perhaps the Chinese government should bring this to the International Court of Justice, for peaceful resolution.

That would be the the logical thing to do for all of the post war territorial disputes. I think Japan's legal claims are possibly stronger, though historical claims very weak.

In Germany, bad guys live in shadow and don't dare to propose their ideas to public.

With regard to WWII, absolutely true - it's illegal. But right wing parties like Pro Deutschland are pretty hard line in their views about contemporary migration and the "purity of Europe".

Agree that Japanese people should be more vocal in expressing conciliation as well as a raft of other domestic issues. The reality is most Japanese are quite apolitical.

It doesn't change the fact that protests should be conducted peacefully, and the government should intervene to protect people and property.

In Japan the Russian, Chinese, Korean embassies have police buses stationed outside them permanently and the roads are closed at the first hint of a nationalist convoy approaching. It's a basic requirement for a government to do their utmost to protect foreign embassies, people, and property - not just in China, but in any country.

[Steingletscher]

Here is the translated version of a multi-page paper from the State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China on their official position and reasons for such a deal (including a lengthy section declaring the deals with the US as illegal). I have only a few things to say on it. First, the only reason that historical arguments matter is to show that they were once Chinese territory. As to whether Japan gave them back to China, according to the Chinese comes back to these three quotes (though you should still read the article, since there are probably many things I missed):

Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands' date=' which consist of Diaoyu Dao, Huangwei Yu, Chiwei Yu, Nanxiao Dao, Beixiao Dao, Nan Yu, Bei Yu, Fei Yu and other islands and reefs, are located to the northeast of China's Taiwan Island, in the waters between 123º20'-124º40'E (East Longitude) and 25º40'-26º00'N (North Latitude)[/font']

In July 1945, the Potsdam Proclamation stated in Article 8: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

On January 29, 1946, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction (SCAPIN) No.677 clearly defined Japan's power of administration to "include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu Islands north of the 30th parallel of North Latitude".

The islands in dispute are below the 30th parallel and thus the only reason that the Japanese would be allowed to keep the islands would be if they were catagorized as being part of the Ryukyu islands, which they are according to Japan as being administered under Okinawa. The question I have is if the Japanese are allowed to take part of a territory that was seized as one being (Formosa) and then regroup it with another territory (Okinawa)? I'm sure there are many instances of this happening in the past, but this the only one I can think of in this modern era where other view things besides military might are taken into consideration over international disputes. The last thing I have to say is since China is the only country that sees such deals with the US as being illegal, even though they might be right, how much does it matter?

[tokyo_girl]

http://www.mofa.go.j...fact_sheet.html

FWIW that's the Japanese government's position.

It actually seems more persuasive than China's position - particularly the newspaper article from China from the 1920s that states Senkaku, Okinawa, Japan. (Assuming it is genuine and accurate).

Given this, it makes sense that the Chinese govt. would rely on people power, rather than the international court.

[studychinese]

kenny2006woo,

Exercising sovereignty over an area is a different thing to knowing of an areas' existence. If China ever exercised sovereignty, and that seems doubtful, it was been at least 117 years since it last did so.

Did you know that the Chinese government has been trying to buy the Senkaku islands from it's private owners for the last 30 years? The owners faced 30 years worth of harassment and death threats, including harassment of the owners elementary school son.

http://zasshi.news.yahoo.co.jp/article?a=20120720-00000301-jisin-pol

That is the reason that they had to sell to a government entity, because the harassment had become too much.

[Kenny同志]

No, I didn't know and I haven't seen any evidence of the alleged harrassment.

[Kenny同志]

The only thing I have to say is if China is the only country that sees such deals as illegal, though they might be right, how much does it matter?

_{When the Big Brother (think about what it means – its allies, media, etc.) is on Japan’s side, it really doesn’t matter much.}