Anti Japan protests in your town? 钓鱼岛

[Kenny同志]

Thanks for the information Imron.

[Outofin]

What you said about the government's motivations could be true or false, though they barely matter.

This is quite an astonishing thing to hear. The motivations on both sides are critical to understanding and resolving differences.

Okay, so why I said that? I don't mean it's unnecessary to understsand other party's motivation. I mean it's not helpful to search for a covert motivation.

Say you built a fence that I think is on my property. I say, "I'm very angry. You should move the fence back." What is my motivation? Really, what is my motivation?!

Is it necessary to think "Maybe he wants to embarrass me in front of other people? Maybe he just had a tough day at work? Maybe he wants some money from me?"

These speculations could be true or false, but they barely matter. To solve the dispute, you need to talk to me about our property line and the fence.

We've heard similar arguments repeatedly. China wants to distract from other issues domestically, China wants oil, blah blah. Nonsense. Just check how much money China makes in international trade PER DAY. Those who believe in a covert motivation will try to solve the dispute accordingly, and thus fail.

[gougou]

But certainly it becomes easier to talk to the neighbor if you understands what motivates him? Say, if you had a tough day at work, I might just wait until tomorrow to approach you, whereas if I expected you were out to embarrass me, it might be better to engage you before you could do more damage.

[tokyo_girl]

Just a couple of things.

The Kill Chinese sign seems very dubious for a few reasons.

1) It's in English.

2) The sign is not being held up to public view - it's in someone's hand. It is pointed away from the police in the background.

3) There is no sign of it being part of a crowd /protest.

Anyone can make a sign and hold it in the palm of their hand.

It it were being held up in a crowd at a protest in large kanji characters and if it were appearing frequently in crowds, and uncriticised in Japanese media then you might have something comprable.

There has been no comment on the link I posted from the Japanese MOFA site that has an article in Chinese from a Chinese newspaper in 1920 which states describes the Senkaku, as being Okinawa, Empire of Japan.

As for damage in Tokyo - it's absolutely not comparable. I haven't had the chance to go and observe the nationalist protests here but numbers are few and there has been no mob violence. Periodically there are political attacks in Japan - there was one recently at the peace park in Hiroshima, I live near a North Korean school and although I have never seen nationalist vans there, I understand that there has been nationalist grafitti written on it.

Nothing remotely comparable to this kind of stuff

http://www.chinapost...Japan-chain.htm

Yes people are being arrested in China but why not when mob violence was occurring?

I think Guoguo is exactly right that both countries are giving themselves little space to move.

http://www.economist.com/node/21563728 Another article on Mr Abe, one that shows that popular will is not necessarily represented at govt. level.

As for the degree of representation, as Imron says, it is an issue. Japan has been notorious for unrepresentative politicians with a gerrymandered electorate. That has improved, but representation is still an issue, compounded by the lack of voter turn out. In the case of Ishihara, who is one of the most extreme nationalists. He was elected with 51% of the vote with a voter turn out of 57%. He is also a prefectural governor who should not be making foreign policy decisions. Japanese people need to take responsibility for not voting, but from what I see in Japan, he doesn't represent the majority view.

[realmayo]

One thing about the islands: people talk about sovereignty as if it's a fixed, universal, obvious concept. It isn't, it means different things in different places, and has changed drastically over time. I assume most people here are referring to the ideas that came out of Western Europe 400-500 years ago. But the Chinese idea has, historically, been different, and certainly nothing to do with the western tradition.

It's one of those "unfair" things for China. The rules and norms and big organisations on an international level these days are all based on ideas that came from Western Europe and are not part of the Chinese tradition. If it operates within those frameworks, is China basically kow-towing to the Western ideologies (including human rights, free trade, etc)? But given how its recent boom has come about via international trade, WTO etc, perhaps it hasn't any other option. But then, when it suits China (i.e. over these islands) it uses arguments like "we put these on our maps a few hundred years ago, that outweighs international treaties between sovereign nations". Seems to me that to be consistent, China either accepts that Western thinking is the current basis for how the world works, or doesn't. Of course it is a bit unfair: to participate in world trade and so on, you've got to sign up to ideas that are completely alien, and which may suit the countries-which-got-there-first much better than they suit you.

[gato]

I don't think anyone of us know enough about the legal intricacies right now to say with much certainty how current international law would treat the matter.

Ma Yingjeou wrote his doctoral thesis at Harvard on this subject and concluded that the islands belong to the Republic of China, so the Japanese government's argument probably isn't exactly a slam dunk.

[realmayo]

But even international law is way different from the Chinese impulse here which (I think) is based on Chinese thinking about these issues, rather than Western thinking.

It's not about who is right or wrong under international law, but China playing by international (largely Western) values rather than its own.

[tokyo_girl]

I have strong opinions on the actions of nationalist politicians and

on mob violence and failure to counter it, but I don't have an opinion

on the sovereignty of the islands.

I really have no idea. I am intrigued by the HK newspaper article from the 20s that

calls it part of Japan. I imagine that from the Chinese side it would be contextualized

differently, but I have seen nothing that explicitly counters it.

It's not about who is right or wrong under international law, but China playing by international (largely Western) values rather than its own.

I am not exactly sure what you mean here. The concept of defined rather than porous borders? Tributary systems? Which values do you mean specifically.

[li3wei1]

The rules and norms and big organisations on an international level these days are all based on ideas that came from Western Europe and are not part of the Chinese tradition.

maybe this question is too big for this thread, but can you say there is a Western set of rules and norms around sovereignty on the one hand, and a significantly different Chinese tradition on the other? That there is a unity of thinking around sovereignty of, say, Hawaii, Northern Ireland, Israel, Chechnya, southern Sudan, the Falklands, and Australia, which is coherent and entirely separate from the equally coherent Chinese discussions of Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan?

All the examples above are populated, so are in a sense irrelevant. When it comes to uninhabited areas, what 'traditions' do we have on either side? Antarctica? The Spratly Islands?

[studychinese]

International law is based on western norms, true. Japan was also the first Asian nation to pay close attention to these international laws, formally annexing the Senkaku Islands and the Takeshima islets, which are creating controversy with China and South Korea respectively.

[realmayo]

can you say there is a Western set of rules and norms around sovereignty on the one hand, and a significantly different Chinese tradition on the other?

Yes, easily.

[can you say there is] a unity of thinking around sovereignty ... which is coherent and entirely separate from the equally coherent Chinese discussions of Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan?

Yes, up to a point, but not so easily and I could be very wrong. But my feeling is that from the Chinese side the notion of a single China with a long history and a long history of local dominance is important in these discussions. It might not be something PRC lawyers would include in any hypothetical international law case, but it's important to lots of Chinese people. However that's less important to Western thinking, which places more importance on other things.

[li3wei1]

But every country has its own story that is important to it. America's 'manifest destiny'. Britannia ruling the waves, and the sun never setting on her empire. Israel's background in the holocaust and in the old testament. The importance of religion in places like Ireland and Chechnya. Not all of these stories are as blatant, or as firmly enshrined in the culture, but they're all unique. Why is China's 'tradition' so different from that of other countries, and why do you think it is more different from 'the' Western version than the Western countries are from each other?

[realmayo]

I'm not sure I'm trying to get at what you think I'm trying to get at, which must be because I've expressed myself badly.

Most (all?) big international organisations and norms were set up by western powers and are based upon western thinking. One such western idea is that of the nation-state. Most (all?) countries have now adopted that concept.

China will produce historical records to back up ownership claims of various islands and seas. Those records will date back to a time when no-one in China was remotely interested in western ideas about the nation-state. Hence, a little collision, no?

You raise examples of disputes elsewhere in the world. But the specific context here is that China has in the last 20 years or so been demanding, perhaps been earning, the right to sit at the top table with the big boys, but at the same time sees that the governing principles of the organisations it wants to play a part in have been set many years ago, and these terms are usually helpful to those who originally framed them and sometimes unhelpful to China. Another example: the west likes encouraging human rights, China likes prioritising stability.

[tokyo_girl]

Very true that Chinese ideas of being 'the middle kingdom' and the recipient of tributes predates the idea of a nation state with fixed borders. I think it is probably fair to say, as you say, that a collision in these ideas is at the root of the conflict.

China has territorial disputes with every eastern neighbour. If you ask a Filipino or Vietnamese many will say strongly that China is bullying them. From China's point of view it is historical lands.

But I am not sure that a country, particularly one that is a security power on the UN can really have it both ways - both a modern sense of nation state and an old idea of being a tributary power. The same applies to the US whose "manifest destiny" sanctions involvement in conflicts (notably Iraq - but there is a long history of it). It conflicts with the modern idea of territorial integrity of the nation state.

https://fbcdn-sphoto...699035082_n.jpg

Still no contextualization of the newspaper article on the Japanese MOFA site?

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

[skylee]

China has territorial disputes with every eastern neighbour.

Every eastern neighbour??

IIRC, Japan also has territorial disputes with China, Russia and Korea. How is this different?

[tokyo_girl]

Japan also has territorial disputes with China, Russia and Korea.

And Taiwan!

In terms of the fact that there are territorial disputes it's no different at all.

My post before was not meant to suggest that Japan doesn't have territorial issues.

But I think the historical rationale for them is perhaps different.

Japan has only been a major power in Asia since the Meiji era when it began

to invade other countries, which inverted the historical balance of power with

China being the dominant power of the region.

The discussion was on the different notions of sovereignty and I think it's fair to

say that it was in Japan's imperial igoals to assert the nation, and a western

neo-imperial idea of empire.

As far I as can see Japan's claim to territory is based on legalisms and technicalities

of post war treaties.

On the other hand China's claim to territory seems to be based more on historical reasons -

that it has always been part of China / Chinese sphere of influence. Legalisms

occur along side this.

Japan can't claim with any conviction (and as far as I know doesn't) that the Senkaku

are historically (as in pre 1894) Japanese.

It may be able to be claimed that they are part of Okinawa historically, but Okinawa

is a modern annexation, and is not historically part of "Japan". Okinawans still have

a very separate sense of identity to the mainland (though mainlanders don't really recognize this.)

IMO they have a very strong claim for independence - there is great resentment

of the mainland. That's a whole different issue though

---

I'm still not clear on the motivations (and I am not looking for conspiracy theories, just opinions of people who are seeing it with different eyes than the media here shows it) for the govt. to let the protests become mob violence. Also am curious about alternative points of view to MOFA's documents.

[Kenny同志]

Tokyo girl, take a good look at these pictures .

and these and these.

[gato]

You can read the Chinese government's white paper on the matter first:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-09/25/c_131872152.htm

And this paper on both sides' claims, starting from about page 925:

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/articles/volume29/issue4/RamosMrosovsky29U.Pa.J.Int'lL.903(2008).pdf

Indeed, in 1893, the Dowager Empress Ci Xi is said to have granted the islands to a Dr. Sheng Xuan-hui in appreciation of his services in gathering the herb to treat her illness.  Such an act which would presuppose, and might in a sense declare, Chinese sovereignty over the islands.  These may seem relatively weak exercises of governmental authority over the islands, but defenders of China's claim would argue that they suffice in light of the kind of territory at stake. On this view, China used the islands "for centuries for the only purpose for which they are suited, as a navigational aide and source of medicinal herbs." 

Second, China claims that Japan actually recognized Chinese sovereignty over the islands before it seized them in 1895.  In an 1885 letter, the Japanese Foreign Minister, Inoue Kaoru, advised his government not to "suddenly establish publicly national boundary marks" on the islands, as this might "easily invite Chinese suspicion."  Kaoru observed that "those islands are near the Chinese national boundary" and that "there are Chinese names on them." He concluded by recommending that "[w]ith respect to the question of establishing national marks, we must wait until the time is appropriate."'' Although Kaoru's letter is not an explicit acknowledgement of Chinese sovereignty, it may reflect the Japanese government's expectation that China might defend a preexisting claim, in which case the islands might not be so clearly terra nullius. Japan's waiting to defeat China before annexing the Senkakus reveals, China's supporters argue, a strategy for avoiding otherwise inevitable objections.  This argument is bolstered by reference to early Japanese maps showing the Senkakus to be part of China.  Moreover, third party maps of the nineteenth century period tend to refer to the islands as the Tiao- yu-tai, favoring the Chinese usage.  China accordingly argues that Japan at least implicitly recognized that the Senkakus belonged to China.

[fanglu]

take a good look at these pictures .

These seem to be a mixture of photos from all different protests or activities. The ones with people dressed in world war 2 military clothing seem to be from ceremonies or re enactments at the Yasukuni Shrine, rather than anti-China protests. The ones with blurred out text also seem a but suspect - why would someone blur out text other than to disguise where they were from?

Google image search allows you to search an image, which is good for finding the sources of unattributed photos.

PS - Not that I'm denying there are anti-Chinese people in Japan. Just saying these photos are meant to mislead.

[Kenny同志]

Pictures from the last two links are relevant. I included the first link to show Tokyo Girl that the "Kill China" banner is not a fake. Also from there she can get a picture of how the Japanese behaved.