EPTPro-China, Anti-Japan Protests - Page 88
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
czylu
477 Posts
| ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
On September 20 2012 16:15 czylu wrote: frankly, i think the most appropriate solution to this issue is japan ends up returning the islands to their original owner, and taiwan ends up buying it up(maybe with some extra funding from International interests), and leasing its rights back to japan. This way, the island still belongs to china(as taiwan is china), but japan still gets to use'm. ofcourse, i'm talking out of my ass and there's probably no way this'll ever happen. In my eyes, taking the issue to ICJ (International Court of Justice) is a sound option. When 2 countries can't compromise, that's the only organization that can give an authoritative opinion on territorial dispute. That's what Japan proposed last month for Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between Korea and Japan after Korean President's visit to the island. The proposal was subsequently rejected by Korean side that currently controls the island. In order to avoid double-standard, Japan needs to accept the ICJ option if China decided to propose on Diaoyu/Senkaku. Currently, Japanese government denies the existence of territorial dispute itself, which I personally think is arrogant. However, tide is changing these days, and many more Japanese people are in favor of ending the dispute once and for all at ICJ even though Japan is the one that controls the islands today unlike Dokdo/Takeshima case. I've been doing lots of reading on this territorial dispute, and a good start for anyone would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute I read not just wikipedia, but as many original sources and relevant articles as possible on + Show Spoiler + Treaty of Shimonoseki Cairo Declaration Potsdam Declaration Treaty of San Francisco Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China Sangoku tsūran zusetsu(三國通覧図說) (Map) Terra nullius (no man’s land) ICJ (International Court of Justice) Succession of states etc. Research for a few days didn't make me an expert, but I probably have better grasp of the argument than the most here. Everyone is biased, so I don't expect everyone to agree with me. That said, if I do it in balance discussion manner, Japanese claim is OP and Chinese claim is UP. JvC winrate would be 80% or so. Both sides at least have some solid ground and cohesive argument, but I find Japanese claim more consistent and Chinese more opportunistic. Of course, I don't know how evidences are evaluated according to international law, but that's my impression. I personally think this JvC80% winrate is the reason why China probably won't take it to ICJ. I really hope China does, and Japan accepts. If China is so confident of their argument, they should. | ||
|
sharky246
1197 Posts
On September 20 2012 17:17 Orek wrote: In my eyes, taking the issue to ICJ (International Court of Justice) is a sound option. When 2 countries can't compromise, that's the only organization that can give an authoritative opinion on territorial dispute. That's what Japan proposed last month for Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between Korea and Japan after Korean President's visit to the island. The proposal was subsequently rejected by Korean side that currently controls the island. In order to avoid double-standard, Japan needs to accept the ICJ option if China decided to propose on Diaoyu/Senkaku. Currently, Japanese government denies the existence of territorial dispute itself, which I personally think is arrogant. However, tide is changing these days, and many more Japanese people are in favor of ending the dispute once and for all at ICJ even though Japan is the one that controls the islands today unlike Dokdo/Takeshima case. I've been doing lots of reading on this territorial dispute, and a good start for anyone would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute I read not just wikipedia, but as many original sources and relevant articles as possible on + Show Spoiler + Treaty of Shimonoseki Cairo Declaration Potsdam Declaration Treaty of San Francisco Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China Sangoku tsūran zusetsu(三國通覧図說) (Map) Terra nullius (no man’s land) ICJ (International Court of Justice) Succession of states etc. Research for a few days didn't make me an expert, but I probably have better grasp of the argument than the most here. Everyone is biased, so I don't expect everyone to agree with me. That said, if I do it in balance discussion manner, Japanese claim is OP and Chinese claim is UP. JvC winrate would be 80% or so. Both sides at least have some solid ground and cohesive argument, but I find Japanese claim more consistent and Chinese more opportunistic. Of course, I don't know how evidences are evaluated according to international law, but that's my impression. I personally think this JvC80% winrate is the reason why China probably won't take it to ICJ. I really hope China does, and Japan accepts. If China is so confident of their argument, they should. Alittle off-topic but why did korea reject the proposal for bringing the case to ICJ? | ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
On September 20 2012 17:29 sharky246 wrote: Alittle off-topic but why did korea reject the proposal for bringing the case to ICJ? "Territorial dispute does not exist over Dokdo." is the official stance of Korean government just like Japanese government's is on Senkaku islands. Whoever currently controls the territory denies the existence of the dispute. That's what's happening. I blame both governments for this. Btw, I think JvK on Dokdo/Takeshima is more solid for Japanese side with like 90% winrate. I won't be popular saying this in Starcraft website TL, but that's my opinion after some study myself. | ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
On September 20 2012 14:43 fishjie wrote: doesn't matter, what japan did was inexcusable. that is why every asian nation still hates them to this day. if you're not asian then you wouldn't really understand. closest analogy is the middle east hating the united states. totally understandable, even if the current generation of usa has no ill will towards the people in the middle east. doesn't make up for the sins of the past. Thank you poster from the us for speaking for the whole of Asia. Why I didn't even know my country hates Japan to this day. Do you also think that India hates Japan or did you forget that they are part of Asia too? | ||
|
Sickkiee
Japan607 Posts
On September 20 2012 18:00 levelping wrote: Thank you poster from the us for speaking for the whole of Asia. Why I didn't even know my country hates Japan to this day. Do you also think that India hates Japan or did you forget that they are part of Asia too? Not to mention to wish death upon people not even a part of it. Dat logix. | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
Everyone needs to take a lesson from Jiro, and just focus on your own daily lives. | ||
|
MK
United States496 Posts
From what I understand, it's more about a "lack of revenge". Someone said in this thread that the US got revenge on Pearl Harbor and the Chinese got nothing. It's a very simple point of view; but in a way, it's actually what I feel when I talk to some friends in the mainland. The (not so) funny thing is I believe that the Chinese people are hating Japan for exactly what they would have done if they could. It's crazy but I feel like it's about "an eye for an eye" right now. Chinese are saying that Japan have committed atrocities and the only way to settle everything down is to find a way to make the Japanese pay the whole price. And the problem is there is no price for a life (and we are talking about 20-30M lives). So now what? Take the islands, kill the Japs, throw a bomb or what? This is my problem with these riots: yeah, you got arguments to destroy whatever you want but eventually, what are the solutions you are bringing up to build something new? And I guess the day China come with a good answer to this question, this country will become a great and responsible nation. | ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
On September 20 2012 21:03 MK wrote: What I really don't get is what the Chinese really want. Not speaking of the officials and politicians, but the people. From what I understand, it's more about a "lack of revenge". Someone said in this thread that the US got revenge on Pearl Harbor and the Chinese got nothing. It's a very simple point of view; but in a way, it's actually what I feel when I talk to some friends in the mainland. The (not so) funny thing is I believe that the Chinese people are hating Japan for exactly what they would have done if they could. It's crazy but I feel like it's about "an eye for an eye" right now. Chinese are saying that Japan have committed atrocities and the only way to settle everything down is to find a way to make the Japanese pay the whole price. And the problem is there is no price for a life (and we are talking about 20-30M lives). So now what? Take the islands, kill the Japs, throw a bomb or what? This is my problem with these riots: yeah, you got arguments to destroy whatever you want but eventually, what are the solutions you are bringing up to build something new? And I guess the day China come with a good answer to this question, this country will become a great and responsible nation. Taking a look at Germany's action post WW2 and its actions for the last 60 would be a good start. | ||
|
HolydaKing
21254 Posts
| ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
On September 20 2012 21:09 fearus wrote: Taking a look at Germany's action post WW2 and its actions for the last 60 would be a good start. True. Japan has apologized multiple times, but I think the message is not sent well enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan I personally think Japan needs to make a big comprehensive apology event/statement in a remorseful manner instead of making multiple apologies here and there. That way, message is so much clearer and more media coverage of the world can be expected. Unfortunately, life span of Japanese Prime Minister is 1 year each for the last 6 years. If this trend continues, no cabinet would be powerful enough to plan/host such big-scale, politically difficult event. Japanese politics is totally messed up, and needs to stabilize before any major progress happens. Might be too late, but 100th anniversary of the end of war in 2045 would be a good chance. Also ,any counterargument against victim side's claim = revision of history by Japan kind of attitude also hurts. It's making Japan very defensive. In order to face history, China-Japan Joint History Research during 2006-2009 needs to happen again and continue. | ||
|
MK
United States496 Posts
On September 20 2012 21:46 Orek wrote: True. Japan has apologized multiple times, but I think the message is not sent well enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan I personally think Japan needs to make a big comprehensive apology event/statement in a remorseful manner instead of making multiple apologies here and there. That way, message is so much clearer and more media coverage of the world can be expected. Unfortunately, life span of Japanese Prime Minister is 1 year each for the last 6 years. If this trend continues, no cabinet would be powerful enough to plan/host such big-scale, politically difficult event. Japanese politics is totally messed up, and needs to stabilize before any major progress happens. Might be too late, but 100th anniversary of the end of war in 2045 would be a good chance. Also ,any counterargument against victim side's claim = revision of history by Japan kind of attitude also hurts. It's making Japan very defensive. In order to face history, China-Japan Joint History Research during 2006-2009 needs to happen again and continue. OK, so basically, China hate Japan for not acting like Germans but every time someone talks about China or Japan, you guys throw the argument: "yeah, you don't know these countries, they are so different, they can't be the same blablabla". I don't believe we could just apply what we know in the West to such a different culture and this is why I believe China have to come with their own way of solving this issue peacefully. (sorry for the edit on the last word) | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On September 20 2012 21:09 fearus wrote: Taking a look at Germany's action post WW2 and its actions for the last 60 would be a good start. it's still not helping. There was a servermerge for the WoW PvP servers some day and there have been several reports that the english called the germans "nazis" etc. Not to say that the WoW players are a good representation of the UK population but I was still kind of disappointed because most people who are alive now were born after WW 2 and I thought Europe could move on. It just seems to have such a deep impact on everyone in europe that we will hear the echoes through all those years. I'm also not buying the "you can't ignore those documents from 100years ago". It's simply not helping. By this stance Austria could make claims to Italy, Germany to Poland, Poland to Belarus etc. The list is endless and if you go back far enough the Italians could make claims about everything the Roman Empire ever conquered. Both chinese governments simply did nothing as long as they believed there was nothing on line. So the US had control over it and then handed it over to Japan. But since there probably is oil on the line, suddenly (read: since 40 years) they dig up their old maps and start the turmoil. It is not helping. Either you want it and start your claims at a reasonable time (read shortly after the US garrisoned the islands) or you shut up. Disputing facts after they changed their owner 2times (jap -> us -> jap) isn't really helping. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4357 Posts
| ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
On September 20 2012 22:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The world is going crazy , i have to say that World War 3 looks more likely now than any time in the past 25 years. WWIII has never come closer than in the morning of 28th October 1962 (U.S. time). This is nothing compared to Cuban missile crisis back then. EDIT: past 25 years, yeah. | ||
|
Lafie
Finland36 Posts
On September 20 2012 21:09 fearus wrote: Taking a look at Germany's action post WW2 and its actions for the last 60 would be a good start. The comparison of Japan's and German's apologies after WW2 are so useless in this content. With same logic we could go into why Finland should be getting armed and demanding loads of stuff if Russia did some minor things in our borders, or the islands around here... None of the WWII military leaders, or the persons who have been in command back then has nothing to do with this. Those are just bad excuses. | ||
|
NBronJames
9 Posts
On September 20 2012 17:17 Orek wrote: In my eyes, taking the issue to ICJ (International Court of Justice) is a sound option. When 2 countries can't compromise, that's the only organization that can give an authoritative opinion on territorial dispute. That's what Japan proposed last month for Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between Korea and Japan after Korean President's visit to the island. The proposal was subsequently rejected by Korean side that currently controls the island. In order to avoid double-standard, Japan needs to accept the ICJ option if China decided to propose on Diaoyu/Senkaku. Currently, Japanese government denies the existence of territorial dispute itself, which I personally think is arrogant. However, tide is changing these days, and many more Japanese people are in favor of ending the dispute once and for all at ICJ even though Japan is the one that controls the islands today unlike Dokdo/Takeshima case. I've been doing lots of reading on this territorial dispute, and a good start for anyone would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute I read not just wikipedia, but as many original sources and relevant articles as possible on + Show Spoiler + Treaty of Shimonoseki Cairo Declaration Potsdam Declaration Treaty of San Francisco Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China Sangoku tsūran zusetsu(三國通覧図說) (Map) Terra nullius (no man’s land) ICJ (International Court of Justice) Succession of states etc. Research for a few days didn't make me an expert, but I probably have better grasp of the argument than the most here. Everyone is biased, so I don't expect everyone to agree with me. That said, if I do it in balance discussion manner, Japanese claim is OP and Chinese claim is UP. JvC winrate would be 80% or so. Both sides at least have some solid ground and cohesive argument, but I find Japanese claim more consistent and Chinese more opportunistic. Of course, I don't know how evidences are evaluated according to international law, but that's my impression. I personally think this JvC80% winrate is the reason why China probably won't take it to ICJ. I really hope China does, and Japan accepts. If China is so confident of their argument, they should. I agree that everyone is biased including yourself. Where do you come up with these 90% win rates? This isn't starcraft. If you look at it in a historical context. Korea's claim makes more sense. Japan never claimed the island until 1905-1906 when they were in verge of colonizing Korea. They considered the island, terra nullius, meaning land belonging to no one. This indirectly implies that they had never claimed the land in the first place. In both 1696 Murakami Document and and in 1877 Japan herself admits that dokdo wasn't part of their territory. While Korean historical documents numerously states that the island belongs to them. I do however agree that term like Usando can be controversial since in some of the Korean maps it's actually on the west side of the ulleunndo island not the east. Ambiguity is there but here is something I checked out on wikipedia with all the sources presented. + Show Spoiler + The Sejong-Sillok (세종실록, "Chronicle of King Sejong", 1432) mentions Usando,[15][16] but interpretation of the context is disputed. The text is interpreted as follows: "Usando (우산도 于山島) and Mureungdo (무릉도 武陵島, a former name of Ulleungdo), in the sea due east of Uljin Prefecture, are close enough to each other to be mutually visible in clear weather at the top of the mountain". South Korea insists that this constitutes clear evidence that Usan-do refers to the Liancourt Rocks, the only island that is visible from Ulleungdo only in clear weather.[16] Japan, however, holds that the latter part as "come into view from mainland Korea," believing that it refers instead to Jukdo, located two kilometers east of Ulleungdo.[17] South Korea counters that Jukdo is only 2 kilometers apart from Ulleung-Do and therefore is visible regardless of altitude or weather, as well as that the passage is clearly written in the context of the two islands mutually, rather than in relation to the Korean mainland, as established in "相去不遠," "相" meaning "mutually." South Korea also refers to Ulleung-Do Sajuk (울릉도 사적). This work was compiled by Korean government officer Jang Han-sang (장한상; 張漢相) in 1696 after the An Yong-bok incident under orders from the Joseon kingdom. In it, he states that, from Ulleung-do, "to the west can be seen the rugged mountains of Daegwallyeong; beholding the sea to the east, I noticed a faint island in the jin (辰) direction (east-south-east), not more than one-third of the size of Ulleung, and not possibly more than 300 li (approximately 100km) away."[18] Furthermore, Jang also states in a later part of the work that "I climbed to the peak of the island in order to see the boundaries of Japan, but no Japanese islands could be seen at all, and I cannot, therefore, fathom the distance to the border."[19] This evidence is used by South Korean experts to demonstrate that contemporary Koreans regarded this island to the south-east as under Korean control. Paldo Chongdo The Dong'guk yeoji seungnam (동국여지승람, "Augmented Geography Survey of the Eastern Nation (Korea)", 1481) defining Korea's territory, stated that "Usando and Ulleungdo are under the jurisdiction of Uljin-hyeon of Gangwon-do as an administrative unit. However, it also mentions that the tree and the beach could be clearly seen on a fine day.[20] The 1531 revision of this book includes the Paldo Chongdo ("Map of the Eight Provinces"), showing two separate islands of Usan-do and Ulleung-do in the middle of the Sea of Japan. Usando is drawn to the west of Ulleungdo, which is clearly an error since there exists no island that to the west of Ulleungdo. Ambiguity is there but I don't how anyone with the right mind can say that the Japanese has the historical claim other than in 1905 when Korea was too weak to defend herself. Might as well say the entire Korean peninsula is Japan's territory if you want to go by that argument. Koreans definitely have the edge in historical claim. 1951 Treaty of San Francisco has major flaws by the fact that China, Taiwan, and the two Koreas didn't participate. Russia did participate but were heavily against it. It's funny how all the countries most close to Japan and the biggest victims of Japanese war crimes weren't included and had no voice in the final decision. We all know that the purpose of the treaty of san francisco was to bring Japan to US/UK's side so they can contain the communists in Asia. Rusk documents also holds no water considering it was an one sided decision by the US and it was also a secret document. You can't call something like that a treaty in any form. At least the san francisco treaty is worth arguing but this is something US did on her own without the consent from even her allies, let alone the world. And at last but not least, Korea has had full control of the island for nearly 50 years now. Regardless of the historical context this is just as important. It's the same reason why Mexico can't reclaim California. If Korea do accept the ICJ offer, Korea would actually have a better chance of winning it although not guaranteed. Problem is why would Korea accept this since it's a lose-lose situation for them. It's like US going to court for california against mexico just to prove something they already own. Another reason why Korea rejected Japan's offer is because ICJ includes a Japanese judge and the fact that Japanese has a significant influence there while there isn't a single Korean judge. I don't know how you can use this against the Koreans considering ICJ do have history of making questionable decisions. I often hear japanese tell the Koreans and Chinese to "get over it, it's in the past". In the case of dokdo, Japanese should get over it and quit using this as a scapegoat for their own falling economy and inept politicians. By the way, this thread is a territorial dispute between Japan and China. Quit bringing Korea into this. Their stance is neutral. At a governmental level, South Korea wants good relationship with both countries. | ||
|
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
On September 20 2012 23:02 Lafie wrote: The comparison of Japan's and German's apologies after WW2 are so useless in this content. With same logic we could go into why Finland should be getting armed and demanding loads of stuff if Russia did some minor things in our borders, or the islands around here... None of the WWII military leaders, or the persons who have been in command back then has nothing to do with this. Those are just bad excuses. Minor thing in our borders. Yeah they're angry because "with same logic" Japan did some minor thing in China's borders. And who the hell is demanding loads of stuff? They haven't gotten past a decent apology yet. You seem absolutely brainless. And while the dead are the ones guilty, the living are the ones defending and supporting them. These years should have helped to lower the tension except China keeps on educating about the past and Japan keeps explicitly ignoring/rewriting history and worshipping shrines of war criminals. You keep sticking your finger into wounds, don't blame the wound for opening again. User was warned for this post | ||
|
HopLight
Sweden999 Posts
On September 16 2012 05:54 Shady Sands wrote: Update #6: One expat friend in Beijing just told me about a prank he played on his fellow English teacher/tutor: If this is true he is likely dead and this is the worst prank ever. | ||
|
Louis8k8
Canada285 Posts
| ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://s10.thisnext.com/media/largest_dimension/FD08FE13.jpg)
