|
After reading this page of the thread only I find a severe lack of ability to quote in many posters. A quote is basically invalid if you dont give the source (cut off who made the post) and with such a hot topic it is important to keep these details.
Personally I think that China should stop this "righteous crusade" before they have left Tibet which was occupied by them after the second world war and has been culturally raped ever since. If we take these territorial claims from ages ago then Greece should start occupying everything up to India since Alexander had conquered that and maybe the Italians should occupy everything around the Mediterranean Sea because Rome was there ... Maybe Germany should annex Poland and its "lost territories" after the second world war?
We need to realize that having different cultures is a good thing (which is why the occupation of Tibet is terrible since the Chinese are destroying their culture on purpose). Thus it is necessary to let go of these claims. The time is long past for this kind of aggression, but apparently the Chinese didnt get that memo yet ...
|
Well, nothing official has been proposed to the ICJ from China regarding this issue, it's pure speculation at this point.
It sounds like you think the ICJ is corrupted and incapable of making an unbiased decision because it has a Japanese national as a judge?
But there is a Chinese national too.
It doesn't mean they have a point, you go to the ICJ to DISPROVE their point and walk out with a ruling on the record that supports your country.
Surely the opposite is true? If you refuse to go it's BECAUSE you think you might lose?
|
On September 21 2012 15:42 TehPrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 15:18 robjapan wrote:
That is an opinion, you stated it as a FACT, which clearly it is not.
Japan currently owns the land, it being returned to Japan from the Allies.
Why would it file a complaint? And the part about Japan not responding to such a move "according to sources" is pure speculation.
It is Japan who tried to go to the ICJ in its dispute with Korea and Korea REFUSED, this is fact.
Please be very careful when you post things as facts when they are not. And why the hell would Korea agree to japan's ridiculous ICJ complaint when they already own the freaking islet? Talk about being ignorant.
This is only my personal opinion, but I think all countries should agree to go to ICJ if proposed by another country. As ridiculous as it sounds, if China/Korea disputed the sovereignty of Tokyo, I think Japan needs to accept it to avoid double-standard. To be fair, all of
1)Korean claim over Dokdo
2)Japanese claim over Takeshima
3)Chinese claim over Diaoyu Islands
4)Japanese claim over Senkaku Islands
are not conclusive because all of
a)Cairo Declaration
b)Potsdam Declaration
c)San Francisco Treaty
d)Shimonoseki Treaty
e)Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910
didn't specifically named all territory/islands so that room for interpretation remained. If all of 6800+ Japanese islands had been named, if latitude-longitude had been used to show all territory inside, then we wouldn't have had this issue today. No matter how these disputes end in future, we as a younger generation have to learn one thing:
"Any contract/agreement/treaty must be ultra-specific to avoid dispute later on. Hard work today is nothing compared to the effort needed to fix it." That, at least, is what I learned from all these.
|
On September 21 2012 12:39 CountChocula wrote:
Probably we are using "nationalism" by different definitions and any further discussion will be fruitless without clarifying.
...
My definition is closer akin to Orwell's definition:
"By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
Orwell was writing from the perspective of a man who had come out of a very dark time. His definition of nationalism - and for that matter patriotism - is chock full of moralistic connotations that do not belong to a neutral definition of the term, and is better understood for the thinly veiled reference to Nazi Germany that it is - there is even a direct nod to Nietzsche in that quote. I refer you to Ernest Gellner, who is by far the better scholar of nationalism, and his seminal work Nations and Nationalism for the definition that fairly treats the concept in an intellectual - rather than emotional - way, though emotions are certainly not unimportant to nationalism.
|
On September 21 2012 15:51 Rabiator wrote:
After reading this page of the thread only I find a severe lack of ability to quote in many posters. A quote is basically invalid if you dont give the source (cut off who made the post) and with such a hot topic it is important to keep these details.
Personally I think that China should stop this "righteous crusade" before they have left Tibet which was occupied by them after the second world war and has been culturally raped ever since. If we take these territorial claims from ages ago then Greece should start occupying everything up to India since Alexander had conquered that and maybe the Italians should occupy everything around the Mediterranean Sea because Rome was there ... Maybe Germany should annex Poland and its "lost territories" after the second world war?
We need to realize that having different cultures is a good thing (which is why the occupation of Tibet is terrible since the Chinese are destroying their culture on purpose). Thus it is necessary to let go of these claims. The time is long past for this kind of aggression, but apparently the Chinese didnt get that memo yet ...
Useless idealism.
The time isn't 'long past for this kind of aggression' at all, and you're going to see a lot of it in the days to come.
|
Why are people bringing up how horrible Japan was to China in WW2 when it has nothing to do with the island dispute?
|
On September 22 2012 04:34 Shardz wrote:
Why are people bringing up how horrible Japan was to China in WW2 when it has nothing to do with the island dispute?
Because grudges run deep yo.
|
On September 22 2012 04:34 Shardz wrote:
Why are people bringing up how horrible Japan was to China in WW2 when it has nothing to do with the island dispute?
The thread is titled pro china, anti-japan protests, its not about the islands. it goes much further back. If you read into what people are actually talking about you'll realize the islands really isnt the main issue here. It's symbolic of a much larger grudge that has been held for the longest of times. Every Chinese person or atleast myself included has been taught about the atrocities of what happened by our parents and their parents. Until the bigger problem is acknowledged by Japan this will continue long past the islands and can spark again in the future
|
On September 21 2012 15:51 Rabiator wrote:
After reading this page of the thread only I find a severe lack of ability to quote in many posters. A quote is basically invalid if you dont give the source (cut off who made the post) and with such a hot topic it is important to keep these details.
Personally I think that China should stop this "righteous crusade" before they have left Tibet which was occupied by them after the second world war and has been culturally raped ever since. If we take these territorial claims from ages ago then Greece should start occupying everything up to India since Alexander had conquered that and maybe the Italians should occupy everything around the Mediterranean Sea because Rome was there ... Maybe Germany should annex Poland and its "lost territories" after the second world war?
We need to realize that having different cultures is a good thing (which is why the occupation of Tibet is terrible since the Chinese are destroying their culture on purpose). Thus it is necessary to let go of these claims. The time is long past for this kind of aggression, but apparently the Chinese didnt get that memo yet ...
The Chinese perspective is, from what I can gather, that the CCP didn't really suppress Tibet more so than they suppress anywhere else in China (Tiananmen, Cultural Revolution), and that:
1) Tibet is part of China, and has been for 3 centuries. It's not an invasion, but a retaking of lost territory from a rebel state.
2) As much the CCP sucks, China is bringing economic investment and labor force to a backward and unpopulated nation that was essentially a feudal theocracy.
I'm not an expert on the matter, but considering the vast, resource rich and unpopulated lands in Tibet, I don't think it's realistic to expect China to give that up.
Also, the examples you bring up are odd. Think of China as if the Roman Empire survived through everything until now, or if Alexander the Great succeeded in consolidating their territory, prevented the breakdown and survived until today as a civilization state.
China has extremely a diverse culture that came from successfully assimilating multiple different nations of the past, there are still 56 official ethnicity IIRC. These ethnicities often benefit from special rights (such as being able to have more than 1 child).
If you count the fact that Tibet has been part of China for 300 years and had centuries of interaction with China since Tang, the Chinese track-record regarding ethnic cleansing seems to be very inefficient comparing to Europeans in America or Australia. 
|
I am Chinese and the information I learned is from chinese and/or Taiwanese news. I understand my information and opinions are biased, but I want to demonstrate a Chinese view.
History:
The Senkaku/DiaoYu island is part of China(Qing Dynasty) and it belongs as part of Taiwan province. When Japane conquered RyuKyu island/kingdom in 1870s, Japan tried to claim Senkaku/DiaoYu as part of RyuKyu province. Eventually, the first Sino-Japanese war broke out in 1894 and China ceded Taiwan to Japan which also includes Senkaku/DiaoYu island.
After Japan surrendered in WWII, Potsdam Declaration limited Japanese terroitory to only islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku. Taiwan is return back to China. In 1951 Treaty of San Franciso in 1951 gave RyuKyu island under a potential U.S. trusteeship. I am not sure if this includes Senkaku/DiaoYu island and this started to became a gray area. In 1972, US transferred of RyuKyu authority to Japan. In 1978, People Replublic of China (PRC) and Japan signed Peace and Friendship treaty and both leader agreed to put aside Senkaku/DiaoYu island dispute. NOTE: this is why there is no construction (light house, building, sea port miliary defense) on the island.
Present Time:
With this treaty, it benefitted both countries. They became the biggest trade partner of each other. In April 15 2012, Ishihara Shintaro of Liberal Democratic Party(LDP) made a speech in Washingto publicly stating his desire to purchase Senkaku/DiaoYu for Tokyo. He is building reputation for his son Nobuteru Ishihara whom is running for LDP leader and Prime Minister of Japan this year. This forces Japanese government to nationliazed the island because in the past six years, there are six Japanese prime minister. That's average of one per year and the prime minister term is four years. Current prime minister Yoshihiko Noda's approval rate is only twenty percent.
Chinese Protest:
Current is the worst time of Chinese-Japanese relationship. Chinese's view is Japan breaks the friendship treaty and Japan is invading China AGAIN by nationalize this island. Flight and tourism have been canceled. Economy and trade are setting back. Both countries and citizens are suffering, so Ishihara family can gain in POWER???
Last word: according to Wikipedia, there "May be" oil around Senkaku/DiaoYu island. It is really difficult to argue/believe both countries are fighting over resource based on "MAY BE" oil.
|
1019 Posts
Lets be clear here. Nobody can justify what the chinese rioters are doing because violence is never the answer. They aren't helping to get anything done and if chinese people are supposed to be civil people, they certainly aren't living up to any kind of decency known to man because the chinese rioters are just acting like little children. It's pathetic. If your chinese, you should be embarassed.
There are a number of posters who say that japanese people are honestly sorry about japanese war crimes, theres been enough compensation money given out, etc etc and thus anti-japanese sentiment today is mostly unfounded. None of that really means anything if people don't feel like the japanese government is sincere. For example, the japanese government continues to enshrine its war criminals at yasukuni and japanese prime ministers continue to pay their respects there. Do you see angela merkel paying respects to a shrine set up for hitler and goring? Lol no. Can you imagine how countries like poland or israel would respond if germany made their version of a yasukuni shrine that included nazi war criminals? Think about what kind of position the japanese government has adopted. Now try looking in from the shoes of someone from korea or china. You think they are going to be happy?
|
The whole yasu kuni thing is a cultural misunderstanding, you do not understand how the Japanese feel regarding death, souls, heaven etc
The soul is cleansed of wrong doing at the moment of death, this is their belief, the body did wrong and very bad things and it was punished with death. The soul does not need to be punished.
This is their belief and quite frankly I think it's rather offensive for people to be offended by it. If people from around the world took time to understand Japanese peoples beliefs, there would be no anger about yasu kuni.
I have spoken at length with a monk on this very subject and this is how I know the above, the soul is not responsible for the wrong doings of the body.
When a politician visits yasukuni they are not there to celebrate the war, or to praise war criminals, they are there to show their deep respect and sadness for the loss of life the war caused. The deep felt regret of going to war and costing the lives of so many people. The fortitude to NEVER go to war ever again.
So when you say about Hitler, well that isn't Germany's beliefs right? so of course if they did such a thing it would be outrageous, but when you consider Japanese religious beliefs then I really struggle to understand why Koreans or Chinese are angry about this.
If anyone takes the time to actually understand how Japanese people believe, you will understand there is nothing to be angry about regarding Yasukuni Shrine.
|
On September 22 2012 11:53 robjapan wrote:
The whole yasu kuni thing is a cultural misunderstanding, you do not understand how the Japanese feel regarding death, souls, heaven etc
The soul is cleansed of wrong doing at the moment of death, this is their belief, the body did wrong and very bad things and it was punished with death. The soul does not need to be punished.
This is their belief and quite frankly I think it's rather offensive for people to be offended by it. If people from around the world took time to understand Japanese peoples beliefs, there would be no anger about yasu kuni.
I have spoken at length with a monk on this very subject and this is how I know the above, the soul is not responsible for the wrong doings of the body.
When a politician visits yasukuni they are not there to celebrate the war, or to praise war criminals, they are there to show their deep respect and sadness for the loss of life the war caused. The deep felt regret of going to war and costing the lives of so many people. The fortitude to NEVER go to war ever again.
So when you say about Hitler, well that isn't Germany's beliefs right? so of course if they did such a thing it would be outrageous, but when you consider Japanese religious beliefs then I really struggle to understand why Koreans or Chinese are angry about this.
If anyone takes the time to actually understand how Japanese people believe, you will understand there is nothing to be angry about regarding Yasukuni Shrine.
How dare you make sensible comments in regards to outlandish complaints made by tl posters!
I guess I'm bias towards having the japanese control the islands, quite frankly with china's current ethnic cleansing plan and their people's absolute resounding meh to their leadership over it is absurd and I'd rather them not spread their control to other islands.
If it hasn't been said yet, the op should change his his last update as it is false, the photos of the ships taken was due to the fact that the fishing season had opened up and the ships were doing what they did every year and heading out to catch their bounties of fish, run away journalism on the sit in thing.
The cleansing I reference is in regards to the one child policy. Theres lies an exemption in place that those who can prove that they are Han chinese are exempt and are welcome to continue to spread their ethnic line, the vast majority are urban living chinese, the goal of the policy is to further curtail the rural groups of Chinese that the government has decided to be undesirable for their current course of modernizing china. Rural Chinese farmers are largely subsistence farmers, that depend on family children to take care of them as they get older and take over said farm. They do not receive any sort of safety social net like social security and are largely expected to starve to death over the next few decades as they age beyond being able to farm their own food. I will note that they tend to not pay taxes, mostly because its hard to pay taxes when your so damn poor you rely on barter. By and large these groups are already excluded when china releases statistics on life expectancy/avg income.
|
I don't really think that there is any purpose to analyzing why this is a controversy because that is an irrelevant question. You could in theory make very deep analysis of why there is so much anger regarding these issues but the bottom line is that the Chinese Government has always had anti-japanese sentiment as a tool of governing. The reasons for the sentiments is irrelevant because they will never be resolved as the communist regime walks a thin line between nourishing these sentiments with propaganda and toning them down with sporadic diplomatic moves and shutting down protests when they get too out of hand. The sole purpose is to be able to vent public frustration when needed by just opening up the can of anti-japanese sentiment just enough when needed.
Let one thing be very clear, demonstrations like this does NOT happen in China unless the government lets it happen. Demonstrations like this on any other subject is fiercely shut down. They let the anti-japanese demonstrations go on though while keeping close tabs on them to be ready to gently shut them down if they were to get too out of hand. It is very expertly engineered politics.
I say this because yes you could list all of the possible reasons from all sides why there is anger, but while those issues could be solved in theory, they will never actually be solved as long as the leaders in Beijing does not want it to be solved and for all we know, these issues might had been solved a long time ago if that was not the case.
|
On September 22 2012 12:16 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 11:53 robjapan wrote:
The whole yasu kuni thing is a cultural misunderstanding, you do not understand how the Japanese feel regarding death, souls, heaven etc
The soul is cleansed of wrong doing at the moment of death, this is their belief, the body did wrong and very bad things and it was punished with death. The soul does not need to be punished.
This is their belief and quite frankly I think it's rather offensive for people to be offended by it. If people from around the world took time to understand Japanese peoples beliefs, there would be no anger about yasu kuni.
I have spoken at length with a monk on this very subject and this is how I know the above, the soul is not responsible for the wrong doings of the body.
When a politician visits yasukuni they are not there to celebrate the war, or to praise war criminals, they are there to show their deep respect and sadness for the loss of life the war caused. The deep felt regret of going to war and costing the lives of so many people. The fortitude to NEVER go to war ever again.
So when you say about Hitler, well that isn't Germany's beliefs right? so of course if they did such a thing it would be outrageous, but when you consider Japanese religious beliefs then I really struggle to understand why Koreans or Chinese are angry about this.
If anyone takes the time to actually understand how Japanese people believe, you will understand there is nothing to be angry about regarding Yasukuni Shrine. How dare you make sensible comments in regards to outlandish complaints made by tl posters! I guess I'm bias towards having the japanese control the islands, quite frankly with china's current ethnic cleansing plan and their people's absolute resounding meh to their leadership over it is absurd and I'd rather them not spread their control to other islands. If it hasn't been said yet, the op should change his his last update as it is false, the photos of the ships taken was due to the fact that the fishing season had opened up and the ships were doing what they did every year and heading out to catch their bounties of fish, run away journalism on the sit in thing. The cleansing I reference is in regards to the one child policy. Theres lies an exemption in place that those who can prove that they are Han chinese are exempt and are welcome to continue to spread their ethnic line, the vast majority are urban living chinese, the goal of the policy is to further curtail the rural groups of Chinese that the government has decided to be undesirable for their current course of modernizing china. Rural Chinese farmers are largely subsistence farmers, that depend on family children to take care of them as they get older and take over said farm. They do not receive any sort of safety social net like social security and are largely expected to starve to death over the next few decades as they age beyond being able to farm their own food. I will note that they tend to not pay taxes, mostly because its hard to pay taxes when your so damn poor you rely on barter. By and large these groups are already excluded when china releases statistics on life expectancy/avg income.
What are you talking about? The one child policy lets non-Han ethnic groups have at least two children, so actually supports minority groups. You have it backwards.
"In accordance with PRC's affirmative action policies towards ethnic minorities, all non-Han ethnic groups are subjected to different laws and are usually allowed to have two children in urban areas, and three or four in rural areas. Han Chinese living in rural areas are also permitted to have two children.[39] Because of couples such as these, as well as urban couples who simply pay a fine (or "social maintenance fee") to have more children,[40] the overall fertility rate of mainland China is closer to two children per family than to one child to a family (1.8 in 2008)" (Wikipedia one child policy).
Your safety net comments are also outdated - China currently covers a very high percentage of its population with health insurance. It's not yet up to Western standards, but it's not for lack of trying.
"In just two years China has extended pension coverage to an additional 240m rural folk, far more than the total number of people covered by Social Security, America’s public-pension system. A few years ago about 80% of people in rural China had no health insurance. Now virtually everyone does." http://www.economist.com/node/21562195
I also don't really get your rural point. You should bear in mind that a massive amount of citydwellers are the children of rural families, and help support them with their (relatively) high wages, and then returning home in the holidays. For more information on that Factory Girls by Leslie T Chang is very readable and interesting.
|
On September 22 2012 11:53 robjapan wrote:
The whole yasu kuni thing is a cultural misunderstanding, you do not understand how the Japanese feel regarding death, souls, heaven etc
The soul is cleansed of wrong doing at the moment of death, this is their belief, the body did wrong and very bad things and it was punished with death. The soul does not need to be punished.
This is their belief and quite frankly I think it's rather offensive for people to be offended by it. If people from around the world took time to understand Japanese peoples beliefs, there would be no anger about yasu kuni.
I have spoken at length with a monk on this very subject and this is how I know the above, the soul is not responsible for the wrong doings of the body.
When a politician visits yasukuni they are not there to celebrate the war, or to praise war criminals, they are there to show their deep respect and sadness for the loss of life the war caused. The deep felt regret of going to war and costing the lives of so many people. The fortitude to NEVER go to war ever again.
So when you say about Hitler, well that isn't Germany's beliefs right? so of course if they did such a thing it would be outrageous, but when you consider Japanese religious beliefs then I really struggle to understand why Koreans or Chinese are angry about this.
If anyone takes the time to actually understand how Japanese people believe, you will understand there is nothing to be angry about regarding Yasukuni Shrine.
It certainly is a cultural misunderstanding, but you DO understand how people from other nations would be offended, right? You can't just write it off so easily as "oh well, it's a cultural thing".
For example, if they feel so much sadness for the loss of life the war caused, why do these politicians not issue public, sincere apologies towards the deaths the Japanese have caused to citizens of other nations during the wars? Why are there attempts to re-write history as if certain atrocities never existed?
There is a certain degree of hypocrisy within the combination of these actions that can be easily misconstrued, especially by people who aren't as careful into reading the specifics of another nation's culture (e.g. most people in most nations).
Furthermore, now I am interested in this type of belief. Say a person's father walks into an elementary school and stabs six other Japanese children to death with a knife before turning it on himself. Would that person's father then be absolved of his crimes at death? Would the parents of the deceased children all understand that the father is then guiltless, and not be offended that the person openly pays respects to his father's grave every year?
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On September 21 2012 15:59 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 15:42 TehPrime wrote:On September 21 2012 15:18 robjapan wrote:
That is an opinion, you stated it as a FACT, which clearly it is not.
Japan currently owns the land, it being returned to Japan from the Allies.
Why would it file a complaint? And the part about Japan not responding to such a move "according to sources" is pure speculation.
It is Japan who tried to go to the ICJ in its dispute with Korea and Korea REFUSED, this is fact.
Please be very careful when you post things as facts when they are not. And why the hell would Korea agree to japan's ridiculous ICJ complaint when they already own the freaking islet? Talk about being ignorant. This is only my personal opinion, but I think all countries should agree to go to ICJ if proposed by another country. As ridiculous as it sounds, if China/Korea disputed the sovereignty of Tokyo, I think Japan needs to accept it to avoid double-standard. To be fair, all of 1)Korean claim over Dokdo 2)Japanese claim over Takeshima 3)Chinese claim over Diaoyu Islands 4)Japanese claim over Senkaku Islands are not conclusive because all of a)Cairo Declaration b)Potsdam Declaration c)San Francisco Treaty d)Shimonoseki Treaty e)Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910 didn't specifically named all territory/islands so that room for interpretation remained. If all of 6800+ Japanese islands had been named, if latitude-longitude had been used to show all territory inside, then we wouldn't have had this issue today. No matter how these disputes end in future, we as a younger generation have to learn one thing: "Any contract/agreement/treaty must be ultra-specific to avoid dispute later on. Hard work today is nothing compared to the effort needed to fix it." That, at least, is what I learned from all these.
It doesn't matter what treaty you sign if people think those are unfair treaties.
|
On September 22 2012 13:30 VanGarde wrote:
I don't really think that there is any purpose to analyzing why this is a controversy because that is an irrelevant question. You could in theory make very deep analysis of why there is so much anger regarding these issues but the bottom line is that the Chinese Government has always had anti-japanese sentiment as a tool of governing. The reasons for the sentiments is irrelevant because they will never be resolved as the communist regime walks a thin line between nourishing these sentiments with propaganda and toning them down with sporadic diplomatic moves and shutting down protests when they get too out of hand. The sole purpose is to be able to vent public frustration when needed by just opening up the can of anti-japanese sentiment just enough when needed.
Let one thing be very clear, demonstrations like this does NOT happen in China unless the government lets it happen. Demonstrations like this on any other subject is fiercely shut down. They let the anti-japanese demonstrations go on though while keeping close tabs on them to be ready to gently shut them down if they were to get too out of hand. It is very expertly engineered politics.
I say this because yes you could list all of the possible reasons from all sides why there is anger, but while those issues could be solved in theory, they will never actually be solved as long as the leaders in Beijing does not want it to be solved and for all we know, these issues might had been solved a long time ago if that was not the case.
You know. I see this argument being made all the time. That protests only happen if the Chinese government condones it.
This is not true.
Protests that the Chinese government wants to disappear will disappear. But they're not stupid. They know that suppressing protests comes at a cost, in that it breeds public dissatisfaction with the government. The CCP is willing to spend away its authoritarian credits when it comes to protests against the CCP itself. But they'd be silly to use up their credits to harshly stop protests against another country.
Not to mention that if the CCP harshly suppressed protests against Japan, its credits would be used up quickly. The KMT, in the Chinese Civil War around the time of WWII lost public support to the CCP mainly because of the perception that the KMT were weak in fighting the Japanese. If the CCP made concessions to Japan today, the Chinese populace would revolt against the government.
The current protests/riots have caused hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage to the Chinese economy, and may further cause factories to be shifted away from China. The CCP isn't stupid. They know this is bad for the country.
So, with that said, the CCP had two options:
1. Suppress the protests, which would cause the government to lose favour with the public, and cause public protests against the CCP instead of a foreign country.
2. Don't suppress the protests, lose diplomatic favour with foreign countries, take heavy toll to Chinese economy.
Given that self-preservation is the highest priority for almost every government in the world, it's easy to see why they chose option 2.
|
The cleansing I reference is in regards to the one child policy.
The one child policy actually benefit everyone except Chinese.
China will probably have 2 billion people right now if China didn't put in one child policy in 1980s. This means more food, water and gas will be consumed. If you think 4 dollars a gallon of gas is bad, then with 2 billion Chinese people you will probably pay 7 dollars a gallon because of supply and demand.
|
On September 22 2012 15:45 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 15:59 Orek wrote:On September 21 2012 15:42 TehPrime wrote:On September 21 2012 15:18 robjapan wrote:
That is an opinion, you stated it as a FACT, which clearly it is not.
Japan currently owns the land, it being returned to Japan from the Allies.
Why would it file a complaint? And the part about Japan not responding to such a move "according to sources" is pure speculation.
It is Japan who tried to go to the ICJ in its dispute with Korea and Korea REFUSED, this is fact.
Please be very careful when you post things as facts when they are not. And why the hell would Korea agree to japan's ridiculous ICJ complaint when they already own the freaking islet? Talk about being ignorant. This is only my personal opinion, but I think all countries should agree to go to ICJ if proposed by another country. As ridiculous as it sounds, if China/Korea disputed the sovereignty of Tokyo, I think Japan needs to accept it to avoid double-standard. To be fair, all of 1)Korean claim over Dokdo 2)Japanese claim over Takeshima 3)Chinese claim over Diaoyu Islands 4)Japanese claim over Senkaku Islands are not conclusive because all of a)Cairo Declaration b)Potsdam Declaration c)San Francisco Treaty d)Shimonoseki Treaty e)Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910 didn't specifically named all territory/islands so that room for interpretation remained. If all of 6800+ Japanese islands had been named, if latitude-longitude had been used to show all territory inside, then we wouldn't have had this issue today. No matter how these disputes end in future, we as a younger generation have to learn one thing: "Any contract/agreement/treaty must be ultra-specific to avoid dispute later on. Hard work today is nothing compared to the effort needed to fix it." That, at least, is what I learned from all these. It doesn't matter what treaty you sign if people think those are unfair treaties.
You can't be serious saying that.
Then blame your own government for signing them. The government failed to represent people's opinions.
Japan also signed many unfair treaties with western "white" countries back then. Japan accepted the terms, and didn't deny the effectiveness solely based on unfairness. No matter how unfair it is, promise is promise. That's how Japan acted in the international diplomacy. "Unfairness" can't be a reason to deny legitimacy of treaties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
