China lays claim to Okinawa as territory dispute with Japan escalates

[jswift255]

China is attempting to open a new front in its territorial dispute with Japan by questioning Tokyo's sovereignty over the island of Okinawa, home to 25,000 US troops.

The two countries are already pushing rival claims to the Senkakus, a chain of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea that are controlled by Tokyo. The dispute over the islands, known as the Diaoyu in China, has hit bilateral trade and sent diplomatic relations to their lowest point for decades.

Beijing began its attempt to broaden the territorial dispute earlier this month when the communist party newspaper, the People's Daily, ran an article in which two Chinese academics challenged Japan's sovereignty over the Ryukyu chain of islands, which includes Okinawa.

Luo Yuan, a two-star general in the People's Liberation Army, raised the territorial stakes again this week, saying the Ryukyus had started paying tribute to China in 1372, half a millennium before they were seized by Japan.

"Let's for now not discuss whether [the Ryukyus] belong to China, they were certainly China's tributary state," Luo said in an interview with China News Service. "I am not saying all former tributary states belong to China, but we can say with certainty that the Ryukyus do not belong to Japan," he added, in comments translated by the South China Morning Post.

The potential for more diplomatic clashes over territory comes amid fresh criticism of Japan's attitude towards its wartime conduct in China and the Korean peninsula.

Beijing reacted angrily after the outspoken nationalist mayor of Osaka, Toru Hashimoto, said this week that Japan's forced recruitment of Asian women to work in military brothels before and during the second world war had been necessary to maintain discipline among soldiers.

"We are appalled and indignant about the Japanese politician's comments boldly challenging humanity and historical justice," Hong Lei, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, told reporters.

"The way they treat the past will determine the way Japan walks toward the future. On what choice Japan will make, its Asian neighbours and the international community will wait and see."

On Wednesday Hashimoto attempted to clarify his remarks, saying he had not sought to justify the use of so-called comfort women, but was questioning why Japan had been singled out for criticism given that other countries had, he said, operated similar schemes.

Okinawa, an island of more than 1 million people, hosts more than half the 47,000 US troops stationed in Japan.

Washington and Tokyo have agreed to reduce Washington's military footprint on Okinawa, but the island is seen as key to the US's ability to respond quickly to maritime provocations by the increasingly robust Chinese navy, as well as a crisis on the Korean peninsula.

More here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/15/china-okinawa-dispute-japan-ryukyu

 

[Ceewan]

U.S. recognizes Japan's sovereignty over Okinawa: Official

Washington, May 9 (Jiji Press)--The United States recognizes Japanese sovereignty over Okinawa, a Department of State spokesman said Thursday.
Patrick Ventrell, the department's acting deputy spokesman, made the remark after the People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, on Wednesday carried an article by a researcher that questions Japan's sovereignty over the southernmost island prefecture.
At a news conference, Ventrell also said his country "does not take a position on the underlying question of the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands."
China claims the uninhabited East China Sea islands, part of Okinawa Prefecture, as its own.
Ventrell did not say whether the move by the People's Daily represents a unilateral provocative act.

(2013/05/10-08:24)

source:
http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2013051000127

 

[chenli1987]

Ryukyu was a independent country. It was invaded by the Japanese Army.

Since Japan is a democratic country.Why not let the people living in Ryukyu to hold a self-determination election to solve this problem?

 

[Ceewan]

Ryukyu was a independent country. It was invaded by the Japanese Army.

Since Japan is a democratic country.Why not let the people living in Ryukyu to hold a self-determination election to solve this problem?

There are a couple of things amiss with your comments, as far as I can see. First off Japan being a democratic country would mean that the whole of Japan would need to vote for Ryukyu to sucede from Japanese rule, not that Ryukyu has the authority to do that itself, (though I am sure they would want to). Independence for Okinawa and the surrounding islands would make them more vulnerable to Chinas' territorial claim, not less, so I don't see how independence would solve any problem accept Japans contractual obligations to house American military bases in Okinawa, (something which is not very popular in Okinawa in many circles). Whether they wish to admit it or not, in the present political and military climate, Okinawa is probably best off just as they are.

 

[camlost245]

People should have a right to self-determination. And if the PRC believes that, then maybe it should start by applying that idea to places it claims sovereignty over.
<cough>Tibet<cough><cough>Taiwan<cough>

 

[paparoach408]

People should have a right to self-determination. And if the PRC believes that, then maybe it should start by applying that idea to places it claims sovereignty over.
<cough>Tibet<cough><cough>Taiwan<cough>

<cough>Hawaii<Cough>Puerto Rico<cough>Guam<Cough>should I continue?

 

[hampa6]

Puerto Rico held a referendum in 2012 and voted to become the 51st state. Those wanting independence got a tiny share of the vote. Hawaii's independence movement is likewise minor. Guam has sought similar status as Puerto Rico has today.

So please, continue.

 

[ksvin]

seriously.. china have to stop doing this....

 

[chugokuotaku]

Okinawa's gonna be staying with Japan regardless of whatever arguments anyone has. Unless I'm mistaken, I remember that when a country/territory is annexed by another country, and that other country has maintained de facto control of said country/territory for 50 years, then international law recognizes the jurisdiction it holds of said country/territory.

The argument presented by the Chinese general is rather amusing, but it does bring up a few points that should be made. Okinawa, once the Kingdom of Ryukyu, was a victim of Japanese aggression no different than the Korean peninsula. Towards the end of the 2nd world war, the question of dividing up Japan(including all territories it controlled) naturally came up among the Allied powers, and the Americans initially offered to turn of all of Okinawa to the Chinese nationalist government(KMT), citing historical relations between Imperial China and the then vassal state of Ryukyu. For reasons still debated today, Chiang Kai-shek repeatedly turned down the offer, eventually leading to Ryukyu returning to Japanese control. Had that not been the case, the question of Diaoyu/Senkaku may not even be an issue today. In some respects, it can be said it was the Americans who betrayed Ryukyu to the Japanese in order to secure their military presence in the area, as opposed to granting them independence like they did the Philippines, since this wasn't exactly territory that was convenient to lay permanent claim to. The idea of right to self determination is nothing more than a little game the big powers play to make themselves look good when convenient. What the general has said is nothing more than a jab Tokyo, the same way the West say things about Tibet to piss of Beijing, despite knowing nothing's gonna change.

As certain ultranationalist in Japan would claim that the end of WW2 brought about the first time in history when Japan's home island were occupied by foreign powers, and the LOSS of "Japanese" territories that still have yet to be recovered today(Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, Kuril Islands, etc), they forgot that they did get Ryukyu back.

 

[skytime]

I find it laughable when the Chinese communist party member spout line like; "We are appalled and indignant about the Japanese politician's comments boldly challenging humanity and historical justice."

How many died during the Cultural Revolution? Figures range from 750k to 20 million. And that's Chinese killing Chinese. Where's the indignation, humanity, and historical justice in this?

While I do not condone the Japanese past aggression, I just think that the Communist Party has zero moral ground to invoke moral justification in their statement.

 

[jugulear]

.
Puerto Rico held a referendum in 2012 and voted to become the 51st state. Those wanting independence got a tiny share of the vote. Hawaii's independence movement is likewise minor. Guam has sought similar status as Puerto Rico has today.

I think what Paparoach408 was getting at was the idea of a dominant and powerful country's muscling in on a weaker country needs to be examined from all sides, in fairness. Puerto Rico has remained fairly homogeneous, not too many Americans have dusted themselves off to move to Puerto Rico, and I suspect the same is true with Guam, for the most part. Regardless of whether the natives are still remaining in force or not, I can understand how, through the years, the peoples of such lands can lean toward getting a bigger piece of the pie. The people are looking out for their personal interests, their patriotism has diminished over the years, and since the big old United States has pretty much taken over for all practical purposes, why not go for the whole pie instead of simply the crumbs? That's why statehood could become a shining light in the eyes of Puerto Ricans and the people of Guam. (In short, the USA is there to stay, so why not reap as much benefit as possible... for the betterment of people's individual and private lives.)

Hawaii serves as a far better analogy to Tibet - and to East Turkestan. (In regards to Taiwan, China has a strong argument to exercise its sovereignty, because Formosa has historically been part of China, and inhabited by Chinese. The only reason why Taiwan remains an independent nation is because of America. In contrast, the Tibetans and East Turkestanis comprise a different ethnicity than the Chinese, and have had ruled their own lands before the Chinese steamrollered them.)

What has happened in Hawaii, and why is there not such a strong independence movement? The Americans have moved in en masse, to the point where there are no "pure" Hawaiians left. Many of the natives live in poverty, and there is a Christian church in practically every corner. America illegally annexed Hawaii in the late 19th century, and through the decades, have pretty much taken over everything.

With more Chinese moving into Tibet and East Turkestan, the original populations are being slowly displaced, and in time they will surely face the same devastation as the Hawaiians. Survival of the Fittest is what's at play, and no attempts at justification can mask the criminality and injustice involved. When you are the biggest bully on the block, you can get away with anything.


.

 

[Bisbisb]

A lot of diplomacy is modeled, like holding war games in simulation. In all likelihood there is no real territory being disputed - it's just an exercise. (Of course we can't know this, being mere citizens...)

 

[cattz]

.
What has happened in Hawaii, and why is there not such a strong independence movement? The Americans have moved in en masse, to the point where there are no "pure" Hawaiians left. Many of the natives live in poverty, and there is a Christian church in practically every corner. America illegally annexed Hawaii in the late 19th century, and through the decades, have pretty much taken over everything.

With more Chinese moving into Tibet and East Turkestan, the original populations are being slowly displaced, and in time they will surely face the same devastation as the Hawaiians. Survival of the Fittest is what's at play, and no attempts at justification can mask the criminality and injustice involved. When you are the biggest bully on the block, you can get away with anything.

Yeah man, how dare races mix together! Countries should be PURE and not allow any immigration!!

:liar:




What in the...

 

[skytime]

Yeah man, how dare races mix together! Countries should be PURE and not allow any immigration!!

:liar:




What in the...

I think you selectively took him off his point.

 

[jugulear]

.
High time for more people to be like the keen-minded and gentle Skytime, I say; this should be our new motto.

It can be frustrating when otherwise intelligent people who are programmed in a certain way, once they run into an idea that brushes with the negativisms they have been taught (but in fact have nothing to do with those negativisms) can be quick to make rash conclusions and indirect, yet inflammatory, charges.

For those who may not be as fast on their feet, here's the idea. Let's say an unnamed party owns a house. A powerfully dominant force takes over the house. The dominant force oppresses the inhabitants of the unnamed party's house, although the dominant force stops short of killing the original inhabitants off. (Not necessarily for humanistic reasons; the original inhabitants are still proving useful to run the household, until the time comes for the dominant force to really establish itself.) As long as the original residents behave, the dominant force will tolerate their existence.

Time passes, and some within the unnamed party's family start to come of age. Since their neighbors' houses have also been taken over, there's really no one left to marry, and besides, there are advantages to marrying into the dominant force. Once they do, they will have effectively joined the other team, further weakening the resolve and spirit of the unnamed party's household.

This is an entirely different situation than making the decision to immigrate to another land, and finding different mates, because as we all know, there is nothing wrong with intermarrying. Perhaps the original inhabitants are not even allowed to immigrate by the oppressive dominant force. The difference between a "We are the World" utopia and this situation is: the original inhabitants really don't have much choice.

We can see what's going to happen as more time passes. The unnamed party's household will become a shadow of its former self, while the dominant force will grow ever stronger, and more prosperous. Even if some of the original household have been left in comparatively laughable numbers, with now confused loyalties, a kind of a slow spiritual and cultural eradication has taken place... a kind of a genocide.

It would be interesting if someone were to make a fuss about this situation to the unnamed party. Would he still then say, "What in the...? You know we are all meant to merrily co-exist... What are you, some kind of a racist?"

.

 

[chupachups]

For reasons still debated today, Chiang Kai-shek repeatedly turned down the offer, eventually leading to Ryukyu returning to Japanese control.

He was a traitor to the chinese people, and a puppet agent of japan, pure and simple

How many here know that he was an officer in the imperial japanese army ?

When japan invaded northern china, he kept his focus on exterminating the chinese communists and gave the japanese free rein

Despite the drums of war beating clearly, instead of building an army capable of fighting off japanese aggression, he neglected to provide the army with adequate tanks and planes

He helped destabilise china so that japan could march right into shanghai and nanking

When the real patriots captured him, they should have put a bullet in his head, instead of freeing him to carry on ignoring the japanese and continuing the chinese civil war

 

[Ceewan]

He was a traitor to the chinese people, and a puppet agent of japan, pure and simple

How many here know that he was an officer in the imperial japanese army ?

When japan invaded northern china, he kept his focus on exterminating the chinese communists and gave the japanese free rein

Wow, what a bunch of crap. Is that what passes for history where you come from?


First off; Chiang Kai-shek did go to Japan but that was to study at the Tokyo Shinbu Gakko (a military academy for Chinese students) which was not abnormal, treasonous, or even unwise. Chiang Kai-shek was a good friend of Sun Yat-sen (although clearly not as well loved).

What weakened China and made it a prime target for invasion was the civil war that started ten years earlier between the Chinese Nationalist and Communist parties. After the invasion Chiang Kai-shek agreed to a truce in order to repel the Japanese and despite some cooperative successes neither side trusted each other enough to cooperate effectively and continued to work against each other, (to the detriment of the Chinese people). Hard to cast a stone there at just Chiang Kai-shek, feel free to toss a few at the CCP as well.

Chiang Kai-shek was a lot of things but a puppet or a Japanese officer was not one of them. He was a true Chinese that ended up on the losing side of a civil war. Not the first time that ever happened in China either.

 

[charmonman]

He was a traitor to the chinese people, and a puppet agent of japan, pure and simple

How many here know that he was an officer in the imperial japanese army ?

When japan invaded northern china, he kept his focus on exterminating the chinese communists and gave the japanese free rein

Despite the drums of war beating clearly, instead of building an army capable of fighting off japanese aggression, he neglected to provide the army with adequate tanks and planes

He helped destabilise china so that japan could march right into shanghai and nanking

When the real patriots captured him, they should have put a bullet in his head, instead of freeing him to carry on ignoring the japanese and continuing the chinese civil war

Is that what they teach schoolchildren in the PRC?