tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4251777016037497783.post7363875524320944572..comments2023-12-14T20:02:51.470-06:00Comments on The Heavy Anglophile Orthodox: Nationalism and the Diaoyu IslandsMatthew Franklin Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15233216128641267240noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4251777016037497783.post-35363339374066643322012-09-10T14:31:05.352-05:002012-09-10T14:31:05.352-05:00Hi, Andrew, and welcome back to the blog! I have ...Hi, Andrew, and welcome back to the blog! I have little difficulty believing that, of course, Japanese nationalism being what it is. From what I understand from my Chinese history classes, though, during the Qing dynasty Liuqiuguo played a role rather similar to that of Korea in their attempts to maintain a kind of balance between Japanese and Chinese interests.<br /><br />Michael, welcome to the blog, and thanks for the comment.<br /><br />I do think you have misconstrued a couple of key facts, however. First of all, the Diaoyu Islands were not under the control of Japan in the late 1960's, but were administered by the US Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Civil_Administration_of_the_Ryukyu_Islands" rel="nofollow">USCAR</a>), and were not returned to even nominal Japanese control until 1972. Even then, their return to Japanese control was <i>contested</i> both by the People's Republic and by the Republic of China.<br /><br />Second, I am unsure as to what you are trying to argue with your point about the status of Taiwan. I am (as are, I would hope, most of my readers) well aware of the political dimensions of that argument; hence my 'at this point' above. Same with the status of Tibet. At the moment, the legal status of Taiwan is disputed in a way which Tibet's status is not - many countries still recognise Taiwan as the legitimate government of China; <i>not one</i> country currently recognises Tibet as a sovereign nation.<br /><br />But the point is that the status of Taiwan is <i>precisely</i> what makes the situation 'complex', as it were. During the Qing Dynasty (prior to the 1895 settlement), the Diaoyu Islands were administered by (the Qing province of) Taiwan, <i>not</i> by Liuqiuguo. Thus, both the ROC and the PRC do in fact have legitimate legal grounds for the claim that the islands should not have been turned over to Japan in 1972, but rather should have been turned over to ROC control as per the Potsdam agreement. If you want to argue that Taiwan is or ought to be independent of China or that the ROC government wasn't legitimate, that becomes a different matter.<br /><br />Simplistically dismissing the demand for the Diaoyu Islands to be restored to Taiwan as a 'land grab' therefore seems rather unwarranted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4251777016037497783.post-13034344518023553312012-09-10T08:29:23.158-05:002012-09-10T08:29:23.158-05:00China's claim to the Senkakus was invented in ...China's claim to the Senkakus was invented in the late 1960s and then backdated into history. That is how Chinese imperialism typically presents itself -- as "recovering" "Chinese" territory. Ditto for Tibet, Taiwan, etc. The "Taiwan" in your opening section is actually the Republic of China and its true-blue fanatics in Taiwan. "Taiwan" is not a nation and cannot own the Senkakus.<br /><br />After the Senkakus were annexed by Japan in 1895, both Chinese governments never made any claim to them nor contested the move. Nor did they ever argue there was a controversy about them. Indeed, all official texts and documents, including defense maps and school textbooks, showed the Senkakus to be Japanese until scientists announced the possibility of oil in the area. Then suddenly Taipei and Beijing announced that the islands had always belonged to "China".<br /><br />It's not complex -- it's a simple land grab by Beijing. <br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4251777016037497783.post-21158922458995607022012-09-09T22:15:28.143-05:002012-09-09T22:15:28.143-05:00this thing goes back even further than shimonoseki...this thing goes back even further than shimonoseki - think japanese annexation of, or prior protectorate over ryukyu, which at one time had strong ties to china. shimonoseki and san francisco were just the most recent stirrings of that pot..Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08487257122852179041noreply@blogger.com