Can someone please clarify the CAIRO DECLARATION for me? My understanding is that it said that Japan should return to China all the Islands that it took from China, and that that only applied to things it took since 1914, the start of WW1. That would mean that the Cairo Declaration does not apply to the islands in question because they were taken in 1895. Is that not so? Thanks.

You might have heard of a corollary to Godwin's first law: that any attempt to define your opponent as a pinky commie automatically concludes that you have lost the debate... and there is also a Godwin's second law, if you are interested to know...

The TE SUPPORTS japan because it wants to also justify British illegal occupation of Gibraltar

If the TE supports China--- then it is saying Britain had is a thief and had stolen Gibraltar from Spain

Britain is able to bully Spain because Spain is a weak nation and more peace-loving than Britain

Britain having squandered billions of $$$$$$$ in 2 useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and killing its 18 year-old men to die for NOTHING

And now --- Britain is refusing to return Gibraltar to Spain

LAST YEAR, Britain sent salesmen to Japan to try to sell Military Technology --- SO , if Britain hopes China-Japan goes to war --- so that it can sell a few Dollars worth of useless , obsolete military technology to the ignorant Japanese

In other words--- Britain hopes to see a China-Japan War

Said our Britisher,( the Old Colonel Blimp )--- LET the Yellow people kill each other for all we care

"British illegal occupation of Gibraltar"
`
Britain got Gibraltar through the treaty of Utrecht in 1713. So don't understand the odd statement about illegality.
`
Otherwise, seems the inhabitants want to stick with Britain, so don't understand why you would want to bring the topic up.
`
It doesn't add to your argument. Just makes the post look ignorant of some pretty well established facts, or bugged out.

That is a dumb analogy. You had a peace treaty deemed legitimate by all parties at the time.
`
Otherwise, the inhabitants want to stick with Britain. Its called self-determination. At least Britain is giving them the option to express their views.
`
Go find a cause that actually backs up some argument. If you are going to complain about the treaty of Utrecht then you really should calm down and think things over...

The best solution is for Japan to relinquish its claim and concede the island to Taiwan ROC. There will be winners all around:
1) ROC, big winner, especially for president Ma, who was a student leader in the 70's of 'defend our Diaoyu' movement.
2) South Korea, big winner, its stand on disputed island with Japan will be bolstered greatly.
3) Same goes to Russia
4) US will win. Now a burden of defense treaty with regard to Diaoyu is lifted, its defense will be covered under 'taiwan relation act'.
5) even PRC can get a win by claiming it's their pressure on Japan that did the job. There will be some loss of face, but that can be mitigated by sending Japan to a handful of countries that recognizes ROC not PRC.
6) Japan... well, who cares about Japan.

Basically all land ownership and administration is a result of piracy, after which comes an establishment (first it was family then tribe, tribal confederation, kingdom and state as the latest most popular form, and all the rest versions as well). People arrived at some land, settled and claimed it theirs from the very beginning of our competitive existence to keep it for their own use if they liked it. Then others may have come and primal settlers by not wishing to share resources defined certain territories theirs in front of them. Many newcomers were very aggressive and destructive. So, usually such disputes if possible where settled violently in between involved parties by destroying others for the fears others will destroy them or they will be pushed to live in a lands where existence was less rich, more difficult or impossible. Also there could be purely emotional reasons like dislikes or revenge or lack of communication abilities for destroying some people or group by others. Ownerships shifted.

So after or even before claims where generated to arrange new piratical adventures including all the stories supported by treaties and common agreements. Now the dispute is about the economic growth and keeping historically developed forms of human existence in certain lands, which are so important for our psychic health or mental comfort balance. Resources to grow riches and security are aspects so vital to establishments.
What are benefits of people of Japan, Taiwan and China or even US in this case - more security from piracy by other establishments in general or may be nothing. By supporting establishments people can enjoy their comforts and security. And since the whole world has been overtaken by different establishments claiming ownership or certain administrative powers over all lands on the planet people has to deal with it want it or not. Spin goes on.

If it is merely for the oil, it is a conflict where all legal argument is nonsense for the sake of profit - state piracy. Best would be leave the islands to albatrosses - the original inhabitants.

I don't believe the Senkaku Islands are 255 miles from Ishigaki and Iriomote Islands.
`
I believe the distance is around 100 miles, comparable to the distance of the Senkaku Islands from Taiwan.
`
Having scuba dived down there a bit, had time to check up on the area.

OK. So you have the map there showing a distance of 170 kilometers between Ishigaki Island and the Senkaku Islands.
`
And the map shows a distance of 170 kilomters between Taiwan and the Senkaku Islands.

And 170 kilometers converts into supposedly 105.6331027 miles.
`
So not too far off saying about 100 miles.

Poor me had to google what the heck "fifty centers" mean.
It's amusing how some commenters here find it inconceivable that there may be rational and objective western-bred Anglo-Saxon readers of TE that supports China's claim over those islands.
Get over it, morons.

Britain is a democracy and journalists in democracies are free to voice their opinions. In the case of this article the author's opinions are backed by historical fact.

I'm sure you would prefer the author stuck to the communist party line that everything within a radius of a thousand miles from China's borders belongs to it, but the world isn't ruled from Beijing. Yet.

that's true - everyone is free to make any kind of opinions, however, opinions like this article and yours are nonsense. The author is ignorant of the history of the Diaoyu island, and almost all the TE authors find it very convenient to be against China on almost everything. This paper makes me sick, next year I'll stop paying for the subscription.

dude, you are funny, LOL. I work my butt off and pay big taxes to the US government, you think I'm working for the communists? Give me a break and show me some solid comments - logical and backed by facts/history

China takes its claims further, using geography as a justification for sovereignty. Chinese officials know that under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) they have a natural right to all of the land on their continental shelf. As defined in Part VI, Article 76 of UNCLOS III, “The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil…to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles” from the nation’s coast (UN 1982). China embraces this rule, claiming all of the land on its shelf out to the Okinawa Trough. However, there are not 400 nautical miles between China and Japan, so their boundaries overlap.

Additionally, sovereignty is complicated by the provisions that UNCLOS makes for exclusive economic zones (EEZs), defined as the waters from the edge of a nation’s territorial waters (12 nautical miles from shore) out to the 200 nautical mile limit. In these waters, others are allowed to navigate through but that nation is responsible for the preservation or exploitation of the natural resources in the region. As seen in Figure 2, the maritime boundaries, and thus the EEZs, have not been ironed out and there is a sizeable gap around the Okinawa Trough that has yet to be resolved.

Although geography is not a prerequisite as justification for sovereign claims, the following paragraph corroborate China's claim and weakens Japan's.

"Japanese officials believe that since the islands had been uninhabited until the Sino-Japanese war ended in 1895, they had every right to annex the territory in January of 1894 (Manyin 2013). Because they formally annexed the islands in 1894, they do not believe the islands were a part of the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, which handed control of Taiwan and its ‘associated islands’ over to the Japanese. The implications of this loosely worded treaty arose after WWII, when Japan, under the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, relinquished all power over Taiwan and its surrounding islands, which China understands to include the Diaoyu (Koo 2010)."

One can infer that Japan took the opportunity of the Sino-Japanese war and later civil strife in China post WWII to assert claims over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Why does Japan believe they had every right to annex the territory? Which international body gave them that right?

Is China seriously going to use a 15th century precedent to argue that it should control the Senkakus? If we're going to go back that far then why don't we also resurrect the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, or Mongol Empires? We could also use the distant past to argue that China shouldn't even exist as a single unified nation.
As for the ownership of the islands being a matter of "national honor", that is complete rubbish. It was not a matter of national honor before China started laying claim to things it doesn't own. If China is being humiliated, it's because their leaders brought that humiliation down upon themselves.

China is repurposing its former Sinosphere influence, and maybe even forcing that power onto today's East Asian geopolitical stage. She needs to do so to prevent future US interferences, she is simply protecting her own interests.

The Ottoman is no longer relevant, as to the rest of the empires you've mentioned. But China still plays a big role, almost too big to ignore.

Funny that Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand choose military alliances with the US - and two of those countries are ethnic Chinese. They obviously prefer "American interferences" to "communist interferences".

Oh what fun! China claiming everything east of the Danube -- won't Putin be delighted? But if the Mongols conquered it once....]

China has not done that but the white claim everything that belong to them and also everything that belong to others:

{24 June 1995
The Editor
South China Morning Post
GPO Box 47
Hong Kong
.
Sir,
.
I applaud your editorial of 22 June, in which you exposed the insidious manner in which the Japanese parliament and government had glossed over the crimes and genocides the Japanese Imperial Army had committed against the peoples of East Asia.
.
Your effort is to be commended and I hope you will extend it and apply it in an impartial and unbiased manner.
.
The crimes of Japan during World War II is but one of the crimes against humanity in recent history and it is not even the most serious.
.
Far more sinister are those committed by the whites against the non-whites, with the racial genocides carried out in America and Australia being the most systematic and thorough.
.
These are the most hideous crimes against humanity- surpassing, in scale and thoroughness, even Hitler's organized pogrom of the Jews and the Slavs. But while the whites react with anger and indignation to the massacres of their own kind, they continue to glorify and celebrate their genocidal achievements when their victims are non-Europeans.
.
We all should now wake up to the fact that the regimes thus established are illegal, immoral and illegitimate. For the sake of justice and legality, these criminal regimes must be abolished. Only then can a just "New World Order" prevail.
.
The South China Morning Post, having so bravely exposed the lies and deceit of the Japanese, should now take up this new task with added courage and vigour, and thus set a moral journalistic standard for the rest of the "Free Press" to follow.
.
Sincerely
.

The article never mention Kairo Consensus which determine the post-war order. Diaoyu Island belongs to Republic of China. However, Communist was ruled after the civil war, the US government retain the administrative right over the Diaoyu island and refused to return the islands to Communist Red.

The agreement signed by US and Japan was just a bilateral agreement where China was excluded. It ignores the legitimacy of Kairo Consensus. Therefore, the Diaoyu island belongs to Chinese

(1) In 1894, the Governor of Okinawa wrote a proposal to the Japanese Emperor to annex the Diaoyu.

*2) the Japan Minister of Information objected to this on the grounds that the Chinese press were getting suspicious of Japanese intentions towards the Daioyu

(3) The Japan Home Minister wrote that the Emperor should not agree because it would mean trouble with China

(4) The Japanese went ahead to annex it anyway. Later the Meiji Emperor sold a few of the islets to his family friend

(5) in 1944 Cairo Conference and 1945 Potsdam Conference the Victorious Allies ordered Japan to return all the stolen islands back to China

(6) In 1953, at the Sino-Japan Peace Treaty signed in Taiwan -- Japan had agreed to return all the islands stolen from China --- back to China

(7) All the while these islands were under the control of the USA who could see its strategic importance

(8) In 1972, at the San Francesco Conference, the Host , US did not invite either the PRC or the ROC (Taiwan) to attend and unilaterally handed the administration of the islands to Japan

The ROC had objected to this move--- but to no avail --- and the ROC had not dared to push too far for the US was its defenders against the PRC who had consistently threatened to recover it for the Motherland

Chinese university students held protests demonstrations in the US and Taiwan to oppose the US move

(9) In the meantime, the Japanese Govt had secretly and without informing the world -- quietly changed the name of the island to Senkaku

The PRC was not aware of this and did not challenge the move

(10) When China-Japan established diplomatic relation -- the Japanese and the Chinese PMs had agreed to agree that the 2 nations should sit down in the future to try to negotiate a settlement

)11_ However, in 2012, Japan broke its word and proceeded to unilaterally nationalized the islets

QUESTION

Even today---Why do the US Govt is refusing to recognise Japan's sovereignty over the Diaoyu ??

As far as the US is concerned, the USA only recognize that Japan have the right to administer the Islands

ANSWER

Because the US Govt knows what happened at the Cairo and Potsdam Conferences..... that both Pres Roosevelt and Truman had agreed with PM Churchill, Stalin and Chiang Kai-Shek that Japan should return Islands like the Diaoyu back to China

If this case goes before the United Nations , and using the UN Definitions of legal ownership of islands ----- China would win hands down

The UN Law Code on this type of dispute (of which the US and Japan had already signed on as well) stipulates that whoseever country's continental-shelf is joined/connected/extends to this island is the legal owner of the island

China is able to show proof that geographically,---- China's continental shelf is joined to the Diaoyu ---- ie the Diaoyu is a continuation of the China landmass

We can't wait for the day === when thi case goes before an international court for arbitration for the world to see the truth

This is also why Japan has officially refused to agree to present/go to the International Court, and to let International Law decides

No, I'm not "implying" that, you are.
-
I was simply making an observation. When it comes to Senkaku (by the way, a name much easier to pronounce for native English speakers than the baffling "Diaoyu"), poor history seems to accompany poor English.

Whatever it is there is a very strong correlation. A very simple analysis would possibly demonstrate the low wages some of our friends get paid (hence low education or very young students or young aspiring members of the pp) for countering arguments with rhetoric or simply trolling their way through the facts.

Just because "Senkaku" flows readily from someone's lips while "Diaoyu" stutters is no excuse for sheer historical ignorance. Mastery in English alone would not win the argument either. Two wrongs do certainly not patch up holes in one no-leg-to-stand-on argument.

For me this article is kind of nonsense, it is overall biased as it stands on Japanese sides, which is under control of the U.S. Then for the title it does not define the time, and it does not answer the question.