News Stories

[Ithekro]

The thing is, the islands have been Japanese for 40 years now. And prior to the US administration of them (27 years), they were Japanese for 50 years. Prior to that they may or may not have been Chinese territory. The way some of the claims look it seems like they were the no man's land border islands in the years before Japan got them in 1895. The basically unclaimed lands because no one really cared (the days before territorial waters mattered all that much in Asia). And certainly before there was anything worthwhile out there except fish.

To be honest, the Japanese have shown a lot of restraint in not doing anything particularly with those islands in the last 40 years even after the claims of resources near or under them.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The thing is, the islands have been Japanese for 40 years now. And prior to the US administration of them (27 years), they were Japanese for 50 years. Prior to that they may or may not have been Chinese territory. The way some of the claims look it seems like they were the no man's land border islands in the years before Japan got them in 1895. The basically unclaimed lands because no one really cared (the days before territorial waters mattered all that much in Asia). And certainly before there was anything worthwhile out there except fish.

To be honest, the Japanese have shown a lot of restraint in not doing anything particularly with those islands in the last 40 years even after the claims of resources near or under them.

I don't think that's a good argument when the islands are completely unoccupied. Prior to now the islands were de facto no man's land.

As for the US, if Japan was able to be friendly with Korea and China, then that would mean that Japan is no longer so dependent on the US for protection...

I'm fairly sure the US diplomatic corps are happy to see this continue to fester away, driving a wedge between all the most powerful nations in East Asia. It's not big enough to start a war, but it's big enough to stop them from getting friendly.

[Ithekro]

The islands were occupied from about 1900 to 1940 by the Japanese for a fish processing industry. Though only about 200 workers.


Does the Asian pecking order thing still exist? The old one with either Japan or China at the top and places like Cambodia near the bottom?

[Tom Bombadil]

China ships sail in waters near disputed islands

If you look at the map at the end, you'll see that Chunxiao gas field is far out in the sea, nearer to Ryukyu islands than to Shanghai. It is another sign of Chinese greed and aggression, right?

Well, the location of the gas field on that map is pure bullshit. Many people here probably don't know that the Chinese and Japanese not only have dispute for the islands, but also the delimitation of the EEZs in East China Sea. The Japanese are in favor of the so call middle line. In other words, you draw a line in the middle of East China Sea, about equal distance from the east coast line of China and the western edge of the Ryukyu islands chain. However, there is no reason a chain of rocks and islands should grant the same extent of EEZ as a continent. The Chinese are more in favor of the continental shell theory, which grants most of the continental shells to the land country.

What does this have to do with the gas field? No matter which EEZ theory are more justified, the ground situation is that the Japanese claim is the rule at the moment. Well, they used to have the bigger guns in the whole last century. So the Chunxiao gas field is on the Chinese side of the middle line . There is no way it is on the edge of the continental shell, as shown on the BBC map.

[ganbaru]

Egypt, Hearing From Obama, Moves to Heal Rift From Protests
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/wo...-protests.html
There's more than a couple of egyptians than could give Romney a lesson on finesse.

[sneaker]

Apparently protesters are trying to storm the British and German embassies in Sudan right now.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

China ships sail in waters near disputed islands

If you look at the map at the end, you'll see that Chunxiao gas field is far out in the sea, nearer to Ryukyu islands than to Shanghai. It is another sign of Chinese greed and aggression, right?

Well, the location of the gas field on that map is pure bullshit. Many people here probably don't know that the Chinese and Japanese not only have dispute for the islands, but also the delimitation of the EEZs in East China Sea. The Japanese are in favor of the so call middle line. In other words, you draw a line in the middle of East China Sea, about equal distance from the east coast line of China and the western edge of the Ryukyu islands chain. However, there is no reason a chain of rocks and islands should grant the same extent of EEZ as a continent. The Chinese are more in favor of the continental shell theory, which grants most of the continental shells to the land country.

What does this have to do with the gas field? No matter which EEZ theory are more justified, the ground situation is that the Japanese claim is the rule at the moment. Well, they used to have the bigger guns in the whole last century. So the Chunxiao gas field is on the Chinese side of the middle line . There is no way it is on the edge of the continental shell, as shown on the BBC map.

The location is not BS, it's the size that's inaccurate. It's much bigger than that spec shown on that page you linked.
It's right on the borderline, stretching from Chinese side to Okinawa side.
I do agree that it's hard to dispute the ownership of the field, considering the edges are on both sides of the border.

I can't fault the PRC for digging on their side of the large gas field, and to make the matters worse, no one actually really knows the full size of the field.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I don't think that's a good argument when the islands are completely unoccupied. Prior to now the islands were de facto no man's land.

As for the US, if Japan was able to be friendly with Korea and China, then that would mean that Japan is no longer so dependent on the US for protection...

I'm fairly sure the US diplomatic corps are happy to see this continue to fester away, driving a wedge between all the most powerful nations in East Asia. It's not big enough to start a war, but it's big enough to stop them from getting friendly.

Why don't they want east-Asian countries getting along better?

[Shay]

Originally Posted by sneaker

Apparently protesters are trying to storm the British and German embassies in Sudan right now.

This should be in the silly news thread. Because it is absolutely ridiculous what they are doing!

[Sumeragi]

A more "accurate" map on the location of the Shirakaba Gas Field:

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Shay

This should be in the silly news thread. Because it is absolutely ridiculous what they are doing!

Apparently, a lot of human beings think acting like an enraged two year old with deadly force engages respect for their imaginary friends rather than ever accelerating levels of disgust.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Why don't they want east-Asian countries getting along better?

I think the precise description for US motivation in East Asia is to have countries getting along, but not too well. The USA certainly doesn't want anything close to an actual war or even a major shooting match to occur in the world's biggest economic region. You think the Great Recession was bad, watch what happens to the world economy when Shanghai, Tokyo, Taipei and Seoul become missile targets.

But on the other hand the USA is reluctant to see lasting settlements that defuse the disputes, since it is currently helping a resurgence of American diplomatic influence in the region. China's shift towards a belligerent stance results in fear and outrage in the neighboring countries, even overt ethnic tensions over perceived Chinese arrogance. This can be seen from the opinions of our Asian members, who are far more outraged over the various recent disputes than our American ones. Even TRL recently said his opinion has changed over what the rise of China really means.

As for my opinion, perhaps China is indeed now strong enough to get its way with a big stick, but so far all it succeeded in doing is forcing countries which are no natural allies to close ranks against the big bully. For example, the Spratly Islands dispute is a multi-party one, with as many as six parties (PRC, ROC [Taiwan], Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei) making various claims, but with PRC's recent belligerence, the other parties are starting to show more and more interest in an "international" solution where they could undercut PRC's forceful push.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I think the precise description for US motivation in East Asia is to have countries getting along, but not too well. The USA certainly doesn't want anything close to an actual war or even a major shooting match to occur in the world's biggest economic region. You think the Great Recession was bad, watch what happens to the world economy when Shanghai, Tokyo, Taipei and Seoul become missile targets.

I am not so sure about that. American spokeswoman failing to explain the inherit contradiction of US policy.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by sneaker

Apparently protesters are trying to storm the British and German embassies in Sudan right now.

Then again torching buildings by violent and angry locals is not unheard of even on german soil ("Sunflower House" Rostock). I think there are idiots everywhere, some base their violence on religious beliefs, others on racial ideologies and for whatever reason else.

But let me compare the two locations East Germany and Sudan to explain how estonished I am, that there isn't more violence in Sudan. In contrast to Sudan, East Germany can be considered to be a place with good public education, public infrastructure and medium wealth. In contrast Sudan is a place with low public education, medium infrastructure and is overall a rising economic power. The problem is Sudan's Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005). Many Sudanes who grew up in this period lack the fundamental education that is often a guard against religious extremism. Furthermore in times of civil war, people tend to polarize their views on matters - in this case it involves religious matters.

I imagine there must be immense religious and ideoligical tensions within the Sudanese. But obviously venting this off on their own people is less an option then venting off on outsiders. I suppose such incidents must be a blessing for Imams there, who would otherwise not know how to deal with the agression of the people - other then to redirect it - so that it doesn't evoke another internal unrest. I am still surpised that it happens not more often.


-==-==-==-==--=--=--=--=--==-==-==-==-

Change of topic:

Japan's government urges to try to abandon nuclear power generation by 2040.

https://www.google.com/news?q=japan,...=English&hl=en

Personal remarks: While I think the idea is sensical from a safety POV (considering the region's more than average risks regarding natural disasters) a lot of unanswered questions remain. That Japan can survive without nuclear power for a certain amount of time (without alternatives to replace it) is proven by the fact that most nuclear power plants remained shut down for approximately a year.

However, in the long run they have to come up with something that can replace the lost nuclear base-load capability. It will be interesting to see, what kind of technology will be used to replace those power plants (green tech, smart grids, conventional fossil power, power to gas to power... - there is a lot of potential).
Anyway, it remains to be seen if this is actually a true policy change or just a temporary apeacement strategy of the government. They definitly have the capabilities to make a change though.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I am not that sure about that. American spokeswoman failing to explain the inherit contradiction of US policy.

On the contrary, her position is quite clear: America considers it to be under Japanese administrative control, but take no positions on its sovereignty. It will protect Japan -- its ally -- from Chinese military aggression (or anyone else's), if a military incident occurs there, but it won't back up Japan's claim over the islands on the international stage.

This is necessary to prevent, say, a Chinese warship sinking a Japanese warship in the vicinity of the area, then China proceeding to claim that the treaty "does not apply" because it occurs in "Chinese territory." The USA has to make it clear it considers the territory to be included in the US-Japan alliance agreements at least in those terms.

And that guy is just a dick. If he is China's face, well...

[aohige]

To be fair, being a dick is like, the job description of journalists.

Only thing that video proves is how US rep is being murky and unwilling to give a straight, sided answer. The elephant in the room is soverignity conflict, of course.

What does it have to do with wanting or not wanting Wars?
I don't see a correlation to your reply and the video.

[willx]

Wow, we're still talking about this --

Entertainment Sidebar: Apparently there are topless photos of Kate Middleton floating around and the royal family is very upset!

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/royal-fa...hotos-1.955500

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Why don't they want east-Asian countries getting along better?

Put it this way. The more afraid other Asian countries are of China, the more likely they are to look to the US for help.

An alliance between Japan and China would mean that Japan would no longer have any need for it's alliance with the US. For the US to maintain it's influence in the region, there needs to be some level of tensions going on. Otherwise, if everyone is friendly with one another, what influence can the USA wield?

That said, the US doesn't want any wars, but maintaining a certain level of tensions is quite beneficial. It's divide and conquer. A united Asia would not need the USA. Taiwan, Korea and Japan only need to be allied with the US (and hence implement policies that benefits it) due to fear of one china (and also one another) and a certain mutual loathing.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Apparently, a lot of human beings think acting like an enraged two year old with deadly force engages respect for their imaginary friends rather than ever accelerating levels of disgust.

And the fact to be in a mob isn't helping either.
Is it possible than the biggest offence they peirceive is more toward themself than their imaginary friend ?

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

On the contrary, her position is quite clear: America considers it to be under Japanese administrative control, but take no positions on its sovereignty. It will protect Japan -- its ally -- from Chinese military aggression (or anyone else's), if a military incident occurs there, but it won't back up Japan's claim over the islands on the international stage.

This is necessary to prevent, say, a Chinese warship sinking a Japanese warship in the vicinity of the area, then China proceeding to claim that the treaty "does not apply" because it occurs in "Chinese territory." The USA has to make it clear it considers the territory to be included in the US-Japan alliance agreements at least in those terms.

And that guy is just a dick. If he is China's face, well...

Hahahaha..........


What has the world come to. Now it is time for a person from a country not under the rule of law to explain what is law. The law only obliges the US to protect Japanese territory. So a place falls either inside this category or not in it. It is mutually exclusive. It can not be both.

It is a very simply question, "does the US consider the islands a Japanese territory?" It is a YES or NO question.

If the US does not consider the islands a Japanese territory but still includes it in the joint defense scheme, then they are violating their own law. Of course, it comes with no punishment and it might be in the US interest to do so. That's fine with me. Just say the US do it for the US interest or for the interest of its allies or whatsoever.

However, you can't say the US is neutral or "we don't take sides". The Chinese proverb for this is ：“不能既當婊子又立牌坊”. 　In English, "you can't be a prostitute and claim yourself a holy virgin at the same time".