Senkaku/Diaoyu/Tiaoyutai/Pinnacle Islands dispute

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I didn't bother to read LeoXiao and the others' political discussions. Experience shows those are generally pointless and go nowhere.

Experience shows that everything you say is generally pointless from my view. Can't see how you're more relevant than others, nor whether you have the right to say something is relevant.


But as for the riddle: What is Chinese culture, if there is one unified culture? Given the legitimacy battle that is going one, unless one can define some sort of central culture it is impossible to quite say who is destroying what culture.

And there is no Chinese characters. China formed after the development of the East Asian characters, so to say it is the characters of one country is ultimately a hegemonist position.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Greeks and Egyptians might disagree with you there. While the Egyptians (except the Copts) went through a considerable shift with the Arab conquest, the Greeks have not changed so much. Their language is directly descended (it's as similar to Classical Greek as Mandarin is to Classical Chinese...), and while religion wise they worship Jesus, the Chinese didn't venerate Buddha 3000 years ago either.
Christianity has been pretty pervasive. Also, Western Philosophy.

Outside of academia, how revered are Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates? Is their influence really comparable to that of Confucius or Laozi? In the various Chinas, if you were an educated person, you pretty much had Confucian learning and scriptures imprinted in your head. Aspiring officials had to learn this stuff word for word. The concepts of filial piety and Confucian virtue in general were as universal as could be. Daoist sects and practices had existed for thousands of years and were not wiped out even with the introduction of Buddhism. In the West by comparison, both the "standard" Greek philosophy that we know today and whatever pagan stuff they had before Christ were greatly overshadowed by the introduction of Christianity, to the point that it and was the one dominant teaching, relatively intolerant of all others due to its express monotheism. This did not occur in China. The Chinese Aristotles and Platos (i.e. Confucius) were not shut out by Buddhism, but continued to have mass influence into the modern day. This is one prime example of continuous Chinese culture.

The Greeks may have stayed somewhat the same (from looking at their language this seems to be the case) but like the rest of Europe they got Christianized. There is certainly a connection to the ancients but I would still say it is not really comparable to that of the Chinese.

Persia is a country that's probably lasted longer then China. You can draw a direct line between ancient Persia and modern Iran.

What are the similarities between the earliest Persian civilization and the one now? All I know is that they have been around for a long time, got invaded by Alexander, then Mongols, were Muslim for about a thousand years, and still are.

Not sure. "Reconnecting with the past" can easily just lead to Reactionaries and stagnation. Look at Spain under Franco. I would argue that modern China is looking to the past, and doing so in order to reinforce it's centralized autocratic rule. As much respect I have for Chinese culture, China won't move forward by looking back. Ultimately it has to shed traditional hierarchies just as Europe did during it's era of revolution. As it is now, I think the CCP bureaucrats are just this century's mandarins.

I'm not sure, I think western liberal governance works as a form of "organized" chaos. The system depends on no group ever attaining complete dominance or control. When one group becomes too powerful, things get tricky(arguably it becomes some kind of autocracy).

From what I've seen, despite a high degree of individualism, there is still a relatively strong sense of social contract in the West, especially in Europe. In Germany, for instance, you can ride the bus or subway without having to show your ticket unless a controller comes around to check, which happens quite rarely. There is a sense of trust among people and a faith in the system that makes it work more or less efficiently. While I was there, I knew a Chinese guy who said that if it were in China, nobody would bother to pay. He even said that if he had the opportunity to cheat the system in China, he would do it, but since he was in Germany, he would feel bad for not paying because nobody else does it. Isn't this an issue of the culture influencing the individual? Since neither Confucian thought nor Party ideals hold any conscious sway with the people any longer, they will be glad to cheat the system and in the long run create all kinds of trouble for society.

China may have money right now, but what happens when that money runs out and its sources dry up? The people will be at each other's throats instantly. What can be said about a country of which 60% of its upper class would like to or is planning to emigrate? Another Chinese person I knew in Germany admitted to having hated the Japanese, but when she read about their outstanding integrity and self-discipline during the earthquake and tsunami, her opinion of them changed. She said that if something like that happened in China (Sichuan earthquake, cough cough), people would act totally erratically without regard for order.

Germany, Japan, and other western countries may not be authoritarian states, but it is possible that where it matters, the people are capable of demonstration elf-control and conscientiousness. It can also be said to be a sort of authoritarianism, just that it is imposed by the strength of the cultural/community bond where needed and not by the government.

The CCP being like any other dynasty: This is valid to a point. It is sadly true that most if not all of the emperors did not really have the country's best interests in mind, and a lot of them were outright terrible people. The tragedy of misgovernment is one that has been latent in all of Chinese history. But never did an emperor try to destroy the three main schools of thought simultaneously, and nor did they succeed in destroying any of them for very long. A testament to the greatness of Confucianism is that despite having only survived via a few copies when it underwent suppression by the Qin emperor, it regained popularity after the dynasty's hasty collapse. The fact that a strong sense of philosophical and moral teaching could survive in such brutal environments for thousands of years is quite amazing. The scary thing about now is that Mao not only utterly severed the people's connection to this heritage, but that now, when it can be recovered, nobody is eager to do it. A dismissive attitude is pervasive everywhere. I attended some lectures done by various professors under the sponsorship of the "Confucius Institute", and have found that all they talk about is how limited Confucian thinking is, how it oppresses women, how it is no longer needed under today's "strong China", etc. In the 70s, kids were taught to criticize Lin Biao and Confucius without knowing anything about them other than them being evil, now, disparagement of Confucius is conducted under his name, so that people are taught revisionist nonsense and believe it to be accurate.

Well, well, well, what do we have here? A false statement and questions that tries to mislead. Culture is too much broad a concept. It consists food habits, common practices, social norms, traditional musics, clothing, historical heritages, etc., etc.. What has really changed because of Mao's crazy years? What has changed because of modernization and globalization? What are those that have not changed? If you are really interested in such topics, some reading is probably necessary. If not, here is a riddle for you. Both Korea and Vietnam switched their writing system of over a millennium in Chinese characters to something newly adopted. Do you think that destroyed their culture?

In regards to food, clothing, or w/e, in the Cultural Revolution, if you had something extravagant to eat or wear, you had to hide for fear of being called bourgeois. Flowers and gardens were destroyed to room for crops. Traditional marriage documents were burned, and instead of praying to Buddha or what have you, you had to pledge loyalty to the CCP instead. When I first learned some characters at a Chinese-American school one of the things we wrote was "warmly love the Communist Party".

As for Korea and Vietnam: Their switch from Hanzi to purely Hangul and Latin script is indeed a loss of culture, but it is not so extreme. First of all, they were not Chinese to begin with and even if they were part of China they would be considered minority groups and it would in fact weird if they did not have their own script of some sort. Also, just focusing on the scripts ignores the bigger difference - that in neither Korea (well not in the ROK) nor Vietnam was the traditional culture actively destroyed. People may not learn it or respect it as much or as widely as they ought to (IMO), which is a problem existent in most modern countries, but it is still there and not dismissed the way it is in China by Chinese. From what I know, the Koreans have a respect for Confucius nonexistent in the PRC, and to give a personal example, the only person to date I have known to recognize a certain old text that I have memorized and carried around for some time was Korean.

Question:
The talk was about Chinese culture being destroyed under Mao and the currect PRC failing in culture department. What about the ROC? Where did they stand on Chinese culture? Could they reintroduce it if they managed to somehow take over when the PRC government fails?

I don't really think the ROC government is in any position to do anything significant, though I do consider there to be a more authentically preserved Chinese culture on Taiwan than on the mainland. The problem is that a majority of Taiwanese no longer consider themselves Chinese, and furthermore, the KMT would still have to use mainlanders if it were to want to govern the (old) PRC. If those mainlander officials and the people at large have no interest in reviving traditional thinking or culture, then there is nothing to be done. I doubt this would be the case but the bottom line is that for a culture to change or be revived the people have to want it, or be forced to want it (something unfeasible under a liberal system). It's not impossible, the Jewish people have after all been able to start using Hebrew again.

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Experience shows that everything you say is generally pointless from my view. Can't see how you're more relevant than others, nor whether you have the right to say something is relevant.


But as for the riddle: What is Chinese culture, if there is one unified culture? Given the legitimacy battle that is going one, unless one can define some sort of central culture it is impossible to quite say who is destroying what culture.

And there is no Chinese characters. China formed after the development of the East Asian characters, so to say it is the characters of one country is ultimately a hegemonist position.

So...we should call it the "Central Kingdom characters" instead?

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

By that definition, the concept of Korea goes even further back.....

If we went by the existence of some tribal peoples, then "China" must've existed long before 2000 BC as well. I'd say that whenever the concept of 天下 was created, is probably when China can be said to exist. What standard would the foundation of Korean civilization follow?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Gojoseon's founding legend describes Dangun, a descendent of heaven, as establishing the kingdom in 2333 BC[7] until the fall in 108 BC, although no evidence has been found that supports whatever facts may lie beneath this myth.[8]

So pretty much a Korean version of the fabled Xia dynasty. I'll go with the start of Koguryeo (like 100 BC?) for now.

As for Chinese characters, who knows where they came from but they have been associated expressly with Chinese (and later, Japanese) literacy since like 200 BC, and were imported to other countries with the presumption that they were Chinese.

[kyp275]

@LeoXiao

You're really missing the point here, you were comparing the merits of Chinese autocracy against western democracy and claiming that Chinese autocracy has lasted far longer by using THE ENTIRE CHINESE CIVILIZATION as if it's one single continuous autocratic nation-state, against modern western democratic nation-states.

The entire premise of your argument is flawed.

[willx]

Ok folks, let's all calm the freak down..

"Chinese" characters and Kanji developed in the East Asian regional and became the fundamental building blocks of the language for the civilizations that developed there. These people, societies and kingdoms were the precursor to the development of a series of centralily controlled states (with interruptions) that have since been accepted as the predecessor of the modern nation of "China"

The characters are most commonly associated with this nation. As for everything else, have at it folks!

PS: This concept of successor state and civilization is common and generally wildly accepted when you think of Europe but has been generally resisted when applied to Eastern Cultures when looking at studies on "comparative civilizations"

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by kyp275

@LeoXiao

You're really missing the point here, you were comparing the merits of Chinese autocracy against western democracy and claiming that Chinese autocracy has lasted far longer by using THE ENTIRE CHINESE CIVILIZATION as if it's one single continuous autocratic nation-state, against modern western democratic nation-states.

The entire premise of your argument is flawed.

You were not reading, though I don't really blame you due to my writing way too much and getting quite emotional about the subject.

The idea that I was responding to was that liberal systems are superior to autocratic ones. Politically, I agree with this, however, what I wanted to emphasize was that a certain amount of "authoritarian" elements in the culture are similarly or even more important. It does no good to have a democracy in which everyone only cares about their own interest, even though that is the definition of "liberalism" or "individual freedom" when carried to its extreme.

Sure, the Chinese state's longevity may not be longer than that of Western states. But to only think in terms of states is boring, and as I so strongly argued above, detrimental.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Outside of academia, how revered are Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates? Is their influence really comparable to that of Confucius or Laozi? In the various Chinas, if you were an educated person, you pretty much had Confucian learning and scriptures imprinted in your head. Aspiring officials had to learn this stuff word for word. The concepts of filial piety and Confucian virtue in general were as universal as could be. Daoist sects and practices had existed for thousands of years and were not wiped out even with the introduction of Buddhism. In the West by comparison, both the "standard" Greek philosophy that we know today and whatever pagan stuff they had before Christ were greatly overshadowed by the introduction of Christianity, to the point that it and was the one dominant teaching, relatively intolerant of all others due to its express monotheism. This did not occur in China. The Chinese Aristotles and Platos (i.e. Confucius) were not shut out by Buddhism, but continued to have mass influence into the modern day. This is one prime example of continuous Chinese culture.

In Europe every educated person received a "classical" education until relatively recently. My father had to learn Greek and Latin. Part of that was Aristotle and Plato, but there was also Homer, Euclid, Virgil... the Classics form the core of our "high culture". Something important to note is that historically Europe has always been more literate then China. In Europe prior to the industrial era it was usually about ~10% of the population that was literate, and if you were literate you usually had a classical/biblical education. In China only 1% of the population was literate, and you really had two separate parallel societies. You had peasant society, which likely had little real awareness of Confucius and co, and then you had the gentry, who of course had to memorize Confucius to get their positions.

Europe like China has a separate literate society, and like China it used an ancient set of texts as the foundation for it's education. And like China they communicated with one another in a language completely unknown to that of the greater population (Greek/Latin in Europe, Classical Chinese in China).

The Greeks may have stayed somewhat the same (from looking at their language this seems to be the case) but like the rest of Europe they got Christianized. There is certainly a connection to the ancients but I would still say it is not really comparable to that of the Chinese.

A lot of more educated westerners have a profound love of the classics. Can't speak for anyone else, but I was raised on the Iliad and Odyssey. I'd like to think that the classics will continue to be popular, but for whatever reason the internet seems to have completely passed them by. Achilles and Diomedes don't seem to quite get the attention that Liu Bei or Guan Yu receive...

What are the similarities between the earliest Persian civilization and the one now? All I know is that they have been around for a long time, got invaded by Alexander, then Mongols, were Muslim for about a thousand years, and still are.

I'm no expert on Persia, but they've been around for a very long time. There are few moments in history that there hasn't been some kind of Persian State. You have the Achaeminids, the Parthians, the Sassanids, the Safavids, the Qajar...

He even said that if he had the opportunity to cheat the system in China, he would do it, but since he was in Germany, he would feel bad for not paying because nobody else does it. Isn't this an issue of the culture influencing the individual? Since neither Confucian thought nor Party ideals hold any conscious sway with the people any longer, they will be glad to cheat the system and in the long run create all kinds of trouble for society.

It's a bigger problem then that. China lacks strong law and order, and the nature of the regime is arbitrary. If the regime is arbitrary in enforcing the law, then why shouldn't the people be arbitrary in following it?

China may have money right now, but what happens when that money runs out and its sources dry up? The people will be at each other's throats instantly. What can be said about a country of which 60% of its upper class would like to or is planning to emigrate?

I think in Asia generally you have something of an inferiority complex going on. Two centuries of failure, turmoil and colonialism will do that. It's a case of seeing foreign things as being better. Given that I'm on an anime forum, revering a foreign form of art, that is not an unfamiliar sentiment to me... (Japan, and also doesn't really have this inferiority complex, the way Korea or China does).

The scary thing about now is that Mao not only utterly severed the people's connection to this heritage, but that now, when it can be recovered, nobody is eager to do it. A dismissive attitude is pervasive everywhere. I attended some lectures done by various professors under the sponsorship of the "Confucius Institute", and have found that all they talk about is how limited Confucian thinking is, how it oppresses women, how it is no longer needed under today's "strong China", etc. In the 70s, kids were taught to criticize Lin Biao and Confucius without knowing anything about them other than them being evil, now, disparagement of Confucius is conducted under his name, so that people are taught revisionist nonsense and believe it to be accurate.

I think you underestimate the resiliency of Chinese cultural values. Mao did not really fundamentally change China (much as he tried). As I see it, the key values of China continue today. When we look at corruption, it's often driven by that most fundamental of Chinese ideas "Guanxi".

That said, the Communists did severely damage the "literary" culture of China, and those were the people who read Chinese philosophy. Confucius would never have been a "popular" literature.

But the culture of the greater mass of Chinese is alive and well, and difficult to really dent. Prosperity will do more to damage traditional Chinese culture then the Communists ever did (if you're rich and secure, do you need Guanxi?)

EDIT:

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Sure, the Chinese state's longevity may not be longer than that of Western states. But to only think in terms of states is boring, and as I so strongly argued above, detrimental.

The key thing is that we're not arguing about the longevity of China (which will likely last as long as Humanity), we're arguing about the longevity of the current Chinese state and political order. Basically, we're talking about the PRC and CCP, not China. China will continue on, but I'd say the PRC is doomed. It's political order is not tenable, and will be eventually overthrown, as every other autocratic regime in China has been before. The state and government called China is not the same as the nation and country of China.

[forfrosne]

How is this relevant to the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute? Sure the discussion of "When did China become China?" and "How far back does the language date?" are interesting questions, but it's not really talking about the topic at hand because it doesn't tell us anything about who is in the right here. The longevity of china and the PRC is interesting but isn't on-topic.

As far as I can see, there is no clearly correct person in this situation. Japan claims to have owned the islands since the 19th century, but the Chinese claim to have documents that prove that prior to the first Sino-Japanese War (Very late 19th Century) the Chinese in fact owned the islands. It therefore follows that the islands would be considered to have been seized from China by Japan during war and that they should therefore be returned to China because of the post-WW2 treaties the country signed. All of this basically hangs upon whether or not China can actually produce said evidence; if they can then China will win this argument and Japan should give up the islands, but if they cannot produce the evidence then they have no grounds to stand on.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by forfrosne

How is this relevant to the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute? Sure the discussion of "When did China become China?" and "How far back does the language date?" are interesting questions, but it's not really talking about the topic at hand because it doesn't tell us anything about who is in the right here. The longevity of china and the PRC is interesting but isn't on-topic.

As far as I can see, there is no clearly correct person in this situation. Japan claims to have owned the islands since the 19th century, but the Chinese claim to have documents that prove that prior to the first Sino-Japanese War (Very late 19th Century) the Chinese in fact owned the islands. It therefore follows that the islands would be considered to have been seized from China by Japan during war and that they should therefore be returned to China because of the post-WW2 treaties the country signed. All of this basically hangs upon whether or not China can actually produce said evidence; if they can then China will win this argument and Japan should give up the islands, but if they cannot produce the evidence then they have no grounds to stand on.

Do three hundred year old documents really have much relevance? I might be able to trot out old documents justifying myself being rightful King of England, doesn't mean jack.

Now I'm not coming down on either side in the argument, but as far as I'm concerned paper claims are not meaningful justification for claiming land. As I see it, there are only 3 justifications for what land is part of which country, in order of preference:

1. Will of the inhabitants living there
2. Force of Arms
3. Internationally recognized treaties.

History is not a justifiable reason to claim a piece of land. Things may have been one way in the past, that doesn't mean they are that way today.

Now as for these Islands, for 1, they're uninhabited, and for 3 the treaties upon which the ownership is recognized are shaky. Ultimately it will come down to 2, whoever is stronger. There is no other reasonable way to desire who owns the islands. Ultimately, in order to avoid war, they'll have to come to some kind of agreement.

Personally, I think for uninhabited islands like these, there is no legitimacy for land claims. Uninhabited, unused land can not be said to be "owned" by anyone. For instance, no one would argue that Antarctica is actually owned by anyone (even though several countries claim parts of it). If Antarctica was to suddenly become exploitable, those Norwegian, French, English etc claims would not be a reasonable basis for apportioning the resources of the continent.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

For instance, no one would argue that Antarctica is actually owned by anyone (even though several countries claim parts of it). If Antarctica was to suddenly become exploitable, those Norwegian, French, English etc claims would not be a reasonable basis for apportioning the resources of the continent.

You forgot the Antarctic Treaty System, which is why no one can actually argue to administer parts of Antarctica.

[Ithekro]

When it comes to Senkaku and the following there are answers.

1. Will of the inhabitants living there
2. Force of Arms
3. Internationally recognized treaties.

1. unihabited, so no one to say on the islands themselves.
2. Force of arms was completed last by the United States. They had ownership of the islands until they decided to hand them over to the Japanese.
3. The Treaty of San Francisco is the primary international treaty recognized. The Treaty of Taipei added little that is relevant to the issues on the islands in question. Japan gave up claims to a large swath of territories. They did not all return to their previous owners. A few went to the United States. These islands included. When the US decided to withdraw, they handed the islands back to Japan.

In theory that should be the end of the story. Claiming that the islands should have been returned to Chinese control in the 1950s is a moot point since they were not handed over to China, but kept by the United States. While some concepts of the treaty might hold that it was up to all the Allied power to decide the fate of those islands in the 1970s, the United States signed them over to Japan, even with China and Taiwan protesting the action.

This isn't the first time China and Japan have argued about the islands post-US occupation. Cooler heads tabled the idea for what they hoped would be smarter diplomats and politicians. How wrong they appear to have been.

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Do three hundred year old documents really have much relevance? I might be able to trot out old documents justifying myself being rightful King of England, doesn't mean jack.

Now I'm not coming down on either side in the argument, but as far as I'm concerned paper claims are not meaningful justification for claiming land. As I see it, there are only 3 justifications for what land is part of which country, in order of preference:

1. Will of the inhabitants living there
2. Force of Arms
3. Internationally recognized treaties.

History is not a justifiable reason to claim a piece of land. Things may have been one way in the past, that doesn't mean they are that way today.

Now as for these Islands, for 1, they're uninhabited, and for 3 the treaties upon which the ownership is recognized are shaky. Ultimately it will come down to 2, whoever is stronger. There is no other reasonable way to desire who owns the islands. Ultimately, in order to avoid war, they'll have to come to some kind of agreement.

Personally, I think for uninhabited islands like these, there is no legitimacy for land claims. Uninhabited, unused land can not be said to be "owned" by anyone. For instance, no one would argue that Antarctica is actually owned by anyone (even though several countries claim parts of it). If Antarctica was to suddenly become exploitable, those Norwegian, French, English etc claims would not be a reasonable basis for apportioning the resources of the continent.

I don't see your reasoning for not counting historical documents and therefore the right of ownership by discovery in territorial claims. Providing an absurd example with little relevance to the current situation does not count.

[Sumeragi]

Because those historical documents do NOT mention the islands at any point in connection to onwership until the Japanese brought them up.

[willx]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

You forgot the Antarctic Treaty System, which is why no one can actually argue to administer parts of Antarctica.

And the Moon .. although we've been down this route before. People will "change their minds" when it becomes feasible and viable to exploit it.

Ultimately, with regards to territorial disputes, realistically what will happen is after a massive cost-benefit analysis and a lot of pride and headbutting .. nothing will get resolved..

Man.. Everything should just go to whoever is closest to it, barring populated areas, where inhabitants that have lived there for >(insert arbitrary long period of time) get to vote themselves on which country they want to be part of.. Oh, wishful thinking..

[NoemiChan]

Hmmm.. Just curious guys...

When did the "Sino-Japanese Claims" started?

and.. Why is China starting to claim every island in East and Southeast Asia?

[Ithekro]

Treaty of Taipei says they own those islands. By their accounting. The treaty (from my understanding) just says that Japan forfits claims to those South China Sea island groups...not who they go to afterwards. (specifically the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.)

However, in the San Francisco Treaty

Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

The Sankaku Islands went with the Ryuku Islands as that was where Japan administered them from, rather than from present day Taiwan.

The Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands are mentioned in the San Francisco Treaty, but only to the extent that "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands. "

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Treaty of Taipei says they own those islands. By their accounting. The treaty (from my understanding) just says that Japan forfits claims to those South China Sea island groups...not who they go to afterwards. Those islands are not listed at all in the Treaty of San Francisco (the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands).

If only those islands were inhabited.. Will it prove a claim?

[Ithekro]

Treaty of Taipei:
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/taipei01.htm

Treay of San Francisco:
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sanfrancisco01.htm

Up until the discovery (and improved ability to actually acquire) resource in those areas has the real issue of who owns what really come to a head. Though with the need for underseas resources increasing, I wouldn't be amazed if we stated seeing sea floor national boundries....or even Ocean states that are mainly underwater if that is what is needed to get the resources (think something like Seaquest in terms of politics).

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Because those historical documents do NOT mention the islands at any point in connection to onwership until the Japanese brought them up.

I am quite sure being first to discover and name an uninhabited land is a valid argument for ownership. Whether being uninhabited after discovery means others are free to take over is really up for dispute.