Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsJapan = Imperialist Nation?
Japan = Imperialist Nation - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 7th Aug, 2008 - 1:48am
Posts: 16 - Views: 2531
Korea versus Japan - Also The East Sea?
Post Date: 4th Aug, 2008 - 4:53am / Post ID: #
Japan = Imperialist Nation?
Japan. The land of Toyota, samurais, anime, the Nintendo Wii. These days I have come to realize that many, including a few around myself, have a fond image of Japan. I find it surprising that people feel this way when Japan is a nation the US nuked back in WWII following Japan's launch of a surprise attack on pearl harbor which incited the war. Since then, Japan's greed for territorial expansion still hasn't disappeared and she is currently involved in territorial disputes with China, Russia, and Korea. Japan is engaged in conflict with the three nations over the Cho-au island, the Kuril archipelago, and Dokdo(Tok island) respectively. Japan is enforcing territorial rights even though historical evidence and effective dominance prove wrong. Japan is using every possible means to try and distort history. Maybe the US should intervene once more to set things right.
Sponsored Links:
Nation Imperialist Japan
Oh please, let the US get involved again. We cannot screw it up any worse then we already have! OH wait, maybe we could?
Dokdo Islands
Well, following the loss in WWII, the US was writing the declarations of all islands to be returned. In regards to the disputed Dokdo Islands of S. Korea (that have been inhabited by 2 S. Koreans and a small police detatchment), the US in several draft copies declared Dokdo as a Korean holding. However, in the last and final draft, it became Takeshima and belonged to the Japanese. The official standing from the US Geographic Board of Names is that the island is not Dokdo or Takeshima, but rather Liancourt Rocks and is stated as being under S. Korean control...which it is. However, the official government standing really hasnt changed since the 50's and that is that the islands should be a Japanese holding.
Wikipedia for a quick reference
| QUOTE |
| Post World War II Era The recent dispute stems largely from conflicting interpretations of whether Japan's renunciation of sovereignty over its occupied territories after World War II was supposed to cover the Liancourt Rocks as well. Supreme Commander Allied Powers Instruction #677 of January 29, 1946, listed the Liancourt Rocks, along with many other islands, as part of those territories over which Japanese administration was to be suspended. In the first to fifth drafts of the Treaty of San Francisco between Japan and the Allied powers, Liancourt Rocks were described as part of Korea. However, the sixth draft, which was made on Dec 29, 1949, ruled that Liancourt Rocks belong to Japan. The final version did not mention Liancourt Rocks. In Aug 10, 1951, a notification currently known as Rusk documents was sent to South Korea as a final U.S. Government reply on the issue of sovereignty between South Korea and Japan, and it states that Liancourt Rocks are territory of Japan. Later, In October 3, 1952, from the US Embassy Tokyo to the US State Department, "[...]The history of these rocks has been reviewed more than once by the Department, and does not need extensive recounting here. The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea.[...]" In Dec 9, 1953, the US Secretary of State, "[...]US view re Takeshima is simply that of one of many signatories to the treaty. The U.S. is not obligated to 'protect Japan' from Korean "pretensions" to Dokdo, and that such an idea cannot...be considered as a legitimate claim for US action under the U.S.-Japan security treaty.[...]"" In 1954, US sent in a special mission ambassador to Korea. The Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East, "[...]the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty.[...]Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute..[...]"" The current U.S. government stands on a neutral position on this issue. In September 1954 and March 1962, Japan proposed to South Korea that the dispute be referred to the International Court of Justice. South Korea has rejected the proposal. Recent conflict On July 14, 2008, South Korea temporarily recalled its ambassador to Japan, after Japanese government decided to mention the dispute over the islands in the "Commentary to the Curriculum Guideline" (学習指導要領解説, Gakushu sido yōryō kaisetsu?) for social study classes in junior high school. The Korean Coast Guard strengthened its early warning system as a preventative measure against any possible attempt by Japanese right-wing groups to land on the islets. On July 18th, there was a protest in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul. The Korean government is considering sending marines to replace a police contingent on Dokdo to thwart Japan's territorial claim to the islets. Prime Minister Han Seung-soo expressed strong dissatisfaction for Japan's Education Ministry. The Korean government is also considering building infrastructure to provide tap water, establishing an oceanic scientific base, dispatching public officials to the area, allowing freer public access to the islets, and turning Dokdo into a resort area with hotels. Korea rejected a Japanese offer for a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the annual ASEAN regional security summit in Singapore. Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary expressed concern that military tensions would escalate. In July 2008, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) changed the name of the country that Liancourt Rocks belong to from South Korea to Undesignated Sovereignty. Responding to this change, Gonzalo R. Gallegos, Acting Deputy Spokesman of the U.S. State Department, said on July 28, 2008 that the United States has long maintained a policy stance of neutrality on the islets, and that the latest change does not represent any policy change within the U.S. government. The same change that classified Liancourts Rocks as Undesignated Sovereignty in the BGN database was reversed on July 30th under the order of U.S. President George W. Bush, once again marking the status of Liancourts Rocks under South Korean control. |
Now the way I look at it is that when Japan lost, they lost all and there are interpretations of Yalta and San Fransisco agreements that support this view. However, it was not specifically spelled out. This is a recurring problem with all of WWII boarder reassignment and the US, France, England and Russia shoulder the blame. Mandates and occupations were not rigorously carried out and we have the problems we have today with these islands and a great majority of the middle east.
So this one is pretty easy. Since Japan cannot have a army, there is no way for them to kick out the S.Korean. S. Korea wins. Not to mention they have been there for about 50 years now.
My strongest disagrement with your statements is that Japan is doing this for expansion purposes. There are no desires for expansion...just fishing rights and resources. Dokdo is rumoured to be on top of a huge natural gas reserve as well as prime fishing grounds. That is what this is all about..a theme actually for all the islands you mention.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 
86.3%
Japan = Imperialist Nation? History & Civil Business Politics
Now I couldnt find a island called Cho-au, but China and Japan are fighting over Senkaku Island. Again, this is a island that is unihabited, but holds prime fishing grounds and resources. Once again as well, the US is pretty much in the forefront of this dispute as well as a result of WWII.
Wikipedia gives a good overall review: Source 5
However, in brief, the US held the islands after WWII until in '71 they said they were planning to hand back Okinawa and Senkaku back to the Japanese for control. Now the Chinese did seed over control to the Japanese in a treaty when they gave Taiwan to the Japanese as well following the 1895 Japanese-Sino Wars. Japan ruled Taiwan and Senkaku Islands until the end of WWII. So Japan claims that Senkaku was officially incorporated before the treaty that seeded Taiwan. They do have documentation to this effect as the island was unihabited before the Japanese showed up. Being incorporated into Japan, made it actually part of Japan and not a colony. Thus, in their view should not be redistributed after WWII.
Now just after the US announced that Japan would take control of the islands, China opposed the change and laid claim to the island. Now this is in '71...not 1945 after the war! Why...fishing and a huge deposite of oil or gas under the seabed.
China's claim comes from several dynasties where the islands are mentioned and shown in maps as belonging to China. However, as Japan routinely states, they were uninhabited so how do they have a claim to it. So if you show it on a old map, the island is yours? This seems to be what Japan is trying to do now!
The thing l love most about this Japanese argument is that it basically says that Dokdo is S.Korean since Japan never had a people on the island. Irony at its best.
Again, I come down to the fact that Japan lost the war and gave an unconditional surrender. That means that you lost it all. What you have is what is decided that you are left with, but that is me. However, since the US and the other victors or WWII were not very clear about what went where...we have these disputes. If we should ever have and hopefully it never comes of this a war where we have to redraw boundaries, we need to be very specific as there are others who care a lot more than we do about the lines!
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
Nation Imperialist Japan
Now the Kuril Islands has a pretty lengthy claim trail by the Russians and the Japanese and is not quite as simple as it may seem in that the end of WWII decided the dispute. Again, a wikipedia entry is a nice place to view the dispute:
Source 6
| QUOTE |
| Japan's view Japans' current view of the dispute is given in the official pamphlet of the Janapanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration do not apply to the Northern Territories on the grounds that the Northern Territories never belonged to Russia even before 1904-1905. Russia has not claimed the disputed islands since diplomatic relations with Japan began in 1855 and thus were not acquired by Japan "by violence and greed". The Yalta Agreement "did not determine the final settlement of the territorial problem, as it was no more than a statement by the then leaders of the Allied Powers as to principles of the postwar settlement. (Territorial issues should be settled by a peace treaty.) Furthermore, Japan is not bound by this document, to which it did not agree." Although by the terms of Article (2c) of the 1951 San Francisco Treaty Japan renounced all rights to the Kuril Islands, the treaty does not apply to the islands of Kunashiri, Etorofu, Shikotan and the Habomai rocks since they are not included in the Kuril Islands. Also, the Soviet Union did not sign the San Francisco Treaty. Russia's view Russia maintains that all of the Kuril Islands, including the disputed islands of Kunashiri, Etorofu, Shikotan and the Habomai rocks, became a part of Russia as a result of World War II, that Russia's rights to the islands are guaranteed by the international agreements including the Yalta Agreement and the San Francisco Treaty and that Russia has unquestionable sovereignty over these islands. Recent Developments The positions of the two sides have not substantially changed since the 1956 Joint Declaration and a permanent peace treaty between Japan and Russia still has not been concluded. On July 7, 2005, the European Parliament issued an official statement recommending the return of the territories in dispute, to which Russia protested immediately. As late as 2006, Russia's Putin administration offered Japan the return of Shikotan and the Habomais (about 6% of the disputed area) if Japan renounce its claims to the other two islands, referring to the Soviet-Japanese joint declaration of 1956 signed by the USSR and Japan promised Shikotan and the Habomais to be ceded to Japan after a peace treaty will be signed. Recently, Russia's economic boom has spread to the Kurils, leading islanders to turn their backs on Tokyo's trump card of financial aid in a deadlocked territorial row. February 6, 2008, the Japan Today, an English-language news site in Japan, reported that the Russian president had suggested to Japanese Prime-Minister Yasuo Fukuda to finally settle all territorial disputes over the Kuril Islands and had sent him a letter inviting him to come to Russia for discussions. The dispute over the Kuril Islands further exacerbated when the Japanese government published a new guideline for school textbooks on July 16, 2008 to teach Japanese children that their country has sovereignty over the Kuril Islands. The Russian public was outraged by the action and demanded the government to counteract. The Foreign Minister of Russia announced on July 18, "[these actions] contribute neither to the development of positive cooperation between the two countries, nor to the settlement of the dispute" and reaffirmed its sovereignty over the islands. |
Again, for many, it is as simple as you lost the war so deal with it. However, there is a shread of reasoning in this as it has compelled the European Parliament to say that Japan does have legitimate rights to some of the islands. But as with all of these islands that they are fighting over, it is not about expansion but rather fish and resources. I have difficulties in interpreting Yalta as meaning anything less than prior to the Meiji Restoration. The Meiji Restoration was greed, so anything taken in that time should have been covered under Yalta. However, due to the vagueness of these treaties (San Francisco, Yalta and others) we have these disputes.
Edited: Vincenzo on 4th Aug, 2008 - 9:25amInternational Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
Nation Imperialist Japan
One of the last "islands" that Japan is having disputes with its neighbors is the island called Okinotorishima. Now there is not a dispute over who has rights to this island, it is more of a dispute on it actually being called a island. Again, no one lives there for a few reasons, but the primary one being that it is too small and basically it is a grouping of rocks. Erosion almost wore the rocks into the sea, but Japan supported the rocks to keep them above water. Why do this? You guessed it...fishing! This is prime fishing land and if they actually get it qualified as a island then Japan has exclusive rights to the seas within a 200 mile radius. China doesnt believe that Okinotorishima is a island and thinks that the seas surrounding it should be open.
Source 8
| QUOTE |
| Okinotorishima The smallest of these disputes concerns the smallest of the islands, Okinotorishima, a few rocks now inches above sea level on an extremely isolated reef 1080 miles from Tokyo, southwest of Iwo Jima. Known also by its Portuguese name Parece Vela, the reef is administratively part of Tokyo City. Alarmed by the steady erosion of the rocks, the Japanese Government has reportedly spent over $600 million to reinforce them with concrete and build a beacon and building for researchers to reinforce its claim to the place. Japan had formally annexed the islands in 1931 when it found nobody else had done so. The government states an Exclusive Economic Zone for Okinotorishima which would give it a 200 mile circle of economic control over that part of the ocean. The People's Republic of China has disputed this, saying that Okinotorishima are only rocks, not islands, with no normal human habitation or economic life on them, and thus under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea no basis for an Exclusive Economic Zone. The Japanese Government has produced its own experts to argue the opposite. |
Imperialism? I dont think so...Capitalism...you bet!
Edited: Vincenzo on 5th Aug, 2008 - 5:26amInternational Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
Post Date: 7th Aug, 2008 - 1:38am / Post ID: #
Japan = Imperialist Nation?
Wow that's a lot of research work. You mentioned that you couldn't find Cho-au Island and I found out that it's not the formal name it's called, "Diaoyudao".
| Message Edited... Persephone: Check Your Spelling. Please keep your messages free from extra characters that are not alpha / numeric (numeric should be for stats) while using good grammar. You will notice most Posts here are written without the use of 'chopped words', excessive smilies, slang, dialect(s) or Teeny Bopper scribbles. See Constructive Posting Policy. |
Japan = Imperialist Nation
Oh, in that case, we are both talking about Senkaku Islands. The name you mention is the Chinese naming of the island. I had a feeling that they were the same, but couldnt find the other spelling.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
Japan = Imperialist Nation Politics Business Civil & History
What is th matter with Yikessss? Has he been paid by the Chinese or the North Koreans to seek out International Forums and promote Japanese hate? What are you trying to accomplish? We can look at any number of countries in that region for a 'not so kosher example'.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3212 100%
TOPIC: Japan = Imperialist Nation?