钓鱼岛/尖阁列岛背后难以忽视的真相(zt)

作者:smith_h2  于 2012-9-23 23:19 发表于 最热闹的华人社交网络--贝壳村

通用分类:热点杂谈|已有45评论

关键词:钓鱼岛

 

在芝加哥公差,收到老美同事的email,这是纽约时报里的博文,感到值得一读,与大家分享,祝福大家周末新周愉快!!

从此博文事实-- 钓鱼岛是日本在1895年趁着甲午战后,在未公开的情况下窃占的。

图,传不上来,Qyed帮忙下,终于传上来,还有Qyed帮忙翻译了一段编者观点 在此谢谢Qyed!!

原文请 click link:

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/

也就是说,当我审视问题的实质,看哪方的理由更充足时,我同情中国的立场。虽然不是百分之百明确,部分原因是中国似乎在1945年和1970年间默许了日本的主权,但总的来说,我觉得中国拥有主权的证据颇为引人注目,而最有效的证据正是从旧日本政府文件中表明的, 指明日本实际上于1895年从中国偷走了那岛屿作为战争的战利品。本文由汉宜萧,一个来自台湾的学者,探讨了这些文件。我邀请日本学者也来这里提出与此相反的法律证据——(编者)尼古拉斯•克里斯托夫


The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands

By HAN-YI SHAW

Diaoyu Island is recorded under Kavalan, Taiwan in Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province (1871).

I’ve had a longstanding interest in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the subject of a dangerous territorial dispute  between Japan and China. The United States claims to be neutral but in effect is siding with Japan, and we could be drawn in if a war ever arose. Let me clear that I deplore the violence in the recent anti-Japan protests in China:  the violence is reprehensible and makes China look like an irrational bully. China’s government should rein in this volatile nationalism rather than feed it. This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling. The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war. This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case. – Nicholas Kristof

Japan’s recent purchase of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands has predictably reignited tensions amongst China, Japan, and Taiwan. Three months ago, when Niwa Uichiro, the Japanese ambassador to China, warned that Japan’s purchase of the islands could spark an “extremely grave crisis” between China and Japan, Tokyo Governor Ishihara Shintaro slammed Niwa as an unqualified ambassador, who “needs to learn more about the history of his own country”.

Ambassador Niwa was forced to apologize for his remarks and was recently replaced. But what is most alarming amid these developments is that despite Japan’s democratic and pluralist society, rising nationalist sentiments are sidelining moderate views and preventing rational dialogue.

The Japanese government maintains that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory under international law and historical point of view and has repeatedly insisted that no dispute exists. Despite that the rest of the world sees a major dispute, the Japanese government continues to evade important historical facts behind its unlawful incorporation of the islands in 1895.

Specifically, the Japanese government asserts, “From 1885 on, our government conducted on-site surveys time and again, which confirmed that the islands were uninhabited and there were no signs of control by the Qing Empire.”

My research of over 40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885.

Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”

In November 1885, the Okinawa governor confirmed “since this matter is not unrelated to China, if problems do arise I would be in grave repentance for my responsibility”.

“Surveys of the islands are incomplete” wrote the new Okinawa governor in January of 1892. He requested that a naval ship Kaimon be sent to survey the islands, but ultimately a combination of miscommunication and bad weather made it impossible for the survey to take place.

Japan Diplomatic Records Office.Letter dated May 12, 1894 affirming that the Meiji government did not repeatedly investigate the disputed islands.

“Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted,” the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894.

After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.” The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.

Negotiations with China never took place and this decision was passed during the Sino-Japanese War. It was never made public.

In his biography Koga Tatsushiro, the first Japanese citizen to lease the islands from the Meiji government, attributed Japan’s possession of the islands to “the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces.”

Collectively, these official documents leave no doubt that the Meiji government did not base its occupation of the islands following “on-site surveys time and again,” but instead annexed them as booty of war. This is the inconvenient truth that the Japanese government has conveniently evaded.

Japan asserts that neither Beijing nor Taipei objected to U.S. administration after WWII. That’s true, but what Japan does not mention is that neither Beijing nor Taipei were invited as signatories of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, from which the U.S. derived administrative rights.

When Japan annexed the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in 1895, it detached them from Taiwan and placed them under Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, the Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. Half a century later when Japan returned Taiwan to China, both sides adopted the 1945 administrative arrangement of Taiwan, with the Chinese unaware that the uninhabited “Senkaku Islands” were in fact the former Diaoyu Islands. This explains the belated protest from Taipei and Beijing over U.S. administration of the islands after the war.

 

Report dated August 12, 1892 from navy commander affirming the islands were not fully investigated. Source:  Library of The National Institute for Defense Studies.

The Japanese government frequently cites two documents as evidence that China did not consider the islands to be Chinese. The first is an official letter from a Chinese consul in Nagasaki dated May 20, 1920 that listed the islands as Japanese territory.

Neither Beijing nor Taipei dispute that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands — along with the entire island of Taiwan — were formally under Japanese occupation at the time. However, per post-WW II arrangements, Japan was required to surrender territories obtained from aggression and revert them to their pre-1895 legal status.

The second piece evidence is a Chinese map from 1958 that excludes the Senkaku Islands from Chinese territory. But the Japanese government’s partial unveiling leaves out important information from the map’s colophon: “certain national boundaries are based on maps compiled prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War(1937-1945).”

Qing period (1644-1911) records substantiate Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands prior to 1895. Envoy documents indicate that the islands reside inside the “border that separates Chinese and foreign lands.” And according to Taiwan gazetteers, “Diaoyu Island accommodates ten or more large ships” under the jurisdiction of Kavalan, Taiwan.

The right to know is the bedrock of every democracy. The Japanese public deserves to know the other side of the story. It is the politicians who flame public sentiments under the name of national interests who pose the greatest risk, not the islands themselves.

Han-Yi Shaw is a Research Fellow at the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University, in Taipei, Taiwan.


高兴

感动

同情

搞笑

难过

拍砖

支持
14

鲜花

刚表态过的朋友 (14 人)

发表评论 评论 (45 个评论)

2 回复 小皮狗 2012-9-24 00:51
文章的最后指出的:“中日双方对民众的煽情是危险的,不是岛屿的本身。”这是很好的结论。
2 回复 smith_h2 2012-9-24 00:57
小皮狗: 文章的最后指出的:“中日双方对民众的煽情是危险的,不是岛屿的本身。”这是很好的结论。
谢谢!!政府应在前面,以智慧,法理和勇气处理好  
2 回复 小皮狗 2012-9-24 01:08
smith_h2: 谢谢!!政府应在前面,以智慧,法理和勇气处理好   
政府如果存心解决国土争端倒好了,可惜啊。。。
2 回复 同往锡安 2012-9-24 02:47
有空再慢慢读~
2 回复 五十仙 2012-9-24 03:31
上国际法庭解决争议,是最好的办法。当然,钓鱼岛最后如果属于亚洲狮的栖息地,由日本或联合国管辖,是我最乐见的结果。
2 回复 qyed 2012-9-24 04:20
看到还是有日本人混入这里捣乱的!是二战日本侵华时留下的遗子遗孙?
     
2 回复 qyed 2012-9-24 04:25
谢谢楼主的信息!下面是一段编者节录及译文,有错请指正:
. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling. The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war. This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case. – Nicholas Kristof
也就是说,当我审视问题的实质,看哪方的理由更充足时,我同情中国的立场。虽然不是百分之百明确,部分是因为中国似乎在1945年和1970年间默许了日本的主权,但总的来说,我觉得中国拥有主权的证据颇为引人注目,而最有效的证据正是从旧日本政府文件中表明的, 指明日本实际上于1895年从中国偷走了那岛屿作为战争的战利品。本文由汉宜萧,一个来自台湾的学者,探讨了这些文件。我邀请日本学者也来这里提出与此相反的法律证据——(博主)尼古拉斯•克里斯托夫
就是你说的:钓鱼岛是日本在1895年趁着甲午战后,在未公开的情况下窃占的。
这里是你所说文中的图:




2 回复 smith_h2 2012-9-24 04:47
小皮狗: 政府如果存心解决国土争端倒好了,可惜啊。。。
从以上事实:钓鱼岛是日本在1895年趁着甲午战后,在未公开的情况下窃占钓鱼岛;但由日本实际控制了几十年,在国际法中,如果搁置(钓鱼岛)主权争议,对日本有利。
Happy New week!  
2 回复 smith_h2 2012-9-24 04:49
同往锡安: 有空再慢慢读~
谢谢!!从以上事实:钓鱼岛是日本在1895年趁着甲午战后,在未公开的情况下窃占钓鱼岛;但由日本实际控制了几十年,在国际法中,如果搁置(钓鱼岛)主权争议,对日本有利。
3 回复 小皮狗 2012-9-24 04:49
smith_h2: 从以上事实:钓鱼岛是日本在1895年趁着甲午战后,在未公开的情况下窃占钓鱼岛;但由日本实际控制了几十年,在国际法中,如果搁置(钓鱼岛)主权争议,对日本有利。 ...
YOU TOO.THANKS!
3 回复 smith_h2 2012-9-24 04:52
五十仙: 上国际法庭解决争议,是最好的办法。当然,钓鱼岛最后如果属于亚洲狮的栖息地,由日本或联合国管辖,是我最乐见的结果。 ...
谢谢光临!
从以上事实:钓鱼岛是日本在1895年趁着甲午战后,在未公开的情况下窃占钓鱼岛;虽然日本实际控制了几十年,希望看到中国人的智慧,争回钓鱼岛.
3 回复 smith_h2 2012-9-24 04:55
qyed: 还是有日本鬼子混入这里捣乱啊~
难不成是二战日本侵华时留下的遗子遗孙?
     
谢谢qyed光临,问好!
2 回复 smith_h2 2012-9-24 04:58
qyed: 谢谢楼主!这里是你所说文中的图:


[img]http://g ...
谢谢您的帮忙!!!!
怎样放入博文?再谢  
2 回复 qyed 2012-9-24 05:20
smith_h2: 谢谢您的帮忙!!!!
怎样放入博文?再谢   
1)右键点击图片,选择view image info打开;
2)拷贝Location后面的内容;
3)把拷贝的内容放在你帖中[img][/img]的中间。
还有一个办法是save图片后再在文中采用图片上传的办法。
2 回复 smith_h2 2012-9-24 05:26
qyed: 1)右键点击图片,选择view image info打开;
2)拷贝Location后面的内容;
3)把拷贝的内容放在你帖中[img][/img]的中间。
还有一个办法是save图片后再在文中采 ...
    谢谢!!!
2 回复 qyed 2012-9-24 05:54
邵漢儀的原文在这里:
http://www.cils.nccu.edu.tw/2012/05/07/japans-dubious-claim-to-the-diaoyus/
2 回复 awang9988 2012-9-24 06:23
钓鱼岛是中国的, 是勿庸置疑的,愿因很简单,离台湾和福建那么近, 离日本那末远, 用脚想都能想明白。  但是,国际社会是不讲理的,是实力的平衡。  如果中国很坚定,我想日本会最终让步。 我不认为美国会为一个小岛同中国开战。 真开战, 中俄战美日,是世界的末日。  国际上的有些事, 没地方讲理: 你越退,他越上脸。 你要拼命了,他会后退。

日本本质上是一个融入西方的发达国家, 对中国人至今瞧不起。 所以要让他们心甘情愿的失去钓鱼岛是不可能的。 积极备战, 军事高压, 才能有作用。  光靠上街游行是无能的表现。  真正有本事,学俄国和英国。最后这两个国家失去了什么? 没有。
2 回复 qyed 2012-9-24 06:31
这篇有更多邵漢儀作的研究,更有说服力
http://blog.udn.com/U98960413/6420263

邵漢儀在华尔街日报发表的文中指出,他遍阅1885~1895年间明治时代的日本政府公文书,有四十份以上都显明明治政府承认中国拥有钓鱼台的主权。
2 回复 smith_h2 2012-9-24 06:37
再谢!!
2 回复 smith_h2 2012-9-24 06:40
awang9988: 钓鱼岛是中国的, 是勿庸置疑的,愿因很简单,离台湾和福建那么近, 离日本那末远, 用脚想都能想明白。  但是,国际社会是不讲理的,是实力的平衡。  如果中国 ...
谢谢阿旺兄,同感!!
中国争回钓鱼岛:需要勇气,需要智慧,非生日本人气,砸中国人的财物。
123下一页

facelist doodle 涂鸦板

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 注册

关于本站 | 隐私政策 | 免责条款 | 版权声明 | 联络我们 | 刊登广告 | 转手机版 | APP下载

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外华人中文门户:倍可亲 (http://www.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系统基于 Discuz! X3.1 商业版 优化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. 更新:GMT+8, 2021-7-29 05:41

倍可亲服务器位于美国圣何塞、西雅图和达拉斯顶级数据中心,为更好服务全球网友特统一使用京港台时间

返回顶部