You are on page 1of 3

Last month a group of seven Chinese political activists stepped foot on a little chain of islands in the East China

Sea known to them as Diaoyu and to Japan as Senkaku. Earlier that month, South Korean president Lee Myung Bak landed on an island just off the Korean Peninsula in a chain of islands known to South Korea as Dokdos and to Japan as Takeshima. These two sets of island chains have been at the center of recent disputes between Japan and China (over Diaoyu or Senkaku) and Japan and South Korea (over Dokdos or Takeshima). China claims that it had gained possession of the Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands in about the 13th Century. Japan claims it had legal right in 1895 to annex these islands because China supposedly never administered authority over them. After the Second World War, the Treaty of San Francisco turned the Senkaku or Diaoyu island chain under American jurisdiction. In 1972, the United States ceded the territory to Japan, and since then Japan has exercised control of the islands and international law recognizes the islands as the Senkaku Island Chain as part of Japanese territory. China disputes this. Also, the island chain called Dokdos by South Korea has been occupied since South Korea feared they would fall into Japanese hands after the Treaty of San Francisco was ratified in 1951. Since then, Japan has asserted a rival claim to the islands. Recently diplomatic tensions and nationalist passions have risen as Chinese protestors removed the flag from a car transporting the Japanese ambassador to China. President Lee Myung Bak has urged Japan to apologize for its atrocities during WWII. And the mayor of Tokyo and the Japanese government have offered competing offers to buy some the Senkaku Islands from private owners. As the disputes become more heated and the tensions exacerbate, the onus is on the Japanese government to take the initial steps toward resolving the dispute in a peaceful, diplomatic measure. We should refer to these territories as the Senkaku Islands and the Dokdos Islands because that is what they are recognized as under international law, although we dispute the use of the term Senkaku Islands rather than Diaoyu Islands. This debate revolves around two primary ideas: Japan’s national interests: whether that nation is better off to either continually assert their claims to these islands or to cede them; and International Law: whether Japan or South Korea or China are entitled to the territory at issue. Chinese statesman Deng Xiaoping prophesized in the 1970s that, “Our generation is not wise enough to find common language on this question. Our next generation will certainly be wiser. They will certainly find a solution acceptable to all.” We in the affirmative hold that the only acceptable solution now is for Japan to cease its claims for control of these disputed territories to China and South Korea respectively. We contend that Japan is better off ceding its claims and that its claims are bogus and void under international law. First of all, China holds valid historical and legal claims to the Senkuku Islands. Japan contends that it legally acquired them during the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 because there were no signs of Chinese control of the islands, but China was in control of those islands and they were rightfully owned by China. Japan may have not seen any Chinese authorities on the islands because imperial China was close to collapse and was preoccupied with a war with Japan and a medley of empires creating spheres of influence on the Chinese mainland. These islands are also very small, very obscure, and very uninhabitable. China possessed the Senkuku Islands much like the United States possesses the least hospitable regions of Alaska. Furthermore, after Japan arbitrarily seized the islands until the end of World War Two, Japan wreaked havoc on Asia and the Pacific as an imperial monster attempting to annex all nations that stood in its way. Japan’s present occupation is a byproduct of those illegal seizures, including those of the Senkuku Islands. China was in control of the Senkakus when Japan

would in turn destabilize the security of every Asiatic nation.” Also. Japan’s cessation of its claims to the Senkuku and the Dokdos island chains would go a long way in healing some of the wounds it inflicted on Asian peoples as an imperial power.” China then agreed to Japan’s annexation of Taiwan. it is struggling to find a popular way to move ahead after its nuclear disaster last year. and therefore the Senkuku Islands.” If Japan concedes its claims to the Dokdos. According to Frank Ching on AsiaSentinel. And if successful. the main legal dispute over the Senkuku islands is whether or not the Senkuku Islands were included along with Taiwan in the 1895 Treaty of Shiminoseki.com. making the legality of Japan’s seizure of the Senkuku Islands unjustified. Over the last decade and a half South Korea has had an increase in GDP 20% larger than Japan in that . Japan’s claims are accepted only by international law because of a 1972 shift in jurisdiction of the islands from the U. longer-lasting government for Japan is essential for settlement of the scramble for natural resources and rising nationalism in China and South Korea. Japan needs to work with South Korea and China to find energy resources and to settle security disputes. Japan’s economy is shrinking. Japan only possessed them from coercive means. to Japan without China’s input. and its parliamentary government changes routinely. and its national security. and Tokyo continues to repeat unjustifiable behavior as it has always done in the past. He says “A coherent.” Joint security ventures between Japan and South Korea have been cancelled because of the island disputes. It appears to many South Koreans that Japan has not yet fully apologized and is not remorseful for the atrocities it committed during World War Two. Secondly. which is obviously not in Japan’s interests. The brilliant legal analysts at Wisegeek. arouse fears of nuclear war and quite possibly threaten our existence. and were thus legally claimed by South Korea in 1951. but because they were not. international law does not recognize Japan’s claims to them. China should have been offered a voice in the legal transfer of power.S. Additionally. In addition Asian news correspondent Nanae Kurashige has reported that “the diplomatic row over the Takeshima islets has led to a sudden halt in cooperation. Which brings us to our third point that by failing to resolve the issue in an acceptable way for South Korea and China. The present Japanese occupation of the Senkuku Islands is affirmed solely by an arbitrary state of affairs. As a party to the dispute. its political structure. Japan is inflaming nationalist sentiment among all parties that stands in the way of future ventures between the three countries and stifles progress for Japan. A South Korean piece of propaganda has declared “Dokdo was the first sacrifice to Japan's invasions. The 1951 Treaty of San Francisco voided Japan’s occupation of Taiwan. it is effectively apologizing for its sins against the Korean people 70 years ago. according to Ralph Emmers. Regarding the Dokdos.” Japan is dependent on South Korea and Japan for the betterment of its economy. security concerns outweigh the minimal economic potential from holding these islands. which included the Senkuku Islands. that 1972 treaty is void. This growing discord could quote “hinder cooperative efforts in national security related to the Korean Peninsula. which ended the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895.” This would encourage North Korea to persist in its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon. Instead Japanese politicians have been relying on exciting nationalism to find support only to fail. author of “Geopolitics and Maritime Legal Disputes.illegally seized them in 1895.com have written that “Countries are bound by international law only when they agree to be bound by them. And fourth.

Therefore. Japan can gain access to what it needs to prosper and gain reassurance to its national security. it will correct a legal injustice. by granting China its rightful sovereignty over the Senkuku Islands and by thwarting its own claims to South Korea’s Dokdos Islets. China’s share of global trade has multiplied 500% in twenty years. The risk of conflict is thus increased. South Korean trade is worth about $1 Trillion. and reduce the threat of conflict while recanting economically unproductive territory. while Japan’s trade value has fallen in half since the mid-1990s.timeframe. Dr. Alessio Pataleno has made the point that the Senkaku islands are located in a strategic area within the East China Sea in which China has emphasized a naval presence in. resolve important issues facing itself and the world in the 21st century. The disputed islands are miniature and have no substantial natural resources to be exploited. Japan has been unable to predict the Chinese navy’s maritime strategy and as China bulks up its presence in the East China Sea. If Japan were to cease its claims of jurisdiction over islands disputed between itself and South Korea and itself and China. . Japan’s territorial management of the islands is under threat. disavow cruelties it once unleashed on innocent people.