Britain unsure about Japan’s claim to Senkakus, U.K. files show

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Curious as to how this situation differs (if at all) from the likes of Gibraltar and the Falklands. It's easier to maintain your claim if several generations of your people have lived there.

LONDON Britain was unsure about Japans claim to the Senkaku Islands in the early 1970s, according to declassified documents seen by Kyodo News at the National Archives in London.

Officials were unable to establish whether Japan, China or Taiwan had a rightful claim over the small group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea that continue to drive their bitter territorial dispute.

The advice was against making any comment on the respective claims. This position is maintained today by the Foreign Office which, when asked by Kyodo News, said it does not take a position on the underlying sovereignty issues and called for the matter to be resolved peacefully and by international law.

Officials in the 1970s were looking into the issue after the discovery of oil and gas deposits near the islands raised competing sovereignty claims.

The Senkakus are situated close to Taiwan, China and the Ryukyus, a chain of islands that belong to Japan and include Okinawa.

In January 1895, Tokyo incorporated the islets into Japanese territory after, according to the Foreign Ministry, carefully ascertaining that there had been no trace of control over the Senkaku Islands by another state prior to that period.

However, China and Taiwan claim to have owned them long before the Japanese took administrative control. They refer to the Senkakus as Diaoyu and Tiaoyutai, respectively.

A paper on the subject written by the Foreign Offices research department in 1971 stated that a thorough study of documents and correspondence had failed to establish which country could rightly claim ownership of the Senkakus.

It stated, The islands were not, for example, referred to in the Sino-Japanese negotiations of 1879-1880 over the Ryukyu Islands, nor in the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki by which China ceded Taiwan to Japan.

Jim Hoare, a retired diplomat who drafted the paper, said the fact that Japan did not incorporate the islands until January 1895 suggests they were never part of the Ryukyu Islands and were part of the planned takeover of Taiwan later in 1895.

If this was the case, then the islands were unlawfully acquired and should have formally been given up in the 1952 Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty concluded by Japan and Taiwan, he said.

Another document from the 1970s shows the difficulty in assessing the competing claims.

Brian Hitch, a British diplomat in Tokyo in the 1970s, argued in the document that Taiwan could have a legitimate claim, given its proximity to the tiny disputed isles. But he also said Tokyo could have a claim in the sense that the Senkakus could have been part of the Ryukyus, which were incorporated into Japan in 1879.

After World War II, the Senkaku Islands came under the administration of the United States as part of Okinawa, and thus reverted back to Japan in 1972. Japan continues to control and administer the islets.

Relations between China and Japan sunk to a new low in September 2012 when the Japanese government purchased almost all of the uninhabited islands it didnt already own from a private Japanese owner to keep them out of the hands of Tokyo, which was trying to buy them under an initiative by nationalist then-Gov. Shintaro Ishihara.

After sending several government ships and planes to shadow the area, China in November set up an air defense identification zone over the Senkakus, drawing a protest from Tokyo and other nations.

[Jacque67 7,328]

A storm in a teacup!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

In before the lock and administrative action taken.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

In before the lock and administrative action taken.

Indeed. Seems he woke up in a mood to provoke.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I have no clue what the deal is, but if there is a S Pot to be stirred , I want in

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why would it be locked?

Is it suddenly against the TOS to discuss a current world event?

Edited May 2, 2014 by Papa Lazarou

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/494062-3-chinese-ships-intrude-into-japanese-waters-near-senkaku-islands/page-2#entry6980818

[GandD 5,966]

Why would it be locked?

Is it suddenly against the TOS to discuss a current world event?

I also do not understand.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I also do not understand.

I am baffled as well... Considering how much baiting posts are vomited on VJ on a daily basis, this one strikes me as odd, to be considered tabu...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I also do not understand.

Understanding is not required. Compliance is. You will be assimilated. You will...serve...US.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's weird to ban an entire topic of discussion because people can't behave. By that rationale, topics on abortion, capital punishment, guns and Obama should be similarly banned.

They aren't. Why?

Edited May 2, 2014 by Papa Lazarou

[Novembro 1,763]

It's weird to ban an entire topic of discussion because people can't behave. By that rationale, topics on abortion, capital punishment, guns and Obama should be similarly banned.

They aren't. Why?

Because the round-and-round debates with no end are way more fun to participate in than a debate that might actually come to a solid and logical conclusion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's the current events sub forum. Is that not the appropriate place to post about world events?

Where does one find the list of banned topics?

[GandD 5,966]

How do you really ever establish ownership of land that land that has traded hands so many times over the ages. Many countries have borders today that were created through conquest.

[JohnR! 5,495]

It's weird to ban an entire topic of discussion because people can't behave. By that rationale, topics on abortion, capital punishment, guns and Obama should be similarly banned.

They aren't. Why?

There seems to be no rationale. Some threads are locked for reasons that are obvious but there is a large number of discussions are locked depending on which moderator looks at it. There seems to be a significant amount of personal bias being dispenses by certain mods.