The Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands

Narrative of an empty space

Behind the row over a bunch of Pacific rocks lies the sad, magical history of Okinawa

See article

Readers' comments



An extract from "The Imperial Cruise" James Bradley

"On March 12, 1873, LeGendre (the famed risk taking US-Civil War General) boarded a Japanese warship in Yokohama harbor. Legendre intended to take a Japanese diplomatic delegation to China, where the General would once again harangue his old adversaries about how somebody had better civilize Taiwan like the United States had civilized its Indians. As (US Admiral) Perry had arrived following the sun, now an American general would lead the Japanese westward.

The Chinese had long viewed Japan as a young upstart - it was only two thousand years old, compared to China's five-thousand-year history - seeing the Japanese as "Eastern Dwarfs" who had imperfectly modeled superior Chinese ways. But times were changing. For centuries the Japanese had come peacefully to Beijing wearing Confucian garb. Now the Japanese came dressed in trousers and top hats, with a former US Army general in tow. The Chinese took one look at the Western-dressed Japanese diplomats and sniffed that they had sold out to the White Christians. A Chinese viceroy saw the one-eyed Foreign Devil (LeGendre) and snorted to the Japanese foreign minister, 'We have made treaties before this one, and we did not find the need for foreigners to advise us; what reason is there for it now?'

The Chinese objected to the Japanese's Western-oriented legalisms, saying that international law was a recent Western creation and that the affair should be settled on the basis of truth. But over the course of the months long negotiations LeGendre claimed that for a nation to claim Taiwan, that government must civilise the savages. He legalistically insisted that the Okinawans (Okinawa had just been annexed hence now...) - "Japanese natives" had been harmed (by Taiwanese after being ship wrecked) and that Japan had the right to punish the aboriginal Taiwanese. The Chinese responded that they had heard of Okinawans being injured, but no Japanese. In one negotiating session, the Chinese admitted that their political rule (over Taiwan) extended only to the "mature natives". The Japanese would use this statement to justify their later attack on Taiwan.

Satisfied that they had outmaneuvered their Chinese hosts with Western diplomacy, the Japanese and one pleased American general sailed back to an ecstatic welcome in Tokyo. Twenty-one-year-old Emperor Meiji honored LeGendre with an imperial audience on March 9. The Japanese government created a "Bureau of Savage Affairs" and incorporated new Western words like koronii (colony) into the Japanese language. Japanese newspapers "otherized" the Taiwanese aborigines, calling them cruel and inhuman, and spoke of Japan's responsibility to civilize the savages.

In early May of 1873, Japan invaded Taiwan with U.S. military advisers supporting the operation. Within two months, the Taiwanese submitted to Japanese military force."

Formerly independent Okinawa had only just then been annexed by Japan. As mentioned by The Economist, historically they had an independent king who had paid tribute to both Japan and China. There are no aboriginals on the islands in question and the 1943 agreement's presumption that the western powers could confer status on the "islands" is reflective of the "might is right" western diplomacy now being confronted by Eastern "right is right" diplomacy (otherwise referred to by the Chinese as "historical truth" in their territorial diplomacy).

Michael Dunne in reply to Archivistangel

Okinawa was for all practical purposes pretty firmly under the control of the Satsuma after 1609.

If any Chinese troops of any sorts (left over Ming, Qing troops) were invited to the islands by Okinawans after 1609, there would have been hell to pay for.

The Satsuma benefitted from the state of ambiguity regarding Okinawa's status after the Tokugawa's closed Japan. It was another outlet/window to the world, just like Deshima Island in Nagasaki and other islands.

Fooli Cat in reply to Michael Dunne

Don't forget Japan was still trading with the world during the time you mention and the Ryukyus were one of the very few points of entry for goods coming in from other nations.

The article leaves out some of the finer details surrounding what happened between Meiji Japan and Qing China concerning the Ryukyus but it seems to get the main points. If the Qing had accepted the responsibility of its people in murdering the fishermen and not tried to create an air of ambiguity then China would have most likely kept all the islands in question including the Ryukyus, Senkakus as well as Taiwan. The ambiguity created enough of an oportunity for the Japanese to exploit and that's exactly what they did.

If Japan can hold on to the Senkakus then they belong to her. If not, then they will go to China. China (and the Chinese) are becoming increasingly belligerent and it may well lead to something regretable.

Archivistangel in reply to Michael Dunne

This is true only from the Japanese perspective. It is easy to fall into the habit of conferring a western colonial possession mindset for the Japanese before its time. Tribute was paid by the Okinawans to both Japan and China for a reason, which is material evidence enough of countervailing Chinese influence from 1609 onwards even if the Chinese ability to project power varied and had waned by the time of Japan's act of seizure of the island.

Michael Dunne in reply to Archivistangel

I beg to differ. I don't believe it is a matter of perspective.

The Satsuma exercised more control than just receiving tribute. They were able to make decisions about policy for the kingdom, and dictate who could travel and interact with foreigners and other Japanese.

I also believed they performed a survey of the kingdom for their own edification (possibly for future taxation plans), and had an advisor, or advisors, at court after 1630, albeit in the background, maintaining a low profile.

The Satsuma also annexed a few islands on the northern part of the Ryukyu chain of islands to their han.

There wasn't much in the way of countervailing Chinese influence, other than possibly the threat of suspension of trade between China and the Ryukyus.

Michael Dunne in reply to Fooli Cat

True that Japan didn't shut out the world in 1609. That was a couple of decades later.

From my understanding, even in the day of red seal ships and a more open Tokugawa Japan, the Satsuma still benefitted from having the Ryukyus, both for acquiring tribute as well as having another avenue for trade with China.

I don't think China asserting itself in the case of Taiwan would have led to a questioning of Japans control of the Ryukyus, except possibly some islands nearestto Taiwan (maybe even the Iriomote mentioned by the writer here, or nearby Ishigaki Islands).

If the Qing woke up at that time, they probably could have asserted control over the currently contested Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.


The problem:
1. Islands under Japanese control
2. Japan under the American control
3. America under Jewish control

Question: How to deal with China?

Garaboncias in reply to Jack_Tomphson

Comrade, New Year's is still more than a day away. Pace yourself with the vodka. Pretty soon the Amur won't be a border river; it will be inside China proper. Of course, that, too, will be a Jewish conspiracy... Oh, comrade, you are too funny.


Of note, there is a big difference between Japanese and Ryukyu (Okinawa? WTF) people towards China, Ryukyu people are much more pro-China. Soon or later, they are going to wake up, thereby to spare the ugly Japanese language, which has only five vowel, sounds really terrible.

Michael Dunne in reply to xuqian1

There were variances in opinions about China between Japan and Okinawa. And Okinawans tend to be a pretty pacificist bunch, at least the ones I have met.

However, I haven't seen any surveys on attitudes since the last bust up over the Senkakus/Diaoyus. Things may have changed on that note.

I bet Okinawan attitudes lag those of mainland Japanese in terms of negativity towards China (say those recorded by the Pew Research Center).

I haven't found the Japanese language to be ugly. Not sure what that point has to do with the article either. Could come off offensive to folks, including Okinawans, who speak a Japanese dialect.


What does "Japanese-controlled" mean?
Basically, Chinese ships can just cruise into the waters at their will, as do the Chinese planes. And there is no human residence on the islands at the moment (things might change, but sorry they do not look like in Japanese favor).
If you say the Southern Kurile Islands are Russian-controlled, despite Japanese contest, I totally agreed, because the facts are just out there--imagine what is going to happen if a Japanese get close to the islands.
So the islands are Japanese-controlled? I am just curious, what is your IQ?

Michael Dunne in reply to xuqian1

So the Japanese should emulate the Russians and shoot at people?
Not sure that is the most productive approach to asserting control of an area, airspace, waters, etc. It has yielded tragic casualties in the past, to the north of Japan, like with the shooting down of that Korean airliner in the 1980s, and some kid getting machine gunned on a fishing boat five to ten years back.
Why the inquiry about IQ? Seems like a silly thing to ejaculate when contesting definitions, at least in the English language.

xuqian1 in reply to Michael Dunne

The point is that it is NOT Japanese-controlled, clear?

Don't try to steer the point by bringing it "shooting/violence", let's say "Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo" is S Korean-controlled, clear?

IQ indicates a person's ability to say right thing, and I just showed a simple example which you failed.

Michael Dunne in reply to xuqian1

May I remind you, you brought up references to Russia and the Kuriles. As well as alluding to possible scenarios should the Japanese get close to the islands.

Its fine for you to argue that the Japanese don't control the islands in question. However, other people can, and do, have differing opinions.

And IQ usually has nothing to do with differences of opinions and stances, other than sounding like a distracting, rude statement.

"say the right thing" - what is that supposed to mean? Follow some specific party line, or abide by a certain etiquette?

Fooli Cat in reply to xuqian1

Instead of empty claims perhaps you can demonstrate for all of us your IQ and outline how the Senkaku Islands don't fall under Japanese administration? And if they don't perhaps you can also tell us who should be "controlling" the islands and why?

adistantview in reply to xuqian1

Your IQ is purely a measure of your ability to do IQ tests, nothing more.
It does not test the ability to debate (say the right thing - politically or factualy)

I was going to ask which department pays you, but clearly, with not using a neutral name, and spouting such rubbish, you must be doing it off your own back.

Jim2012 in reply to Michael Dunne

Michael Dunne, are you a disgusied Japanese posting as an American? When did the Japanese have full control of the Diaoyus? The Chinese came from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China landed on the Diaoyus since the 70s after the Japanese openly admitted that they annexed them in 1895. The Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation specified that the islands be returned to China. Don't tell me you don't know how to read the plain text of these international legal documents.


The economist Kamakami Hajime made these remarks about Okinawa, during his visit in 1911: (japanfocus: Philosophy as Acdtivism)

"Upon careful observation of Okinawa, in matters of language, customs, manners, faith, and thought, in all other respects, I have come to see that Okinawa apparently differs from the mainland in its history. Accordingly, there are some who say that Okinawans are lacking in their sense of loyalty and patriotism. This, however, is not something to be deplored. It is precisely because of this, on the contrary, that I not only entertain considerable hope for Okinawans but find myself most interested in them. That, in the present-day, in a country such as Japan where patriotic sentiment is more pronounced than elsewhere in the world, there should exist a region where this element is even slightly attenuated numbers among the things that interest me most."

D. Sherman

"“When great powers squabble, Okinawans are the ones who suffer.”

The saying in Vietnam was "When elephants fight, the mouse gets trampled."

Thank you for this excellent overview of some important history we're not taught in school. The details are fascinating, and the larger lesson is that all modern conflicts have deep historical roots.


This article seems needlessly anti-Japanese.


This article on the Ryukyan Island reminds one of the fate of many of the small European principalities that traded sides in the Great Power disputes of the times: Duchy of Lorraine, Luxembourg , "Spanish" Netherlands, Savoy, etc., etc. Some retained their independence, and some did not.

The Cold War and US policy of China containment sealed it for Okinawa, and these disputed sea rocks are the remainder. Its really an issue for Japan, China, and maybe even Taiwan to settle wirhout overt US involvement. Anyone who believes that Japan is a US puppet today is not living in the present. The Japanese are clearly re-arming and actively solicit the US military umbrella, but appear (understandably) to want it on their own terms. So the US is caught up in this issue, much to its chagrin, because of its own past actions. If there were ever an issue ripe for a UN-style settlement, then this is it. Unfortunately it won't happen given the nationalism involved and a possible (clumsy?) new US policy of China containment. Bad times to be an Okinawan.

kommonsenses in reply to Riley1066

yes, the ryukyus people would surely welcome continued stationing of troops there even after their independence from japns occupation, to guard against japan for a change.
providing that these soldier boys would just keep their zippers up.

MarkyMark11J in reply to HsiungNuisance

I find that most Okinawans don't seem to be particularly against the military presence on their island. If anything it adds a little diversity to their culture. But there are plenty of "international" incidents involving servicemembers and resident Okinawans. Though, I find that some of them were blown way out of proportion by their rather extremely biased media. I imagine that there is a population of Okinawan residents that would want to see the U.S military gone; but from my observations that population seems small.

The U.S military bases also employ lots and lots of local Okinawans to do everything from construction; shipping; administrative work etc. etc. And just having Americans around in general tends to drive demand for other goods and services that most Okinawans wouldn't be interested in. In fact I can remember recently when a new stricter curfew was put into effect that the Okinawan governor was against it; knowing full well how much U.S servicemembers drive the nightlife business there.

Mind you, I'm actually speaking about this based on experience. Used to be a Marine stationed there for 3 1/2 years; and am currently engaged to an Okinawan myself.


Tibet was annexed in China by Mongolian-ruled Yuan Kingdom about 800 years ago. The central government of China did not force Tibetans to abandon their culture, religion and tradition. Now, "Tibet" becomes a fancy issue often raised by many Western politician to show their "love" of "human right".

In contrast, Okinawans were forced to be assimilated with the Japanese. The culture, tradition and language of Okinawa disappeared. No Western country ever condemned what Japan had done.

Some Western politicians are disgustingly hypocritical! Their mouths are just full of sh*t!

Riley1066 in reply to ChinaEagle

China didn't force Tibet to abandon their culture, religion and tradition, they just colonized them to death with Han Chinese immigration. Tibetans are well on their way to being a minority in their own country.

AsiaWatcher in reply to Riley1066

The Tibetans don´t need to live under a theocratic slave state without any human, civil or social rights anymore. I think this is a real improvement.

It even sounds better than to be colonized, discriminated, occupied and murdered by Englishmen in North Ireland, the US, Australia and other former colonies.

Felipe Coelho in reply to ChinaEagle

The Seikaku issue has nothing to do with Tibet or any other region bordering China!
Mongolia once conquered China, Tibet, Russia, Central Asia and Korea and established protectorates in Europe and Asia. Afterwards, when the Mongolian power waned, not only China became independent, but each of these regions went their own way.
Again, when the Manchus conquered China they also conquered Tibet and Mongolia, and had many tributary states in Asia (Korea, Siam, Burma, the Indochinese and the Central Asia Kingdoms...) When the Manchu empire ended, the regions already not annexed by Russia, Britain, France and Japan - China, Tibet, Siam - became independent.
On short, Seikaku may perhaps be Chinese, but Mongolia, Russia, Tibet, the Central Asia and the Indochina states, Korea, Burma, Thailand, Assam, Nepal, Bhutan and Afghanistan are not part of China! The reasoning for the Chinese sovereignity in these regions is the same for the Greek claims to Macedonia, because Macedonia once conquered Greece. It is an odd reasoning.

Michael Dunne in reply to ChinaEagle

Not sure one could say culture and tradition have disappeared. In all likelihood, it is getting a revival for tourism purposes.

Similarly, key traditional handicrafts, say specials makes of traditional kimonos (or the cloth for kimonos), are still being sustained. A friend of my wife does work in that area.

The younger are taught a standard Japanese in schools, which has been the case since the early 1970s. The regular Okinawan dialect is alive and well though, or had been at least a couple of years ago when I last scuba dived down in that island chain.

[Felipe Coelho in reply to ChinaEagle Dec 30th, 18:00




China is entitled to Mongolia, Tibet, Xinjiang, etc through the Principle of Reciprocity. The white occupy the Americas, Australia, etc through pure Land-grab by the continents:

Devils Advocate_1 in reply to Tanya Sedova 58 mins ago

[Tanya Sedova Dec 21st, 15:43
China’s rulers have recently published a map of China in their passports, showing their (illegal) claims of land and sea areas. Senkaku/Diaoyu islands are not shown in this map. It’s thus evident that while their other claims are illegal (for example their illegal claim of the Cow-Tongue sea area of Vietnam and the Philippines, or their illegal claim to sovereign countries of Inner Mogolia, Tibet and East Turkistan), they have also abandoned their claim to the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and the adjacent sea areas. Congratulations to the Japanese.]


{24 June 1995
The Editor
South China Morning Post
GPO Box 47
Hong Kong


I applaud your editorial of 22 June, in which you exposed the insidious manner in which the Japanese parliament and government had glossed over the crimes and genocides the Japanese Imperial Army had committed against the peoples of East Asia.

Your effort is to be commended and I hope you will extend it and apply it in an impartial and unbiased manner.

The crimes of Japan during World War II is but one of the crimes against humanity in recent history and it is not even the most serious.

Far more sinister are those committed by the whites against the non-whites, with the racial genocides carried out in America and Australia being the most systematic and thorough.

These are the most hideous crimes against humanity- surpassing, in scale and thoroughness, even Hitler's organized pogrom of the Jews and the Slavs. But while the whites react with anger and indignation to the massacres of their own kind, they continue to glorify and celebrate their genocidal achievements when their victims are non-Europeans.

We all should now wake up to the fact that the regimes thus established are illegal, immoral and illegitimate. For the sake of justice and legality, these criminal regimes must be abolished. Only then can a just "New World Order" prevail.

The South China Morning Post, having so bravely exposed the lies and deceit of the Japanese, should now take up this new task with added courage and vigour, and thus set a moral journalistic standard for the rest of the "Free Press" to follow.


**Censored by "The Free Press", Refused publication**}



it's a hard truth, even next to impossible to be exorable that who should be the master of the islets ever and never will be eradicated, will it?
No else exterior power, US, a key case in point, will change this invariable reality!

Jean Michel

The Dyaoyu islands are an excuse for US military involvement in the region. It is part of the US strategy of containment of China. Japan is being used by its occupier, the US, as a pawn in this strategy. And The Economist is part of the propaganda machine used by the US. This article is the second publication made by The Economist in 2 days. The other is a pitiful statement made by an editor of The Economist that omits almost everything.
The Diaoyu islands belong to China for thousands of years. They are used by China as a fishing ground. Japan, at the instigation of the US following the visit of the US Defense Secretary, Leon Panatta, last year, stated that they would "nationalise" it by purchasing it from an imaginary private owner. This, of couse, is pure fiction, a scenario concocted by the fuddled mind of the US diplomacy.
The fact is that the US wants to play the "sheriff" of the region. First, it announces that it would "pivot" to Asia. What it means is that it want to move its military machine from the Middle-East to Asia in order to create havoc in the region as it has created havoc in the Middle East. It means that the US wants to invade some countries of the Asia-Pacific region as it has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, without any provocation whatsover. In this way, it would kill and torture millions of Asians as it has killed and tortured millions of Afghans and Iraqis. It wants to bomb countries of the Asia Pacific region as it has bombed Libya for no reason at all and thereby killed more than 40,000 civilian Libyans. And then it would claim that these bombs are smart and as innocuous as flowers and they had killed no Libyans. If these bombs are so innocuous as they claim, why do they not drop a couple of them on London, Paris and New York to test whether they are in fact as innocuous as they claim.
Since its so-called "pivot" policy, the US has set up a new military base in Darwin, Australia, has organised more than a dozen military exercise in the Asia Pacific Region, has sent its Defence Secretary and State Secretary to visit all the countries of the region, has promise military aid to many countries, etc. As a cover, it tries to promote the Trans-Pacific trade initiative that excludes China and that is going nowhere. And now it has decided to launch a propaganda campaign and is using The Economist and probably other newspapers and magazines for that purpose. It would not be strange if similar articles are published by the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Guardian, the Telegraph, Reuters, etc.

Michael Dunne in reply to Jean Michel

"The Diaoyu islands belong to China for thousands of years"

I don't think the Chinese claim the islands as extending back 1000s of years.

Last I heard, it dates back to the Ming Dynasty. Even that one is kind of odd, since they didn't claim Taiwan at the time (it was under the Qing the island was formally incorporated into China).

So, you claimed some uninhabited islands during the Ming era, but not the nearby island that is today Taiwan?

Interesting you keep reiterating all the usual off-topic (TPP? Seriously?) screeds that pepper your posts, with misinformation about Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan (nevernmind the fact there is not a shred of evidence to back up the numbers you ejaculated of).

By the way, the US has had an alliance for decades with Australia, it has conducted military exercises with allies in the area for decades, and it has provided military aid to countrys, for decades. Nothing new there with those off topic points.

I ask this with the tongue a bit in cheek, but: Do you have 21 other accounts with the Economist? Is there some 50 cent army, with a crew of 22 or so out to promote this pablum and pollute the forum? Or are there really 21 plus other seemingly nutty, angry sounding people?

Jim2012 in reply to Jean Michel

If the US cannot win in the Middle East, how can the US win in the Asia? The US had been defeated in the Vietnam War. Do we want one more humiliation by the Chinese? What can we gain by sending thousands of $ to this region? If the US is defeated again in Asia, even Vietnam will not pay any repect to the US. Instead of using the money in this kind fiddle stick war games, why doesn't Obama using the money to create thousands of jobs?

Jim2012 in reply to Michael Dunne

You either have problems in English writing or your writing is so great that nobody can understand what you are talking. If you don't want the fact that the Diaoyus belong to China for thousands of years, let's concentrate on whether Japan really ""discovered the islands as they say they did. The Japanese Meijing government annexed these islands in 1/1895, three months before the end of the Japanese invasion of China, and the conclusion of a treaty called the Shimonoseki Treaty. The Japanese said they "discovered" these islands in 1884 and after around 10 years they finally annexed them. When they annexed them, they did not announce to China or any other countries. Before they annexed them the Meijing found out that these islands belonged to the Qing Dynasty. You can look it up in the Japanese government archive. The Japanese did not want to admit that the islands were ceded to them when the Qing Dynasty was defeated. Anyway, these islands were returned to China in the Portsdam Proclamation, which implemented the Cairo Declaration. This is international law. What else do you understand about international related to the Diaoyu Islands? Tell us waht you know. I hate wasting my time talking to people with empty vessel. Make a statement and substantiate it by facts or information related to it.

The Ming loyalists (Koxinga) threw out the Dutch in the 17th century, after the Qing had entered China.

Qing kicked off their intervention into Chinese politics around 1644.

Koxinga tossed the Dutch out of Taiwan in 1661.

And then in 1683, the Qing defeated the Ming Loyalists that controlled Taiwan.

Taiwan was then formally incorporated into China under the Qing.

That is a widely documented point in the public domain.

Michael Dunne in reply to Jim2012

The islands were not explictly mentioned in the Potsdam or Cairo Declarations.

As per point 8 of the Potsdam declaration, there was a vague reference to limiting Japan to "such minor islands as we determine."

Unlike the case of Taiwan, the islands were not returned to China. They were placed under US administration.

Rightly or wrongly, those are the facts.

You may want to look into why the Chinese didn't protest or contest US administration of the islands at the time (in 1945/1946 and so on) - they had representation in certain Allied occupation commissions and councils.

If they did pipe up, or pushed for control, then please provide some links to information indicating such events took place.

Otherwise, already aware of the train of events in the late 19th century. I actually think the Chinese have a good case.


by hijacking american strategic position of china containment to japan's own advnatage, japan is trying to reverse the result of the hard won victory of ww2 by china, the us and allies paid by the blood of millions of chinese, tens of thousands of americans and others.
japan has absolutely no claim as its terrority outside its four main islands, certainly not by seeking loopholes of japanese surrender document and cario decree as japan is doing.
japan has no say on these islands including diaoyu islands either, because they must be settled between china and the us. (japan's foreign policy decisions are de facto decided in washington, not tokyo anyway.)
to begin with there has been no international agreement among all major ww2 victors of vested interest to hand over ryukyus islands to japan. it was an illegal and private deal between the us and japan.
the us wrongfully gave ryukyus to japan in the 70's because japan was and still is a vassal state of the us with umpteem military bases and troops stationed in japan. the handover merely fitted the us strategy of china containment even then.
ryukyus island should be returned to ryukyus people as an independent nation, as it was prior to japan's invasion of them.
while japan is still a slave state to the us (foreign policy and major econoic policy wise) and the us has the right is to keep it that way as part of us international posturing, the us has a moral responsibility also to let ryukyus to return to its independent state.
although it appears that recent spit on Daioyu island fits the us interest, it is not. better relations between the us and china far outweighs the parochial interest of pitting japan against china, over the island.

kommonsenses in reply to MySetDancer

yes, I try not to be wishy washy about my view but to tell it like it is. it may be 'inflamatory', but it's not 'ridiculous' at all.

the whole thing about japanese claim and illegal occupation of ryukyus island is ridiculous.

by the way, the us while having given the management right of ryukyus island to japan, the us has never conceded territorial right to japan. check it out.

Michael Dunne in reply to kommonsenses

"the whole thing about japanese claim and illegal occupation of ryukyus island is ridiculous"

It isn't a claim, the Ryukyus are recognized as sovereign territory of Japan by the world community, including the People's Republic of China.

Can you name one country that doesn't formally recognize the Ryukyus as a part of Japan?

kommonsenses in reply to Michael Dunne

'Can you name one country that doesn't formally recognize the Ryukyus as a part of Japan?'

you are misusing your logic, and for the wrong reason.

by the same token, can you name one country that does not formally recognise Tibet as part of china? UK? India? or USA? they all do of course.

yet did you ever protest even once in like manner here when there have been tons of articles about tibet on TE attacking china and its tibetans (and hardly any concern about ryukyus people)?

if this is not hypocracy and white washing for them japns on your part, what is it?


'... the kingdom of the Ryukyu managed to serve China and Japan simultaneously. It was known as the "era of the great trade".

Shuijo castle bears architectural testimony to that diplomatic balancing act. On the northern side of the main palace stands the banqueting hall where the Chinese delegation was housed. It is painted in Chinese dragon motifs. On the south side is the unpainted house for the Japanese samurai, complete with tatami mats, sliding doors and tea rooms.

Two competing cultures in one palace. Ryukyu so successfully courted Chinese trade that it was given the same status by the Ming emperors as Tibet. All arms on the island were forbidden.'

Michael Dunne in reply to Hibro

The Satsuma effectively ran Okinawa and the Ryukyus since 1609 though.
They could come and go with their arms as much as they wanted (but they preferred a low profile, probably to avoid antagonizing China).
They were able to tell the kingdom what to do.
I believe they had permanent "advisors" or an advisor to keep an eye on things from 1630 onwards.

Michael Dunne in reply to MySetDancer

Actually the Satsuma liked playing up the foreignness of Okinawa to other Japanese daimyos/hans. They were unique in having a kingdom subordinated to their clan.

Also, the Satsuma benefitted quite a bit from trade with China through the Ryukyus, so were happy to play up the unique culture and autonomy of the islands, even if it was more for show and not real.

Someone pointed out how the Satsuma did very well, and didn't get afflicted (as much) by bad debt and tight financial circumstances like other daimyos and hans over the duration of the Tokugawa shogunate.


I strongly suggest the writer use Diaoyu Islands instead of the fake name in my mind,even the whole Chinese people's heart.
We love America,and peace. Hope you people could do the same.And do not support the unfriendly men in this peaceful earth,or the world could not remaim peaceful.

Wuyong S in reply to guest-ljsajsa

I wonder why the international media do not use the name "Pinnacle Islands" for these islands, just like they use "Spratley Islands" and "Paracel Islands" for those in South China Sea. This will allow them to appear more neutral, and save the ink and space....

Hibro in reply to Wuyong S

"QUESTION: What is the official name for the Senkaku Islands for the United States? Is it Diaoyu Islands or Senkaku Islands, or both are okay?

MS. NULAND: Our – I’m going to go to my special little rocks cheat sheet here, because this is getting quite complicated with lots of --

QUESTION: Yes. Do you have one?

MS. NULAND: -- different things here. So let me make sure I get it right here. So the one – yeah. So as we’ve said, we call them the Senkakus, so if that’s the question that you’re asking. We don’t take a position on them, though, as I’ve said all the way through."


This is a well written article, but there is still room to improve. The article failed to mention that there are numerous documents stored in the Japanese government archive, which show that the Meiji government of Japan, that they found out and knew (1894 - 1895)that those islands/islets belonged to the Qing Dynasty of China. The Meijing still went ahead to annex these islands/islets. And during the process of annexation, before and after (at least for several decades) that the governments never revealed to any other governments of the world that Japan annexed these islands/islets. The Japanese government(s) did it secretly. Those islands/islets were not and are not terra nullius. The owner of those islands/islets was China and still is, China. The US alone, without the consent of the other signatory countries of Portsdam, has no legal rights or any other legal bases to hand over the administration of these islands/islets to Japan. The reasons for the US to do that are: 1. The US and China were anemy after WWII (Korean War, then the Vietnam War). 2. The US was doing this for its own gain - to contain China; and to continue use of these islands/islets for various purposes. But handover these islands/islets to Japan is wrong, because these islands/islets had returned to China as stated in the 1943 Cairo Declaration, which was implemented by the Portsdam Proclamation of 1945. Furthermore, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender (1945) unconditionally implements the Portsdam Proclamation. Anyway, there is no truth to the Japanese government claim of the Diaoyus. If you look back to history, the Japanese governments has been adopting a policy of killing others and invading others. Unless they stop these kind of foreign policies, we may one day be killed by them. (Look at the atrocities they committed in the Ryukyu Islands, Korea, and China.) Pease do not misunderstand, I don't mean all the Japanese are like that. I mean the Japanese governments, if they have the chance, they may act like their own predecessors.

Michael Dunne in reply to Jim2012

The islands weren't returned after WWII. There wasn't explicit mention of them in those declarations. The US retained control of those islands as part of the administration of Okinawa.

Doesn't seem like Chinese representatives challenged such decisions in the various councils representing the Allies.

Maybe they were too busy/distracted with the impending civil war, or didn't feel strong enough to present the issue to the Americans (whom they depended on for moving troops into Japanese occupied areas)?

The fear of certain Japaneses government officials of antagonizing China by messing around the Senkakus/Diaoyus was expressed I believe in the 1880s. Possibly someone in the various Japanese bureaucracies wrote "I think those islands may belong to China" but don't have a specific source to cite at this point.

Regardless, they just annexed the islands unilaterially while the Sino-Japanese war was in progress. Interestingly there was not explicit mention of these islands in the treaty of Shimonoseki that concluded that war.

Funny how there is an absence of mention of these islands in circles and documents that matter? They must have not been deemed all that important...

Alex Farrell

Your article missed a major point regarding recent events: the reason why the Japanese government purchased the islands. It was because former Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara declared his intent to have the Tokyo Metropolitan Government buy them. Ishihara, by the way, is a far-right extremist who would have done far more with the islands to antagonize China. The national government bought them so that nobody would do such things. Unfortunately, the state-controlled Chinese media has sought to portray the move as an infringement on their sovereignty, in order to appease Chinese nationalists. Hopefully it doesn't all backfire and lead to an armed conflict.

USCIS in reply to Alex Farrell

Let me use an analogy, you first want to kick somebody, then you change your mind and just slap the other people. Do you want the other people thank you for that? No matter who bought the island, it is considered the change of status quo and violation of the agreements between two governments.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

