Is Diaoyu America’s Gift to Japan or Its Curse?
In 1972 the U.S. transferred sovereignty of the Ryukyu Islands to Japan, while also giving Japan "administrative rights" over the Diaoyu islands. At the time the U.S. was doing Japan a great favor; now that favor has become a nightmarish curse.
There are at least two major questions about the move by the United States. First, as a nation entrusted with control of the islands, the U.S. did not hold sovereignty over them. Why, then, didn't it return Diaoyu to the country that originally held sovereignty over it, instead of giving it to Japan? Furthermore, since it only gave "administrative rights" to Japan, the U.S. has not actually asserted that Japan holds sovereignty over Diaoyu. Second, by region and geography, the Diaoyu Islands are unquestionably "subsidiary islands of Taiwan," and thus there was no reason to include them in the same deal as the transfer of the Ryukyus. America's rash management of the affair at the time was apparently an overestimation of Japan and an underestimation of mainland China, which it completely disregarded.
The historical context in which the U.S. handled the matter that year is as follows: First, it was reported that oil reserves had been discovered in the sea near the Diaoyu Islands; second, the schism between mainland China and Taiwan had put "China" in decline, creating an opportunity for America and Japan. Nonetheless, it is an indisputable fact that Diaoyu has long been Chinese territory. Even Japan acknowledged early on that the islands were "under jurisdiction of the Qing state" and "subsidiary islands of Taiwan." Now, however, it wishes to take Diaoyu based solely on a single agreement between the U.S. and Japan. These are the unjust methods of imperialism, and this will not be the final destination of a just history. After all is said and done, the Diaoyu Islands are essentially stolen property given to Japan by the U.S.
The first of two curses that America laid in the affair was the creation of a wound that constantly reopens in the midst of animosity between China and Japan — one that will long remain unhealed.
From the end of the 19th century to the early part of the 20th century, one could say that China and Japan were in a feud. This was particularly true from the 1930s onwards, when Japan launched an unjust and inhumane invasion of China, making the Chinese people suffer eight full years of blood, tears and insult. The closing of this wound requires the long-term good will and sincerity of both governments and peoples as they resolve their differences little by little; however, the U.S. giving "administrative rights" over Diaoyu to Japan has made the islands a "wormhole" for the hostility between China and Japan to transcend time and space. One has only to bring up Diaoyu in order to ignite a century of hate between the two countries in the hearts of both its people, so that at any moment all the work toward reconciliation between China and Japan might be torn down because of this issue. Is this not the result of a curse that the U.S. first laid?
The second curse was the establishment of Diaoyu as a sensitive political point for both Taiwan and mainland China. The slightest tug on the Diaoyu issue inevitably hits a nerve.
China should and must staunchly protect sovereignty over Diaoyu. First, the islands have long been Chinese territory. Second, they are a subsidiary island group of Taiwan and are a traditional fishing ground for Taiwanese fishermen. Third, if China abandons Diaoyu, it will be hard for the hearts of both Taiwanese and mainland Chinese to accept — if a situation similar to the 1970s "return and identify" movement of Chen Ruoxi and others were to arise, it could be a complication.* Moreover, it is impossible for China to abandon its position on Diaoyu sovereignty because Beijing also holds that the islands have long been Chinese territory and are a subsidiary island group of Taiwan. If Beijing backs down over sovereignty of Diaoyu it would be tantamount to giving way on the Taiwan issue. Diaoyu thus strikes a nerve in both China and Taiwan and keeps them on edge. Is this not also the product of America's past shortsightedness?
Because of that myopia, Diaoyu has become a wound in the sides of China and Japan that may never heal, and it has also become a sensitive issue between Taiwan and mainland China. If the U.S. had respected the original status of Diaoyu as a subsidiary island group of Taiwan per historical, regional and geographic evidence rather than involving Diaoyu in the Ryukyu issue, all of this might have been avoided. Unfortunately, it has already happened, and now America must maintain its position on "reversion." Japan can neither spit Diaoyu out nor really swallow it whole and Beijing uses Diaoyu to push the Taiwan issue and stir up Taiwanese politics and popular sentiment. Meanwhile, Taiwan stands on a razor's edge and must find a balance between the U.S., Japan, the mainland, special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau, and domestic pressure.
Now this Diaoyu tempest has developed to where it is today, spraying another layer of salt onto China and Japan's wounds and once again hitting political nerves in Taiwan and the mainland. Japan not only does not dare take a hard stance on preventing Hong Kong's "defend Diaoyu" activists from landing on the island; it also cannot maintain its official position of stopping Japanese right-wingers from doing the same. Mass demonstrations are being held in cities all over mainland China, and America and Japan are staging exercises in island defense. As the situation grows ever more intense, how can it be reined in?
This year is coincidentally the 40th anniversary of the United States’ transferal of "administrative rights" over Diaoyu to Japan. All things change, and the vicissitudes of 40 years have fully exposed the recklessness and shortsightedness of that past U.S. policy. So is all this that has unfolded before our eyes America's gift to Japan — or its curse?
*Editor's Note: Refers to a movement among Taiwanese students studying abroad in the early 1970s to return to mainland China due to controversy over the Diaoyu Islands.
There are at least two major questions about the move by the United States. First, as a nation entrusted with control of the islands, the U.S. did not hold sovereignty over them. Why, then, didn't it return Diaoyu to the country that originally held sovereignty over it, instead of giving it to Japan? Furthermore, since it only gave "administrative rights" to Japan, the U.S. has not actually asserted that Japan holds sovereignty over Diaoyu. Second, by region and geography, the Diaoyu Islands are unquestionably "subsidiary islands of Taiwan," and thus there was no reason to include them in the same deal as the transfer of the Ryukyus. America's rash management of the affair at the time was apparently an overestimation of Japan and an underestimation of mainland China, which it completely disregarded.
The historical context in which the U.S. handled the matter that year is as follows: First, it was reported that oil reserves had been discovered in the sea near the Diaoyu Islands; second, the schism between mainland China and Taiwan had put "China" in decline, creating an opportunity for America and Japan. Nonetheless, it is an indisputable fact that Diaoyu has long been Chinese territory. Even Japan acknowledged early on that the islands were "under jurisdiction of the Qing state" and "subsidiary islands of Taiwan." Now, however, it wishes to take Diaoyu based solely on a single agreement between the U.S. and Japan. These are the unjust methods of imperialism, and this will not be the final destination of a just history. After all is said and done, the Diaoyu Islands are essentially stolen property given to Japan by the U.S.
The first of two curses that America laid in the affair was the creation of a wound that constantly reopens in the midst of animosity between China and Japan — one that will long remain unhealed.
From the end of the 19th century to the early part of the 20th century, one could say that China and Japan were in a feud. This was particularly true from the 1930s onwards, when Japan launched an unjust and inhumane invasion of China, making the Chinese people suffer eight full years of blood, tears and insult. The closing of this wound requires the long-term good will and sincerity of both governments and peoples as they resolve their differences little by little; however, the U.S. giving "administrative rights" over Diaoyu to Japan has made the islands a "wormhole" for the hostility between China and Japan to transcend time and space. One has only to bring up Diaoyu in order to ignite a century of hate between the two countries in the hearts of both its people, so that at any moment all the work toward reconciliation between China and Japan might be torn down because of this issue. Is this not the result of a curse that the U.S. first laid?
The second curse was the establishment of Diaoyu as a sensitive political point for both Taiwan and mainland China. The slightest tug on the Diaoyu issue inevitably hits a nerve.
China should and must staunchly protect sovereignty over Diaoyu. First, the islands have long been Chinese territory. Second, they are a subsidiary island group of Taiwan and are a traditional fishing ground for Taiwanese fishermen. Third, if China abandons Diaoyu, it will be hard for the hearts of both Taiwanese and mainland Chinese to accept — if a situation similar to the 1970s "return and identify" movement of Chen Ruoxi and others were to arise, it could be a complication.* Moreover, it is impossible for China to abandon its position on Diaoyu sovereignty because Beijing also holds that the islands have long been Chinese territory and are a subsidiary island group of Taiwan. If Beijing backs down over sovereignty of Diaoyu it would be tantamount to giving way on the Taiwan issue. Diaoyu thus strikes a nerve in both China and Taiwan and keeps them on edge. Is this not also the product of America's past shortsightedness?
Because of that myopia, Diaoyu has become a wound in the sides of China and Japan that may never heal, and it has also become a sensitive issue between Taiwan and mainland China. If the U.S. had respected the original status of Diaoyu as a subsidiary island group of Taiwan per historical, regional and geographic evidence rather than involving Diaoyu in the Ryukyu issue, all of this might have been avoided. Unfortunately, it has already happened, and now America must maintain its position on "reversion." Japan can neither spit Diaoyu out nor really swallow it whole and Beijing uses Diaoyu to push the Taiwan issue and stir up Taiwanese politics and popular sentiment. Meanwhile, Taiwan stands on a razor's edge and must find a balance between the U.S., Japan, the mainland, special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau, and domestic pressure.
Now this Diaoyu tempest has developed to where it is today, spraying another layer of salt onto China and Japan's wounds and once again hitting political nerves in Taiwan and the mainland. Japan not only does not dare take a hard stance on preventing Hong Kong's "defend Diaoyu" activists from landing on the island; it also cannot maintain its official position of stopping Japanese right-wingers from doing the same. Mass demonstrations are being held in cities all over mainland China, and America and Japan are staging exercises in island defense. As the situation grows ever more intense, how can it be reined in?
This year is coincidentally the 40th anniversary of the United States’ transferal of "administrative rights" over Diaoyu to Japan. All things change, and the vicissitudes of 40 years have fully exposed the recklessness and shortsightedness of that past U.S. policy. So is all this that has unfolded before our eyes America's gift to Japan — or its curse?
*Editor's Note: Refers to a movement among Taiwanese students studying abroad in the early 1970s to return to mainland China due to controversy over the Diaoyu Islands.