I don’t know the history of these islands, so I admit total ignorance and an eagerness to learn from readers. I do know that some of the language the KMT uses in this article calls to mind, ironically, the language another country uses in regard to Taiwan.
On the 60th anniversary of Retrocession Day, the government should not forget about the Diaoyutais (釣魚台) and should continue the fight to regain their sovereignty, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said yesterday.
Making the remarks during the “Sixtieth Anniversary of Retrocession Day: Memorial of the Diaoyutais” ceremony, the Taipei mayor added that the islands belonged to Taiwan and should have been returned along with Taiwan when the Japanese renounced sovereignty over the island.
“The Diaoyutais were listed as part of China’s territory in written statements as early as the Ming Dynasty. How can these islands not be part of our territory? Japan failed to renounce control of them in 1945 and has since claimed sovereignty over the islands. This is called `stealing,'” Ma said.
The ceremony, organized by Taipei City’s Cultural Affairs Bureau at Zhongshan Hall, was designed to raise public awareness of the Diaoyutais.
Maybe Taiwan has an open-and-shut case for claiming the islands as its own. I don’t know. But if Ma is saying the islands were once part of China, if Taiwan isn’t a part of China how can he be saying the islands belong to Taiwan? God, you can get a headache thinking about this.
1
By David
But Ma believes Taiwan is part of China so there’s no problem 🙂
His claim is they should have been returned with Taiwan at the end of WWII (more nuanced than “once Chinese always Chinese”), which isn’t unreasonable, but hardly an open&shut case …
October 27, 2005 @ 5:12 am | Comment
2
By Logan
The key to the Diaoyu Islands dispute is whether, in 1895 when Taiwan was ceded to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, the islands were part of Taiwan (a part of China at the time) or unclaimed land. The PRC is particularly forceful on the Diaoyu Islands issue because, if the islands are part of Taiwan, and the PRC ceded their sovereignty, it would imply more conditionality on the PRC’s claim to sovereignty over Taiwan itself. At least that’s my take.
October 27, 2005 @ 11:01 am | Comment
3
By sun bin
logan is right. china’s claim is via taiwan. (same for Ma’s logic).
The taiwan/china side of argument relies on one piece of important fact. during the 1930s there is a dispute between the Japanese Governors of Taiwan and that of Ryukyu(Okinawa), the Imperial (Court? of) Japan decided that it belonged to the colony of Taiwan.
The Japanese side said, China (PRC and ROC) didn’t care until 1971. It was largely ignored in the 1945 return of Taiwan (what do you expect from Chen Yi, he only cares about gold in his own pocket).
October 27, 2005 @ 11:43 am | Comment
4
By sun bin
where is your headache from?
let me clear your logic, it is very simple
1. diaoyu belongs to (the province of) taiwan
2. taiwan belongs to ROC
3. wether ROC and PRC are the same country in the future is currently under dispute, KMT, DPP, CCP all has its own view.
But “3” does not change 1 and 2. (well in CCP’s case, replace ROC with PRC in “2”)
October 27, 2005 @ 11:49 am | Comment
5
By Mark
Some stuff here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/bourdieu_boy/7913.html
November 11, 2005 @ 7:16 am | Comment