超级军网纽约时报公开撰文声称钓鱼岛是中国的
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/28 08:03:39
虽然作者反对上街打砸' 但支持中国在国际舞台公布历史真相
Han-yi Shaw
Diaoyu Island is recorded under Kavalan, Taiwan in Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province (1871).
I’ve had a longstanding interest in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the subject of a dangerous territorial dispute between Japan and China. The United States claims to be neutral but in effect is siding with Japan, and we could be drawn in if a war ever arose. Let me clear that I deplore the violence in the recent anti-Japan protests in China: the violence is reprehensible and makes China look like an irrational bully. China’s government should rein in this volatile nationalism rather than feed it. This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling. The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war. This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case. – Nicholas Kristof
Japan’s recent purchase of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands has predictably reignited tensions amongst China, Japan, and Taiwan. Three months ago, when Niwa Uichiro, the Japanese ambassador to China, warned that Japan’s purchase of the islands could spark an “extremely grave crisis” between China and Japan, Tokyo Governor Ishihara Shintaro slammed Niwa as an unqualified ambassador, who “needs to learn more about the history of his own country”.
Ambassador Niwa was forced to apologize for his remarks and was recently replaced. But what is most alarming amid these developments is that despite Japan’s democratic and pluralist society, rising nationalist sentiments are sidelining moderate views and preventing rational dialogue.
The Japanese government maintains that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory under international law and historical point of view and has repeatedly insisted that no dispute exists. Despite that the rest of the world sees a major dispute, the Japanese government continues to evade important historical facts behind its unlawful incorporation of the islands in 1895.
Specifically, the Japanese government asserts, “From 1885 on, our government conducted on-site surveys time and again, which confirmed that the islands were uninhabited and there were no signs of control by the Qing Empire.”
My research of over 40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885.
Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”
In November 1885, the Okinawa governor confirmed “since this matter is not unrelated to China, if problems do arise I would be in grave repentance for my responsibility”.
“Surveys of the islands are incomplete” wrote the new Okinawa governor in January of 1892. He requested that a naval ship Kaimon be sent to survey the islands, but ultimately a combination of miscommunication and bad weather made it impossible for the survey to take place.
Japan Diplomatic Records Office.
Letter dated May 12, 1894 affirming that the Meiji government did not repeatedly investigate the disputed islands.
“Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted,” the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894.
After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.” The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.
Negotiations with China never took place and this decision was passed during the Sino-Japanese War. It was never made public.
In his biography Koga Tatsushiro, the first Japanese citizen to lease the islands from the Meiji government, attributed Japan’s possession of the islands to “the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces.”
Collectively, these official documents leave no doubt that the Meiji government did not base its occupation of the islands following “on-site surveys time and again,” but instead annexed them as booty of war. This is the inconvenient truth that the Japanese government has conveniently evaded.
Japan asserts that neither Beijing nor Taipei objected to U.S. administration after WWII. That’s true, but what Japan does not mention is that neither Beijing nor Taipei were invited as signatories of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, from which the U.S. derived administrative rights.
When Japan annexed the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in 1895, it detached them from Taiwan and placed them under Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, the Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. Half a century later when Japan returned Taiwan to China, both sides adopted the 1945 administrative arrangement of Taiwan, with the Chinese unaware that the uninhabited “Senkaku Islands” were in fact the former Diaoyu Islands. This explains the belated protest from Taipei and Beijing over U.S. administration of the islands after the war.
Report dated August 12, 1892 from navy commander affirming the islands were not fully investigated. Source: Library of The National Institute for Defense Studies.
The Japanese government frequently cites two documents as evidence that China did not consider the islands to be Chinese. The first is an official letter from a Chinese consul in Nagasaki dated May 20, 1920 that listed the islands as Japanese territory.
Neither Beijing nor Taipei dispute that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands — along with the entire island of Taiwan — were formally under Japanese occupation at the time. However, per post-WW II arrangements, Japan was required to surrender territories obtained from aggression and revert them to their pre-1895 legal status.
The second piece evidence is a Chinese map from 1958 that excludes the Senkaku Islands from Chinese territory. But the Japanese government’s partial unveiling leaves out important information from the map’s colophon: “certain national boundaries are based on maps compiled prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War(1937-1945).”
Qing period (1644-1911) records substantiate Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands prior to 1895. Envoy documents indicate that the islands reside inside the “border that separates Chinese and foreign lands.” And according to Taiwan gazetteers, “Diaoyu Island accommodates ten or more large ships” under the jurisdiction of Kavalan, Taiwan.
The right to know is the bedrock of every democracy. The Japanese public deserves to know the other side of the story. It is the politicians who flame public sentiments under the name of national interests who pose the greatest risk, not the islands themselves.
Han-Yi Shaw is a Research Fellow at the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University, in Taipei, Taiwan.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/?smid=tw-share虽然作者反对上街打砸' 但支持中国在国际舞台公布历史真相
Han-yi Shaw
Diaoyu Island is recorded under Kavalan, Taiwan in Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province (1871).
I’ve had a longstanding interest in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the subject of a dangerous territorial dispute between Japan and China. The United States claims to be neutral but in effect is siding with Japan, and we could be drawn in if a war ever arose. Let me clear that I deplore the violence in the recent anti-Japan protests in China: the violence is reprehensible and makes China look like an irrational bully. China’s government should rein in this volatile nationalism rather than feed it. This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling. The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war. This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case. – Nicholas Kristof
Japan’s recent purchase of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands has predictably reignited tensions amongst China, Japan, and Taiwan. Three months ago, when Niwa Uichiro, the Japanese ambassador to China, warned that Japan’s purchase of the islands could spark an “extremely grave crisis” between China and Japan, Tokyo Governor Ishihara Shintaro slammed Niwa as an unqualified ambassador, who “needs to learn more about the history of his own country”.
Ambassador Niwa was forced to apologize for his remarks and was recently replaced. But what is most alarming amid these developments is that despite Japan’s democratic and pluralist society, rising nationalist sentiments are sidelining moderate views and preventing rational dialogue.
The Japanese government maintains that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory under international law and historical point of view and has repeatedly insisted that no dispute exists. Despite that the rest of the world sees a major dispute, the Japanese government continues to evade important historical facts behind its unlawful incorporation of the islands in 1895.
Specifically, the Japanese government asserts, “From 1885 on, our government conducted on-site surveys time and again, which confirmed that the islands were uninhabited and there were no signs of control by the Qing Empire.”
My research of over 40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885.
Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”
In November 1885, the Okinawa governor confirmed “since this matter is not unrelated to China, if problems do arise I would be in grave repentance for my responsibility”.
“Surveys of the islands are incomplete” wrote the new Okinawa governor in January of 1892. He requested that a naval ship Kaimon be sent to survey the islands, but ultimately a combination of miscommunication and bad weather made it impossible for the survey to take place.
Japan Diplomatic Records Office.
Letter dated May 12, 1894 affirming that the Meiji government did not repeatedly investigate the disputed islands.
“Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted,” the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894.
After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.” The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.
Negotiations with China never took place and this decision was passed during the Sino-Japanese War. It was never made public.
In his biography Koga Tatsushiro, the first Japanese citizen to lease the islands from the Meiji government, attributed Japan’s possession of the islands to “the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces.”
Collectively, these official documents leave no doubt that the Meiji government did not base its occupation of the islands following “on-site surveys time and again,” but instead annexed them as booty of war. This is the inconvenient truth that the Japanese government has conveniently evaded.
Japan asserts that neither Beijing nor Taipei objected to U.S. administration after WWII. That’s true, but what Japan does not mention is that neither Beijing nor Taipei were invited as signatories of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, from which the U.S. derived administrative rights.
When Japan annexed the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in 1895, it detached them from Taiwan and placed them under Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, the Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. Half a century later when Japan returned Taiwan to China, both sides adopted the 1945 administrative arrangement of Taiwan, with the Chinese unaware that the uninhabited “Senkaku Islands” were in fact the former Diaoyu Islands. This explains the belated protest from Taipei and Beijing over U.S. administration of the islands after the war.
Report dated August 12, 1892 from navy commander affirming the islands were not fully investigated. Source: Library of The National Institute for Defense Studies.
The Japanese government frequently cites two documents as evidence that China did not consider the islands to be Chinese. The first is an official letter from a Chinese consul in Nagasaki dated May 20, 1920 that listed the islands as Japanese territory.
Neither Beijing nor Taipei dispute that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands — along with the entire island of Taiwan — were formally under Japanese occupation at the time. However, per post-WW II arrangements, Japan was required to surrender territories obtained from aggression and revert them to their pre-1895 legal status.
The second piece evidence is a Chinese map from 1958 that excludes the Senkaku Islands from Chinese territory. But the Japanese government’s partial unveiling leaves out important information from the map’s colophon: “certain national boundaries are based on maps compiled prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War(1937-1945).”
Qing period (1644-1911) records substantiate Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands prior to 1895. Envoy documents indicate that the islands reside inside the “border that separates Chinese and foreign lands.” And according to Taiwan gazetteers, “Diaoyu Island accommodates ten or more large ships” under the jurisdiction of Kavalan, Taiwan.
The right to know is the bedrock of every democracy. The Japanese public deserves to know the other side of the story. It is the politicians who flame public sentiments under the name of national interests who pose the greatest risk, not the islands themselves.
Han-Yi Shaw is a Research Fellow at the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University, in Taipei, Taiwan.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/?smid=tw-share
Han-yi Shaw
Diaoyu Island is recorded under Kavalan, Taiwan in Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province (1871).
I’ve had a longstanding interest in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the subject of a dangerous territorial dispute between Japan and China. The United States claims to be neutral but in effect is siding with Japan, and we could be drawn in if a war ever arose. Let me clear that I deplore the violence in the recent anti-Japan protests in China: the violence is reprehensible and makes China look like an irrational bully. China’s government should rein in this volatile nationalism rather than feed it. This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling. The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war. This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case. – Nicholas Kristof
Japan’s recent purchase of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands has predictably reignited tensions amongst China, Japan, and Taiwan. Three months ago, when Niwa Uichiro, the Japanese ambassador to China, warned that Japan’s purchase of the islands could spark an “extremely grave crisis” between China and Japan, Tokyo Governor Ishihara Shintaro slammed Niwa as an unqualified ambassador, who “needs to learn more about the history of his own country”.
Ambassador Niwa was forced to apologize for his remarks and was recently replaced. But what is most alarming amid these developments is that despite Japan’s democratic and pluralist society, rising nationalist sentiments are sidelining moderate views and preventing rational dialogue.
The Japanese government maintains that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory under international law and historical point of view and has repeatedly insisted that no dispute exists. Despite that the rest of the world sees a major dispute, the Japanese government continues to evade important historical facts behind its unlawful incorporation of the islands in 1895.
Specifically, the Japanese government asserts, “From 1885 on, our government conducted on-site surveys time and again, which confirmed that the islands were uninhabited and there were no signs of control by the Qing Empire.”
My research of over 40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885.
Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”
In November 1885, the Okinawa governor confirmed “since this matter is not unrelated to China, if problems do arise I would be in grave repentance for my responsibility”.
“Surveys of the islands are incomplete” wrote the new Okinawa governor in January of 1892. He requested that a naval ship Kaimon be sent to survey the islands, but ultimately a combination of miscommunication and bad weather made it impossible for the survey to take place.
Japan Diplomatic Records Office.
Letter dated May 12, 1894 affirming that the Meiji government did not repeatedly investigate the disputed islands.
“Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted,” the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894.
After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.” The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.
Negotiations with China never took place and this decision was passed during the Sino-Japanese War. It was never made public.
In his biography Koga Tatsushiro, the first Japanese citizen to lease the islands from the Meiji government, attributed Japan’s possession of the islands to “the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces.”
Collectively, these official documents leave no doubt that the Meiji government did not base its occupation of the islands following “on-site surveys time and again,” but instead annexed them as booty of war. This is the inconvenient truth that the Japanese government has conveniently evaded.
Japan asserts that neither Beijing nor Taipei objected to U.S. administration after WWII. That’s true, but what Japan does not mention is that neither Beijing nor Taipei were invited as signatories of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, from which the U.S. derived administrative rights.
When Japan annexed the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in 1895, it detached them from Taiwan and placed them under Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, the Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. Half a century later when Japan returned Taiwan to China, both sides adopted the 1945 administrative arrangement of Taiwan, with the Chinese unaware that the uninhabited “Senkaku Islands” were in fact the former Diaoyu Islands. This explains the belated protest from Taipei and Beijing over U.S. administration of the islands after the war.
Report dated August 12, 1892 from navy commander affirming the islands were not fully investigated. Source: Library of The National Institute for Defense Studies.
The Japanese government frequently cites two documents as evidence that China did not consider the islands to be Chinese. The first is an official letter from a Chinese consul in Nagasaki dated May 20, 1920 that listed the islands as Japanese territory.
Neither Beijing nor Taipei dispute that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands — along with the entire island of Taiwan — were formally under Japanese occupation at the time. However, per post-WW II arrangements, Japan was required to surrender territories obtained from aggression and revert them to their pre-1895 legal status.
The second piece evidence is a Chinese map from 1958 that excludes the Senkaku Islands from Chinese territory. But the Japanese government’s partial unveiling leaves out important information from the map’s colophon: “certain national boundaries are based on maps compiled prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War(1937-1945).”
Qing period (1644-1911) records substantiate Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands prior to 1895. Envoy documents indicate that the islands reside inside the “border that separates Chinese and foreign lands.” And according to Taiwan gazetteers, “Diaoyu Island accommodates ten or more large ships” under the jurisdiction of Kavalan, Taiwan.
The right to know is the bedrock of every democracy. The Japanese public deserves to know the other side of the story. It is the politicians who flame public sentiments under the name of national interests who pose the greatest risk, not the islands themselves.
Han-Yi Shaw is a Research Fellow at the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University, in Taipei, Taiwan.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/?smid=tw-share虽然作者反对上街打砸' 但支持中国在国际舞台公布历史真相
Han-yi Shaw
Diaoyu Island is recorded under Kavalan, Taiwan in Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province (1871).
I’ve had a longstanding interest in the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the subject of a dangerous territorial dispute between Japan and China. The United States claims to be neutral but in effect is siding with Japan, and we could be drawn in if a war ever arose. Let me clear that I deplore the violence in the recent anti-Japan protests in China: the violence is reprehensible and makes China look like an irrational bully. China’s government should rein in this volatile nationalism rather than feed it. This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling. The most interesting evidence is emerging from old Japanese government documents and suggests that Japan in effect stole the islands from China in 1895 as booty of war. This article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, explores those documents. I invite any Japanese scholars to make the contrary legal case. – Nicholas Kristof
Japan’s recent purchase of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands has predictably reignited tensions amongst China, Japan, and Taiwan. Three months ago, when Niwa Uichiro, the Japanese ambassador to China, warned that Japan’s purchase of the islands could spark an “extremely grave crisis” between China and Japan, Tokyo Governor Ishihara Shintaro slammed Niwa as an unqualified ambassador, who “needs to learn more about the history of his own country”.
Ambassador Niwa was forced to apologize for his remarks and was recently replaced. But what is most alarming amid these developments is that despite Japan’s democratic and pluralist society, rising nationalist sentiments are sidelining moderate views and preventing rational dialogue.
The Japanese government maintains that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory under international law and historical point of view and has repeatedly insisted that no dispute exists. Despite that the rest of the world sees a major dispute, the Japanese government continues to evade important historical facts behind its unlawful incorporation of the islands in 1895.
Specifically, the Japanese government asserts, “From 1885 on, our government conducted on-site surveys time and again, which confirmed that the islands were uninhabited and there were no signs of control by the Qing Empire.”
My research of over 40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885.
Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”
In November 1885, the Okinawa governor confirmed “since this matter is not unrelated to China, if problems do arise I would be in grave repentance for my responsibility”.
“Surveys of the islands are incomplete” wrote the new Okinawa governor in January of 1892. He requested that a naval ship Kaimon be sent to survey the islands, but ultimately a combination of miscommunication and bad weather made it impossible for the survey to take place.
Japan Diplomatic Records Office.
Letter dated May 12, 1894 affirming that the Meiji government did not repeatedly investigate the disputed islands.
“Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted,” the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894.
After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.” The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.
Negotiations with China never took place and this decision was passed during the Sino-Japanese War. It was never made public.
In his biography Koga Tatsushiro, the first Japanese citizen to lease the islands from the Meiji government, attributed Japan’s possession of the islands to “the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces.”
Collectively, these official documents leave no doubt that the Meiji government did not base its occupation of the islands following “on-site surveys time and again,” but instead annexed them as booty of war. This is the inconvenient truth that the Japanese government has conveniently evaded.
Japan asserts that neither Beijing nor Taipei objected to U.S. administration after WWII. That’s true, but what Japan does not mention is that neither Beijing nor Taipei were invited as signatories of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, from which the U.S. derived administrative rights.
When Japan annexed the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in 1895, it detached them from Taiwan and placed them under Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, the Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. Half a century later when Japan returned Taiwan to China, both sides adopted the 1945 administrative arrangement of Taiwan, with the Chinese unaware that the uninhabited “Senkaku Islands” were in fact the former Diaoyu Islands. This explains the belated protest from Taipei and Beijing over U.S. administration of the islands after the war.
Report dated August 12, 1892 from navy commander affirming the islands were not fully investigated. Source: Library of The National Institute for Defense Studies.
The Japanese government frequently cites two documents as evidence that China did not consider the islands to be Chinese. The first is an official letter from a Chinese consul in Nagasaki dated May 20, 1920 that listed the islands as Japanese territory.
Neither Beijing nor Taipei dispute that the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands — along with the entire island of Taiwan — were formally under Japanese occupation at the time. However, per post-WW II arrangements, Japan was required to surrender territories obtained from aggression and revert them to their pre-1895 legal status.
The second piece evidence is a Chinese map from 1958 that excludes the Senkaku Islands from Chinese territory. But the Japanese government’s partial unveiling leaves out important information from the map’s colophon: “certain national boundaries are based on maps compiled prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War(1937-1945).”
Qing period (1644-1911) records substantiate Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands prior to 1895. Envoy documents indicate that the islands reside inside the “border that separates Chinese and foreign lands.” And according to Taiwan gazetteers, “Diaoyu Island accommodates ten or more large ships” under the jurisdiction of Kavalan, Taiwan.
The right to know is the bedrock of every democracy. The Japanese public deserves to know the other side of the story. It is the politicians who flame public sentiments under the name of national interests who pose the greatest risk, not the islands themselves.
Han-Yi Shaw is a Research Fellow at the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University, in Taipei, Taiwan.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/?smid=tw-share
作者估计是WW的华裔
哪个翻译一下
作者是台湾人啊。
楼主，俺看不懂英文啊
只要有炒点，一头猪都可以在纽约时报发文。
除了华侨，美国也有不少亲华人士
“纽约时报公开撰文声称钓鱼岛是中国的”
应该改为
“有人在纽约时报上公开撰文声称钓鱼岛是中国的”
应该改为
“有人在纽约时报上公开撰文声称钓鱼岛是中国的”
虽然作者反对上街打砸但支持中国在国际舞台公布历史真相 汉宜肖 钓鱼岛是台湾噶玛兰族，福建省（1871年）在经修订的地名。记录下 我有一个长期的利益在钓鱼岛/尖阁诸岛，一个危险的日本和中国之间的领土争端的主题。美国声称是中性的，但实际上是偏袒日本，我们可以得出，如果战争发生。让我清楚了，我感到遗憾中国最近的反日抗议活动中的暴力：暴力行为是应该受到谴责，让中国看上去就像一个不合理的欺负。中国政府应该控制在这个动荡的民族主义，而不是给它。这是一个争议，双方应参阅国际法院，而不是让沸腾的街道。这就是说，当我看到谁拥有最好的索赔的基本问题，我很同情中国的立场。我不认为它是100％，部分是因为中国似乎默许了在1945年和1970年的日本之主权，但总的来说，我觉得中国的主权颇为引人注目的证据。最有趣的证据正从旧日本政府文件表明，日本实际上在1895年从中国偷走了岛屿作为战争的战利品。本文由汉宜萧，一个来自台湾的学者，探讨了这些文件。我邀请日本学者做出违背法律的情况下。-尼古拉斯·克里斯托夫 日本在钓鱼岛/尖阁列岛最近购买可预见的重新点燃了中国，日本和台湾之间的紧张。三个月前，当丹羽宇一郎，的日本大使到中国，警告说，日本购买的岛屿可能会引发一个“非常严重的危机”在中国和日本之间，东京省长石原慎太郎砰的一声丹羽作为一个不合格的大使，谁“需要学习自己的国家“的历史。 大使丹羽宇被迫为他的言论道歉，最近更换了。但什么是最令人担忧的中这些事态发展是，尽管日本的民主和多元化的社会，上升的民族主义情绪，排斥了温和的意见和防止理性的对话。 日本政府维持，在钓鱼岛/尖阁群岛是日本领土根据国际法和历史的角度来看并一再坚持认为不存在争议。尽管如此，在世界其他地区发现的重大争端，日本政府将继续逃避其非法的岛屿于1895年注册成立的重要历史背后的事实。 具体来说，日本政府称，“从1885年开始，我国政府进行了现场调查一次又一次，这证实了这些岛屿无人居住，没有任何迹象的大清帝国的控制。“ 我的研究超过40正式 从日本国立公文明治时期的出土文献，外交纪录办事处，和国家防卫研究所图书馆清楚地表明，明治政府承认中国拥有的岛屿，早在1885年 第一现场调查，在1885年，日本外相冈田克写道，“中国的报纸一直在报道，我们打算占领岛屿属于中国的传言毗邻台湾....在这个时候，如果我们公开地将国家的标记，这必须邀请中国的怀疑......“ 在1885年11月，冲绳州长确认“，因为这件事情对中国是不无关系的，如果问题出现严重悔改，我会在我的责任“。 “ 调查是不完整的岛屿”中写道，在1892年1月新冲绳州长。他要求，被送到海军舰艇开闻的岛屿进行调查，但最终结合的误传和恶劣的天气，不可能采取的调查。 日本外交历史档案馆。 ，明治政府于1894年5月12日的信中肯定不重复调查有争议的岛屿。 “自从的岛屿冲绳警察机构进行了研究，早在1885年，一直没有进行后续的实地调查，”冲绳州长写于1894年。 经过大量的中国在中日两国的失败战争，从日本首部的报告说：“这件事涉及与中国谈判......但今天的情况是大大不同从当年。”明治政府，一个内阁决定在早1895年，及时注册成立的岛屿。 与中国的谈判从来没有发生，并通过这一决定是在抗日战争。这是从来没有取得公众。 在他的传记古贺辰四郎，在第一个日本公民租用的岛屿，从明治政府，归功于日本拥有的岛屿“英勇的军事胜利，我们的帝国势力。” 总的来说，这些官方文件离开没有附件疑问，明治政府并没有依据其占领的岛屿“进行现场调查，并再次”，而是他们作为战争的战利品。这是难以忽视的真相，日本政府已方便地回避。 日本声称，北京与台北皆反对美国政府在二战后。这是事实，但日本并没有提的是，北京与台北皆被邀请的圣弗朗西斯科和平条约“签署于1951年，从美国衍生的管理权限。 当日本吞并的钓鱼岛/尖阁群岛于1895年，它脱离他们来自台湾和冲绳县下。此外，日本名“尖阁列岛”本身是第一次在1900年推出的学术黑岩尚志此后，日本政府通过。半世纪后，当日本返回中国台湾，双方通过了1945年的行政安排，台湾，中国不知道无人居住的“尖阁列岛”，其实前的钓鱼岛。战争结束后，这也解释了迟来的抗议，台北和北京对美国政府的岛屿。 报告日期为1892年8月12日从海军司令肯定的岛屿不完全调查。资料来源：国家防卫研究所图书馆。 日本政府经常引用的证据表明，中国并没有考虑这些岛屿是中国的这两个文件。首先是从中国驻长崎，1920年5月20日上市的岛屿为日本领土的正式信函。 无论是北京还是台北争端的钓鱼岛/尖阁列岛-随着整个台湾岛-正式在日本占领下的时间。然而，每-WW II后安排，日本被要求交出领土的侵略，并恢复到前的1895年的法律地位。 第二 个证据是从1958年的中国地图，排除了从中国领土尖阁列岛。但是，日本政府的部分揭幕遗漏了重要信息，从地图的版权页：“某些国家的边界在地图上的编译之前，第二次中日战争（1937-1945年）”。 明清时期（1644-1911）记录证明中国的所有权的在钓鱼岛/尖阁列岛到1895年之前。特使文件表明这些岛屿位于里面的“边界，中国和外国的土地上分离。”根据台湾地名，“钓鱼岛容纳10个或更多的大型船舶”管辖下的台湾噶玛兰族， 知情权的基石每个民主社会。日本公众应该知道的故事的另一面。这是政治家火焰民情的名义下的国家利益构成最大的风险，而不是岛屿本身。 汉宜肖是在国际法律研究，在台北国立政治大学，研究中心研究员，
看名字就像华人 而且基本还是第一代的有这样的行动很好！
看网址得知这只是博文而已。
应该是个台湾的华裔写的，内容大概是钓鱼岛的历史上自古以来就是属于中国，诸如此类的内容。
Han-yi Shaw，明显的华裔
9楼机翻
坐等大婶翻译
坐等大婶翻译看不懂鸟文啊..
8楼真相帝
P用
看不懂鸟文，管他谁写的，有这样的行动就是好的。
WW有时候还是很可爱的
支持，而且我也不赞同打砸抢
有这样的声音总比没有的强。。。
仍然是在说历史归属。不过有人在西方介绍一下来龙去脉也是好事，西方人对此实在一无所知。
TG的媒体天天对国内民众讲个不停，意义并不大，老百姓早就知道了。感觉嘴炮部的力气总是发不到要点上。
TG的媒体天天对国内民众讲个不停，意义并不大，老百姓早就知道了。感觉嘴炮部的力气总是发不到要点上。
还是支持一下吧！！
只要是支持钓鱼岛是中国的就是好的
我觉得美国所有发表不持立场，或对日本生命钓鱼岛适用美日安保条约的话都是骗人的，目的无非是让中日死磕，一旦开战，美国立马暗中支持日本，让战争成为持久战。美国人是最坏的，让我们制抵美货吧，炸了苹果果
仅代表个人的说法，不会影响形势。
一个博客而已，犯得着这么激动吗？
看这名字就是个华裔
highwayup 发表于 2012-9-20 15:17 ![]()
Han-yi Shaw，明显的华裔
萧汉裔？
Han-yi Shaw，明显的华裔
萧汉裔？
K026 发表于 2012-9-20 15:15 ![]()
看名字就像华人 而且基本还是第一代的
问题是真正的中国人是不是也可以考虑在外国报纸上登文章，就像陈光标一样，我们玩儿舆论战的人海战术
看名字就像华人 而且基本还是第一代的
问题是真正的中国人是不是也可以考虑在外国报纸上登文章，就像陈光标一样，我们玩儿舆论战的人海战术
Taiwan.
看不懂鸟文http://www.letv.com/player/x996218.swf?uname=zl032&id=996218http://www.letv.com/player/x996218.swf?uname=zl032&id=996218http://www.letv.com/player/x996218.swf?uname=zl032&id=996218http://www.letv.com/player/x996218.swf?uname=zl051&id=996218http://www.letv.com/player/x996218.swf?uname=zl051&id=996218http://www.letv.com/player/x996218.swf?uname=zl051&id=996218http://www.letv.com/player/x996218.swf?uname=zl000&id=996218http://www.letv.com/player/x996218.swf?uname=zl000&id=996218http://www.letv.com/player/x996218.swf?uname=zl056&id=996218http://www.letv.com/player/x996218.swf?uname=zl056&id=996218http://www.letv.com/player/x996218.swf?uname=zl100&id=996218http://www.letv.com/player/x996218.swf?uname=zl057&id=996218“China’s government ...”是我没文化咩，老感觉哪里不对
此人为台湾国立政治大学国际法学研究中心研究员邵汉仪。今年5月3日就曾向《华尔街日报》投稿，引据日本明治时期文件，驳斥日方提出的主权主张。
私人意见，不代表美国的立场。
良弓藏 发表于 2012-9-20 15:14 ![]()
只要有炒点，一头猪都可以在纽约时报发文。
你还不如Z，是Z+G=ZG。
只要有炒点，一头猪都可以在纽约时报发文。
你还不如Z，是Z+G=ZG。
方言无力。。。。
“China’s government ...”是我没文化咩，老感觉哪里不对
心惊肉跳，以为我白学了——：
心惊肉跳，以为我白学了——：
纽约时报能看等这样的文章，说明在美国舆论界，对中日纠纷，还是有一点偏向中国！