I've watched with fascination as the Japanese Senkaku islands slowly and gradually came to be labeled 'disputed' in the western media, after China's recent claims.
It seems like China has figured out a way to hack the media (the free media outside of China, I mean -- the government there obviously has root on Chinese TV and newspapers).
Japanese ownership of this territory is basically as settled under international law as anything of this nature can be; the islands have been held by Japan since the 1800s, then controlled by the USA for a time after it defeated Japan in WWII, and eventually returned to Japan along with the return of Okinawa.[1]
But after China's slow and steady media campaign, it has somehow become widely reported as 'disputed territory'. (Which it is in a meaningless and pedantic sense only.)
This island-building is another hack, and maybe a clever one. Killing 70 Vietnamese soldiers in the military action in the 1980s to seize a submerged reef didn't make China look good at all.
But perhaps by building new 'islands' to buttress its aggressive and expansionist claims to the territorial waters of other nations, we may end up seeing the western media in ten years uncritically reporting that "China, which has 9 islands in the disputed waters, insists that it is merely defending its territory..."
Which is very important, because none of the countries whose territories China is going after -- not even Japan -- would do well in a straight up military conflict. The Philippines only hope is American protection. So the way China's aggression is covered in the western media is actually very important.
Here's the things about "disputed" territorial claims, national rights, sovereignty and such: They are not real. There is no objective basis for resolving them. Borders, maritime boundaries the existence of such a thing as "Chinese," "Scottish" or "Kurdish" is only given substance by people believing it and acting as if it were real.
Every piece of land in the world has been competed for and disputed many times. Sometimes identities such as "Chinese," "Scottish" or "Kurdish" are created or hardened specifically to serve that dispute. Other times they are dissolved by the outcome of the dispute.
I'm not trying to make some grand claim that "It's all an illusion." China is disputing Japan's ownership of these islands. The ownership of these islands is in dispute. We can either have some sort of lawful (or otherwise peaceful) way of resolving these disputes or we can go back to the traditional method of war and intimidation.
Our international legal systems were put in place in politically difficult circumstances to prevent world wars. They have definitions of territorial claims and some shambles of a system for resolving them and (theoretically) enforcing them. But this system (being a shambles) get very little respect. They are ignored by major power, minor powers and sometimes by upstarts (ISIS declared the border between Iraq & Syria dissolved and implemented that declaration).
... Japan’s diplomats say their country “discovered” the islands in 1884.
... They are recorded in “Voyage with a Tail Wind”, published in 1403, a portolano recounting a journey from Fujian province to Ryukyu, the old name for the Okinawa chain of islands. By the following century, in “A Record of an Imperial Envoy’s Visit to the Ryukyu Kingdom”, Chinese names were given to all the islets in the Diaoyu group. Japanese diplomats do not bring it up, but the great Japanese military scholar, Shihei Hayashi, followed convention in giving the islands their Chinese names in his map of 1785, “A General Outline of Three Countries” (see map). He also coloured them in the same pink as China.
the claims on the South China sea are patently ridiculous, but I don't think it can be compared with the senkaku islands. From what I've read China actually did have better claim over those islands prior to 1884 and immediately after WWII, but didn't assert those claims because well.. the islands were worthless. Now that they've found oil they want to roll back the clock.
I think there is a fundamental cultural difference in the way the west and China views the dispute. To the west if you found a piece of land and lived there for 100 years, it's yours - that's how the US was founded after all. But to China it's just the latest in a series of conflicts with Japan going back hundreds of years.
The Economist has talked about their coverage of the Senkakus in a few videos. They have mentioned a few times how if they write anything without mentioning the "dispute" they take heat. Thus they resort to always using both names.
Senkaku islands is never undisputed. It is brought into spotlight mainly because the relationship between two countries went very bad in recent years due to Japanese PMs' frequent visits to Shinto shrine despite the constant protests from China and South Korea.
Every time I see discussion about the nine dash line, I can't help but wonder how it can seem sane to anybody that China should have the water rights to an area ~600 km south of what is blatantly Vietnam's coastal waters (and the southern tip of their land) and just barely north of Malaysia's physical territory.
I know the correct answer is: China doesn't care, and isn't concerned with reason when it comes to the nine dash line. It still boggles my mind.
There is no valid Chinese claim on those waters, there is only who has the military power to dictate terms.
South China sea had been the traditional 'naval silk road' of ancient Imperial China for hundreds years while both China and the neighboring tribes/countries under tributary system hadn't learned the concept 'nation' from the western colonists.
Since 17th century, a few islands had been controlled by various western countries and more had been marked or renamed.But the pirates, armed merchants and provincial navy of imperial China were still the dominant power in the area for a long time.
The nine-dash line stems from the eleven-dash line when ROC was the ally of the US after WWII and was accepted as the transferee of those islands from Japanese army who had acquired them from France/Great Britain.
But the ROC were too eager to fight back to the mainland instead of sending naval troops to guard those islands.It just chose one island Taiping as a strong point.
The unattended reefs and islands have been occupied by various countries in all kinds of sneaky/funny ways merely in past 30 years after the US-Vietnam war.
The validity argument makes no sense in this 'occupy and claim to own' game. Every country is a thief and the biggest is Vietnam whose navy had been more powerful than China's with the support from the former USSR during the PRC-USSR conflict.
Maybe the ROC in Taiwan should be the rightful owner according to the arrangement after WWII. But it is too weak to say anything now.
The whole history of the area is a vivid example of military power dictates terms.
> there is only who has the military power to dictate terms.
Yeah, just like the American invasion of Iraq in 2004. Just because they could, despite it being unlawful at all international levels. But hey, Russia also does it, so there's not really any good example out there of a country that does not seize opportunities.
Almost exactly the tactic and politics Israel uses. If there's violent conflict, the lesser power is 'terrorist' and this justifies the use of greater militaristic power to squelch the rebellion. If there's no violent conflict the greater power continues to push into the area it wants and plays coy with the politics for recognizing the other state's legitimacy.
This trend is terrible, not only those webpages are hard to read, but they're also hogging CPU. I had to close a tab with it, because it reduced my remaining time on battery from 50mins to 20 mins...
I see your point.
But I love that it's one feature at a time, rather than being placed between two columns of links to other stories, other photos, automatically-playing videos, and ads.
I would rather see the text broken up more with images and pullquotes rather than less. I find a story like this presented as a bland slab of text so mundane unless I have the time to really sit down and read it, which is never.
Fascinating article. I also really enjoyed the presentation - the mix of writing, video and images worked well together. This is the first time I've seen the "BBC Magazine", and the experience is great.
on mobile (android), it was absolutely awful, every few scrolls it took over my screen and started automatically playing a video. if i wanted to watch the video in your article, i would press play, don't force it upon me
More than the article, I enjoyed the presentation. The whole design is very intricately woven together with various media elements. I loved the style but at the same time I was slightly annoyed by not being in control (probably the auto changing images with scroll was slightly over the top). I wonder how's the user experience with others.
That's just wild. The Economist has been covering this territorial dispute in detail for the last couple of years, worth keeping up with if you are interested in the subject.
I don't like where this is all going. I've seen too often how seemingly trivial things can lead to all-out wars.
Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has spent a lot of treasure. The population doesn't have the desire for more war. Now Russia and China are seeing how far they can push. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like we're seeing the beginnings of things that lead to a major war between Russia & China on one side, and the US on the other.
The Fermi paradox is a reminder that we are living in very dangerous times right now.
I feel like we're seeing the beginnings of things that lead to a major war between Russia & China on one side, and the US on the other.
If you think that's scary, consider the all too plausible possibility of a shooting war between Russia and China over what is currently south-east Russia.
This may be a stupid comment, but could we stop using "treasure" outside the context of forgetful pirates and sunken ships and such? When talking about Iraq and Afghanistan it's just an overly fancy way to say "money".
Very interesting article with good reporting, love the mix of video, text, and images. Great design for a page layout too imo, the BBC seem to have taken cues from Medium.
South China Sea Has oil , and china will do anything to take over the area. China has been making claims of Arunachal Pradesh India for years, since it has high concentration of gas and shale oil deposits.
[+] [-] veidr|11 years ago|reply
It seems like China has figured out a way to hack the media (the free media outside of China, I mean -- the government there obviously has root on Chinese TV and newspapers).
Japanese ownership of this territory is basically as settled under international law as anything of this nature can be; the islands have been held by Japan since the 1800s, then controlled by the USA for a time after it defeated Japan in WWII, and eventually returned to Japan along with the return of Okinawa.[1]
But after China's slow and steady media campaign, it has somehow become widely reported as 'disputed territory'. (Which it is in a meaningless and pedantic sense only.)
This island-building is another hack, and maybe a clever one. Killing 70 Vietnamese soldiers in the military action in the 1980s to seize a submerged reef didn't make China look good at all.
But perhaps by building new 'islands' to buttress its aggressive and expansionist claims to the territorial waters of other nations, we may end up seeing the western media in ten years uncritically reporting that "China, which has 9 islands in the disputed waters, insists that it is merely defending its territory..."
Which is very important, because none of the countries whose territories China is going after -- not even Japan -- would do well in a straight up military conflict. The Philippines only hope is American protection. So the way China's aggression is covered in the western media is actually very important.
Interesting times.
[1]: http://csis.org/publication/japan-chair-platform-senkaku-isl...
[+] [-] netcan|11 years ago|reply
Every piece of land in the world has been competed for and disputed many times. Sometimes identities such as "Chinese," "Scottish" or "Kurdish" are created or hardened specifically to serve that dispute. Other times they are dissolved by the outcome of the dispute.
I'm not trying to make some grand claim that "It's all an illusion." China is disputing Japan's ownership of these islands. The ownership of these islands is in dispute. We can either have some sort of lawful (or otherwise peaceful) way of resolving these disputes or we can go back to the traditional method of war and intimidation.
Our international legal systems were put in place in politically difficult circumstances to prevent world wars. They have definitions of territorial claims and some shambles of a system for resolving them and (theoretically) enforcing them. But this system (being a shambles) get very little respect. They are ignored by major power, minor powers and sometimes by upstarts (ISIS declared the border between Iraq & Syria dissolved and implemented that declaration).
[+] [-] lisptime|11 years ago|reply
... They are recorded in “Voyage with a Tail Wind”, published in 1403, a portolano recounting a journey from Fujian province to Ryukyu, the old name for the Okinawa chain of islands. By the following century, in “A Record of an Imperial Envoy’s Visit to the Ryukyu Kingdom”, Chinese names were given to all the islets in the Diaoyu group. Japanese diplomats do not bring it up, but the great Japanese military scholar, Shihei Hayashi, followed convention in giving the islands their Chinese names in his map of 1785, “A General Outline of Three Countries” (see map). He also coloured them in the same pink as China.
http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568696-behind-row-...
[+] [-] Jack000|11 years ago|reply
I think there is a fundamental cultural difference in the way the west and China views the dispute. To the west if you found a piece of land and lived there for 100 years, it's yours - that's how the US was founded after all. But to China it's just the latest in a series of conflicts with Japan going back hundreds of years.
[+] [-] sdrothrock|11 years ago|reply
I'm curious about why you don't think Japan would do well in a straight-up military conflict.
[+] [-] Danieru|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] illumen|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fuzzwah|11 years ago|reply
Perhaps something like:
"then controlled by the USA for a time after Japan surrendered to the Allies in WWII"
... would make your comment sound a little less ignorant.
[+] [-] adventured|11 years ago|reply
I know the correct answer is: China doesn't care, and isn't concerned with reason when it comes to the nine dash line. It still boggles my mind.
There is no valid Chinese claim on those waters, there is only who has the military power to dictate terms.
[+] [-] est|11 years ago|reply
In fact ASEAN could not stand together against China in this case is exactly because every country around South China Sea has conflicting claims.
BBC is trying to avoid this as much as possible. Facts are hard, Let's just blame bad China.
[+] [-] HowardMei|11 years ago|reply
Since 17th century, a few islands had been controlled by various western countries and more had been marked or renamed.But the pirates, armed merchants and provincial navy of imperial China were still the dominant power in the area for a long time.
Chinese people totally lost control of it after the Sino-French war which changed the geopolitical status drastically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-French_War
The nine-dash line stems from the eleven-dash line when ROC was the ally of the US after WWII and was accepted as the transferee of those islands from Japanese army who had acquired them from France/Great Britain.
But the ROC were too eager to fight back to the mainland instead of sending naval troops to guard those islands.It just chose one island Taiping as a strong point.
The unattended reefs and islands have been occupied by various countries in all kinds of sneaky/funny ways merely in past 30 years after the US-Vietnam war.
The validity argument makes no sense in this 'occupy and claim to own' game. Every country is a thief and the biggest is Vietnam whose navy had been more powerful than China's with the support from the former USSR during the PRC-USSR conflict.
Maybe the ROC in Taiwan should be the rightful owner according to the arrangement after WWII. But it is too weak to say anything now.
The whole history of the area is a vivid example of military power dictates terms.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|11 years ago|reply
Yeah, just like the American invasion of Iraq in 2004. Just because they could, despite it being unlawful at all international levels. But hey, Russia also does it, so there's not really any good example out there of a country that does not seize opportunities.
[+] [-] philosophus|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peteretep|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|11 years ago|reply
officially it is called "international law"
[+] [-] xnull2guest|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ultraboy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dolimiter|11 years ago|reply
I'm starting to see it more and more.
It reminds me of when "Multimedia CD-ROMs" first appeared circa mid-1990s, where flashy interfaces were ranked much higher than useability.
Please stop it. Give me a webpage with text, and images that I can enlarge when clicked. Thank you.
[+] [-] kgabis|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gambiting|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kourt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prawn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knowaveragejoe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teamonkey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joelrunyon|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mje__|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onethree|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chdir|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Doctor_Fegg|11 years ago|reply
It says it was built with Shorthand - http://shorthand.com/ . Anyone know of an open-source equivalent?
[+] [-] Dolimiter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] muyuu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ellysetaylor21|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kissickas|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BrandonMarc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sixQuarks|11 years ago|reply
Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has spent a lot of treasure. The population doesn't have the desire for more war. Now Russia and China are seeing how far they can push. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like we're seeing the beginnings of things that lead to a major war between Russia & China on one side, and the US on the other.
The Fermi paradox is a reminder that we are living in very dangerous times right now.
[+] [-] Silhouette|11 years ago|reply
If you think that's scary, consider the all too plausible possibility of a shooting war between Russia and China over what is currently south-east Russia.
[+] [-] afterburner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] matthewwiese|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpursley|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bwilliams18|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] laoshuni|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pankajdoharey|11 years ago|reply