Over the past few years, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government has appointed academic institutions to hold international seminars on “the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) question” each year on April 17, the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895. The intention of these seminars is to highlight the connection between the treaty and the question of sovereignty over the islands.
The Republic of China (ROC) says that the Diaoyutais are part of Taiwan. Qing Dynasty China ceded Taiwan and Penghu to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki following China’s defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War. The ROC’s standpoint assumes that the Diaoyutais were part of the ceded territories. It therefore also assumes that, when the Treaty of Shimonoseki was nullified following Japan’s defeat in World War II, the Diaoyutais must have been returned to the ROC along with Taiwan and Penghu, the ROC being the successor state of the Qing Empire under international law.
Japan, meanwhile, vehemently rejects any connection between the Diaoyutais dispute and the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
By way of comparison, consider what happened on the Korean Peninsula. In 1905, during the Russo-Japanese War, Meiji-era Japan took possession of the Liancourt Rocks, which lie between Japan and South Korea and are known as Takeshima in Japanese and Dokdo in Korean. Japan’s rationale was based on the legal doctrine of terra nullis, or land with no owner, in international law.
Japan proceeded to incorporate the islands into Shimane Prefecture. Then, in 1910, Japan “lawfully” colonized the Korean Peninsula by means of a treaty under which it incorporated Korea’s Joseon Dynasty into the Empire of Japan. Thus, in South Korea’s view, Japan’s “first come, first served” occupation of the Liancourt Rocks was the first step in its colonization.
The Liancourt Rocks issue is a deep-seated wound in Tokyo-Seoul relations, and for South Koreans, it is a persistent source of resentment. Whenever South Koreans hear about Japan claiming sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks, it is tantamount to hearing the Japanese rationalizing their colonial rule over the Korean Peninsula.
When Japan won outright victory in the First Sino-Japanese War, it demanded that the Qing Empire make territorial concessions. Then-Japanese minister of foreign affairs Mutsu Munemitsu, who was Japan’s head negotiator in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, wrote in his memoirs entitled Kenkenroku, or record of tribulations, that Japan should advance wherever it could and only stop where it could go no further.
On Jan. 14, 1895, Japan incorporated the Diaoyutai Islands into Okinawa Prefecture — the former Ryukyu Kingdom, which it had only incorporated into its territory in 1879. Japan again invoked the doctrine of terra nullis to rationalize its annexation of the Diaoyutais. Three months later, Japan and the Qing Empire signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki, in accordance with which Japan “lawfully” colonized Taiwan and Penghu.
These steps all show that Japan, in the course of its modernization, was putting Western-style imperialism into practice in the Far East.
In general, Taiwanese have not done much research into the historical development of Japanese colonial rule. This is because Taiwan was not a distinct cultural and political entity until well after Japan’s colonization. This gives rise to a decisive difference in perceptions of Japanese colonial rule between Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula, where Korea’s “kings” continued to exist under Japanese rule. These historical factors exert a strong influence over the disputes over islands in East Asia.
Chen Yung-feng is executive director of Tunghai University’s Center for Japan Area Studies.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers