Sinovi kineskog zmaja

[Prospero]

^^ Ono što si boldovao je tumačenje, a ne provizo deklaracije . Kairsku deklaraciju sam već linkovao u delu za Japan (dakle, teritorije od 1914, i to eksplicitno navedene - Mandžurija, Tajvan, Peskadori) i ono što je stečeno nasiljem i pohlepom, što Senkaku ostrva nisu jer su bila nenaseljena terra nullis.

A evo je Potsdamska deklaracija, jedino gde možeš da umetneš Senkaku je u ono "and such minor islands as we determine", što se, jel, i desilo.
 

Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender

Issued, at Potsdam, July 26, 1945


1.We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.
2.The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.
3.The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.
4.The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.
5.Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.
6.There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.
7.Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.
8.The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.
9.The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.
10.We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.
11.Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.
12.The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.
13.We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

[Zaz_pi]

Oh, pa ti i dalje nastavljas. Nikakav problem, idemo dalje u tumacenju. Preuzeto sa Cambridge journal of international and comparative law:

 

 

Japan’s ‘nationalization’ and other arguments are unfounded under international law

First of all, Diaoyu Dao was not ‘terra nullius’. It was first discovered, named and exploited by China. The earliest historical record of the names of Diaoyu Dao, Chiwei Yu and other places can be found in the book “Voyage with a Tail Wind” published in 1403 during the Ming Dynasty. Diaoyu Dao has long been under China’s jurisdiction. The Qing court not only incorporated the Diaoyu Dao Islands into the scope of China’s coastal defense as the Ming court did, but also clearly placed the islands under the jurisdiction of local government of Taiwan of China. Besides, Chinese and foreign maps of that era also show that Diaoyu Dao belonged to China. Therefore, Diaoyu Dao was not ‘terra nullius’, but belonged to China and had been under Chinese government for over six centuries. Second, ‘nationalization’ of Diaoyu Dao violates international rules. In December 1943, the Cairo Declaration stated in explicit terms that:

“all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa [Taiwan] and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.”

In July 1945, the Potsdam Proclamation stated in Article 8:

“The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.”

On September 2, 1945, the Japanese government accepted the Potsdam Proclamation in explicit terms with the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and pledged to faithfully fulfill the obligations enshrined in the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation. In accordance with the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Diaoyu Dao, as affiliated islands of Taiwan, should be returned, together with Taiwan, to China. Therefore, the ‘nationalization’ of Diaoyu Dao constitutes a violation of international law and openly defies those international rules formulated after the Second World War.

Third, the international law rule concerning acquisition of territory by occupation should not be applied to such a situation. Acquisition of territory by occupation is only applicable to ‘terra nullius’ under international law and requires possession of the land. Not only is Diaoyu Dao not ‘terra nullis’, but also the Japanese government has never implemented undisputable control of the island. Thus, the rule regarding acquisition of territory by occupation should not be applied.

Japan’s claim of sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao lacks historical support and a basis in international law

As mentioned above, Diaoyu Dao is not ‘terra nullius’ and has never been effectively occupied by Japan. International legal documents such as Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation provide that Japan must unconditionally return the territories it has stolen from China. These documents also clearly define Japan’s territory, which by no means includes Diaoyu Dao. Japan’s ‘nationalization’ and attempt to occupy Diaoyu Dao challenge the post-war international order established by such legal documents as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation and seriously violate Japans obligations under international law. Moreover, Diaoyu Dao was not validly placed under the trusteeship system established by the Treaty of San Francisco, which was signed between the United States and other countries with Japan and is partial in nature. The United States arbitrarily expanded the scope of trusteeship to include Diaoyu Dao, which is China’s territory, and later ‘returned’ the ‘power of administration’ over Diaoyu Dao to Japan. This has no legal basis and is totally invalid according to international law. The government and people of China have always explicitly opposed such illegal acts of the United Stated and Japan.

China has taken resolute measures to safeguard its sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao

China has strongly protested against and condemned the backroom deals between the United States and Japan over Diaoyu Dao. On 15 August 1951, before the San Francisco Conference, the Chinese government made the following statement:

“If the People’s Republic of China is excluded from the preparation, formulation and signing of the peace treaty with Japan, it will, no matter what its content and outcome are, be regarded as illegal and therefore invalid by the central people’s government.”

On 18 September 1951, the Chinese government issued another statement stressing that the Treaty of San Francisco was illegal and invalid and could under no circumstances be recognized. In 1971, responding to the ratifications of the Okinawa Reversion Agreement by the US Congress and the Japanese Diet, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a stern statement which pointed out that the Diaoyu Dao Islands have been an indivisible part of the Chinese territory since ancient times.

In response to Japan’s illegal violation of China’s sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao, the Chinese government has taken active and forceful measures such as issuing diplomatic statements, making serious representations to Japan and submitting notes of protest to the United Nations, solemnly stating China’s consistent proposition, principle and position, firmly upholding China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, and earnestly protecting the safety of life and property of Chinese citizens.

China has enacted domestic laws, which clearly provide that Diaoyu Dao belong to China. In 1958, the Chinese government released a statement on the territorial sea, announcing that Taiwan and its adjacent islands belong to China. In light of Japan’s repeated violations of China’s sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao since the 1970s, China adopted the Law of the Peoples’ China adopted the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1992, which unequivocally prescribes that “Taiwan and the various affiliated islands including Diaoyu Dao” belong to China. The 2009 Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Offshore Islands establishes the protection, development and management system of offshore islands and prescribes the determination and announcement of the names of offshore islands, on the basis of which China announced the standard names of Diaoyu Dao and some of its affiliated islands in March 2012. On 10 September 2012, the Chinese government issued a statement announcing the baselines of the territorial sea of Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands. On 13 September 2012, the Chinese government deposited the coordinates table and chart of the base points and baselines of the territorial sea of Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

China has maintained a routine presence and exercised jurisdiction in the waters of Diaoyu Dao. China’s marine surveillance vessels have been carrying out law enforcement patrol missions in the waters of Diaoyu Dao, and fishery administration law enforcement vessels have been conducting regular law enforcement patrols and fishery protection missions to uphold normal fishing order in the waters of Diaoyu Dao. China has also exercised administration over Diaoyu Dao and the adjacent waters by releasing weather forecasts and through oceanographic monitoring and forecasting.

Diaoyu Dao has been an inherent territory of China since ancient times, and China has indisputable sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. China strongly urges Japan to respect history and international law and immediately stop all actions that undermine China’s territorial sovereignty. The Chinese government has unshakable resolve and will to uphold the nation’s territorial sovereignty. It has the confidence and ability to safeguard China’s state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

 

Japanci negiraju da su kineski spisi istiniti.

Da su oni imali neku misiju pre Sino-Japanskog rata prema ostrvima, krajem XIX veka. Iako su anektirana 1895, posle tog rata, kao rezultat toga rata. Imali su kinezi znatno ranije misije na ta ostrva.

Negiraju da su deo ostrva Tajvana. Tajvan kaze da jesu. Americki saveznik kaze da Japanci lazu. Japanci su Tajvan(Formoza) zajedno sa ostrvima okolo okupirali 1895. Medju njih spada i Senkaku.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Zaz_pi

[Zaz_pi]

I, na kraju, celu zbrku su napravili Japanci, podrzani agresivom politiko SAD prema Kini, sa nacionalizacijom ostrva.

[Prospero]

... 

Japanci negiraju da su kineski spisi istiniti.

Da su oni imali neku misiju pre Sino-Japanskog rata prema ostrvima, krajem XIX veka. Iako su anektirana 1895, posle tog rata, kao rezultat toga rata. Imali su kinezi znatno ranije misije na ta ostrva.

Negiraju da su deo ostrva Tajvana. Tajvan kaze da jesu. Americki saveznik kaze da Japanci lazu. Japanci su Tajvan(Formoza) zajedno sa ostrvima okolo okupirali 1895. Medju njih spada i Senkaku.

Iz ranije linkovanog članka, da se na oslanjamo na površnosti:

 

China argues that Japan stole the Senkaku Islands during the Sino-Japanese war, from August 1894 to April 1895. The claim suggests Japan “usurped” the islands using the turmoil of war as an excuse. But in making that assertion, China deliberately ignores two key facts: (1) Over a period of at least 10 years before the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, the evidence showed that the Senkaku were terra nullius, and not under the control of China’s Qing Dynasty; and (2) Japan incorporated the islands into its sovereign territory using procedures in accordance with international law, prior to the conclusion of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which ended the Sino-Japanese War.

 

Under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed in April 1895, the Qing Dynasty ceded Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands to Japan. No mention was made of the Senkaku Islands. There is no record of any discussions taking place on the Senkaku in the bilateral negotiations on the treaty. The incorporation of the Senkaku into Japan’s territory by exercising its rights of “acquisition through occupation” based on the legal principle of terra nullius was carried out three months before the Treaty of Shimonoseki was concluded.

 

During the 50-year period from 1895 to 1945, when Japan ruled both Taiwan and the Pescadores under the jurisdiction of the Governor-General of Taiwan (Formosa), the Senkaku Islands were under the jurisdiction of the Okinawa prefectural government as part of the prefecture’s Nansei Islands, a chain of islands extending from southwestern Kyushu to waters north of Taiwan. Administrative jurisdiction over the Senkaku was entirely separate from the administration of Taiwan and the Pescadores.

 

...

 

Beijing also maintains that proof of China’s sovereignty over the Senkaku can be found in descriptions of the islands in old documents from the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty. It says it named the islands. These assertions, however, are attributable mostly to China’s ancient notion of Sinocentrism in an age of nominal suzerain-tributary relationships between the Chinese Empire, which claimed to be cultural center of the world, and other nations. At that time imperial titles were given by Chinese dynasties to “barbarian” tributary states. This thinking has been superseded by modern international law.

 

Taiwan is also referred to as Formosa, a derivation from the Portuguese Ilha Formosa, meaning “beautiful island.” Does that mean Taiwan should be Portuguese territory? Extending this false notion of Sinocentrism, it could be argued that Okinawa (the Ryukyu Archipelago), which once paid tribute to both Japan and China, was “part of the sovereign territory of China.” News reports this year have a high-ranking Chinese government official suggesting China could claim sovereignty over Okinawa. Subsequently, the Global Times, the People’s Daily’s international version, argued in an editorial in May 2013 that the territorial status of Okinawa remained undecided.

Msm, i Bugari imaju pravo™ na Bosilegrad, ali tough luck...

[Roger Sanchez]

Kako ti se da?

[Zaz_pi]

Iz ranije linkovanog članka, da se na oslanjamo na površnosti:

 

Msm, i Bugari imaju pravo na Bosilegrad, ali tough luck...

 

Da vidimo to sto si stavio:

 

(2) Japan incorporated the islands into its sovereign territory using procedures in accordance with international law, prior to the conclusion of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which ended the Sino-Japanese War.

 

 

Pre? Koja tacno godina? Posto su svi izvori govore da su oduzei u Prvom Sino-Japanskom ratu. Ako imas neki drugi izvor molim te stavi. Je l' to znaci i da su ostrva Penghu oduzeta pre Simonoseki ugovora? Cuj, mnogo su oni toga inkorporirali pre samog potpisivanja u sastav Japana a sporazum je samo to potvrdio, jer je Kina bila naterana na to. Posle Drugog sv. rata sve su vratili po dogovru iz Potsdama.

 

 

During the 50-year period from 1895 to 1945, when Japan ruled both Taiwan and the Pescadores under the jurisdiction of the Governor-General of Taiwan (Formosa), the Senkaku Islands were under the jurisdiction of the Okinawa prefectural government as part of the prefecture’s Nansei Islands, a chain of islands extending from southwestern Kyushu to waters north of Taiwan. Administrative jurisdiction over the Senkaku was entirely separate from the administration of Taiwan and the Pescadores.

 

Koga zabole kako su japanci delili svoje kolonijalne uprave? Kakve to veze ima?

 

 

Beijing also maintains that proof of China’s sovereignty over the Senkaku can be found in descriptions of the islands in old documents from the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty. It says it named the islands. These assertions, however, are attributable mostly to China’s ancient notion of Sinocentrism in an age of nominal suzerain-tributary relationships between the Chinese Empire, which claimed to be cultural center of the world, and other nations. At that time imperial titles were given by Chinese dynasties to “barbarian” tributary states. This thinking has been superseded by modern international law.

 

A, to nije moderni medjunarodni zakon?! Zato je vreme kolonijalnih osvajanja teritorija  gde je Japan vladar Azije a car licno sunce. , to je moderni medjunatodni zakon. U pravu si oni, Amerikanci tako kazu.

 

 

Taiwan is also referred to as Formosa, a derivation from the Portuguese Ilha Formosa, meaning “beautiful island.” Does that mean Taiwan should be Portuguese territory? Extending this false notion of Sinocentrism, it could be argued that Okinawa (the Ryukyu Archipelago), which once paid tribute to both Japan and China, was “part of the sovereign territory of China.” News reports this year have a high-ranking Chinese government official suggesting China could claim sovereignty over Okinawa. Subsequently, the Global Times, the People’s Daily’s international version, argued in an editorial in May 2013 that the territorial status of Okinawa remained undecided.

 

Okinava ne moze biti kineska jer nije uzeta 1895 kroz imaperijalni rat koji je 1945, kada je stvaran danasnji poredak, oznacen kao osvajacki i da je Japan mora da vrati teritorije koje je uzeo kroz imperijalna osvajanja. To si i sam citirao i napisao:

Btw, text iz Kaira: 

 

It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.

Moglo bi ovo treće da pokrije Senkaku, ali, opet, nije, terra nullis je način na koji su kolonijalne sile sticale gomile poseda, ostrva i arhipelaga, pu pu daleko bilo da se to smatra nasilnim ili pohlepnim.

 

 

Neuporedivo sa Bugarima.

Amerikanci dodeljuju ostrva 1951 Japanu, to znaci da im nisu dali psole 1945, kao rezultat Hladnog rata, sto Kina nikada nije prihvatila. Nije ni americki saveznik Tajvan. Primer aradi, ti si napisao da su ih se kinezi setili kada je tamo pronadjen gas, sto tek treba dokazati da tamo ima velike kolicine gasa, to i nije pravi razlog za reakciju Kine:

 

Ono što se smatra imperijalnim osvajanjima Japana je revidirano i počišćeno sa mape 1945. od strane Amerikanaca kojima su Kinezi tada bili saveznici. Pošto su Senkaku ostrva tada "preživela" čišćenje to samo znači da su makar i implicitno priznata kao japanska, poštujući terra nullis princip, tj da nisu uopšte oduzeta Qing dinastiji nego samo zaposednuta kao ničija zemlja. Kinezi su ih se setili kada je tamo nađen gas, gle čuda.

 

Japanska vlada je od svojih građana, znaju im se i imena, otkupila zemlju.

 

Sto nije tacno:

 

China has strongly protested against and condemned the backroom deals between the United States and Japan over Diaoyu Dao. On 15 August 1951, before the San Francisco Conference, the Chinese government made the following statement:

“If the People’s Republic of China is excluded from the preparation, formulation and signing of the peace treaty with Japan, it will, no matter what its content and outcome are, be regarded as illegal and therefore invalid by the central people’s government.”

On 18 September 1951, the Chinese government issued another statement stressing that the Treaty of San Francisco was illegal and invalid and could under no circumstances be recognized. In 1971, responding to the ratifications of the Okinawa Reversion Agreement by the US Congress and the Japanese Diet, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a stern statement which pointed out that the Diaoyu Dao Islands have been an indivisible part of the Chinese territory since ancient times.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Zaz_pi

[Prospero]

Da vidimo to sto si stavio:

 

Pre? Koja tacno godina? Posto su svi izvori govore da su oduzei u Prvm Sini-japanskom ratu. Ako imas neki drugi izvor molim te stavi. Je l' to znaci i da su ostrva Penghu oduzeta pre Simonoski ugovora?

pa već je stavljeno, ne čitaš jbg:

 

The incorporation of the Senkaku into Japan’s territory by exercising its rights of “acquisition through occupation” based on the legal principle of terra nullius was carried out three months before the Treaty of Shimonoseki was concluded.

Cuj, mnogo su oni toga inkrorporirali pre samog potpisivanja u sastav Japana a sporazum je samo to potvrdio, jer je Kina bila naterana. Posle Drugog sv. rata sve su vratili pod dogovru iz Potsdama.

Slažem se, sve što je po Potsdamskoj deklaraciji trebalo da bude oduzeto (Mandžurija, Peskadori i Tajvan) je oduzeto. Dakle, rešena stvar.

 

Okinava ne moze biti kineska jer nije uzeta 1895 kroz imaperijalni rat koji je 1945, kada je stvaran danasnji poredak, oznacen kao osvajacki i da je Japan mora da vrati teritorije koje je uzeo kroz imperijalna osvajanja. To si i sam citirao i napisao:

Ponovo ne čitaš. Tekst iz Kaira eksplicitno kaže "occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914", za Kinu kaže "such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores". Senkaku ostrva nema nigde markiranih za povraćaj Kini, toliko je belodano.

 

 

Amerikanci dodeljuju ostrv1 1951 Japanu, kao rezultat Hladnog rata, sto Kina nikada nije prihvatila. Nije ni americki saveznik Tajvan. Primer aradi, ti si napisao da su ih se kinezi setili kada je tamo pronadjen gas, sto tek treba dokazati da tamo ima velike kolicine gasa, to i nije pravi razlog za reakciju Kine:

Još jednom, Senkaku nigde nisu markirana za vraćanje Kini pod izgovorom japanske imperijalne ekspanzije. Amerikanci su ih uzeli od Japana, nikome drugom nisu ni trebala biti vraćena po tada važećim zajedničkim deklaracijama i ugovorima, vratili su ih Japanu kako je bio i red. Zašto su ta ostrva izostala iz teksta 2 relevantne deklaracije ostaje Kinezima da se pitaju i kukaju.

 

 

Ende.

[Zaz_pi]

Inace, da bi se to bolje razumelo, samo treba pogledati slucaj Tajvana posle 1945. i sta su Amerikanci radili.

[Veletin]

 

 

 

Ende.

 

Jel Formoza vrnuta Kini ?

[Zaz_pi]

pa već je stavljeno, ne čitaš jbg:

 

Slažem se, sve što je po Potsdamskoj deklaraciji trebalo da bude oduzeto (Mandžurija, Peskadori i Tajvan) je oduzeto. Dakle, rešena stvar.

 

Ponovo ne čitaš. Tekst iz Kaira eksplicitno kaže "occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914", za Kinu kaže "such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores". Senkaku ostrva nema nigde markiranih za povraćaj Kini, toliko je belodano.

 

Još jednom, Senkaku nigde nisu markirana za vraćanje Kini pod izgovorom japanske imperijalne ekspanzije. Zašto su izostala iz teksta 2 relevantne deklaracije ostaje Kinezima da se pitaju i kukaju.

 

Oni spadaju pod tajvansku kontrolu.

 

-Citao sam i vidim da pise da je 3 meseca pre zakljucena ugovora, sto spada pod Prvi Sino-Japanski rat, koji je trajao od avgusta 1894 do aprila 1895. U aprilu 1895 je zakljucen sporazum. O kakvom medjunarodnom pravu pricaju kada su rezultati toga rata ponisteni u Potsdamu i Kairu?

“acquisition through occupation”

Lepo su napisali.

-Tacno, ostrva spadaju pod Tajvan. Sto govori i tajvanska vlada, saveznik SAD. Ova cinjnica poklapa i sve ostalo kasnije.

Ne, ti ne citas dobro:

 

It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.

 

Japan mora da vrati ostrva koja je uzeo u Tihom okeanu od 1914 a Kinezima da da vrati koje je ranije uzeo, posto je Tajvan uzet 1895. I nije lepo to sto radis. Tacno se vidi logicki nastavak AND a ne nastavak nabrajanja za 1914. Zato u Potsadamu i ima ono tumacenje za 1895 koji si ti pokusao da ismejes a to pise u Kairskoj deklaraciji.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Zaz_pi

[Roger Sanchez]

Jel Formoza vrnuta Kini ?

Je. Kamo bi Generalissimus zbrisao od Chairmana da nije?

[Zaz_pi]

Onaj sto se skolovao kod komunista?
 

Edited July 2, 2014 by Zaz_pi

[Prospero]

-Citao sam i vidim da pise da je 3 meseca pre zakljucena ugovora, sto spada pod Prvi Sino-Japanski rat, koji je trajao od avgusta 1894 do aprila 1895. U aprilu 1895 je zakljucen sporazum. O kakvom medjunarodnom pravu pricaju kada su rezultati toga rata ponisteni u Potsdamu i Kairu?

Lepo su napisali.

-Tacno, ostrva spadaju pod Tajvan. Sto govori i tajvanska vlada, saveznik SAD. Ova cinjnica poklapa i sve ostalo kasnije.

Ne, ti ne citas dobro:

 

Japan mora da vrati ostrva koja je uzeo u Tihom okeanu od 1914 a Kinezima da da vrati koje je ranije uzeo, posto je Tajvan uzet 1895. I nije lepo to sto radis. Tacno se vidi logicki nastavak AND a ne nastavak nabrajanja za 1914. Zato u Potsadamu i ima ono tumacenje za 1895 koji si ti pokusao da ismejes a to pise u Kairskoj deklaraciji.

 

 

Dakle - Mandžurija, Tajvan, Peskadori, eksplicitno navedeni i vraćeni. Tu nemaš argumenata da su Senkaku ostrva nešto posebno što je trebalo biti vraćeno a nije.

 

Sada je argument da su Senkaku ostrva deo Tajvana. To piše gde, tačno? U kom međunarodnom ugovoru? U Šimonosekiju, Kairu i Potsdamu ne. Zašto Kina 1943-45. nije par kamenih ostrva eksplicitno navela kao posebnu kategoriju za povraćaj ili kao deo Tajvana? Nema šanse da ne bi bilo vraćeno pod okriljem Amerike 1945. da jeste.

[Zaz_pi]

 

and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.

 

Kao primer-such as. Ali cak i to nije bitno ako se pogleda poslednji podebljani deo.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Zaz_pi

[Prospero]

To nije odgovor na pitanje kako su tačno ta ostrva deo Tajvana. No to nije više ni bitno.

 

"All other territories which she has taken by violence and greed" su i vraćena, nema razloga da verujemo da 1945. nije vraćeno ono što je bilo markirano za vraćanje.

Potsdam, Čl. 8.
 

8.The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

Dakle, saveznici su odlučili da je OK da Senkaku ostrva ostanu suvereni deo prefekture Okinava tj Japana, makar i implicitno, samim tim što u sklopu povraćaja Tajvana, Peskadora i Mandžurije ista nisu vraćena. Kinezi nisu uputili smislen protest tokom određivanja i vraćanja, ergo nema tu nezavršenog posla...