Board logo

标题: 日本地图显示钓鱼岛属中国 [打印本页]

作者: Brainteaser    时间: 2010-9-22 11:30     标题: 日本地图显示钓鱼岛属中国

信源:纽约时报

《纽约时报》著名专栏作家克里斯托夫指出,完全看不出来美国会为了钓鱼台(大陆称钓鱼岛----本报注)而与中国开战,何况美国并没有认定钓鱼台是日本的。他还指出,日本人自己在227年前印行的地图就标明钓鱼台是中国的。
曾获普利策奖的尼古拉斯・克里斯托夫针对中、日渔船纠纷在博客中撰文,说明纷争的来龙去脉、美国立场及个人观点。文章说,就技术层面言,《美日安保条约》涵盖所有日本行使管辖的地方,而钓鱼台目前由日本管辖,因此如果中日交火,美国有义务帮忙日本。然而,美国立场一向是“钓鱼台的主权到底是谁的,美国没有意见”,因此美国将处于很荒谬的地位,因为“我们并没有同意钓鱼台一定是日本的,却要因为钓鱼台而帮日本打仗。”

作者指出,就事实层面而言,“美国为了钓鱼台这几个无人岩石而履行条约义务,机会是零”。他说,美国没有理由为了几个“可能根本就是中国的岛屿”,而与中国发生核子冲突。但是他同时指出,如果不履行条约义务,势必伤害美日关系。

究竟钓鱼台的主权谁属?作者回答说:“我觉得应该是中国的,尽管答案不是那么明确。”他提出几点。第一,中国的航海记录显示钓鱼台是中国的,“已有数世纪之久”;第二,日本在 1783年印行的地图,标明钓鱼台是中国的。第三,日本是在1884年假装“发现”了钓鱼台,然后在1895年根据《马关条约》取得台湾时,一并取得钓鱼台。

今日是“9・18事变”79周年,中日关系亦因钓鱼台事件日趋紧张。本港地图收藏冢谭兆璋昨日展示过百幅来自英、法、德、日的18世纪国际航海图,以证实钓鱼台的主权从古至今均属于中国大陆。他指着一幅1794年的英国航海图表示,图上的"钓鱼台”译音,均用闽南话拼音,证明当时的中国几,已经发现钓鱼台,并拥有命名杈及主救,比日本声称由琉球人古贺辰四郎于1884年发现钓鱼台早近一个世纪。

谭兆璋续指,另一幅1752年的英国航海图更清楚列明,由台湾基隆镇前往“琉球那霸港”的航线,其中,钓鱼台属于航行的标志岛,由此可知“钓鱼台”在外国人眼中属于中国大陆的部分。

“就算不讲外国地图,我们中国 1373年,大约在明朝,已经有文献记载钓鱼台的位置同地形,合乎国际法中先发现、先占有的规定。而我们亦都有命名权同使用杈。”有关的文献更记载钓鱼台附近的“黄尾屿”、“赤尾屿” 均标注中国大陆的版图内。
作者: Brainteaser    时间: 2010-9-22 11:33

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com ... the-diaoyu-islands/
作者: Brainteaser    时间: 2010-9-22 11:33

本帖最后由 Brainteaser 于 2010-9-22 10:35 编辑

September 10, 2010, 6:07 PMLook Out for the Diaoyu IslandsBy NICHOLAS KRISTOFTensions have erupted over some barren rocks in the Pacific that you may never have heard of, but stay tuned – this is a boundary dispute that could get ugly and some day have far-reaching consequences for China, Japan, Taiwan and the United States.
The islands in question are called the Senkaku chain by Japan, the Diaoyu islands by China, and the Diaoyutai by Taiwan. All three claim the islands, which are really just five islets and three barren rocks northeast of Taiwan, 200 miles off the Chinese coast. The latest confrontation occurred when a Chinese fishing boat collided with two Japanese naval vessels trying to intercept it near the islands. The Japanese detained the Chinese captain for questioning and the two countries have been exchanging indignant protests.


The reason to worry is that nationalists in both China and Taiwan see the islands as unquestionably theirs and think that their government has been weak in asserting this authority. So far, wiser heads have generally prevailed on each side, but at some point a weakened Chinese leader might try to gain legitimacy with the public by pushing the issue and recovering the islands.  It would be a dangerous game and would have a disastrous impact on China-Japan relations, but if successful it would raise the popularity of the Chinese government and would also be a way of putting pressure on Taiwan.
The other problem is that, technically, the U.S. would be obliged to bail Japan out if there were a fight over the Senkakus. The U.S. doesn’t take a position on who owns the islands, but the Japan-U.S. security treaty specifies that the U.S. will help defend areas that Japan administers. And in 1972, when the U.S. handed Okinawa back to Japan, it agreed that Japan should administer the Senkakus. So we’re in the absurd position of being committed to help Japan fight a war over islands, even though we don’t agree that they are necessarily Japanese.
In reality, of course, there is zero chance that the U.S. will honor its treaty obligation over a few barren rocks. We’re not going to risk a nuclear confrontation with China over some islands that may well be China’s. But if we don’t help, our security relationship with Japan will be stretched to the breaking point.
So which country has a better claim to the islands? My feeling is that it’s China, although the answer isn’t clearcut. Chinese navigational records show the islands as Chinese for many centuries, and a 1783 Japanese map shows them as Chinese as well. Japan purported to “discover” the islands only in 1884 and annexed them only in 1895 when it also grabbed Taiwan. (You can also make a case that they are terra nullis, belonging to no nation.)
The best approach would be for China and Japan to agree to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice, but realistically that won’t happen. And since some believe that the area is rich with oil and gas reserves, the claims from each side have become more insistent.
As Chinese nationalism grows, as China’s navy and ability to project power in the ocean gains, we could see some military jostling over the islands. You read it here first.






欢迎光临 华人论坛 (http://yayabay.com/forum/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2