Shangri-La Dialogue was held at Singapore to discuss the security situation in Asia, on the last day of May and the first of June. But was it a dialogue? Here is a photo of the pre-lunch reception on the first day. Japan's Defence Minister, Mr. Onodera, was shaking hands with some delegate on the right side, while China's General Wan, Deputy Chief of Staff of People's Liberation Army, was talking to some other delegate on the extreme left, never exchanging a word even casually.
The Chinese delegates stressed that the islands in the East and South China Seas belonged to China for a long time by now, but were taken over by the Japanese imperialism. Whether it was China or any other that was a dominant power on the sea, it is true that long-distance, inter-country trade (between China and Japan, for instance) was prosperous on these seas. But when some one says that China was active around these islands since, for instance, the ages of Han, or Tang dynasties, and therefore they belonged to them even now, we get into trouble. Do we have to go back to the eras of Han, or Tang, to determine the present boundaries? Surely what is applied to China must be applied to others also.
It is true that some of the islands had been taken over by Japan by war. Those islands, Taiwan included, have been written down in Peace Treaties. The islands in South China Sea were abandoned by Japan according to Article 2(f) of San Francisco Peace Treaty, without mentioning whom they would belong to. But Senkaku is not in any of the treaties, nor is it in any of the treaties by which Japan annexed new territories. Why? Because they were not taken by Japan in a war. China started claiming Senkaku not in the Han, not even in the Tang era, but in 1970's, which is unjust. There may have been Chinese activities, but that applies to every where, and every people. To send warships and warplanes is quite unbecoming a Permanent Member of the UNSC.
The Chinese delegates stressed that the islands in the East and South China Seas belonged to China for a long time by now, but were taken over by the Japanese imperialism. Whether it was China or any other that was a dominant power on the sea, it is true that long-distance, inter-country trade (between China and Japan, for instance) was prosperous on these seas. But when some one says that China was active around these islands since, for instance, the ages of Han, or Tang dynasties, and therefore they belonged to them even now, we get into trouble. Do we have to go back to the eras of Han, or Tang, to determine the present boundaries? Surely what is applied to China must be applied to others also.
It is true that some of the islands had been taken over by Japan by war. Those islands, Taiwan included, have been written down in Peace Treaties. The islands in South China Sea were abandoned by Japan according to Article 2(f) of San Francisco Peace Treaty, without mentioning whom they would belong to. But Senkaku is not in any of the treaties, nor is it in any of the treaties by which Japan annexed new territories. Why? Because they were not taken by Japan in a war. China started claiming Senkaku not in the Han, not even in the Tang era, but in 1970's, which is unjust. There may have been Chinese activities, but that applies to every where, and every people. To send warships and warplanes is quite unbecoming a Permanent Member of the UNSC.
