This ad and variants appeared in US newspapers this week. What is going
on? It's quite simple: a case of naked expanionist aggression that began
in the early 1970s and is starting to crescendo as China's leaders are
now trapped in claims they cannot support and no longer wholly control.
Come below the fold to for a post-mortem on the past and a pre-mortem on
the future.....
By VorkosiganVorkosigan
What happened in the Senkakus is really quite simple, despite forty
years of attempts to complicate it by the two Chinese governments, the
ROC (on Taiwan) and the PRC (in Beijing). In 1895 Japan annexed the
Senkakus, which at the time nobody claimed to own. For some seventy
years there were no protests from either the ROC (Taiwan) or the PRC
(Beijing). However, in 1968 a report by the Committee for the
Co-ordination of Joint Prospecting for Mineral Resources in Asian
Offshore Areas of the UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East
(ECAFE), identified great potential for fossil fuel energy resources
under the East China Sea. In 1971, after Okinawa was returned to Japan
(the ROC (Taiwan) protested this) both the ROC (Taiwan) and PRC
(Beijing) governments laid claim to the Senkakus, which they call the
Diaoyutai Islands, the name they've been known as in Chinese for several
centuries. Recall that both governments claim to represent "China".
That is the essence of the dispute. Currently both ROC (Taiwan) and
PRC (Beijing) argue that the Diaoyutai are part of Taiwan, which, they
both argue is part of China (under international law, most powers regard
Taiwan's status as undetermined). They buttress their claims based on
ancient maps and texts. More on that in a moment, but here are two
bleakly salient facts:
1. ...between 1895 and 1970, neither Chinese government ever
registered any protest over the Senkaku Islands. On all texts and maps
produced by the PRC (Beijing) and ROC (Taiwan) the Senkakus are
identified as Japanese and generally, their Japanese names are used. No
maps or texts identify the islands' ownership as controversial.
2. ...after 1971, both governments hastily altered their official
maps in the best 1984 style to reflect this historically new claim, and
then further claimed that the islands had been "Chinese" all along. The
idea that "ancient history" supports the Chinese claim to the Senkakus
has arisen only since this time.
Let's look at the evidence..... first, the ROC (Taiwan).
ROC (Taiwan)
Although many of us in the Asian blogosphere know about the map
alterations (as does the media, which rarely reports on them), I was
nevertheless delighted when a longtime reader of my blog alerted me to
this recent paper entitled
The Diaoyutai Islands on Taiwan’s Official Maps: Pre- and Post-1971
(Asian Affairs: An American Review, 39:90–105, 2012) by Ko-hua Yap,
Yu-wen Chen, and Ching-chi Huang. They write by way of introduction:
"This research report is the first to present irrefutable
evidence of the ROC government’s change of position from excluding to
including the Diaoyutai Islands in the ROC’s territory in the early
1970s. The evidence lies in cartographic information produced by the ROC
government before the 1970s, which had always tacitly assumed that the
Diaoyutai Islands were part of the Ryukyu Islands, not under the ROC’s
sovereign control. Not until 1971 and 1972 did the Taiwanese government
modify official maps—such as national atlases, military topographic
maps, and maps in national textbooks—labelling the Diaoyutai Islands as
part of Taiwan or using the “Taiwanese name” (i.e., Diaoyutai Islands,
Tiaoyutai Islets) to identify these islands."
Yap et al examine four cases of how official texts and documents were
altered. First, they instance the government-produced Taiwan Statistical
Abstract. From 1946 to 1971, they observe, this text identified the
northernmost point of Taiwan as Pengjia Islet, one of the three small
islands off the northeast coast of Taiwan (
example).
But on Dec 2, 1971 the government announced that the Senkakus/Diaoyutai
belonged to China and were administrated by Yilan county. The 1972
abstract was then duly altered, and Kuba Jima and Taisho Jima in the
Senkakus were presented as the northernmost and easternmost points of
Taiwan in all subsequent versions of this text.
They then move on to the official maps. First they present the National War College atlases of Taiwan and China. They write:
"Evidence of the ROC’s shift of stance on the Diaoyutai
Islands is also displayed in the NWC productions. For instance, in the
National Atlas of China Vol. 1, the theme of which is Taiwan Province,
the Diaoyutai Islands were not included in the first (1959), second
(1963), or even third (1967) editions. It was only in 1972, when the
fourth edition of the National Atlas of China Vol. 1 was published, that
the Diaoyutai Islands were shown as part of Taiwan’s territory."
Here is the relevant map:

...the top map is the 1959, 1963, and 1967 edition. In the 1972 map
there is a new inset box, depicting the Diaoyutai Islands as part of
Taiwan. Then they, note, something else new appeared on this map:
It is equally interesting to note that, on the copyright
page of the revised version, a line states that “the delineation of
boundaries on the maps must not be considered authoritative.” This line
never appeared in the original edition or in any other volumes of the
National Atlas of China or the Grand Atlas of the World.