(This picture is from Economist, 22nd
September, 2012)
Last week’s Economist used a picture of
a recently most heated island as its cover—Diaoyu Island, also known as
Senkakus Island in Japan. The story behind it is titled Could Asia Really Go to War over These? , talking about the debate between
China and Japan on the issue which of them Diaoyu Island, or Senkakus Island, belongs
to. Both countries insist their sovereignty of the island. The government
attitudes and protest activities in both countries raised concerns on whether
there is going to be a war between these two main Asia powers.
Such sensitive political issue should be
carefully covered by a third-party in a very neutral way. However, this article
revealed some unprofessional ways of arguing which disappointed readers’
authority to this journal’s reputation.
In first
paragraph following the basic introduction, the author threw a sentence without
a second thought—“One Chinese newspaper has helpfully suggested skipping the
pointless diplomacy and moving straight to the main course by serving up Japan
with an atom bomb." Well, such words may be a good tool to raise
readers’ interest, or was the author trying to tell a joke? As a professional journal, shouldn’t there be a clear reference
of the source of this sentence, especially when it has a dangerous tendency to exaggerate
the anger of Chinese people? Along with the
clear reference as convincing evidence, the reputation, circulation and quality
of the “Chinese newspaper” should also be mentioned to give more evidence for
the readers to judge. Still, I really doubt there will be such irrational words
in a published newspaper under Chinese government’s eyes.
Moreover,
this article tried to use a parallel between “China’s rise and that of imperial
Germany over a century ago.” The argument is that “Germany felt that the
world was too slow to accommodate its growing power, and crude, irrational
passions like nationalism took hold. China is re-emerging after what it sees as
150 years of humiliation, surrounded by anxious neighbors, many of them allied
to America.” The only similarity seems to be the rapid growth of the nation.
According to such logic, any country enjoying a fast development through its people’s
intelligence and hardworking will become a threat to the rest of the world. In
face, China is only trying to protect its
own territory, not expanding. And it is quite sarcastic for the author neglected
Japan's imperial past.
Which country does the
island actually belongs to? And why there emerges such situation now?
The sovereignty of the
island remains to be an unsolved question because of the hazy decisions after
the Second World War. The Island initially belongs to China which can be
justified by many historical sources. For the history, an article with academic
evidences from New York Times is a good reference. (http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/)
Both the history and common law are disputed on
this issue as both sides hold valid evidences. The
Japanese Government has consistently adopted the so-called "equidistant
medium line'' principle while “in international law, they have encroached upon
China's territorial and oceanic sovereignty.” says China Daily.
The resource discovered
under the water becomes another reason of debating, maybe the main reason to
some extent. The Economist said, “The Senkakus
row has boiled over now because the Japanese government is buying some of the
islands from a private Japanese owner.” The Japanese purchase of the
Island marks the sovereignty of the island which enables Japan to own all the resource
itself. The main value of the island is the oil under the sea and the fisheries
area which China and Japan agreed to use together in official document while
Japan broke it as its military vessel hit Chinese fishing boat to sink.
Here is a
link of the article in Economist
No comments:
Post a Comment