中共與國民黨一樣，都是在1970年以後才開始主張釣魚台主權。晚了日本七十多年....
事實上，中共對釣魚台歷史及主權歸屬比馬英九還清楚。根據中國流亡作家袁紅冰即將出版的《美國肢解中國？》書中，引述了解放軍第一鷹派戴旭在「南京政院」內部的演講：「……雙方共有大陸架，那就是平分中間線，這個地方是釣魚島，日本覺得釣魚島是他的，他就要從釣魚島平分東海，所以你不能用海洋公約來反駁它……聞一多一首詩，〈七子之歌〉……琉球跟台灣一樣都是我們中國的兒子……美國人卻把琉球當成一個獨立國家。一九四五年日本戰敗了。美國四次向蔣介石提出要把琉球歸還中國，前提是讓蔣介石把遠征軍，就是孫立人在緬甸作戰的十萬部隊，調到日本去做為佔領軍……」
蔣介石疲於內戰，沖繩歸屬日本，釣魚台因此隨沖繩歸屬日本。不知馬英九與國民黨是否因為不敢或不願正視歷史事實，才會像強國人的玻璃心一樣受不了，對李前總統飆罵。
0805 馬英九的鐵證如山的史實說了幾什年了，怎麼釣魚台還是別人的。謊話說千遍就是史實？
Stanford Report, August 5, 2015
Stanford scholar illuminates history of disputed China Sea islands
Friction between China and Japan over sovereignty for the resource-rich Diaoyu Islands has escalated in recent years. Research by Stanford graduate student Xiang Zhai reveals new details about the dispute that might help resolve it.
Wikimedia Commons
This rocky outcropping in the East China Sea is part of the disputed Senkaku Islands, which are also known as the Diaoyu Islands. Stanford graduate student Xiang Zhai has found new details of the islands' history in the Hoover Institution Archives.
A desolate chain of small, rocky islands in the East China Sea has caused more than a few waves between Japan and China in recent years.
The Senkaku Islands, also known as the Diaoyu Islands, were under Chinese rule from ancient times until the late 19th century when Japan laid claim to the uninhabited islands. The United States affirmed the Japanese claim in 1971 under the Okinawa reversion agreement.
China renewed its interest in the 1970s when oil and natural gas were found there. Many Chinese also perceive the Diaoyu Islands as a symbol of China's historical defeats. As such, the islands have continued to be a source of tension between the two nations.
New research by Stanford's Xiang Zhai, a master's degree candidate in the Center for East Asian Studies, dispels widely accepted narratives about the history of the islands. Zhai says his findings, which draw from the recently declassified diaries of Chiang Kai-shek, could help resolve the conflict.
Zhai's investigation centers on Chiang, who ruled China from 1927 to 1949 and Taiwan from 1949 to 1975. His alleged indifference toward the fate of the Diaoyu Islands is frequently cited as the reason that the islands have not come back under Chinese control. According to Zhai, academia has paid insufficient attention to Chiang's role in determining the islands' fate.
Zhai spoke with the Stanford News Service about his research:
What do the Diaoyu Islands mean to the Chinese people today?
These islands may be small, but they are a point of national pride for the Chinese people and their ownership represents political influence and security. The resolution of the disputes will carry tremendous psychological weight, as the Chinese use the status of the Diaoyu Islands to evaluate China's success. It has been the consensus among the Chinese that the government should resolve the Diaoyu Island disputes; therefore, the government is constantly pressured to revisit the issue.
On a pragmatic level, the dispute is about oil. China's energy demands will comprise a quarter of the world's by 2035, and the islands could help meet those needs.
Why was Chiang Kai-shek indifferent about them?
Chiang Kai-shek Diaries/Hoover Institution Archives
This June 1948 entry is from the diary of Chiang Kai-shek, who fled mainland China after the nationalist forces he led lost the civil war to the Communists.
First, Chiang recognized on the eve of the 1943 Cairo Conference [with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British leader Winston Churchill] that China's claim to Okinawa might raise U.S. concerns about Chinese expansionism. So, he became more cautious and less proactive about the Okinawa issue. Second, in the years following World War II Chiang had to prioritize fighting the civil war. When he lost that war, he focused on protecting his base in Taiwan, from where he planned to regroup and launch a counterattack on mainland China. Chiang's preoccupation with these missions likely prevented him from focusing on Okinawa.
Third, although Chiang proposed to Roosevelt at Cairo that Okinawa be placed under joint administration by the U.S. and China, the U.S.'s sole administration of Okinawa was acceptable to him, especially after the State Department assured Chiang's ambassador in 1952 that the U.S. did not support restoring the Ryukyus (Okinawa) to Japan.
Finally, Chiang did not believe that the U.S. would return strategically important Okinawa to Japan without a struggle. It was only after the Kennedy administration announced America's intention to restore Okinawa to Japan that Chiang became more attentive.
How did you come upon Chiang's diaries?
Chiang's diaries have been in storage at the Hoover Institution since 2005 and were fully declassified in 2009. Luckily, they were immediately available to me as a research assistant at Hoover and as a master's student at Stanford. The challenge was that the information I needed was scattered throughout the diaries – a full 76 boxes of material.
I read every page to make sure that I gleaned all the relevant information. It was easy to miss references to the events because the diaries were written informally and often included only passing mention of Chiang's thoughts on the subject. I familiarized myself with Chiang's style and get inside his head.
What was most surprising about your findings?
The most surprising discovery for me was learning that Chiang studied history himself. In early 1967, he read a book concerning the history of the Ryukyu Kingdom. He immediately regretted not having read it sooner. He wrote in his diary that his lack of knowledge about the Ryukyus' tributary relations with China and the story of it passing into Japanese hands had resulted in his "loss of the perfect opportunity to recover the Ryukyus." I infer that the opportunity he was referring to is the Cairo Conference. It's remarkable that Chiang's change of heart in the 1960s might have been influenced by a history book.
Another surprising finding was that Roosevelt, Churchill, [U.S. Secretary of State Cordell] Hull, [British Foreign Minister Anthony] Eden and [Soviet leader Josef] Stalin all agreed to return Okinawa to China after WWII during or around the time of the 1943 Cairo Conference. China had significant disagreements with all three major Allies concerning Myanmar [Burma], India, Hong Kong and so on – still, Chiang gained seemingly unanimous approval from his peers on the Okinawa issue.
How do you think your work will impact Chiang's legacy?
I hope to correct both the public and academic perceptions that Chiang did not care about the Ryukyu Islands. This could also change the common perception that Chiang is responsible for the Diaoyu Island disputes today.
Does your research have implications for contemporary politics in the region?
I believe my research contributes to the larger conversation. The Potsdam Declaration delineated the post-war Japanese territory and granted Japan "the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." Reading Chiang Kai-shek's documents, I came to the same conclusion he did in his late career: that the Ryukyu and the Diaoyu Islands are included in the minor islands referred to in the declaration.
Though Japan benefits in part from controlling the islands, the Japanese have alienated the Chinese, lost China as a friend, and stirred up unhappy historical memories. This has been a lose-lose situation that we can resolve by understanding its true history.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/august/islands-chiang-diaries-080515.html飛去來器效應
www.cap.org.tw/W/w-182-3.html
康定怡. 澳洲原住民善於操玩一種叫作「飛去來器」的玩器，好的玩手能把這玩器拋 ...以釣魚台為例，有趣的是中國找出了《浮生六記》中的第五記〈海國記〉中有釣魚島 ...中共人民日報〈中共的大腦前葉〉於一九五三年明確宣稱釣魚島是日本沖繩的一部分。
------
某列島的主權所屬，漁民最清楚。不用搞領土神話來愚民。
-----
====
The Economist explains
Who really owns the Senkaku islands?
by D.Z.
分享了 1 條連結。
++++
日促協防納釣島 美拒背書
怕惹中國 歐巴馬不住迎賓館
日盼美特別提及協防釣島（下圖），但歐巴馬應不會同意。歐新社
【陳怡妏╱綜合外電報導】美國總統歐巴馬下周三晚間將抵達東京，展開3天2夜的訪問日本行程，隔天將與日本首相安倍晉三舉行高峰會，但日本希望在會後發表共同聲明，重申尖閣諸島（我稱釣魚台列嶼）適用《美日安保條約》的協防範圍，但美國疑似不想過度刺激中國，已加以拒絕。
釣魚台、與那國島 位置圖行程灌水為3天2夜
歐巴馬為了宣示美國「亞洲再平衡」的外交政策是玩真的，將於22至29日訪問日本、南韓、馬來西亞與菲律賓。
日本政府為了以國賓禮遇招待歐巴馬，情商美方將原本只有2天的訪日行程，灌水為3天2夜，23日晚間抵達羽田機場後，安倍預定舉辦晚宴為歐巴馬洗塵，隔天再舉行峰會，重申美日安全聯盟依舊堅定。
南韓《朝鮮日報》昨分析，歐巴馬訪日，很可能只是「形式上的國事訪問」。因歐巴馬拒絕入住日本政府的迎賓館，選擇住東京都內的飯店。但日本《產經新聞》指歐巴馬可能認為形式不重要，而選擇住飯店。
日本政府為了以國賓禮遇招待歐巴馬，情商美方將原本只有2天的訪日行程，灌水為3天2夜，23日晚間抵達羽田機場後，安倍預定舉辦晚宴為歐巴馬洗塵，隔天再舉行峰會，重申美日安全聯盟依舊堅定。
南韓《朝鮮日報》昨分析，歐巴馬訪日，很可能只是「形式上的國事訪問」。因歐巴馬拒絕入住日本政府的迎賓館，選擇住東京都內的飯店。但日本《產經新聞》指歐巴馬可能認為形式不重要，而選擇住飯店。
主圖位置小島建自衛隊基地
日本共同社昨報導，日本希望能在美日元首高峰會後發表共同聲明，強調美國有義務協防包括尖閣諸島在內的日本領土，但被美方以「就算沒有具體寫出來，尖閣諸島也適用於美日安保條約」為由，委婉拒絕，似乎是不想得罪同樣宣稱擁有釣魚台主權的中國政府。此 外，鑑於中國軍機和船隻經常到釣魚台海域巡航，日本防衛大臣小野寺五典今天將在釣魚台南方150公里處的沖繩縣與那國島，主持陸上自衛隊基地破土典禮，預 定明年落成啟用，容納100名陸上自衛隊員駐島，並配備監視中國軍機和船艦的雷達，強化對日本西南島嶼的國防能力，要是中國武力犯台，日本也能掌握中國軍 機和船艦的動向。
*****
【專文】洪秀柱女士引共黨見解，證釣魚台非清國屬島
いしゐのぞむ （長崎純心大學副教授） 2015-08-10 10:00
圖：西元1885年外務卿（外交部長）井上馨。曾認為釣魚台在清國外。（錄自日本國會圖書館「近世名士寫眞」網頁）
7月下旬，洪秀柱女士在臉書發表一篇聲明，反駁李登輝先生釣台屬日言論。聲明中徵引《日本外交文書》外務卿井上馨致山縣有朋秘信：
「近日清國新聞紙等，風傳我政府欲佔臺灣近旁之清國屬島云云，對我國心懷猜疑，我國已屢遭清政府之警示。此時公然驟立國標，易為清國所疑。」
洪女士引此，製造了四個假像，反而證實釣魚台的確該屬於日本。哪四個呢？
第一，井上馨秘信還有上文，說釣魚台「接近清國國境」，洪女士未加徵引。意思是釣魚台在清國境外，在境內就不叫「接近」了。表明井上馨知道釣魚台西側有一條清國國界線。
國界線有史料記載。歷代方志及明清一統志多數都記載福建轄地「東至海岸」為止。隆慶、萬曆間，明國海防領域曾擴大到福建沿岸六島，從最北的臺山，依次是霜山、東湧、烏丘、澎湖，而最南為澎山，海防官員向日本使節宣布六島之外是「華夷所共」，即公海及無主地，見《明實錄》西元1617年陰曆8月1日條，以及相關史料。
及至清國侵奪台灣以後，則台灣府轄地北至鷄籠，東北至三貂角（宜蘭最北端）為界，《台灣府志》、《淡水廳志》、《噶瑪蘭廳志》等記載無不如此。釣魚台在三貂的東北方一百七十公里，自是界外。
第二，洪女士說該檔案顯示1885年當時，日本政府清楚認識釣魚台不屬於日本。這就怪了，釣魚台不屬於日本，那是公認的史實，正因為不屬日本，日本人才把它劃入國土，無需她鄭重聲明。倒是該留意，洪女士為什麽不說釣魚台屬於清國，只說不屬於日本。那是因為《日本外交文書》中無一字承認其屬於清國。洪女士越強調反面，越使人知道正面的事實。
第三，洪女士所引《日本外交文書》譯文原引自China官方網站，顯示她長期浸淫於共黨提供的訊息之中。其中一句「屢遭清政府之警示」歪曲了重要的史實：清國政府不曾警告過日本。中華民國外交部網站譯文則作「屢促清政府注意」，沒有翻錯，意思是清國報紙屢次提醒清國政府。這就更清楚顯示，不管報紙提醒，清國政府始終不認為附近海域有自己的領土。
臉書聲明公布後數日，有一家媒體向洪女士秘書處覈實此事，隨後洪女士悄然刪除「遭警示」，改為「促注意」了，目前尚未有媒體報導此事，但未改前的原文已廣見報導，不會消失。試問洪女士，西元1885年既未警告，首次警告在何年何月。還不是西元1968年海底油田消息曝光以後麼。
第四，清國報紙僅僅提醒台灣附近海域動靜，洪女士以此指斥日本佔據清國釣魚台，出於想當然耳。日本政府所謂清國新聞紙，是該年的《文匯報》，現已亡佚。隨後上海《申報》轉述該報說：
「有高麗傳來消息，謂台灣東北邊之海島，近有日本人懸日旗於其上，大有佔踞之勢。」
各位細看，報導中並未點明釣魚台。上海人閱報，也不會知道該處附近有釣魚台。井上馨所言「清國屬島」不過引述新聞紙而已，既非自身看法，更非釣魚台。日本政府因這條消息聳人聽聞，遂不敢即時把附近的釣魚台劃入國土。請看年表：
西元1880年，日清議割宮古、八重山諸島與清國，談判未成。
1884年，法國攻佔基隆，東鄉平八郎天城艦入港，與法將會談。
1885年六月，清法議和約成。
1885年九月，清國報紙刊登台灣東北邊海島消息。
1885年十月，日本政府派人踏勘釣魚台。
1894年，日清開戰。
1895年一月，釣魚台劃入日本。
1895年四月，馬關條約。
圖：西元1884年法國人所繪淡水河口。錄自《L'ile Formose : histoire et description》，Imbault-Huart撰，第184頁。Google Books。
觀此可知，西元1885年甫經基隆之役不久，清國輿論自然聚焦基隆外海。前後數月，上海《申報》屢屢刊登海外島嶼訊息，如朝鮮巨文島為英國所佔，及南太平洋馬紹爾群島為德國所佔等，台灣東北邊消息夾在中間，算是關注點之一。須注意《申報》所轉述還是「高麗傳來」的，我推測是英艦在香港與巨文島之間頻繁往來，途經宮古、八重山諸島時所目睹。日本政府鑒於宮古、八重山議罷，清法締約未幾，審時度勢，不希望台灣和琉球中間海域被國外輿論炒作。
十年後，八重山之議及清法戰事均已遠去，不必顧慮如此了，於是日本人把無主地釣魚台劃歸國土。必說顧慮，那在馬關條約未議之時，怎會沒有顧慮，應該等到停戰協議成立後再劃入才安穩。也不可能預知第二次大戰後會放棄台灣，而特地和台灣分開處理。真相是日清戰事未完全定局，日本還需要堅固國防，才在此時編入。觀此史勢與史實，洪女士還能歪曲成日本竊取清國領土嗎？
沒有留言:
張貼留言