Tensions 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.

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.

.........................................分隔線............................................................

紐約時報專欄作家：日本古地圖 承認釣魚台是中國的

更新日期:2010/09/19 02:25 劉屏／華盛頓十八日電

中國時報【劉屏／華盛頓十八日電】

《紐約時報》著名專欄作家克里斯多福指出，完全看不出來美國會為了釣魚台而與中國開戰，何況美國並沒有認定釣魚台是日本的。他還指出，日本人自己在二百廿七年前印行的地圖就標明釣台魚是中國的。

註:此乃歷史說法可以無需計較!

曾獲普立茲獎的尼克勞斯.克里斯多福（NICHOLAS KRISTOF）針對中、日漁船糾紛在部落格撰文，說明紛爭的來龍去脈、美國立場及個人觀點。文章說，就技術層面言，美日安保條約涵蓋所有日本行使管轄權的地方，而釣魚台目前由日本管轄，因此如果中、日交火，美國有義務幫忙日本。然而，美國立場一向是「釣魚台的主權到底是誰的，美國沒有意見」，因此美國將處於很荒謬的地位，因為「我們並沒有同意釣魚台 一定是日本的，卻要因為釣魚台而幫日本打仗」。

註:美國立場一向是「釣魚台的主權到底是誰的，美國沒有意見?這是國際事實!所以還是要歸於主要戰將學者群論述之!還歷史論?論了三十年兩岸漁民還是被趕出來!唉!

作者指出，就事實層面言，「美國為了釣魚台這幾個無人岩石而履行條約義務，機會是零」。他說，美國沒有理由為了幾個「可能根本就是中國的島嶼」，而與中國發生核子衝突。但是他同時指出，如果不履行條約義務，勢必傷害美、日關係。

註:事實層面言，「美國為了釣魚台這幾個無人岩石而履行條約義務，機會是零」

究竟釣魚台的主權誰屬？作者回答說：「我覺得應該是中國的，盡管答案不是那麼明確」。

他提出幾點。第一，中國的航海紀錄顯示釣魚台是中國的，「已有數世紀之久」；第二，日本在一七八三年印行的地圖，標明釣魚台是中國的。第三，日本是在一八八四年假裝「發現」了釣魚台，然後在一八九五年根據馬關條約取得台灣時，一併取得釣魚台。