Webcast 19 - David Kang - Whose Land is This? East Asia's Territorial Disputes

[@michaelw7867]

A fascinating talk by Professor Kang. This talk was given in 2013, and since then China has suggested the idea of a treaty on "Rules of the Road" for the South China Sea, which would allow everyone there to simply agree to disagree about each other's claims while agreeing on rules to avoid fighting and share use of the sea space. Most of the nations there have agreed with the general concept but have argued about the details. However, negotiations continue on and off, and an eventual agreement seems possible in the future. I would love to hear Professor Kang's updated views on this.

[@AA-sf2cl]

ㅋㅋㅋ 웃음만 나오네요

[@__eee__]

Great lecture. David Kang gives a very nuanced perspective of how irrelevant those rocks were for both countries and how it's becoming a big issue by doubling down in a nationalistic narrative that neglects the point of view of the other side. Moving forward I only see 2 options to solve the issue: Option 1 is to implement a system similar to what Spain and France have over a very tiny and inhabited island (Isla de los Faisanes) in the border. Every 6 months the island simply switches countries. Most people don't know this island but since the two countries are in very good terms, the system works perfectly. Option 2 is for the part that is less heavy invested to renounce to its posession with some conditions that will help them save face. According to my personal experience being bombarded with Dodko propaganda for over 5 years in Seoul, I guess Japan is less heavy involved so they may be in a better position to renounce. But how can Japan save face? They could offer the rocks to Korea with the only condition that the rocks include the Japanese name. So Korea would need to agree to name all the signs, maps and textbooks as Dodko-Takeshima. No side would be fully satisfied but it may end that this absurd dispute.

[@davidtao1675]

what a wonderful man. as he said, we need real leaders to solve those problems.

[@jacintochua6885]

Diaoyou was Chinas since the Ming Dynasty and was recognized even by the west. During Japanese troops seized it as an outpost, but after WWII, US even used her ships to ferry Chinese troops to reestablish markers destroyed by the Japanese. There were returned to China. But in 1970s, US took the island and established her administrative rights. Then in 1970s, US gave the rights to her ally Japan, which has since " bought" the island and it her own. It was open thievery.

[@Octavus5]

I hadn't heard a bad Kang lecture until this one. He gives too much credit to the Japanese. The presumption is that Japan is a reasonable country. It's not. Jointly administer disputed territories? That's like asking a robbery victim to share what he has left with the robber because the robber has a dispute. It's like asking Palestinians to give up more land to the Israelis. It's like asking Native Americans to cede more territories to assuage Washington greed. Maybe that solves the economic/diplomatic problem in the here and now. But it doesn't solve the perennial moral problem and new disputes that could arise in the future. What then? Give that up, too? Kang also leaves out the issue of security. Dokdo and Senkaku have at least some security implications for Korea and China. The Spratly islands have serious security implications for China. History may not be a perfect guide to the present but it helps inform the present and how we might weigh modern disputes. For instance, a barren piece of rock may have been all but inconsequential to ancient people, but if those ancient people fished around it, then their descendants probably have a greater right to its claim than a carpetbagger with no historical connection at all.

[@katarishigusimokirochepona6611]

17:10 “You’re both wrong!” 18:30 “It’s not about the past.” 35:15 “Oh, they’re horrible…”

[@FOLIPE]

Is he proposing that the land becomes a condominium? There are places like that in Northern Europe and the Balcans.

[@jasonjean2901]

Somehow the fact that the Japanese government suddenly and unilaterally "nationalized" the Diaoyu/Senkakku Islands in 2012 is lost on the western narrative of that dispute. Japan admits that those islands did not belong to them prior to 2012, and then they suddenly claimed them. China took David Kang's tactic by immediately rejecting Japan's new claim but offering them an olive branch by suggesting 'we can just leave it as disputed.' Japan, of course, backed by the U.S. and desperate for cheap nationalism points chose to press their claims so China pushed theirs and now we have the present stand-off, which the Japanese government desperately wanted and the Chinese sought to avoid.

[@limitlesssky3050]

Japan should have taken the offer 10 years ago, now that China has become the strongest Asian country in Asia, Japan will wish they have nothing to do with Diao Yu Island.

[@the_embarrassed_lemon5967]

I mean technically Japan was the first nation to fully annex them into their territory in 1895. One could argue that they are Chinese as they made the first written record of them in the 16th century but I would argue that what Dr Kang said still stands.

[@jasonjean2901]

@@the_embarrassed_lemon5967 It depends on what you mean by "fully annex"; obviously this does not mean to "nationalize" them because, had Japan done so in 1895 then they wouldn't have had to do so again in 2012. It would be more accurate to say that in 1895 Japan claimed them, just as China had claimed them much earlier. Also, Japan's claim from 1895 was due to Imperial Japan attacking all the countries around it and acting despicably, so that type of behavior shouldn't be rewarded.

[@the_embarrassed_lemon5967]

@@jasonjean2901 As far as I know China only claimed them in 1992. Before nobody really cared. Japan incorporated them into Okinawa and a Japanese man went and set up a business on the largest that ended after ww2. I will agree Japan claimed and I would argue annexed them due to imperialism. They literally claimed them during the first Sino-Japanese war and I agree that behaviour shouldn't be rewarded but that is just what happens in history. That sort of behaviour is generally rewarded. I am not however defending Japan as I don't think they should be Japans nor Chinas. I was just hoping to clarify somewhat and to show that what Dr Kang is talking about makes sense and that its all just for cheep political points at home.

[@jasonjean2901]

@@the_embarrassed_lemon5967 What? Where did you hear that?! Japan annexed them from China during WWII and that is an undisputed historical fact. Also, the U.S. potentially wanted to use them, but didn't want to make their, then, ally angry, so they took "administrative rights" over the Diaoyu islands following the Japanese surrender in 1945. Here's where things get interesting: the U.S. gave their "administrative rights" to Japan in 1972. If they were Japanese territroy, claimed by Japan, then what use would they have for "administrative rights"? They would have had "sovereign rights". Also, if they were already Japanese territory, claimed by Japan at whatever date they have made up, then why, oh why, would they need to "nationalize" (in other words, be claimed as a part of Japan) in 2012?! It's all bullcrap. Those islands have been claimed by China since the 17th century when Chinese sailors first mapped them, and the Japanese, with U.S. encouragement and assistance, tried to annex them in 2012.

[@aslampervez2294]

Thanks

[@fasiapulekaufusi6632]

No one lives on water, with the exception of the spratly islands, but in my island nation water area means food and good economy especially since my country barely has any natural resources. Majority of the people live off the land and fishing. If we try to survive off of the money we make, we would not be able to make ends meet.

[@sbellaharris]

One day some truly civilized aliens/civilizations(different lifeforms from different planets) will find us & tell us "Hey, there's no race, we are you & you are us, needless to say for nationalism. These concepts will destroy you, let's get rid of these concepts & come with us to explore the universe together." We all share the same ancestor, they walked out of africa to all over the Earth, they had no nationality & race, their race was Human, their country was Earth. Your country is not a specific piece of land, your country is the entire Earth. Let's get rid of the shallow & destructive concept of race & nationalism. I don't have race & nationality, not anymore. My race is *Human*, my country is *Earth*, so is yours.

[@hoya5483]

Mr. Kang, while I admire your unbiased teachings here, but Japan were the aggressors and Korea were the victims for a while, and during that time Korea lost everything (even into the Korean War), Korea lost valuables, money and even yes as you know lives, under the imperialist Japanese army. And you come here to state that this isn't a historical issue at all is a bit not right in my opinion...

[@katarishigusimokirochepona6611]

17:10 “You’re both wrong!” 18:30 “It’s not about the past.” 35:15 “Oh, they’re horrible…”

[@cpaek]

David Kang takes neutral stance on Dokdo island which is admirable. but David doesn't know Japanese aggression, many lies and scams to carry out it's criminal ambitions against Korea and in the region for a thousand year. Korea has been invaded and robbed many times and now Korea is at its tolerance limit. Dokdo island and its surrounding sea belonged to Korea, and many old Korean, European and also Japanese documents, maps overwhelmingly prove it. Japan claimed it in 1905 at a time when Korea was weak and at the mercy of foreign imperial powers. Korea helplessly watched when her own Queen was raped and burned to death in her palace by Japanese diplomats and thugs in 1895. Shame on Japan who made no single apology for so many of its past crimes committed against Korea and her people.

[@KingofKpop]

cpaek Japan take pride over taking out the weak, Japan have never attacked stronger nations than them and when they did they've got nuked. Japan knows weakness of Korea that 1. Korea is divided, 2. Korea lack marine protection 3. Japan have more advantage in int'l relation over Korea. So Japan will always challenge Korea's interests unless Korea becomes strong nation then Japan will back off.

[@Dissistheway]

+Kochigachi Japan is weak af right now... Economically, politically, militarily and etc. Korea is growing at a scary pace and is helping the poor around the world.

[@FOLIPE]

He has another interesting lecture on Korean history that basically says that except for the 20th century is was very stable. Anyway, I hope you can see past your biases.

[@limitlesssky3050]

@@KingofKpop sadly Japan is weak right now.

[@KingofKpop]

I don't agree that China-Korea border was Yalu river because Yalu river was clearly under Korean control prior to Japanese occupation of Korea during WW2. Japan have sold off many Korean territories for their own gains.

[@ginnox2049]

The border issue China has with India, because when the British left India, they drew an irresponsible line causing India to think they own those lands. The so called aggressive water line that China drew, is a historical line over around 800 years ago already. That little island near Taiwan, has always been part of China too, if anyone knows the history of Taiwan, which is also part of China explains clearly. Especially after WWII when Japan was supposed to return all the lands and islands they have took during their invasion, Of cause, US had supported Japan in not returning everything even though it's within the treaty they signed.

[@pomodoro385]

British did attempt to redraw the border under Mchanon Line in 1914, but it wasn't rectified, China refused to sign Shimla agreement. (Only Bhutan border was agreed) Brits didn't pursue, nothing changes. After independent, India quietly send troops to take S. Tibet ard 1949 or 50. That's almost 40 yrs later. It's not British fault. India even claimed western sector, Aksai Chin/Xinjiang, which wasn't claimed by British. Dispute is entirely India's own doing. China even made a generous offer of land swap, similar to today's LAC. India rejected it, insisted China to cede Aksai Chin (not claimed by British) A lot of misinformation on Sino-India border, especially online articles like Wiki.

[@dragondescendant1]

Taiwan is a province of China, PRC represent all of China since the late 60's. what belong to Taiwan, belongs to China. Taiwan government ROC need to shut up and follow the Chinese central government. Mr. Kang is inaccurate when he said Taiwan sent 50 fisherman boats to Diaoyu Island, the action was organized by Chinese citizens from Hong Kong, Taiwan, mainland, Macao,. In fact, incompetent Taiwan government actually discouraged the protest activity.