标题: Senkaku? Diayu? Federal Government Says the Former [打印本页] 作者: choi 时间: 9-1-2012 11:52 标题: Senkaku? Diayu? Federal Government Says the Former (1) Emmanuelle Tzeng and Kendra Lin, Taiwan Believes US Has No Stance on Disputed Tiaoyutais. CNA, Aug 30, 2012. http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/W ... amp;ID=201208300033
(2) Attached at the bottom is the full text under the heading "JAPAN / CHINA Senkaku Islands Dispute" in the index (which is located at the top of briefing).
> In the new web page, seclect "GNS" in the sentence "Information about foreign geographic feature names can be obtained from the GEOnet Names Server (GNS)."
> http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html
Select "GNS Search - Text Based Page"
(A) "Senkaku-shotō" is the "approved" name; neither Diaoyu nor Diaoyutai is accepted as a "variant."
(B) "Liancourt Rocks" is approved, with Korean and Japanese name as variants.
(C) Taiwan-controlled Itu Aba Island is approved, with Nansha, Taiwanese and Vietnamese names as variants.
(D) The web site does not say when BGN adopted what names.
(b) The 1960 treaty is Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan (signed at Washington DC, on Jan 19, 1960), whose text (including Article V) is supplied by Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan. http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.html
````````````````````
QUESTION: What is the official name for the Senkaku Islands for the United States? Is it Diaoyu Islands or Senkaku Islands, or both are okay?
MS. NULAND: Our – I’m going to go to my special little rocks cheat sheet here, because this is getting quite complicated with lots of --
QUESTION: Yes. Do you have one?
MS. NULAND: -- different things here. So let me make sure I get it right here. So the one – yeah. So as we’ve said, we call them the Senkakus, so if that’s the question that you’re asking. We don’t take a position on them, though, as I’ve said all the way through.
QUESTION: So you don’t take a position on them, but on the other hand you think the islands is covered by the Defense Treaty between Japan and the United States, right? Is that correct? Do you think that those two things are contradictory, because --
MS. NULAND: Yes. We’ve consistently said that we see them falling under the scope of Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty.
QUESTION: Do you think that is contradictory? Because for me, it sounds like contradictory. You said you don’t have a position on the sovereignty of the islands, but on the other hand you said it’s covered by the treaty, which only protects Japanese territories.
MS. NULAND: But this is because the Senkakus have been under the administrative control of the Government of Japan since they were returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa since 1972.
QUESTION: So let me rephrase my question. Do you regard the islands as Japanese territory?
MS. NULAND: Again, we don’t take a position on the islands, but we do assert that they are covered under the treaty.
QUESTION: So you think these islands is under the administration of --
MS. NULAND: I think I’ve answered the question. Let’s move on.
QUESTION: No. You don’t have -- 作者: choi 时间: 9-5-2012 12:28
Jane Perlez and Steven Lee Myers, In Beijing, Clinton Will Push for Talks Over Disputed Islands; Mounting tensions over potentially energy-rich areas. New York Times, Sept 4, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/0 ... sland-disputes.html
Quote:
"In a public display of displeasure with Washington over the East China Sea disputes, China reacted quickly to a comment last week by the State Department’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, that the United States refers to the islands as the Senkakus, as the Japanese do.
"She said the islands were under the administrative control of the government of Japan since they were 'part of the reversion of Okinawa' in 1972, and thus fell under the United States-Japan defense treaty.
"Pressed by a Chinese reporter on whether Washington regarded the islands as part of Japanese territory, Ms Nuland said, 'We don’t take a position on the islands, but we do assert that they are covered under the treaty.'
"A Chinese specialist on Japan said Ms. Nuland’s comments were unacceptable. 'Previously, the United States said it holds no position on sovereignty,' said Hu Lingyuan, the deputy director of the Center for Japanese Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai. 'Now it’s contradicting itself. The Chinese people cannot accept this. The U.S. is very visibly taking sides with Japan.'
My comment: There is no need to read the rest of the report, which dealt with the supposed antagonism of US and China over South China Sea (something not new). What is interesting is that according to this NYT report, the reporter who asked Ms Nuland the pointed (but necessary for our understanding) questions was from PRC. To be frank, I did not think US position has changed or is contradictory. But Chinese--at least some--think so (according to the NYT report).
````````````````````
Other pertinent developments about Senkaku islands (latest first):
(a)
(i) 习近平爽约克林顿，背后究竟发生了什么？ VOA Chinese, Sept 5, 2012 http://www.voachinese.com/conten ... 120905/1502013.html
(*取消会晤 异乎寻常*; "据多家媒体报道，美方官员提供了两种说法。一是，他们接到中方的解释是，习近平因行程安排问题临时取消了与克林顿的会面。二是，习近平背部受伤")
(ii) 习近平和克林顿的会谈突然取消 外交部要求不要妄加猜测. VOA Chinese, Sept 5, 2012 http://www.voachinese.com/conten ... 120905/1501987.html
("美方一名不愿透露姓名的官员说，中方是昨天晚上深夜11点多才通知美方取消习近平与克林顿的会晤，所提出的理由是'出乎意外的日程安排原因' （ for unexpected scheduling reasons）。中国外交部要求外界不要妄加猜测")
Note: But she did meet President Hu Jintao in the morning of Wednesday (today, Sept 5).