中国的稀土保卫战

简　介：稀土是一种重要的战略资源，广泛应用于各个领域，尤其是电子、等涉及到军事和未来发展的重要领域。中国曾占世界稀土商品量的80%，长期以来，全球主要依赖中国出口稀­土，出口国主要为日本、美国、法国等国家。由于大量出口和盲目开采，1995年起，中国的稀土储量开始大幅下降，目前储量只有全世界的30%，但出口量却占到了全球贸易量­的90%以上。有专家预测，按现有的生产速度，中国的稀土储备仅能维持15到20年，未来将有可能需要进口

美歐日加速佈局稀土戰略儲備 山姆大叔重挖"稀土州"

日本媒體4月5日披露，日本正計劃向擁有豐富稀土資源的貧窮國家提供經濟援助，以換取稀土資源的穩定獲取渠道，從而為其環保汽車產業發展打下基礎。這個消息或許並不那麼吸­引眼球，但卻反映出日本針對有21世紀黃金之稱的稀土資源加速實施戰略儲備佈局的現實舉措。

　　事實上，歐洲和美國也早已加速佈局稀土戰略儲備：歐洲在2008年已未雨綢繆，制定相關戰略原則，而美國則更是在立法及本土資源開發方面 雙管齊下，為稀有能源的儲備打下基礎。分析人士認為，在各經濟體正在迎接新一輪增長的時候，對未來全球經濟格局產生重大影響的稀土戰略儲備全球戰局正逐漸走向白熱化。

　　日元換稀土將全球實施

　　日本媒體披露，日本最早將在今年5月向南美洲的玻利維亞提供數億美元的貸款，幫助該國建立一座功率為100兆瓦的地熱發電站。日本政府提供大規模經濟援助的原因在於，這可­以幫助該國在與法國、巴西等國的競爭中脫穎而出，獲得從玻利維亞進口鋰礦的合同。而根據目前探明的儲量數據，玻利維亞的烏尤尼大湖蘊藏的鋰礦規模幾乎佔據全球的50%。

　　鋰目前的主要用途是作為電動汽車的電池原料，這種稀有金屬也同時被用於制藥、精細化工及合金製造行業。鋻於其難以取代的重要性，有分析人士認為，日本對玻利維亞的經濟援助­也不可能僅以一個項目了事。事實上，日本還將出資4.4億日元為玻利維亞首都拉巴斯的所有醫院配備太陽能儀錶盤。此外，兩國也將就建立羊駝絨紡織經濟及在玻利維亞推廣地面­數字電視等項目展開闔作。

　　除了鋰之外，稀土概念下的其他稀有金屬，包括鑭、鈰、釹、鐠、鏑、鈧、釔等都在諸多高科技領域中有著不可替代的地位，並在諸多行業均有廣泛應用。因此，稀土被稱為未來元素­，其在工業中的地位越來越重要且開採量不斷攀升。正因為如此，除南美洲的鋰礦外，日本還打算將日元換稀土的策略用到非洲和亞洲國家所富有的稀土資源。

China's rising global role - American view

China's rising global role, increasing assertiveness and upcoming leadership transition may pose significant challenges for the next U.S. president, says Elizabeth C. Economy, CFR's C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies. "China is increasingly shaping the world in which we live," Economy says. As a result, U.S.-China relations will no longer be focused exclusively on trade, Taiwan, and human rights. The next president will have to work with China on "virtually every global challenge," she says, including Iran, North Korea, global financial regulation, and climate change.

U.S. officials will have to take account of China's newly assertive posture, regionally and globally, she says. "China's leaders no longer simply want to export their goods and services; they want to export their culture, their values, and ideals," Economy says. "And the next president of the United States is going to have to think about how to deal with not an emerging power, but a global power."

This video is part of Campaign 2012, a series of video briefings on the top foreign policy issues debated in the run-up to the 2012 elections.

http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2012/campaign-2012-china/p27052

Who will replace World Bank president?

Do you know in theory Asian or Non -USA sponsored person cannot be a President of World Bank.

The World Bank
The World Bank is an international financial institution that provides loans to developing countries for capital programmes. The World Bank's official goal is the reduction of poverty. According to the World Bank's Articles of Agreement (As amended effective 16 February 1989) all of its decisions must be guided by a commitment to promote foreign investment, international trade and facilitate capital investment.

The World Bank comprises only two institutions: the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA), whereas the latter incorporates these two in addition to three more: International Finance Corporation (IFC), Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

The World Bank is one of five institutions created at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. The other financial institution is The International Monetary Fund(IMF), a related institution. Delegates from many countries attended the Bretton Woods Conference, and the most powerful countries in attendance were the United States and United Kingdom, which dominated negotiations. Although both are based in Washington, D.C.(USA), the World Bank is, by custom, headed by an American, while the IMF is led by a European.

The President of the Bank, currently Robert B. Zoellick, is responsible for chairing the meetings of the Boards of Directors and for overall management of the Bank. Traditionally, the Bank President has always been a US citizen nominated by the United States, the largest shareholder in the bank. The nominee is subject to confirmation by the Board of Executive Directors, to serve for a five-year, renewable term.

The Executive Directors, representing the Bank's member countries, make up the Board of Directors, usually meeting twice a week to oversee activities such as the approval of loans and guarantees, new policies, the administrative budget, country assistance strategies and borrowing and financing decisions.

The Vice Presidents of the Bank are its principal managers, in charge of regions, sectors, networks and functions. There are 24 Vice-Presidents, three Senior Vice Presidents and two Executive Vice Presidents.

One of the strongest criticisms of the World Bank has been the way in which it is governed. While the World Bank represents 186 countries, it is run by a small number of economically powerful countries. These countries choose the leadership and senior management of the World Bank, and so their interests dominate the bank.

Criteria to be President of World Bank

World Bank President Robert Zoellick said he will step down on 30th June 2012 and Washington pledged to name a replacement candidate within weeks for a job that has always gone to an American.

Under the Bank’s Articles, the President of the World Bank is chief of the operating staff of the Bank and conducts, under the direction of the Executive Directors, the ordinary business of the Bank. The President is also responsible for the organization, appointment and dismissal of the officers and staff, subject to the general control of the Executive Directors. The President, officers and staff of the Bank, in the discharge of their offices, owe their duty entirely to the Bank and to no other authority.

The President of the World Bank is ex officio chair of the Board of the Executive Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). The President is also ex officio chair of the Board of Directors of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and the Administrative Council of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). (source: world Bank)

In 2011, the Board of Executive Directors approved the process for selection of the President. It reconfirmed the importance of a merit-based and transparent process with all Executive Directors able to nominate and then consider all candidates
The Executive Directors agreed that candidates should meet the following criteria:

• a proven track record of leadership;
• experience of managing large organizations with international exposure, and a familiarity with the public sector;
• the ability to articulate a clear vision of the World Bank Group’s development mission;
• a firm commitment to and appreciation for multilateral cooperation; and,
• effective and diplomatic communication skills, impartiality and objectivity in the performance of the responsibilities of the position.

(source: world Bank)

Emerging market and developing countries have campaigned hard in recent years to break Europe's grip on the top position at the International Monetary Fund and the United States' hold on the presidency of the World Bank.

Officials from large emerging economies like Brazil said on Wednesday the selection process for Zoellick's successor should be based on qualifications and not nationality.

"There is no reason for the president of the World Bank to have a specific nationality," Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega told reporters in Brasilia.

The Obama administration said it would open the process to competition, marking the first time it has shown willingness to loosen its grip on the world's top development lender.

Zoellick took the reins at the Bank in 2007 after a staff revolt pushed out Paul Wolfowitz, and he moved quickly to return the institution's focus to alleviating poverty.

Developing countries have for years pressed for a greater voice in leading global financial institutions and are likely to stress the importance of a competitive process, but the United States is still widely expected to retain its hold on the job.

(source: yahoo news)

For your information in global politic, there was no democratic right. The rich and powerful determine the global games, including world financial institution.

There was a informal agreement:

Although the president is formally appointed by the bank's member nations, a decades-old agreement - which also allows major European powers to choose the head of the IMF - gives the United States the role of naming the World Bank chief.

Look at the voting power of the member countries as reported by wikipedia;

n 2010, voting powers at the World Bank were revised to increase the voice of developing countries, notably China. The countries with most voting power are now the United States (15.85%), Japan (6.84%), China (4.42%), Germany (4.00%), the United Kingdom (3.75%), France (3.75%), India (2.91%), Russia (2.77%), Saudi Arabia (2.77%) and Italy (2.64%). Under the changes, known as 'Voice Reform – Phase 2', countries other than China that saw significant gains included South Korea, Turkey, Mexico, Singapore, Greece, Brazil, India, and Spain. Most developed countries' voting power was reduced, along with a few poor countries such as Nigeria. The voting powers of the United States, Russia and Saudi Arabia were unchanged.

USA has 15.85% of voting power, the largest voting power. Japan is the next country with the largest voting power, 6.84%. USA is the majority. World Bank is controlled by the largest of the donor countries – such as the United States and Japan. They own the largest share of the organization, and therefore have the most votes. Is USA the main donor country now?....

Is it democracy that the western democracy advocate nations practices all this while. How about the chances of Asian, African and South American to hold the post for the world organization? No wonder USA had been manipulated the world financial system all this while in the past.....nobody able to challenge what is their views in the global financial system....

There was discrimination in world body, where no open competition for the world financial top post, a monopoly by USA and its European allies, for IMF and World Bank top post....

Where is the human right?.....another hypocrisy of the democracy and human right advocates of western world... not the fittest person(best person) that lead the world financial institution. It must be an American or European. A mockery on the free competition, non-discrimination, anti-monopoly,human right, democracy, that they advocate....

The next President of the world bank is going to be another USA candidate, despite their dismay of the Wall Street, New York and the poor financial performance of USA....can they able to take the world financial body to the next era?....or just merely to serve their country(USA)'s financial interest, that is to solve their current financial problems... there will be conflict of interest without element of independence. How about the interest of other countries, who have suffered from their Wall Street disaster?.....

Is there fair and equal opportunity in the world body for all capable candidates from other member countries to be the President of World Bank? Is there candidates from countries with better financial performance than USA, who are better person than candidate from USA?. The best person should be the one selected by the member countries for the top job of World Bank, USA or Non-USA countries, there should not be monopoly and discrimination.

World Bank is set up to provide fund for the world's poorest countries, but due to the informal discriminatory agreement of President appointment, a non-democratic appointment, will it be that World Bank ultimately only serving the interest of rich nations? Some analysis shows that the World Bank has increased poverty and been detrimental to the environment, public health and cultural diversity. Some critics also claim that the World Bank has consistently pushed a neoliberal agenda, imposing policies on developing countries which have been damaging, destructive and anti-developmental(source: wikipedia). Because the President of World Bank will need to also serve the needs of USA's global strategy and national interest, there will be conflict of interest and lost the element of independence as a President of world financial institution. He is USA nominated President, may not be the actual person nominated by the majority, non-American member countries, especially the poor countries who their helps are urgently needed.

I was just ponder, and will USA appointed President without free competition for the best man select for the top job, lead us to another financial disaster?....

Further readings:

1. World Bank Official website, http://www.worldbank.org/
2. World Bank President Zoellick to Step Down June 30th,
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23118403~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html
3. Selection of the President of the World Bank Group,
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23120984~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html

The Friendly Visit or A lecture?

THE OBAMA administration has focused much of its foreign policy on what Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton likes to call the "three D's:" diplomacy, development and defense. A fourth D, democracy, is missing from that formula - and too often it has been absent from President Obama's strategy.

So it has been encouraging to see the emphasis the president has placed on democratic countries and democratic values during his ongoing tour of Asia. In a region where the shadow and the example of autocratic China are formidable, Mr. Obama is visiting four free countries, and in his speeches he is making a strong case for why they are more likely to succeed in the long run.

On Wednesday in Indonesia, the president offered an important addendum to Ms. Clinton's slogan. "Development," he said, "is inseparable from the role of democracy. . . . Prosperity without freedom is just another form of poverty." He went on to explain why: "It takes a free press and an independent justice system to root out abuses and excess. and to insist on accountability. It takes open society and active citizens to reject inequality and injustice."

(source: The Washington Post; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111006206.html)

It seems like the visit is to lecture the host countries on diplomacy(power control), democracy( democracy defined by the powerful), human right(human right in other countries), development(prosperity by borrowing and printing US currency), defence(by selling arms and hate your neighbor). Suddenly I see Obama in different image, unlike when he was elected as President, when we anticipated that there will be changed, in Asian relationship,and bring a new trend in global politic. But it did not happen. Obama is like all President in USA, he is not of level of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, or Mandela, who dare to change, and because of their change, Obama was able to become President of USA. He still move with the tempo of USA politic .... the old perception of Asia, supremacy of USA, democracy, human right and environment protection, defense strategy of cold world. He still remained in the mentality of the cold world, I wonder how he was awarded Nobel Peace Prize?... the issues have been repeated all over again......but never a time when the country who once said IN God We Trust was the foundation of the nation, Obama is not able to humbly said a word that, love thy neighbors is the foundation of the national foreign policy. USA has lost the spirit of her founding father, in religion, in democracy, in human right.....the wild wild west has long lost...the great country is no more....

Every steps he take, every steps Hillary Clinton took, is the reflection of the country; of power,of strong military power....I will protect you if you....for what? to buy the arms from USA, otherwise the perceived enemy is at your doors. It is not friendly visit, it is a visit of desperation, declining economic power.... a sour grape diplomacy to tell that if you did not complied with my terms, that is what you see.

Sour grape diplomacy...at the time when we need cooperation for global issues; and yet the mentality is still in the cold world. With the attitude, the terrorist problem will persist...

Democracy is ability to say No, to say no to USA, to say no to China, to say no to Japan, and and to say No to external undue political pressure from outside. The ability or liberty to say No to controlling power. Democracy is to listen to the minority views, to listen to the differences.... and human right is to listen to the sound from the people of the world, not the global politician of the world, when the world suffered under them.....The world not only need democracy and human right within national boundary; as we are now in the borderless world of IT, but also need democracy and human right in global prospective, where even a small nation has its democracy(the right to take its own political system), human right(the right of the people in the country), and not to be controlled by the superpowers. Today we talk so much of democracy within the nation, but there is no democracy in global politic, where superpower control the world. "The right of choice" in global politic should be respect, and each nation should allow the space and liberty to do their own way under peaceful environment, for their national interest, and not under undue influence from the stronger power to comply with their hidden agenda. The world need Global human right, a National Human Right represented the human right of respective countries in global perspective(national right of people in the respective country), where even the small nation's right to rule and independence is respected by the stronger countries. Diplomacy is the respect of the right of other nation, a respect of their people, their democracy of choice in political system, their human right, their independence.......it is not looking inward with the mentality"You Shall Follow my Style". The Global Democracy, is the right of choice not to follow any superpower and comply with their definition of democracy and human right, or they way they do things......the right to say " NO" to the superpower that I want my own way for the interest of my people, we do not accept any undue influence from other nations. That is democracy in global perspective, and global cooperation will be facilitated if the individual right of a nation is respected, we are equal in the world..... that is global democracy.

The world is not the platform for politician to play their games....not the platform for only the superpowers....it is the platform for all human being, the world citizen....

A Friendly Asian Visit by Hillary Clinton?

Is the Hillary Clinton's visit to the Asian countries a friendly visit or a provocation to the neighbor of her host countries? or is it a pre- President election tour to boost her image?

The provocation to the host country's neighbor is not part of the Asian culture, any Asian visited their host will not like to talk about an issue which will offense their neighbor openly. By providing sweets to the host to create confrontation or conflicts with the neighbor, is never the culture of a visitor in Asia. This is an insult to the host especially when the host is having good relationship with the neighbor. It is never a Asian culture, the said act is a non respect to Asian culture.

The following is extract from The Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575587910123633380.html

PHNOM PENH—U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressed Cambodia to remain independent of China on economic and environmental issues, as she continued a pan-Asian tour aimed at expanding Washington's diplomatic influence in the region.

Mrs. Clinton told Cambodian officials Monday that the Obama administration is willing to explore new mechanisms through which to retire nearly $450 million in debt accrued by Phnom Penh's Vietnam War-era government.

Mrs. Clinton also told Prime Minister Hun Sen's government that she will seek to raise more funding for a United Nations-backed tribunal set to try leaders of the Khmer Rouge government that committed genocide in Cambodia during its 1975-1979 reign.

Cambodia marks the third country stop on the Mrs. Clinton's seven-nation Asia-Pacific tour, which is aimed at enhancing the nation's presence in a region increasingly under the influence of China's economy and military.

On Saturday, Mrs. Clinton attended a regional conference in Vietnam that was dominated by China's festering maritime disputes with Japan and a number of Southeast Asian countries. The U.S.'s top diplomat urged the attendees of the East Asia Summit to establish an international legal process through which to mediate these disputes, drawing the ire of Beijing, which views all of the South China Sea as sovereign Chinese territory.

U.S. officials privately worry that Cambodia is one of the Southeast Asian nations most under Beijing's sway. China is among Phnom Penh's largest single aid donors, and Chinese firms dominate Cambodia's infrastructure sector. Prime Minister Hun Sen has often sided with Beijing on key regional security issues.
On Monday, Mrs. Clinton attended a town-hall meeting with Cambodian students in Phnom Penh and was asked her view on the Hun Sen government's relationship with China. She said the U.S. encouraged strong relations between Phnom Penh and Beijing but believed Cambodia should hew to an independent foreign policy.

"It's up to your government and your people to determine your own relationships with other countries," Mrs. Clinton told the gathering of 700 students and representatives of nongovernmental organizations. "But I think it's smart for Cambodia to be friends with many countries. Look for balance. You don't want to become too dependent on any one country."
Mrs. Clinton also said Phnom Penh should hold discussions with Beijing to address concerns that Chinese policies are disrupting Cambodia's economic development and harming its environment. She specifically cited China's damming of the upper Mekong River and its impact on Cambodian agriculture.

Mr. Hor Namhong, the Cambodian foreign minister, declined to comment on China-Cambodia relations during the news conference.

(source: The wall street journal)

The discussion should be issue centered and not pointing finger to a specific country when USA is equally to be blamed for the global environmental problems, also as one of the greatest polluter in the world. The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem(source: http://www.nrdc.org). Air pollution resulting in acid rain in both the US and Canada; the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels; water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers; limited natural fresh water resources in much of the western part of the country require careful management; desertification(source:http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/env-environment). Environment problem is a global problem, USA is the largest polluter, China is the late comer, and imported pollution due to the industrialization of its low cost production for the developed countries included USA. China suffered due to low public awareness of environment issues, and their priority of economic development over environment protection. A real advocate of environment protection will share their experience in environment protection,to help the other less experienced countries to manage the problem. Not upright attack on the country, without considering the implication. Global pollution problem is a shared responsibility.

The blame of the global financial problem is on the financial products from the Wall Street, New York; and the crisis from USA's home financing. It is not the culture of Asian to blame own problem to the neighbors without concrete basis. The spilling effect of US financial crisis has adversely affected other countries, the worst hit is Iceland, but did Iceland and other countries blame the problem to USA, the world considered it a global crisis.....

Hillary Clinton need to be thankful that the financial crisis did not worsen, and thanks the world for it.....be thankful, the world is not an island.....not owned by any superpower...

The Asian visit may be the strategy to improve the image for the future President election, but please do not use other country for that purpose. Let your own problem remained as domestic affair. Your domestic problem is not a global affairs, you need to solve your own problems within the country. There are appropriate platform for international issues. But if you need the help of the external party you need to ask for their help, and do not force other party to accept whatever terms you want. You are asking others to help to solve your own domestic problem.....

A friendly visit is bilateral, not international, to discuss issues, and not to involve the third party, unless the visitor's purpose is malicious and hostile visit.....to provote the third party....

I just do not expect a global leader to be ill manner, without respect of the host, and their culture.....

Human right, also include the right to respect another human being , and not to be arrogant to disrespect the culture of the other people....... to respect the independence of the nation, the dignity of the people....

What is the purpose of provocation in Asia, where it is far away from USA? to create another cold world era, to create another perceived enemy? or to create conflict so that to sell arms ?..... I just do not understand.....you have created so many platforms for discussion, and yet failed to communicate and negotiate.....

Even you failed, you have to take it gracefully.....the wild wild west has long being lost.....it is time for global cooperation to tackle the world problem, the time for cold world is over, the time for global political game will be limited, please do not revise it....

Related articles

1. Gibbs threatens to pull Obama from India talks after press dispute, http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101108/pl_yblog_upshot/gibbs-threatens-to-pull-obama-after-press-dispute
2. The USA Versus the Environment - Oil, Pollution and Kyoto, http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html

The Senkaku Islands - 钓鱼台群岛 or 尖閣諸島?

The Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島), also known as the Diaoyu Islands or Diaoyutai Islands (钓鱼台群岛;釣魚台群島) or the Pinnacle Islands, are a group of disputed uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. They are located roughly northeast of Taiwan, due west of Okinawa, and due north of the southwestern end of the Ryukyu Islands.

Japan controlled these islands from 1895 until her surrender at the end of World War II. The United States administered them as part of the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1945 until 1972, when they were reverted to Japan. Since 1971, they have been claimed by both the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China. China has claimed discovery and administration between 16th century or earlier until 1895.

The islands are a major issue in foreign relations between Japan and the PRC and between Japan and the ROC. Despite the complexity of relations between the two states, both the governments of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and People's Republic of China agree that the islands are part of Taiwan as part of Toucheng Township in Yilan County. The Japanese government regards these islands as a part of Ishigaki, Okinawa Prefecture.

(source: wikipedia)

Chinese views on Diaoyu Islands or Diaoyutai Islands (钓鱼台群岛)

The first recorded name of the islands, Diaoyu, used in books such as Voyage with a Tail Wind ( 顺风相送; 順風相送) and Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryūkyū (使琉球录;使琉球錄) date to 1403 and 1534, respectively. Adopted by the Chinese Imperial Map of the Ming Dynasty, both the Chinese name for the island group (Diaoyu) and the Japanese name for the main island (Uotsuri) both literally mean "angling".

According to China, Chinese historical records detailing the discovery and geographical feature of these islands date back to the year 1403. For several centuries they have been administered as part of Taiwan and have always been used exclusively by Chinese fishermen as an operational base. In 1874, Japan took Liu Chiu Islands from China by force. Diaoyutai, however, remained under the administration Taiwan, a part of China. Taiwan (including Diaoyutai) was ceded to Japan in 1895 after the first Sino-Japanese War. Originally, during the Japanese occupation of Taiwan, the Diaoyutai Archipelago came under the jurisdiction of Taipei Prefecture. After the close of the Second World War, when U.S. troops were stationed on the Ryukyu and Diaoyutai Archipelagoes, the KMT government which had received Taiwan did not immediately demand that that the US give them sovereignty. Diaoyutai was returned to China at the end of World War II in 1945 based upon the 1943 agreement of the Big Three in Cairo. Diaoyutai was part of Taiwan hence was included in that package.

China argues that Okinotorishima island, the southernmost island in the Japanese archipelago, is merely a rock, not an island, in an attempt to nullify Japan's claim of an exclusive economic zone around the small island, which is under Tokyo jurisdiction. The Chinese said they had "differences of opinion," citing Okinotorishima and the Senkaku Islands. While Beijing acknowledges that Okinotorishima belongs to Japan, it stressed that it did not fall under the classification of an island as defined by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, but is instead a rock, which cannot be used to designate an exclusive economic zone, as the Japanese government has done.

(source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/senkaku.htm)





Japan's view on The Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島)

In the 1880’s, Japan conducted surveys of the Senkaku Islands and determined that they were uninhabited and officially claimed by no nation. They were formally annexed in 1895. The above photo shows a small katsuobushi factory that was built on on one of the islands and used from 1895 to 1940. During that period, a small number of Japanese lived and worked in the Senkakus.

Japan claims the islands as official Japanese territory in 1895. From 1885 on, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had been thoroughly made by the Government of Japan through the agencies of Okinawa Prefecture and by way of other methods. Through these surveys, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been uninhabited and showed no trace of having been under the control of China. Based on this confirmation, the Government of Japan made a Cabinet Decision on 14 January 1895 to erect a marker on the Islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan. Since then, the Senkaku Islands have continuously remained as an integral part of the Nansei Shoto Islands which are the territory of Japan. These islands were neither part of Taiwan nor part of the Pescadores Islands which were ceded to Japan from the Qing Dynasty of China in accordance with Article II of the Treaty of Shimonoseki which came into effect in May of 1895. Accordingly, the Senkaku Islands are not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article II of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. They came under US control after World War II. The United States kept that group of small islets for occasional bombing practice targets, largely for its Liu Chiu based Air Force. Japan claimed that the Diaoyutai Islands are part of Liu Chiu. The Senkaku Islands have been placed under the administration of the United States of America as part of the Nansei Shoto Islands, in accordance with Article III of the said treaty, and are included in the area, the administrative rights over which were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands signed on 17 June 1971. The facts outlined herein clearly indicate the status of the Senkaku Islands being part of the territory of Japan. According to Japan, the fact that China expressed no objection to the status of the Islands being under the administration of the United States under Article III of the San Francisco Peace Treaty clearly indicates that China did not consider the Senkaku Islands as part of Taiwan. It was not until the latter half of 1970, when the question of the development of petroleum resources on the continental shelf of the East China Sea came to the surface, that the Government of China and Taiwan authorities began to raise questions regarding the Senkaku Islands.

(source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/senkaku.htm)

In 1900, when Tsune Kuroiwa, a teacher at the Okinawa Prefecture Normal School, visited the islands, he adopted the name Senkaku Retto (尖阁列岛; 尖閣列島;), literally Pinnacle Islands, to refer the whole island group, based on the British name. The first official document recording the name Senkaku Retto was by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Nihon Gaiko Monjo (日本外交文書, Documents on Japanese Foreign Relations) in the 1950s. In Japanese, Sentō Shosho (尖頭諸嶼?) and Senkaku Shosho (尖閣諸嶼?) were translations used for these "Pinnacle Islands" by various Japanese sources. Subsequently, the entire island group (including Uotsuri Jima/Diaoyu Dao and all the others) came to be called Senkaku Rettō, which later evolved into Senkaku Shotō.

In 1920, a Chinese boat was shipwrecked in the area. They were rescued and returned to China by the Japanese. In an official letter from the Chinese government’s Nagasaki consulate thanking the Japanese, the islands are referred to as “the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama district, Okinawa Prefecture, in the Empire of Japan.” The letter uses the official Japanese name for the islands directly states that they are Japanese territory.



A dispute on Senkakus Islands between China and Japan; what do you think? Is it Diaoyu Islands or Diaoyutai Islands(钓鱼台群岛)owned by China/Taiwan? or Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) owned by Japan? It was an uninhabited island, but why now there is a dispute?

In 1969, a report by the UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) indicated the possibility of large reserves of oil in the vicinity of the Diaoyutai Archipelago. This report set off a political dispute between Taiwan, China and Japan which has been going on now for over thirty years.

In 1969, when the Okinawa Reversion Treaty was signed between the US and Japan, it included the Diaoyutai Islands. Since then Japan insists repeatedly that the islet group is part of Japan's territory. The Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the Government of Japan since, having been returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa. On April 9, 1971, the U.S. State Department issued a statement that President Nixon and Japanese Prime Minister Sato Eisaku had reached an agreement, by which the US would return Okinawa and the "South-western islands" which included the Senkaku, to Japan, in 1972.

Japan has objected to Chinese development of natural gas resources in the East China Sea in an area where the two countries Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claims overlap. Japan claims a division of the EEZ on the median line between the countries' coastlines. About 40,000 square kilometers of EEZ are in dispute. China and Japan both claim 200 nautical miles EEZ rights, but the East China Sea width is only 360 nautical miles. China claims an EEZ extending to the eastern end of the Chinese continental shelf which goes deep into the Japanese EEZ beyond the median line.

According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea the stipulation, should act according to the fair principle development negotiations, seeks means which both sides both can accept. When there is disagreement on the demarcation of EEZs between any countries, the law stipulates that the parties concerned should avoid anything that could undermine an eventual agreement. China's gas field drilling near the median line between the two countries is regarded by Japan as an obvious infringement of the spirit of this law. Tokyo's proposal, which has not been accepted by Beijing, has been to divide the sea equally between the two countries, which would put China's Chunxiao claim only three miles from Japanese territory. China's offers to jointly develop the oil field have been rebuffed.

The specific development in dispute is China's drilling in the Chunxiao field, which is three miles west of the median line, but which Japan contends may be tapping natural gas reserves which extend past the median line. The Chunxiao gas field in Xihu Sag in the East China Sea is estimated to hold reserves of more than 1.6 tcf of natural gas and is expected to become a major producer in the next ten years. Commercial operation was expected to begin in mid-2005 at a production rate of 70 bcf per year, rising to 282 bcf by 2010. Sinopec Star has reserves of 7 tcf of gas, 1.9 tcf of which is held in the Chunxiao area. China has proven reserves of natural gas of about 53.3 trillion cubic feet (tcf). Most of China's gas fields are in the the western and north-central parts of the country, though offshore basins are becoming increasingly important.

(source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/senkaku.htm)

Another question, if The Senkaku Islands is part of Ryukyu Kingdom; did Japan has legal ownership on Ryukyu Kingdom, an independent kingdom, which was only a vassal state of both Japan and China. Is the return of Ryukyu Islands(now Okinawa) and Senkaku islands by USA, which ruled the islands as trustee or custodian for Ryukyu people or international communities after the WW2, is the return legally correct? Why Japan controlled these islands "only from 1895" until her surrender at the end of World War II, what happen before 1895?...Before 1895, Japan was not the owner of Ryukyu and Sekaku Islands?.... In 1879 Japan replaces the Ryūkyū han with Okinawa Prefecture, formally annexing the islands. King Shō Tai (尚泰?) is given the title of marquis (侯爵?) and removed to Tokyo. Before 1879, Ryukyu Islands was owned by Ryukyu Kingdom,a political independent country which was a tributary of Imperial China's Qing Dynasty.If Senkaku Islands were part of Ryukyu Kingdom, it cannot be part of Japan before 1879, otherwise the King Sho Tai of Ryukyu Kingdom cannot be imprisoned in Tokyo,Japan..... if Senkaku islands is owned by Ryukyu kingdom, it is not owned by Japan. Then historian need to check on ancient documents, did Senkaku Islands owned by Ryukyu kingdom to find the clue.....

If it is part of Taiwan, it is owned by China(either Republic of China or People Republic of China). Japan had sought to control Taiwan since 1592, when Toyotomi Hideyoshi began extending Japanese influence overseas. The Qing Dynasty was defeated in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) and Taiwan and Penghu were ceded in full sovereignty to the Empire of Japan. Inhabitants wishing to remain Qing subjects were given a two-year grace period to sell their property and move to mainland China. Japan ocupied Taiwan and Sekaku Islands from the victory of First Sino-Japanese War, this reflected that Taiwan and Sekaku was part of territories of Qing Dynasty, otherwise there was no necessity for Japan to sent military forces since 1592 to conquer Taiwan and Sekaku Islands......In 1616, Murayama Toan led an unsuccessful invasion of the island. Historian will tell us what is the meaning of "invasion"?

"An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by "another such entity", generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof".

Then who owned the Taiwan and Senkaku Islands, another such entity, another geopolitical entity called Qing Kingdom, or Imperial China......

The Treaty of Shimonoseki (下関条約, "Shimonoseki Jōyaku"), known as the Treaty of Maguan ( 马关条约;馬關條約) in China, was signed at the Shunpanrō hall on April 17, 1895, between the Empire of Japan and Qing Empire of China, ending the First Sino-Japanese War. The peace conference took place from March 20 to April 17, 1895.Japanese Soldiers Entering Taipei City in 1895 after the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and began the era of Japanese occupation of Taiwan. The Cairo Conference from 22 to 26 November 1943 in Cairo, Egypt was held to address the Allied position against Japan during World War II, and to make decisions about postwar Asia. One of the three main clauses of the Cairo Declaration was that "all the territories Japan has stolen from China, including Manchuria, Taiwan and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China'. On 25 October 1945, the US Navy ferried ROC troops to Taiwan in order to accept the formal surrender of Japanese military forces in Taipei (then called Taihoku). General Rikichi Andō, governor-general of Taiwan and commander-in-chief of all Japanese forces on the island, signed the instrument of surrender and handed it over to General Chen Yi of the RoC military to complete the official turnover. Chen Yi proclaimed that day to be "Retrocession Day of Taiwan".

If Senkaku Islands is part of Taiwan, it is legally owned by China(Republic of China/People Republic of China).

Can Japan be rightful owner that USA(not the owner and had no legal right to act unilaterally) need to return the islands under their trustee to them???? Did the islands include Senkaku Islands?...The United States administered them as part of the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1945, it was the agreement after WW2 of all victor nations, which included China, which represented the world institution or international communities. USA was only an agent or trustee or custodian. Did USA consulted with the world institution or international community on the action as she was only an agent/trustee for the principal(is it Ryukyu people or the former owner of the islands before 1895?) under the act or agreement?; where is the human right of Ryukyu people? only international law expert will provide the answer. Obviously, there is no logic.....

Some critic was argued on the wording of the surrender declaration or written order,or General Order No. 1, issued on of Sept. 2, 1945, or whatever written documents. Being an English speaking nation, when the Surrender of Japanese was taken place in 1945, whatever agreement, treaty, articles, orders or any written documents were all in English, like an experienced lawyer the wordings can be used for intended hidden political agenda of the interest party who know English well; any party not aware of the actual wordings will suffered from later legal complication, and in international law. The document must be drafted by USA within a short span of time, where there was no chance for deep study by other countries. But under the law of equity, Taiwan was part of China, it was forcefully occupied by Japan under the unfair treaty after the war, an act of military invasion of territory, as evidenced by The Treaty of Shimonoseki, rightfully the territory should be returned to the rightful owner, not to the agent or any party, whatsoever was written or silence in the surrender agreement or treaty.....If Senkaku Islands is part of Taiwan, it is part of China. It is a undeniable historical fact.

The worst argument is some claimed that Taiwan's "territorial sovereignty is held by the US Military Government" because the US, as Japan's "conqueror" in World War II, was the "principal occupying power" of Taiwan. That may be the ultimate hidden agenda of some party.....Based on this argument, Senkaku Islands is USA's post war territory?.... what a joke...

The ultimate reason, of course is because of oil discovery, and the territories of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).....otherwise an win-win agreement can easily reached by both parties for a deserted islets.

Finally, historically who was having past records of aggressors, occupiers and frequently having wars to acquire other geopolitical entity until WW2, and specifically so for land far from the home ....not only neighboring countries. There was a strategic war plan to expand their territories. Ironically, Japan is also having territory dispute with Korea(The Liancourt Rocks, called Dokdo), Russia(The Kuril Islands dispute),not only China and Taiwan.

The issue is further complicated by the involvement of outside party. What is USA to do with the dispute, a country far away?......there is a military pact with Japan, a country far from her door....an interest party who return Ryukyu Islands to Japan, the country which is still having air force base at Okinawa...USA is far from Japan and China, what is the role she played in the dispute, historically and politically after WW2 and during the cold war?....????....Are we still in the cold war era?...that is still the perception of the USA. The current domestic political situation in the USA will further activate the foreign policy and military strategy of the US in East Asia, and Senkaku Islands issue. Ironically, the issue of Taiwan would have been settled as domestic affairs like Germany, Vietnam; if there is no external party involvement during the cold war and even today. The new cold war era may have developed by USA as their perception strategy....

Senkaku Island issue is not a simple territorial issue, it involves history, economy, politic, militarism, armament industry, petrol money, global military and political power, and image of a nation.

Where is Ryukyu Kingdom(琉球国)?

In ancient time,between China and Japan, there was a country called Ryukyu Kingdom. What happen to Ryukyu Kingdom today, we no longer hear the name of this kingdom in modern world. The kingdom had disappeared from the earth, without anyone really concern about it. This make me remember all the small nations or kingdoms, which had been lost and occupied by stronger neighboring countries. It is just like the history of East Timor, where nobody was concern in the day the small country was occupied by their neighboring country, because it was a small country, with no political interest to the world....



Today Ryukyu Kingdom has disappeared, their citizen had become the citizen of another nation. The younger generation of the people of Ryukyu Kingdom, may have brainwashed to accept the dominion over their motherland. This was a sad chapter of the world history. Another vassal state of Japan, Korea was able to become an independent nation, but not Ryukyu Kingdom. Unlike the other small states in the world, like East Timor, Nagaland, the people of Ryukyu quietly accepted their fate. That was the end of the Ryukyu Kingdom, the sound become silence, the past of the kingdom only restricted to Tourism history....

In Okinawa, Japan and for many Okinawan descendants living abroad, the term “uchinanchu” refers to any person of Okinawan ancestry, there is a small voices still calling, Ryukyu people.....



Map of Ryukyu Kingdom(today Okinawa Prefecture of Japan)


View Larger Map

Ryūkyū Kingdom

The Ryūkyū Kingdom (琉球國 Rūchū kuku or Lewchew, or Luchu) was an independent kingdom which ruled most of the Ryukyu Islands from the 15th century to the 19th century. The Kings of Ryūkyū unified Okinawa Island and extended the kingdom to the Amami Islands in modern-day Kagoshima Prefecture, and the Sakishima Islands near Taiwan. Despite its small size, the kingdom played a central role in the maritime trade networks of medieval East and Southeast Asia.

In the 14th century, small domains scattered on Okinawa Island were unified into three principalities: Hokuzan (北山, Northern Mountain), Chūzan (中山, Central Mountain) and Nanzan (南山, Southern Mountain). This was known as the Three Kingdoms or Sanzan (三山, Three Mountains) period. Hokuzan, which constituted much of the northern half of the island, was the largest in terms of land area, and strong militarily, but was economically the weakest of the three. Nanzan comprised the southern portion of the island. Chūzan lay in the center of the island, and was the strongest economically. Its political capital at Shuri, neighbored the major trade port of Naha and center of traditional Chinese learning, Kumemura. These sites, and Chūzan as a whole, would continue to form the center of the Ryūkyū Kingdom until its abolition by Japan.

Once the independent kingdom of Ryūkyū (琉球), which was a tributary state of imperial China, the islands were first invaded and brought under the control of Satsuma (modern-day Kagoshima) in 1609, who continued to use them as a conduit for trade with China, to the profit of all three parties

The first mention of the word Ryukyu was written in the Book of Sui. This Ryukyu might refer to Taiwan, not the Ryukyu islands.[citation needed] Okinawa was the Japanese word depicting the islands, first seen in the biography of Jianzhen, written in 779. Agricultural societies begun in the 8th century slowly developed until the 12th century. Since the islands are located in the center of the East China Sea relatively close to Japan, China and South-East Asia, the Ryūkyū Kingdom became a prosperous trading nation. Also during this period, many Gusukus, similar to castles, were constructed. The Ryūkyū Kingdom had a tributary relationship with the Chinese Empire beginning in the 15th century.

In 1609 the Satsuma clan, which controlled the region that is now Kagoshima Prefecture, invaded the Ryūkyū Kingdom. The Ryūkyū Kingdom was obliged to agree to form a tributary relationship with the Satsuma and the Tokugawa shogunate, while maintaining its previous tributary relationship with China; Ryukyuan sovereignty was maintained since complete annexation would have created a conflict with China. The Satsuma clan earned considerable profits from trades with China during a period in which foreign trade was heavily restricted by the shogunate.

Though Satsuma maintained strong influence over the islands, the Ryūkyū Kingdom maintained a considerable degree of domestic political freedom for over two hundred years. Four years after the 1868 Meiji Restoration, the Japanese government, through military incursions, officially annexed the kingdom and renamed it Ryukyu han. At the time, the Qing Dynasty of China asserted sovereignty over the islands of the Ryūkyū Kingdom, since the Ryūkyū Kingdom was also a tributary nation of China.

Ryukyu han became Okinawa Prefecture of Japan in 1879, even though all other hans had become prefectures of Japan in 1872. In 1912, Okinawans first obtained the right to vote to send representatives to the national Diet which had been established in 1890.



The timeline of lost kingdom- Ryukyu Kingdom

1372 - The first Ming dynasty envoy visits Okinawa, which had been divided into three kingdoms, during the Sanzan period. Formal tributary relations with the Chinese Empire begin.
1416 - Chūzan, led by Shō Hashi, occupies Nakijin gusuku, capital of Hokuzan.
1429 - Chūzan occupies Shimajiri Osato gusuku, capital of Nanzan, unifying Okinawa Island. Shō Hashi establishes the Kingdom of Ryūkyū, ruling as king with his capital at Shuri (now part of modern-day Naha).
1470 - Shō En (Kanemaru) establishes the Second Shō Dynasty.
1477 - The third king, Shō Shin, ascends to the throne. Golden age of the kingdom.
1609 (April 5)- daimyō (Lord) of Satsuma in southern Kyūshū conquers the kingdom. King of Ryūkyū becomes a Japanese vassal.
1624 - Lord of Satsuma annexes the Amami Islands.
1846 - Dr. Bernard Jean Bettelheim (d. 1870), a British Protestant missionary, arrives in Ryūkyū Kingdom. He establishes the first foreign hospital on the island at the Naminoue Gokoku-ji Temple.
1853 - Commodore Matthew Perry of the US Navy visits the kingdom. Betteleheim leaves with Perry.
1866 - The last official mission from the Qing Empire visits the kingdom.
1872 - The Japanese government unilaterally abolished the Ryukyu Kingdom, and declared the islands to be the Ryukyu Han (Ryukyu fief), with Shō Tai (尚泰) as the head of the fief 藩王 (Han'ō).
1874 - The last tributary envoy to China is dispatched from Naha.
1879 - Japan replaces the Ryūkyū han with Okinawa Prefecture, formally annexing the islands. King Shō Tai (尚泰) is given the title of marquis (侯爵) and removed to Tokyo for easy control by Japan.

Following the Battle of Okinawa and the end of World War II in 1945, Okinawa was under United States administration for 27 years. During the trusteeship rule the United States Air Force established numerous military bases on the Ryukyu islands. During the Korean War, B-29 Superfortresses flew bombing missions from Kadena AFB over Korea and China.

In 1972, the U.S. government returned the islands to Japanese administration. Under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, the United States Forces Japan (USFJ) have maintained a large military presence. 27,000 personnel, including 15,000 Marines, contingents from the Navy, Army and Air Force, and their 22,000 family members are stationed in Okinawa. Since 1960, the U.S. and Japan have maintained an agreement that allows the U.S. to secretly bring nuclear weapons into Japan. Both tactical and strategic weapons have been maintained in Okinawa. 18% of the main island was occupied by U.S. military bases and 75% of all USFJ bases are located in Okinawa prefecture.

Despite strong appeals for some form of Okinawan independence, Japanese government officials ignored this perspective, and negotiated with the United States around the reversion of Okinawa to Japan. Despite popular rioting and protests around the issue of reversion in both Okinawa and mainland Japan, with many people arguing against a position of reversion, the leadership of Japan worked out a reversion agreement with the United States that placed Okinawa back under the control of Japan, but maintained the U.S. military forces on the islands. On June 17, 1971, the Japanese government signed the treaty with the United States that authorized the reversion of Okinawa to Japan. In protest, over 100,000 people marched and rallied throughout Japan, in dissatisfaction with the Reversion. Many protesters resorted to violent tactics in protest, and in November 1971 over 300 people were arrested in the Hibiya district in Tokyo, in the riots and protests that followed. Despite these protests, however, the Japanese National Diet eventually ratified the Reversion treaty on November 24, 1971. Despite the Reversion, however, the issues that provided the main impetus for the Reversion - mainly, the U. S. military bases, and the problems that they caused - still remain. (source: http://www.uchinanchu.org/uchinanchu/history_reversion.htm)



I wonder was there consent from international community and from stake holders like China or Taiwan, prior to returning Ryukyu to Japan? USA was not the owner of the islands, but only a custodian or trustee of the islands after WW2, did USA has the capacity or authority to unilaterally act in the way? or did USA did it as political agenda of cold war to protect her interest in the region? I hope international law academician will do a research on it. But from the later political development in the region, it was clear that a strategic move by USA was for her political and military interest in the region. Where is the legal right and human right of the Ryukyu people, at least their views should be taken into consideration for the decision to return the Ryukyu islands to Japan. At least International Court or world bodies like United Nation may be consulted for the proper action to be taken, not unilateral action. This left a political time bomb in the region, where USA can play a role in future. A smart political move by USA to circle China, their perceptive enemy in cold war, and rival in global economy......

Ryūkyū independence movement

The nihongo|Ryūkyū independence movement|琉球独立運動|Ryūkyū Dokuritsu Undō is a movement for the independence of Okinawa and the surrounding islands (Ryukyu Islands), from Japan. The movement re-merged in 1945, after the end of the Pacific War. Some Ryukyuan people felt, as the Allied Occupation began, that the Ryukyus (Okinawa) should eventually become an independent state, instead of being returned to Japan. The majority pushed for unification with the mainland, hoping that this would hasten the end of the Allied Occupation there. The US-Japan Security Treaty was signed in 1951 as re-unification occurred, and providing for the continuation of the American military presence. This set the stage for renewed political movement for Ryukyu independence.

Historical context

The Ryūkyū Kingdom was conquered by the Japanese feudal domain of Satsuma in 1609, and held as a semi-independent state until it was formally annexed and transformed into Okinawa Prefecture in 1879. It is likely that there were various proponents of independence from Satsuma/Japan during this period, and from China as well, to which Ryūkyū was a tributary state. However, no significant popular movement arose during this time.

Similarly, there may have been significant movements for Okinawan independence following its annexation, in the period prior to and during World War II. Following the war, the United States Occupation government took over control of Okinawa, retaining control until 1972, twenty years after the formal occupation of the rest of Japan had ended. There was pressure in 1945, immediately following the war, for the creation of a fully independent Ryūkyūan state, while later in the Occupation period there arose a strong movement not for independence but for a return to Japanese sovereignty.

Since 1972, and the return of Okinawa to Japanese control, voices turned once again towards the aim of a fully independent Ryūkyūan state.

Motives & Ideology

Among those who sought a return to Japanese sovereignty, there was a basic belief that the people of Okinawa were a part of the Japanese people, whether ethnically, culturally, or politically. During the Meiji period, when the Ryūkyū Kingdom was formally abolished and annexed, there was a strong push for assimilation; the Meiji government, and other cultural and intellectual agents, sought to make the people of the new prefecture see themselves as "Japanese." Ryūkūans were given Japanese citizenship, names, passports, and other official representations of their status as part of the Japanese people. They were also incorporated into the newly-founded national public education system. Through this education system and other methods, both governmental and independent, Ryukuans, along with minorities from all parts of the country, were gradually integrated into the Japanese people. There was a significant reimagining of the histories of Ryūkyū and of Hokkaidō, which was annexed at the same time, and an insistence that the Ainu of Hokkaidō and the Ryūkyūan people were "Japanese", ethnically and culturally, going back many centuries, despite originally having significantly different cultures. With time these reimagined identities took hold in the younger generations. They were born in Okinawa Prefecture, as Japanese citizens, and saw themselves as belonging there.

This does not mean that the independent identities have been completely lost. Many Ryukyuan people see themselves as a separate Ryukyuan race, ethnically different, with a unique and separate cultural heritage. They see a great difference between themselves and the "mainland" Japanese, and many feel a strong connection to Ryukyuan traditional culture and the pre-1609 history of independence. There is strong criticism of the Meiji government's assimilation policies and ideological agenda.
(source: wikipedia)

Ryukyuan languages which are incomprehensible to Japanese speakers. Ryukyuan languages as different languages from Japanese. Okinawa also has its own religious beliefs, generally characterized by ancestor worship and the respecting of relationships between the living, the dead, and the gods and spirits of the natural world.

Recent events

Though there are pressures in the US and Japan, as well as in Okinawa, for the removal of US troops and military bases from Okinawa, there have thus far been only partial and gradual movements in that direction.

In 1995, a decision to remove troops from Okinawa was reversed, and there was a renewed surge in the Ryukyu Independence Movement. In 2005,Chinese Lim John Chuan-tiong (林泉忠) , a University of Ryukyu associate professor executed a telephone poll of Okinawans over 18. He obtained useful replies from 1029 people. Asked whether they considered themselves Okinawan (沖縄人), Japanese (日本人), or both, the answers were 40.6, 21.3, and 36.5 respectively. When asked whether Okinawa should become independent if the Japanese government allowed (or did not allow) Okinawa to freely decide its future, 24.9% replied Okinawa should become independent with permission, and 20.5% in case of no permission from the Japanese government. Those who believed Okinawa should not declare independence were 58.7% and 57.4% respectively. [ [http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/i/a-001/anketo.html Okinawa Times, January 1, 2006. The scan is from the Okinawa Independent Party website.] ] [ [http://questionnaire.blog16.fc2.com/blog-entry-416.html "Survey on Okinawan resident identities", From the Latest Questionnaires] ]

Kariyushi Club (かりゆしクラブ, Kariyushi Kurabu), formerly called Ryūkyū Independent Party (琉球独立党, Ryūkyū Dokuritsutō), is the local party in Okinawa Prefecture, Japan, seeking an independent Ryukyu, the Republic of Ryukyu (琉球共和国, Ryūkyū Kyōwakoku). The current party leader is Chōsuke Yara (屋良朝助, Yara Chōsuke). Kariyushi is Okinawan for "happy" or "harmony with nature".

Okinawans are "Uchinanchu."..... are Ryukyu people....

In global politic, a small nation suffered....Ryukyu Kingdom is less important than The Senkaku Islands ; Qing emperor has no time for them as they are having their own internal problem, despite the Ryukyu king repeatedly asking for help. The USA never look at them, when Commodore Matthew Perry visited them. Only Japan see the potential in the kingdom, and annexed Ryukyu Kingdom into their empire, without anyone paying attention to the tiny small Ryukyu Kingdom. Ryukyu Kingdom has no strategic importance to the world, but strategic and military importance to Japanese military expansion plan..... The Ryukyuan or Lewchewan people(琉球民族, Ryūkyū minzoku),the indigenous peoples of the Ryukyu Islands become Japanese. That is the end of Ryukyu Kingdom.... .......



Related articles

1.Ryūkyū Kingdom, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ry%C5%ABky%C5%AB_Kingdom
2.Early History of The Ryukyu Kingdom and its Relationship with China and Japan, http://www.uchinanchu.org/uchinanchu/history_okinawan_nation.htm
3. Welcome to Ryukyu Kingdom, http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/003/mo_e/01_e/01.html
4. Kariyushi Club official website, http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/i/a-001/(in Japanese)
5. Kariyushi Club, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kariyushi_Club
6. Ryūkyū independence movement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ry%C5%ABky%C5%AB_independence_movement
7. Okinawa Peace Network of Los Angeles, featuring information about Ryukyuan culture worldwide; http://www.uchinanchu.org/uchinanchu/history_cultural.htm
8. Worldwide Uchinanchu Network, http://www.uchinanchu.net/
9. Okinawan diaspora(2002), by Ronald Y. Nakasone, University of Hawaii Press.

Armenia–Turkey relations & Genocide

BBC reported on 10-10-2009:

" Turkey and Armenia have signed a historic accord normalising relations after a century of hostility. The deal was signed by the two foreign ministers after last-minute problems delayed the ceremony in Switzerland. Under the agreement, Turkey and Armenia are to establish diplomatic ties and reopen their shared border.

The accord has been met by protests in Armenia, where many people say it does not fully address the 1915 killing of hundreds of thousands of Armenians(Armenian Genocide)".

The World’s Fact Book - Armenia
Armenia prides itself on being the first nation to formally adopt Christianity (early 4th century). Despite periods of autonomy, over the centuries Armenia came under the sway of various empires including the Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Persian, and Ottoman. During World War I in the western portion of Armenia, Ottoman Turkey instituted a policy of forced resettlement coupled with other harsh practices that resulted in an estimated 1 million Armenian deaths. The eastern area of Armenia was ceded by the Ottomans to Russia in 1828; this portion declared its independence in 1918, but was conquered by the Soviet Red Army in 1920. Armenian leaders remain preoccupied by the long conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a primarily Armenian-populated region, assigned to Soviet Azerbaijan in the 1920s by Moscow. Armenia and Azerbaijan began fighting over the area in 1988; the struggle escalated after both countries attained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. By May 1994, when a cease-fire took hold, ethnic Armenian forces held not only Nagorno-Karabakh but also a significant portion of Azerbaijan proper. The economies of both sides have been hurt by their inability to make substantial progress toward a peaceful resolution. Turkey closed the common border with Armenia because of the Armenian separatists' control of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas.

Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in solidarity with Azerbaijan in its war with Armenian-backed ethnic Armenians in the mountain region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Former Soviet Armenia and NATO-member Turkey have no diplomatic ties, but a relationship haunted by the World War One killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks(refer as Armenian Genocide), a defining element of Armenian national identity.

Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s, has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan - Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) continues to mediate dispute; over 800,000 mostly ethnic Azerbaijanis were driven from the occupied lands and Armenia; about 230,000 ethnic Armenians were driven from their homes in Azerbaijan into Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh; Azerbaijan seeks transit route through Armenia to connect to Naxcivan exclave; border with Turkey remains closed over Nagorno-Karabakh dispute; ethnic Armenian groups in Javakheti region of Georgia seek greater autonomy; Armenians continue to emigrate, primarily to Russia, seeking employment

Unemployment and poverty remain widespread. Armenia's economic problems are aggravated by a trade blockade, imposed by neighboring Turkey and Azerbaijan since the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh. The conflict over the predominantly Armenian-populated region in Azerbaijan overshadowed Armenia's return to independence in 1991.

Full-scale war broke out the same year as ethnic Armenians in Karabakh fought for independence, supported by troops and resources from Armenia proper. A ceasefire in place since 1994 has failed to deliver any lasting solution.

In the wake of the 2007 assassination of Armenian intellectual Hrant Dink by a Turkish nationalist, and the ensuing scandal in which his killer was exalted as a hero by the policemen who had detained him, tens of thousands of Turkish citizens marched throughout the country in protest. The subsequent diplomatic thaw saw Turkish President Abdullah Gül become the first ever Turkish leader to visit Armenia and the announcement of a provisional road map for normalizing diplomatic ties.

In 2009 the foreign ministries of the two countries said that they would begin talks for formal diplomatic recognition.

It announced on October 10, 2009 that both countries had agreed to establish diplomatic relations. The agreement signed at a ceremony in Zurich, Switzerland, would establish diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia and open the joint border, which was sealed after the 1993 Armenian invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh. The enclave is inhabited primarily by ethnic Armenians.

The obstacles to normal diplomacy

The two obstacles between the normalization of diplomatic relationship between the two countries are:

1.Armenian campaign to have the mass killing of ethnic Armenians by Turkish troops in 1915 categorized as genocide, a term successive Turkish governments have refused to accept.

In that Turkey seems to have been successful. The protocol it is signing agrees that the "historical dimension" will be studied by a bilateral commission, to which international experts will contribute. The committee of historians should decide whether the killings were genocide. The Armenian-Turkish agreement calls for a panel to discuss "the historical dimension" of the killings, including "an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations."

2. The disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, a state with close ethnic links to Turkey. When, in 1993, ethnic Armenian forces took control of large swathes of territory around the enclave, the Turkish government closed the border with Armenia.

In practice, Turkish negotiators have put the issue aside, viewing it as a parallel process which is being handled through mediation by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). It is not mentioned as a condition for signing the protocol formally establishing diplomatic relations.

Note: On 11-10-2009(Sunday), Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has promised the Azeri government that border will not be reopened until the conflict is resolved, and Armenian forces withdraw from Azeri territory they have been occupying outside the enclave(ref: Yahoo News,11-10-2009).

The mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in 1915-18 is still a huge issue here. The fact that Turkey has not recognized them as a systematic "genocide" is very painful, especially for those who are descended from the victims of the deportations and executions.

The protocol mentions no pre-conditions for Turkey to officially recognise genocide before ratifying it. That has struck a nerve with those in the wider Armenian diaspora and here in the homeland.

why does the Armenian government want to pursue rapprochement at all, given all the controversy?

1. Armenian President Serge Sarkisian has come under mounting pressure from the European Union to make progress. He was strongly criticized by the West in 2008 after the authorities orchestrated a violent crackdown on pro-opposition demonstrators in Yerevan after a presidential election they say was rigged. Analysts say he now needs a foreign policy success to boost confidence in his leadership. The political career prevail over national agenda on Armenian Genocide.

2. There is great will on the part of the US and the EU to move things forward in terms of rapprochement. The obvious factor is the large reserve of oil and gas resources of the region near Caspian Sea, and the regional security. Armenia will be under heavy diplomatic pressure from them.

3. As a landlocked country, Armenia cannot afford in the long term to keep its borders closed. Currently, trade with Turkey relies heavily on Georgia for transit. Its border with another neighbor, Azerbaijan, remains closed since the two went to war over the region of Nagorno Karabakh in the 1990s and Armenia would probably benefit economically from an open border with Turkey.

Feedback from Armenians

Armenia is very poor, and its people have much more immediate concerns to be worried about. However most people in Armenia feel their landlocked country has been too isolated since the Turkish border closed and are ready for it to reopen.

Armenia has a huge diaspora and has always experienced waves of emigration, but the exodus of recent years has caused real alarm. It is estimated that Armenia has lost up to a quarter of its population since independence, as young families seek what they hope will be a better life abroad. Armenia is primarily a source country for women and girls trafficked to the UAE and Turkey for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation; Armenian men and women are trafficked to Turkey and Russia for the purpose of forced labor(ref: The World’s Fact Book by CIA)

The Armenian diaspora are not happy with the signing. Revealingly, most of the best-known reflections of the killings, in music and literature, were produced outside Armenia. In France, and especially the US, Armenians have excelled in science and commerce, and have a vocal presence in politics and the judiciary. This leads Turkey and its allies to speak of an "Armenian lobby", which they say exerts disproportionate influence.

But among the diaspora, the mass killings in 1915 are the seminal event of modern Armenian history, something that binds together what is one of the world's most dispersed peoples.
Indeed, many diaspora Armenians passionately believe that the killings define latter-day Armenian identity. And it is the diaspora, rather than Armenia itself, that drives the effort to have those killings recognized internationally as genocide.

A member of the National Council of the Armenians of Western Armenia, chief representative of Western Armenia in a UN forum on indigenous peoples Armenak Abrahamyan says that the protocol “On Establishing Diplomatic Relations” commits Armenia to recognizing its existing border with Turkey, which, according to him, is an act of forgetting Western Armenia. According to Abrahamyan, as an indigenous people, Armenians are entitled to make a territorial claim under a corresponding UN resolution.
“This protocol means that Armenia gives up its historical Armenian lands. It means that the history of Armenia is completely changed and the rights of Armenians of Western Armenia do not exist and that there was no genocide,” says Abrahamyan.The National Council of the Armenians of Western Armenia was set up in 2004 in Shushi, Karabakh, with the goal of uniting Western Armenians from all over the world.

“If Western Armenia is returned to Armenia, then Armenia will face the Kurdish issue. What will we, less then three million Armenians with our mentality of leaving for Los Angeles, do against 15 million Kurds?” says Gagik Keryan, Head of the Chair of Political Science at the Yerevan State University.

The Armenian Genocide

The Armenian Genocide led to the forcible deportation and massacre of the majority of the Ottoman Armenian population between 1915 and 1917.

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1944, firstly from the Latin "gens, gentis," meaning "birth, race, stock, kind" or the Greek root génos (γένος) (same meaning); secondly from Latin -cidium (cutting, killing) via French -cide. Lemkin introduced the word genocide in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944). After World War II, he learned that some 40 members of his family, including his parents, had been killed in the Holocaust. Raphael Lemkin, who would later coin the word "genocide," is born into a Polish Jewish family in 1900. His memoirs detail early exposure to the history of Ottoman attacks against Armenians (which most scholars believe constitute genocide), antisemitic pogroms, and other histories of group-targeted violence as key to forming his beliefs about the need for legal protection of groups. Some scholars said that the word "Genocide" was derived from Armenian Genocide.

A legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The Genocide of the 20th century included:
7. Bosnia-Herzegovina: 1992-1995 - 200,000 Deaths
6. Rwanda: 1994 - 800,000 Deaths
5. Pol Pot in Cambodia: 1975-1979 - 2,000,000 Deaths
4. Nazi Holocaust: 1938-1945 - 6,000,000 Deaths
3. Rape of Nanking: 1937-1938 - 300,000 Deaths
2. Stalin's Forced Famine: 1932-1933 - 7,000,000 Deaths
1. Armenians in Turkey: 1915-1918 - 1,500,000 Deaths

That is no denial that Armenian is historically the resident of the region, and its native land was taken by nomadic invaders. For three thousand years, a thriving Armenian community had existed inside the vast region of the Middle East bordered by the Black, Mediterranean and Caspian Seas. The area, known as Asia Minor, stands at the crossroads of three continents; Europe, Asia and Africa. Great powers rose and fell over the many centuries and the Armenian homeland was at various times ruled by Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs and Mongols. In the eleventh century, the first Turkish invasion of the Armenian homeland occurred. Thus began several hundred years of rule by Muslim Turks. By the sixteenth century, Armenia had been absorbed into the vast and mighty Ottoman Empire. At its peak, this Turkish empire included much of Southeast Europe, North Africa, and almost all of the Middle East.

But by the 1800s the once powerful Ottoman Empire was in serious decline.As the empire gradually disintegrated, formerly subject peoples including the Greeks, Serbs and Romanians achieved their long-awaited independence. Only the Armenians and the Arabs of the Middle East remained stuck in the backward and nearly bankrupt empire, now under the autocratic rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid.

By the 1890s, young Armenians began to press for political reforms, calling for a constitutional government, the right to vote and an end to discriminatory practices such as special taxes levied solely against them because they were Christians. The despotic Sultan responded to their pleas with brutal persecutions. Between 1894 and 1896 over 100,000 inhabitants of Armenian villages were massacred during widespread pogroms conducted by the Sultan's special regiments.

But the Sultan's days were numbered. In July 1908, reform-minded Turkish nationalists known as "Young Turks" forced the Sultan to allow a constitutional government and guarantee basic rights. The Young Turks were ambitious junior officers in the Turkish Army who hoped to halt their country's steady decline.

Armenians in Turkey were delighted with this sudden turn of events and its prospects for a brighter future. Jubilant public rallies were held attended by both Turks and Armenians with banners held high calling for freedom, equality and justice.

However, their hopes were dashed when three of the Young Turks seized full control of the government via a coup in 1913. This triumvirate of Young Turks, consisting of Mehmed Talaat, Ismail Enver and Ahmed Djemal, came to wield dictatorial powers and concocted their own ambitious plans for the future of Turkey. They wanted to unite all of the Turkic peoples in the entire region while expanding the borders of Turkey eastward across the Caucasus all the way into Central Asia. This would create a new Turkish empire, a "great and eternal land" called Turan with one language and one religion.

The decision to annihilate the entire population came directly from the ruling triumvirate of ultra-nationalist Young Turks. The actual extermination orders were transmitted in coded telegrams to all provincial governors throughout Turkey. Armed roundups began on the evening of April 24, 1915, as 300 Armenian political leaders, educators, writers, clergy and dignitaries in Constantinople (present day Istanbul) were taken from their homes, briefly jailed and tortured, then hanged or shot.

Next, there were mass arrests of Armenian men throughout the country by Turkish soldiers, police agents and bands of Turkish volunteers. The men were tied together with ropes in small groups then taken to the outskirts of their town and shot dead or bayoneted by death squads. Local Turks and Kurds armed with knives and sticks often joined in on the killing.

Then it was the turn of Armenian women, children, and the elderly. On very short notice, they were ordered to pack a few belongings and be ready to leave home, under the pretext that they were being relocated to a non-military zone for their own safety. They were actually being taken on death marches heading south toward the Syrian desert.

Most of the homes and villages left behind by the rousted Armenians were quickly occupied by Turks who assumed instant ownership of everything. In many cases, young Armenian children were spared from deportation by local Turks who took them from their families.

Individual caravans consisting of thousands of deported Armenians were escorted by Turkish gendarmes. These guards allowed roving government units of hardened criminals known as the "Special Organization" to attack the defenseless people, killing anyone they pleased. They also encouraged Kurdish bandits to raid the caravans and steal anything they wanted. In addition, an extraordinary amount of sexual abuse and rape of girls and young women occurred at the hands of the Special Organization and Kurdish bandits. Most of the attractive young females were kidnapped for a life of involuntary servitude.

The death marches, involving over a million Armenians, covered hundreds of miles and lasted months. Indirect routes through mountains and wilderness areas were deliberately chosen in order to prolong the ordeal and to keep the caravans away from Turkish villages.

Food supplies being carried by the people quickly ran out and they were usually denied further food or water. Anyone stopping to rest or lagging behind the caravan was mercilessly beaten until they rejoined the march. If they couldn't continue they were shot. A common practice was to force all of the people in the caravan to remove every stitch of clothing and have them resume the march in the nude under the scorching sun until they dropped dead by the roadside from exhaustion and dehydration.

An estimated 75 percent of the Armenians on these marches perished, especially children and the elderly. Those who survived the ordeal were herded into the desert without a drop of water. Others were killed by being thrown off cliffs, burned alive, or drowned in rivers.

The Turkish countryside became littered with decomposing corpses.

(source: Extract from http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/armenians.htm)

According to Rafael de Nogales, Ottoman commander of the artillery at Van Resistance, the Armenians’ posture was defensive and in response to the massacres being committed in villages surrounding Van. Also, Armenians were being forcibly relocated from Zeitun in March 1915, months before the Tehcir Law was passed. Further massacres and deportations occurred during the closing stages and immediate aftermath of WW1. The modern Turkish government has always systematically denied or rationalized the killings of Armenians during the Ottoman period, inflaming Armenian resentment in Armenia and around the world. Once a pillar of the Dashnagtzoutiun, Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first prime minister of Armenia, stated in his parting address at the Party congress in 1923 Bucharest: "At the beginning of the Fall of 1914 when Turkey had not yet entered the war but had already been making preparations, Armenian revolutionary bands began to be formed in Transcaucasia with great enthusiasm and, especially, with much uproar."

In recent years the Armenian Genocide has been increasingly discussed in Turkey, at conferences and universities,since the law does not prevent debates on the topic. Even though freedom of speech and freedom of thought are guaranteed by Turkish law due to the nature of Article 301, people claiming an Armenian Genocide can be accused of calling the nation "killers" and thus "insulting Turkishness". Over eighty authors have faced prosecution for "insulting Turkishness"; Kemal Kerinçsiz, an ultra-nationalist lawyer, is responsible for at least forty of them, and his group Büyük Hukukçular Birliği ("Great Union of Jurists" or "Turkish Lawyer's Union") for most of the rest.

(source: wikipedia)

Please also read Chronology of Armenian Genocide at the official site of The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/chronology.php

Despite the silence of Armenian Genocide, Armenia agreed to diplomatic relationship. This is partly because the economically and energy deprived Armenian need an avenue to improve its economy. The border opening of the landlocked country will boost the economy for the well being of its people and country. Goodwill and politic prevail over historical national agenda(of Armenian Genocide). It is also the external pressure from EC and USA to normalize the diplomatic relationship of the two countries due to the geopolitic(of petrol and gas resources). The historical feeling of the past will took a back seat. The Turkey on other hand is eager to join the EC, which is an incentive for her to normalize relationship.

We just hope that Armenia will not be a casualty again for the global politic. The hidden agenda of the EC and USA is the rich resources of oil and gas at the Caspian Sea which lies above one of the world's largest groups of oil and gas fields. We can only pray that the new found relationship will bring peace to the region,this is provide that the superpowers have more concern for the poor countries and play less ugly global politic. Pray that this region, Asia Minor will not be future Middle East.....geopolitic, source of war...

Related articles/references:

1. Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute , by BBC 10-7-2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6045182.stm
2. Armenian diaspora bound by killings , by BBC 12-10-2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6044682.stm
3. Turkey's Armenian dilemma , by BBC 27-2-2007,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6386625.stm
4. Armenia and Turkey normalise ties, by BBC 10-10-2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299712.stm
5. Armenia–Turkey relations, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia%E2%80%93Turkey_relations
6. Turkey: Armenia must pull out of Nagorno-Karabakh, yahoo news dated 11-10-2009
7. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C.: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007043
8. The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute official site: http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/index.php

Armenian Genocide Denial Impossible…Literally

This is an interesting blog article re-posting from http://blogian.hayastan.com/category/genocide/ dated 10-12-2008. It was about the origin of the word " Genocide" and literally it was related to Armenian Genocide. Like orange color related to orange fruits, it is interconnected, a denial of Armenian Genocide is like denial the word genocide.....

The article is re-posted below:

Writing at the Keghart blog, Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies researcher Vicken Babkenian argues that it is, literally, impossible to deny the Armenian Genocide. Since the word “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin to specifically describe what happened to Armenians during WWI and to Jews during WWII, by using the word “genocide” one recognizes – even if saying “the Armenian Genocide was a lie” – the Armenian Genocide (and the Holocaust):

It all began when I was cutting an Orange for my niece when she asked me why the name Orange is both a color and a fruit. After doing some research, I discovered that the root of the word Orange in the English language is derived from the fruit. In other words the Etymology of the color and the fruit is interconnected. No one can argue that the fruit Orange is not Orange.

As someone who has studied the Armenian Genocide over a number of years, I could not help but familiarize myself with the etymology of the word Genocide. I discovered that the word genocide is from the roots genos (Greek for family, tribe, race, a people, a nation) and –cide (Latin – occidere or cideo – to Massacre, Kill, exterminate). I looked up the word in the Oxford dictionary and found the definition to be “the extermination of a race”. I then recalled that this definition of the word ‘genocide’ had been used by contemporary eyewitnesses, diplomats, historians, journalists to describe what was happening to the Armenians during WWI. Lord James Bryce in 1915 called it “the Extermination of a Race” in a New York Times article. If the word ‘genocide’ had been coined before WWI, then that one word would have been used, instead of the five words which mean the same thing.

I then conducted some research on Raphael Lemkin, “The founder of the genocide convention” and on the genesis of the word ‘genocide’ which he coined in 1944. In his manuscript titled “Totally unofficial”, Lemkin wrote:

“In 1915 . . . I began . . . to read more history to study whether national, religious, or racial groups as such were being destroyed. The truth came out after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians were put to death . . . After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government on the island of Malta . . . Then one day, I read in the newspapers that all Turkish war criminals were to be released. I was shocked. A nation that killed and the guilty persons were set free . . . I felt that a law against this type of racial or religious murder must be adopted by the world”

I soon reached the conclusion that the word genocide is etymologically interconnected with the tragedy of the Armenians, just like the word Orange is to the fruit of the same name. The man who coined the word genocide had in large part based it on the Armenian catastrophe. He even stated on national television “that it happened to the Armenians.”

I searched online to learn which countries had actually signed and ratified the Genocide Convention. I discovered that most countries in the world had done so, including the United States, Great Britain, Turkey, Israel and so on. I concluded that by ratifying the convention they had in fact recognized that the Armenian holocaust was in fact a genocide.

Yes, I use the word ‘holocaust’ because that word was used to describe what was happening to the Armenians during the Abdul Hamid Massacres, Adana Massacres and the Armenian genocide by contemporary writers. William Walker Rockwell in an article titled “the Total of Armenian and Syrian Dead” in the New York Times Current History February 1916, wrote “If the ghosts of the Christian civilians who have perished miserably in Turkey since the commencement of the great holocaust should march down Fifth Avenue twenty abreast there might be a million of them … for most of them will be women and children”.

The Armenian genocide has been recognized by the majority of the nations of the world and we didn’t even know it. If those countries who have ratified the genocide convention deny that the Armenians were victims of genocide, then they should either terminate their participation to the convention, or have the convention change the word ‘genocide’ to something else which is not intrinsically connected to the Armenian slaughter.

Denying that Armenians were victims of genocide is akin to denying that an Orange is Orange. It is insane and illogical. For those who believe that what happened to the Armenians should not be termed a ‘genocide’, should have convinced Raphael Lemkin not to base the word on what had happened to the Armenians. Unfortunately for them, it is too late, by signing the genocide convention; most of the world has already recognized the Armenian genocide.



There is another article which also touched my heart, the article from the same blog dated 9-1-2009; it is about a Turkish is giving all the land he inherited (which was actually owned by murdered assyrians),to an Assyrian organization.

Encouraged by the recent apology to Armenians by thousands of Turkish intelectuals and disissidents, a Turkish citizen has done the unprecedented: Berzan Boti (not his real name) of Siirt is giving all the land he inherited to an Assyrian organization. Along with Armenians, indigenous Assyrians were also victims of the WWI genocide at the hands of Ottoman Empire’s government during WWI:

Boti’s letter to Sabri Atman, founder and director of the Assyrian Seyfo Center in Europe who will now be responsible for the returned land (south of the Lake Van), states:

“When I found out that the properties that I and my brothers inherited from our father wasn’t our own, but properties taken from the murdered Assyrians in 1915 I felt an indescribable feeling of guilt and shame. I’ve been thinking long and hard before I have come to this decision. I tried to put myself in their position. I have personally apologized to every Assyrian and Armenian I’ve met. But this does not get rid of the crime our ancestors committed. Even if I am personally not responsible for what happened in 1915, I felt as I had to do more than just to apologize. Finally, I came to the decision to give back all properties that I inherited from my forefathers to Seyfo Center, which works for the recognition of the Seyfo (Assyrian) genocide in 1915” (source: Assyria Times dated 1-8-2009, http://www.assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3355).

I do not know whether the news is true; if it is a true story then the actual person(Berzan Boti, not his real name) is very courageous and honorable. He is a brave person with a big heart.

(source: http://blogian.hayastan.com/category/genocide/)