Let’s see, how to unpack this one here:
That link, sent out to, what, 1% of Twitter, goes here:
“Stanford Report, August 5, 2015
Stanford scholar illuminates history of disputed China Sea islands
Friction between China and Japan over sovereignty for the resource-rich Diaoyu Islands has escalated in recent years. Research by Stanford graduate student Xiang Zhai reveals new details about the dispute that might help resolve it.
BY CORRIE GOLDMAN
The Humanities at Stanford”
And in it we have this:
“Zhai’s investigation centers on Chiang, who ruled China from 1927 to 1949 and Taiwan from 1949 to 1975. His alleged indifference toward the fate of the Diaoyu Islands is frequently cited as the reason that the islands have not come back under Chinese control.”
1. First of all, that Tweet above was the updated version of this one, which made mention of the South China Sea. Whoops! Who’s in control of this account?
2. And second of all, here’s your history of the Senkakus – since the late 1800’s, it’s been “possessed” by Japan, then the U.S., and then Japan again. How would what any one person thinks about this dispute have changed this fact? For better or worse, this is history IRL. And is Chiang’s purported “indifference” frequently cited IRL? No, not at all. And how on Earth could whatever Chiang thought about the Senkakus Way Back When help resolve the dispute today?
Let’s say that somebody researched the 70 year old diaries of the Prime Minister of Argentina – how could such research possibly help resolve the Falkland Islands dispute?
And mention is made of the Ryukus and Okinawa – is that the “small” chain of islands mentioned? I could go on and on…
This entire bit seems like it was translated from Chinese, just saying.
Think, Stanford, think!