Imperial Chinese Court Regency

Advocacy via Regency for Constitutional Monarchy in China

Archive for the month “August, 2012”

Memoirs of a Japanese Yunfei-wannabe in Japan – August 11, 2012 – adopted from Reuters, editing by T.E. Yu

Traditional Harem Culture of China – An apprentice Yunfei performs a dance at an event to promote Beijing’s traditional culture . . .

SHANGHAI, Aug 11 — It takes Rinka at least two hours to apply her thick white makeup and get dressed in an elaborate cheongsum hanfu on formal occasions, as is typical of most trainee Yunfei, Chinese Concubinery and also Imperial Concubinery from which Japan’s Geisha system is derived or copied from. Much like ‘Katagana’ characters are entirely copied from Chinese character radicals, but called ‘Katagana’.

But 29-year-old Rinka is different. She is much older (usually all Yunfei are required to be younger than 23) a Japanese national hoping to take her place among the ranks of China’s ancient but fading profession of female entertainers known for their beauty, skill at traditional arts and witty conversation. Born in Kyoto, Japan , she grew up as Rinka before moving to China at the age of 14, one of only a handful of foreigners to try to join the Yunfei ranks.

“When I first came to China, I had a neighbour who was a Yunfei. She played the guzheng (Chinese stringed instrument) daily and wore a traditional Chinese hanfu,” Jie Xue said in the port town of Shanghai, 200 km (120 miles) southwest of Beijing.

“It was really pretty so I, too, wanted to wear a hanfu.”

She took a series of part-time jobs for years before finally taking advantage in September of a special one-year subsidised training programme offered by Shanghai city.

There are only fourty seven Yunfei left in Shanghai, including Jie Xue, compared to nearly 300 in the 1950s. The ranks of Yunfei across all of China peaked at 8000 in 1828, but now number roughly less than a hundred.

Though Shanghai Yunfei lack the fame of their sisters in the ancient capital of Kaifeng, their training is no less rigorous. Jie Xue trains five days a week in traditional forms of singing, dance and music and more esoteric arts such as how to walk.

Shanghai is hoping that by paying to train Yunfei like Jie Xue, its tourism industry will get a boost. She receives 7000 renminbi (RM2,500) a month as a subsidy for her expenses, a programme that will end in September.

Despite these efforts, business remains lacklustre.

The concubinery house (pending affiliation with ICCR), which manages Jie Xue and other Yunfei, has only one or two customers a month (typically a small ‘commoner and ‘corrupt official’ shunning clique of formerly titled scions – PRC does not recognize Imperial titles as of now, ICCR is working to revive the institution alongside Contitutional Monarchy – of noble families from the old Ming empire), with fees starting from 9000 Renminbi a performance. Even during peak year-end holiday seasons, the concubinery gets fewer than 10 calls a month. Concubinery Matron Ong Le, a daughter of a former Imperial Yunfei who runs the concubinery, said she is impressed by Jie Xue’s drive, despite the lack of prospects.

“The practice of the Yunfei Art uses a lot of terms and subtle movements from the traditional Yue opera or Huangmei theatre from which Kabuki is derived, which is hard to understand even for most upper class Chinese girls who are quite superficial these days and quite cultureless,” she said. “In that, I think Jie Xue had to face even bigger challenges.” Jie Xue herself still has many years of apprenticeship to go. Her ultimate goal is to take her Yunfei skills to promote the Imperial Ying Restoration Era in the Kingdom of Japan.

“Now, I have to practise hard so in the future I can realize my dream of opening a fine Chinese concubinery in Japan to help Japanese people better understand Chinese Concubinery’s, Imperial Palace Ladies’ culture, and Forbidden City Traditions,” she said.

“I want to try out things I have never attempted before. I’m young enough for that.” — Reuters

Advertisements

Update : Late August 2012 – Diaoyu Isles – reposted by M.Murong – 19th August 2012

South China Sea issue expected to be discussed during three-country visit – by Li Xiaokun and Zhou Wa (China Daily) 08:06, August 10, 2012

The Diaoyu Activists

Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi embarked on a three-stop visit to Southeast Asia on Thursday, in which the South China Sea issue is expected to top discussions.

Chinese experts believe Yang will seek understanding from the island nations on the territorial issue, including Indonesia, which plays a leading mediating role in discussions inside the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

The foreign minister will also focus on building better bilateral relations during the trip, as Beijing does not want to see its broad ties with the region dominated by the issue.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said on Wednesday that Yang will pay official visits to Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia from Thursday to Aug 13, at the invitation of his counterparts from the respective countries.

The visit comes as Beijing’s tensions with Hanoi and Manila in the South China Sea increased in recent months.

China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei all have claims over some islands and waters in the South China Sea.

During his visit, Yang will also co-chair, with Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, the second meeting of the joint committee for bilateral cooperation between the two governments.

“In my view the Indonesian visit is targeted more at bilateral ties,” said Yang Baoyun, an expert on Southeast Asian studies at Peking University.

Still, he said Beijing recognizes Indonesia’s mediation efforts on the South China Sea issue.

Indonesia has played an active mediating role in discussions on the South China Sea dispute after foreign ministers of the 10-member ASEAN last month failed to issue a joint communique at their meeting in Phnom Penh because they could not agree on a paragraph about territorial disputes.

Natalegawa then embarked on a 36-hour “shuttle diplomacy” tour to the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia and Singapore that resulted in ASEAN member states agreeing on a joint statement outlining ASEAN’s six key principles on the issue.

On Wednesday Natalegawa warned of a “risk of further tensions” in the South China Sea if a “collective and common approach” is not soon agreed on. He was referring to a code of conduct on the South China Sea issue designed to reduce tensions.

He said he hoped to compare notes on the South China Sea with Yang during his visit.

Peking University’s Yang Baoyun said the key point on which to achieve consensus in any code of conduct, is that the proposal cannot challenge China’s sovereignty.

Japan captured and then released the above 14 activists . . . face saving move by Japan to not appear weak yet not offend Fatherland China too much . . .

ICCR Notes :

Further tensions would be what the hawks in China might want, Noda is playing right into their hands. If further tensions occur, the result will be 10 times what Japan did in WW2 and 10 times as difficult to counter, multiplied by USA’s 10 times poorer status than in WW2 in which case China drove out all US and other invaders as well. USA is tied up in the Middle East, there will be no ‘white nation rescue (and recolonization either even as Japan looks to naver have shaken off USA’s WW2 victory to be more independent) this time round, not that a American extreme rightist backed or run Asia via Japan’s backdoor to the East, would be anything wonderous or to be proud of, almost worse than when the colonial powers butchered their way into the Americas and the Red Indian Native populations in the 1400-1800s (we all saw what happened at Vietnam which failed in either case).

Any provocation to war will be to China and China’s allies advantage and the Noda Administration’s political loss. Suggest that all offending parties accede to China’s and Korea’s, also Russia’s reasonable demands instead of provoking China. Given that Kuril and Dokdo also Diaoyu are now being reclaimed, Japan really should think carefully if a Manchukuo style ‘Syria’ could occur in Japan with the 3+1 powers of China, South Korea and Russia – North Korea definitely will want in on the action as well . . . and USA has never been as unready as now, being stuck in the Middle East to take on such a grouping.

Suggest that Japan’s current government accede to all parties reasonable demands instead of provoking all parties, Noda’s coalition is already poorly thought of enough as of now from the as of yet unresolved Fukushima disaster which might have reached all the way to Tokyo by some reports. A peace coalition willing to not cause wars (not that this is a war tha Japan could win) on top of nuclear disasters, should easily find much support among a peace loving Japanese coalition to topple an unpopular Japanese government.

Frankly the Kurils look the worst to challenge on, Russia alone could take on the USA today, most definitely Japan, and Japan should simply give face to Russia, while China has both historical and ethical rights to the islands, with the 2 Koreas still smarting over wartime atrocities in which Japan wouldn’t print some useless pieces of Banana Notes to allow some WW2 abused women to find closure and enjoy life abit with (not that fiat will not be finished in due course) before dying, BLACKENING Japan’s name eternally, the world will all remember Japan watching the victims of aggravated MILITARY pimping, die instead of receiving offerings of apology and offering some material comfort.

Well ‘Japan Peace Coalition’? Ready to topple the Yasukuni Shrine visiting , WW3 causing Noda government – you people of Japan? Will be too late when that Pacific trench finally swallows up Japan, all who did not act appropriately will rue the day the Noda government stayed in power and damned all the reputations of all Japanese worldwide . . .

Japan could be the QIfeng 2 if Japan is not careful, with ships on either side being Russia and China . . .

Commentary: Japan’s abstaining from shrine visit positive, but history reflections still needed (Xinhua) 08:06, August 15, 2012

BEIJING, Aug. 14 (Xinhua) — Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda reaffirmed Friday that he and his cabinet wouldn’t visit the Yasukuni Shrine that honors the war-time dead including top war criminals on Aug. 15, the 67th anniversary of its World War II surrender.

The announcement was a positive sign and should be applauded, but Japan, in order to earn full acceptance and understanding from neighboring countries, perhaps should make more efforts in reflecting upon its wartime past.

It is comforting to see that since the Democratic Party of Japan came in power in 2009, not a Japanese prime minister has visited the shrine.

In contrast, despite strong protest from China, South Korea and some other Asian countries, Japanese leaders, in the past decades, from time to time, visited the shrine that honors 2.5 million Japanese killed in wars, including 14 Class-A war criminals.

Noda’s latest decision could be regarded as a means to alleviate growing public anger in neighboring countries against Japan’s unrepentant attitude toward World War II, in which Japanese forces invaded the countries and brutally killed tens of millions of people.

The prime minister was aimed at calming the nerves of neighboring countries it invaded, especially China, and preventing Sino-Japanese ties from falling into an “unimaginable abyss,” as a Japanese newspaper said in a recent commentary.

Japan’s pragmatic take on historical issues with China and other Asian countries is on the right track, but it is still far from a complete reflection upon and rectification of its war aggressions.

A growing force of right-wing extremism is stoking nationalism within Japan. It refuses to acknowledge the invasive nature of the war, sees Japan’s surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 as a national shame, and advocates for a victim-of-war mentality as Japan was hit by two atomic bombs before its surrender. Many Japanese people still grudge to see its history as it was.

The Noda Administration could cleverly remove the Class 1 War Criminals’ names from the shrine THEN visit Yasukuni Shrine. But that form of lateral thinking seems impossible for Japan’s current generation of corrupted and unethical leaders . . . perhaps a new coalition is still needed . . .

ICCR Notes :

(The Noda administration has released the 14 activists on 17th August 2012 and did not visit the Yasukuni Shrine, a hopeful possibility for the new ASEAN reality and a safer Japan for the Japanese who understand the above facts and do not want to be on the wrong side of history. . . )

Time to expel the illegal squatters on Diaoyu? Use non-lethals, and if China manages to avoid any squatter deaths at all, sending all ILLEGALS back to Japan (perhaps just retaining 14 to be charged/arrested with squatting THEN releasing later similarly), China would have set a historical precedent that Israel and the world could learn from (use TONS OF SLEEPING GAS or tranquiliser darts to solve the Gaza problem and appear humane Israel!!! Stop messing with the nukes or other poisons – CONVENTIONALS ONLY!)

. . . If Japan pushes too hard by actually killing any Chinese troops in this suggestion of a squatter roundup with non-lethals, the Chinese can kill/execute in a civilised manner an equal number later, then withdraw diplomats then send a proper military force not intended to push into Japan’s mainland . . . a border skirmish might be needed to affirm territorial integrity. A cold war China is going to be a very unpleasant China.

Diaoyu Activist . . .

Suggestion for a ‘Holy Taoist See’ Sovereign State – Pater H – posted on 4th August 2012

Suggestion for a ‘Holy Taoist See’ Sovereign State (excerpt of memo from Pater H – Imperial Vault of Heaven)

. . . that the OICS alongside Red Taijitu Society of China’s initiatives, apply for the Supreme Celestial Patriarch of the Ordo Imperialis Celestium Sinensis’s assent, the PRC’s blessing and UN recognition of the proposed Holy Taoist See, sovereign statehood in a 16km square area based around the proposed Sacred Tiantan Forbidden Gardens, with appropriate UN representation and voting rights at the UN . . . much like Vatican State and other microstates have obtained recognition from UN and also have voting rights. See below pic for suggested microstate :

The Holy Taoist See – ‘Tao’ State, as proposed by Pater H and endorsed by ICCR.

Sovereign state (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

A sovereign state is a political organization with a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area.[1] It has a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[2] It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.[3] The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[4] While according to the declaratory theory of state recognition a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

The word “country” is often colloquially used to refer to sovereign states, although it means, originally, only a geographic region, and subsequently its meaning became extended to the sovereign polity which controls the geographic region.

Westphalian sovereignty

Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It is an international system of states, multinational corporations, and organizations that began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused.[5] Up until the 19th century, the radicalised concept of a “standard of civilisation” was routinely deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were “uncivilised”, and lacking organised societies. That position was reflected and constituted in the notion that their “sovereignty” was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of “civilised” people.”[6] Lassa Oppenheim said “There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon.”[7] In the opinion of Justice Evatt of the High Court of Australia “sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all.” [8]

Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The United Nations Charter, the Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organisations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law.[9][10] The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognised.[11][12][13]

In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.[14]

In casual usage, the terms “country”, “nation”, and “state” are often used as if they were synonymous; but in a more strict usage they can be distinguished:[citation needed]

Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, religion, language, origins, ancestry or history. However, the adjectives national and international are frequently used to refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly sovereign states, as in national capital, international law.

State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory and population. Sovereign states are legal persons.

Recognition

State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state.[15] Recognition can be either express or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It doesn’t necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.

There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. In actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal.[16] L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn Polish and Czech states in World War I and explained that “since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government.”[17]

In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognized as sovereign.[18]
Constitutive theory

The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.[19] In 1815 at the Congress of Vienna the Final Act only recognised 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result it was firmly established that in future new states would have to be recognized by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the great powers.[20]

One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognize a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory’s main proponents, suggested that it is a state’s duty to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognize another state if it is to their advantage.[19]

In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:

…International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.[21]

Declarative theory

By contrast, the “declarative” theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity’s statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

Article 3 of the Convention declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood.

A similar opinion about “the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state” is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority.
State practice

State practice relating the recognition states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and constitutive approaches.[22] International law does not require a state to recognise other states.[23]

Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this. In the former case, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the United Nations Security Council described as the creation of an “illegal racist minority régime”.[24] In the latter case, recognition was widely withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus on land illegally invaded by Turkey in 1974.[25]

De facto and de jure states

Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e. they exist both in law and in reality). However, sometimes states exist only as de jure states in that an organisation is recognised as having sovereignty over and being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. Many continental European states maintained governments-in-exile during the Second World War which continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. A present day example is the State of Palestine, which is recognized by multiple states, but doesn’t have control over any of its claimed territory in Palestine[26][40] and possess only extraterritorial areas (i.e. embassies and consulates). Other states may have sovereignty over a territory but lack international recognition; these are considered by the international community to be only de facto states (they are considered de jure states only according to their own Law and by states that recognize them).

ICCR Notes :

All Taoist Temples and Temple Committees within the proposed 16km  square area may contact the Red Taijitu Society of China via this site to prepare a paper for presentation to the CPPCC at earliest convenience.

Post Navigation