DiaoYuDao , An Inherent Territory Of China

DiaoYu Dao, An Inherent Territory Of China

(September 2012)

State Council Information Office
The People's Republic Of China

 

Contents

Foreword

I. DiaoYu Dao Is China's Inherent Territory

II. Japan Grabbed DiaoYu Dao From China

III. Backroom Deals Between The United States And Japan Concerning DiaoYu Dao Are Illegal And Invalid

IV. Japan's Claim Of Sovereignty Over DiaoYu Dao Is Totally Unfounded

V. China Has Taken Resolute Measures To Safeguard Its Sovereignty Over DiaoYu Dao

Conclusion

Foreword

Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands are an inseparable part of the Chinese territory. Diaoyu Dao is China's inherent territory in all historical, geographical and legal terms, and China enjoys indisputable sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao.

Japan's occupation of Diaoyu Dao during the Sino-Japanese War in 1895 is illegal and invalid. After World War II, Diaoyu Dao was returned to China in accordance with such international legal documents as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. No matter what unilateral step Japan takes over Diaoyu Dao, it will not change the fact that Diaoyu Dao belongs to China. For quite some time, Japan has repeatedly stirred up troubles on the issue of Diaoyu Dao. On September 10, 2012, the Japanese government announced the "purchase" of Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated Nanxiao Dao and Beixiao Dao and the implementation of the so-called "nationalization". This is a move that grossly violates China's territorial sovereignty and seriously tramples on historical facts and international jurisprudence.

China is firmly opposed to Japan's violation of China's sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao in whatever form and has taken resolute measures to curb any such act. China's position on the issue of Diaoyu Dao is clear-cut and consistent. China's will to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity is firm and its resolve to uphold the outcomes of the World Anti-Fascist War will not be shaken by any force.

I. DiaoYu Dao Is China's Inherent Territory

Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands, which consist of Diaoyu Dao, Huangwei Yu, Chiwei Yu, Nanxiao Dao, Beixiao Dao, Nan Yu, Bei Yu, Fei Yu and other islands and reefs, are located to the northeast of China's Taiwan Island, in the waters between 123o20'-124o40'E (East Longitude) and 25o40'-26o00'N (North Latitude), and are affiliated to the Taiwan Island. The total landmass of these islands is approximately 5.69 square kilometers. Diaoyu Dao, situated in the western tip of the area, covers a landmass of about 3.91 square kilometers and is the largest island in the area. The highest peak on the island stands 362 meters above the sea level. Huangwei Yu, which is located about 27 kilometers to the northeast of Diaoyu Dao, is the second largest island in the area, with a total landmass of about 0.91 square kilometers and a highest elevation of 117 meters. Chiwei Yu, situated about 110 kilometers to the northeast of Diaoyu Dao, is the easternmost island in the area. It covers a landmass of approximately 0.065 square kilometers and stands 75 meters above the sea level at its peak.

1. Diaoyu Dao was first discovered, named and exploited by China

Ancient ancestors in China first discovered and named Diaoyu Dao through their production and fishery activities on the sea. In China's historical literatures, Diaoyu Dao is also called Diaoyu Yu or Diaoyu Tai. The earliest historical record of the names of Diaoyu Dao, Chiwei Yu and other places can be found in the book Voyage with a Tail Wind (Shun Feng Xiang Song) published in 1403 (the first year of the reign of Emperor Yongle of the Ming Dynasty). It shows that China had already discovered and named Diaoyu Dao by the 14th and 15th centuries.P In 1372 (the fifth year of the reign of Emperor Hongwu of the Ming Dynasty), the King of Ryukyu started paying tribute to the imperial court of the Ming Dynasty. In return, Emperor Hongwu (the first emperor of the Ming Dynasty) sent imperial envoys to Ryukyu. In the following five centuries until 1866 (the fifth year of the reign of Emperor Tongzhi of the Qing Dynasty), the imperial courts of the Ming and Qing Dynasties sent imperial envoys to Ryukyu 24 times to confer titles on the Ryukyu King, and Diaoyu Dao was exactly located on their route to Ryukyu. Ample volume of records about Diaoyu Dao could be found in the reports written by Chinese imperial envoys at the time. For example, the Records of the Imperial Title-conferring Envoys to Ryukyu (Shi Liu Qiu Lu) written in 1534 by Chen Kan, an imperial title-conferring envoy from the Ming court, clearly stated that "the ship has passed Diaoyu Dao, Huangmao Yu, Chi Yu... Then Gumi Mountain comes into sight, that is where the land of Ryukyu begins." The Shi Liu Qiu Lu of another imperial envoy of the Ming Dynasty, Guo Rulin, in 1562 also stated that "Chi Yu is the mountain that marks the boundary of Ryukyu". In 1719, Xu Baoguang, a deputy title-conferring envoy to Ryukyu in the Qing Dynasty, clearly recorded in his book Records of Messages from Chong-shan (Zhong Shan Chuan Xin Lu) that the voyage from Fujian to Ryukyu passed Huaping Yu, Pengjia Yu, Diaoyu Dao, Huangwei Yu, Chiwei Yu and reached Naba (Naha) port of Ryukyu via Gumi Mountain (the mountain guarding the southwest border of Ryukyu) and Machi Island.

In 1650, the Annals of Chong-shan (Zhong Shan Shi Jian), the first official historical record of the Ryukyu Kingdom drafted under the supervision of Ryukyu's prime minister Xiang Xiangxian (Kozoken), confirmed that Gumi Mountain (also called Gumi Mountain, known as Kume Island today) is part of Ryukyu's territory, while Chi Yu (known as Chiwei Yu today) and the areas to its west are not Ryukyu's territory. In 1708, Cheng Shunze (Tei Junsoku), a noted scholar and the Grand Master with the Purple-Golden Ribbon (Zi Jin Da Fu) of Ryukyu, recorded in his book A General Guide (Zhi Nan Guang Yi) that "Gumi Mountain is the mountain guarding the southwest border of Ryukyu".

These historical accounts clearly demonstrate that Diaoyu Dao and Chiwei Yu belong to China and Kume Island belongs to Ryukyu, and that the separating line lies in Hei Shui Gou (today's Okinawa Trough) between Chiwei Yu and Kume Island. In 1579, Xie Jie, a deputy imperial title-conferring envoy of the Ming Dynasty, recorded in his book, Addendum to Summarized Record of Ryukyu (Liu Qiu Lu Cuo Yao Bu Yi) that he entered Ryukyu from Cang Shui to Hei Shui, and returned to China from Hei Shui to Cang Shui. Xia Ziyang, another imperial envoy of the Ming court, wrote in 1606 that "when the water flows from Hei Shui back to Cang Shui, it enters the Chinese territory." Miscellaneous Records of a Mission to Ryukyu (Shi Liu Qiu Za Lu), a book written in 1683 by Wang Ji, an imperial envoy of the Qing Dynasty, stated that "Hei Shui Gou", situated outside Chi Yu, is the "boundary between China and foreign land". In 1756, Zhou Huang, a deputy imperial envoy of the Qing Dynasty, recorded in his book, the Annals of Ryukyu (Liu Qiu Guo Zhi Lue), that Ryukyu "is separated from the waters of Fujian by Hei Shui Gou to the west".

The waters surrounding Diaoyu Dao are traditionally Chinese fishing ground. Chinese fishermen have, for generations, engaged in fishery activities in these waters. In the past, Diaoyu Dao was used as a navigation marker by the Chinese people living on the southeast coast.

2. Diaoyu Dao had long been under China's jurisdiction

In the early years of the Ming Dynasty, China placed Diaoyu Dao under its coastal defense to guard against the invasion of Japanese pirates along its southeast coast. In 1561 (the 40th year of the reign of Emperor Jiajing of the Ming Dynasty), An Illustrated Compendium on Maritime Security (Chou Hai Tu Bian) compiled by Zheng Ruozeng under the auspices of Hu Zongxian, the supreme commander of the southeast coastal defense of the Ming court, included the Diaoyu Dao Islands on the "Map of Coastal Mountains and Sands" (Yan Hai Shan Sha Tu) and incorporated them into the jurisdiction of the coastal defense of the Ming court. The Complete Map of Unified Maritime Territory for Coastal Defense (Qian Kun Yi Tong Hai Fang Quan Tu), drawn up by Xu Bida and others in 1605 (the 33rd year of the reign of Emperor Wanli of the Ming Dynasty) and the Treatise on Military Preparations.Coastal Defense II.Map of Fujian's Coastal Mountains and Sands (Wu Bei Zhi.Hai Fang Er.Fu Jian Yan Hai Shan Sha Tu), drawn up by Mao Yuanyi in 1621 (the first year of the reign of Emperor Tianqi of the Ming Dynasty), also included the Diaoyu Dao Islands as part of China's maritime territory.

The Qing court not only incorporated the Diaoyu Dao Islands into the scope of China's coastal defense as the Ming court did, but also clearly placed the islands under the jurisdiction of the local government of Taiwan. Official documents of the Qing court, such as A Tour of Duty in the Taiwan Strait (Tai Hai Shi Cha Lu) and Annals of Taiwan Prefecture (Tai Wan Fu Zhi) all gave detailed accounts concerning China's administration over Diaoyu Dao. Volume 86 of Recompiled General Annals of Fujian (Chong Zuan Fu Jian Tong Zhi), a book compiled by Chen Shouqi and others in 1871 (the tenth year of the reign of Emperor Tongzhi of the Qing Dynasty), included Diaoyu Dao as a strategic location for coastal defense and placed the islands under the jurisdiction of Gamalan, Taiwan (known as Yilan County today).

3. Chinese and foreign maps show that Diaoyu Dao belongs to China

The Roadmap to Ryukyu (Liu Qiu Guo Hai Tu) in the Shi Liu Qiu Lu written by imperial title-conferring envoy Xiao Chongye in 1579 (the seventh year of the reign of Emperor Wanli of the Ming Dynasty), the Record of the Interpreters of August Ming (Huang Ming Xiang Xu Lu) written by Mao Ruizheng in 1629 (the second year of the reign of Emperor Chongzhen of the Ming Dynasty), the Great Universal Geographic Map (Kun Yu Quan Tu) created in 1767 (the 32nd year of the reign of Emperor Qianlong of the Qing Dynasty), and the Atlas of the Great Qing Dynasty (Huang Chao Zhong Wai Yi Tong Yu Tu) published in 1863 (the second year of the reign of Emperor Tongzhi of the Qing Dynasty) all marked Diaoyu Dao as China's territory.

The book Illustrated Outline of the Three Countries written by Hayashi Shihei in 1785 was the earliest Japanese literature to mention Diaoyu Dao. The Map of the Three Provinces and 36 Islands of Ryukyu in the book put Diaoyu Dao as being apart from the 36 islands of Ryukyu and colored it the same as the mainland of China, indicating that Diaoyu Dao was part of China's territory.

The Map of East China Sea Littoral States created by the French cartographer Pierre Lapie and others in 1809 colored Diaoyu Dao, Huangwei Yu, Chiwei Yu and the Taiwan Island as the same. Maps such as A New Map of China from the Latest Authorities published in Britain in 1811, Colton's China published in the United States in 1859, and A Map of China's East Coast: Hongkong to Gulf of Liao-Tung compiled by the British Navy in 1877 all marked Diaoyu Dao as part of China's territory.

II. Japan Grabbed DiaoYu Dao From China

Japan accelerated its invasion and external expansion after the Meiji Restoration. Japan seized Ryukyu in 1879 and changed its name to Okinawa Prefecture. Soon after that, Japan began to act covertly to invade and occupy Diaoyu Dao and secretly "included" Diaoyu Dao in its territory at the end of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895. Japan then forced China to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki and cede to Japan the island of Formosa (Taiwan), together with Diaoyu Dao and all other islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa.

1. Japan's covert moves to seize Diaoyu Dao

In 1884, a Japanese man claimed that he first landed on Diaoyu Dao and found the island to be uninhabited. The Japanese government then dispatched secret facts-finding missions to Diaoyu Dao and attempted to invade and occupy the island. The above-mentioned plots by Japan triggered China's alert. On September 6, 1885 (the 28th day of the 7th month in the 11th year of the reign of Emperor Guangxu of the Qing Dynasty), the Chinese newspaper Shen-pao (Shanghai News) reported: "Recently, Japanese flags have been seen on the islands northeast to Taiwan, revealing Japan's intention to occupy these islands." But the Japanese government did not dare to take any further action for fear of reaction from China.

After the secret facts-finding missions to Diaoyu Dao, the governor of Okinawa Prefecture sent a report in secrecy to the Minister of Internal Affairs Yamagata Aritomo on September 22, 1885, saying that these uninhabited islands were, in fact, the same Diaoyu Tai, Huangwei Yu and Chiwe Yu that were recorded in the Records of Messages from Chong-shan (Zhong Shan Chuan Xin Lu) and known well to imperial title-conferring envoys of the Qing court on their voyages to Ryukyu, and that he had doubts as to whether or not sovereignty markers should be set up and therefore asked for instruction. The Minister of Internal Affairs Yamagata Aritomo solicited opinion from the Foreign Minister Inoue Kaoru on October 9. Inoue Kaoru replied in a letter to Yamagata Aritomo on October 21, "At present, any open moves such as placing sovereignty markers are bound to alert the Qing imperial court. Therefore, it is advisable not to go beyond field surveys and detailed reports on the shapes of the bays, land and other resources for future development. In the meantime, we will wait for a better time to engage in such activities as putting up sovereignty markers and embarking on development on the islands." Inoue Kaoru also made a special emphasis that "it is inappropriate to publicize the missions on official gazette or newspapers." As a result, the Japanese government did not approve of the request of Okinawa Prefecture to set up sovereignty markers.

The governor of Okinawa Prefecture submitted the matter for approval to the Minister of Internal Affairs once again on January 13, 1890, saying that Diaoyu Dao and other "above-mentioned uninhabited islands have remained under no specific jurisdiction", and that he "intends to place them under the jurisdiction of the Office of Yaeyama Islands." On November 2, 1893, the governor of Okinawa Prefecture applied once again for setting up sovereignty markers to incorporate the islands into Japan's territory. The Japanese government did not respond. On May 12, 1894, two months before the Sino-Japanese War, the secret facts-finding missions to Diaoyu Dao by Okinawa Prefecture came to a final conclusion, "Ever since the prefecture police surveyed the island in 1885 (the 18th year of the Meiji period), there have been no subsequent investigations. As a result, it is difficult to provide any specific reports on it... In addition, there exist no old records related to the said island or folklore and legends demonstrating that the island belongs to our country."

Japan's attempts to occupy Diaoyu Dao were clearly recorded in Japan Diplomatic Documents compiled by the Japanese Foreign Ministry. Relevant documents evidently show that the Japanese government intended to occupy Diaoyu Dao, but refrained from acting impetuously as it was fully aware of China's sovereignty over these islands.

Japan waged the Sino-Japanese War in July 1894. Towards the end of November 1894, Japanese forces seized the Chinese port of Lushun (then known as Port Arthur), virtually securing defeat of the Qing court. Against such backdrop, the Japanese Minister of Internal Affairs Yasushi Nomura wrote to Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu on December 27 that the "circumstances have now changed", and called for a decision by the cabinet on the issue of setting up sovereignty markers in Diaoyu Dao and incorporating the island into Japan's territory. Mutsu Munemitsu expressed his support for the proposal in his reply to Yasushi Nomura on January 11, 1895. The Japanese cabinet secretly passed a resolution on January 14 to "place" Diaoyu Dao under the jurisdiction of Okinawa Prefecture.

Japan's official documents show that from the time of the facts-finding missions to Diaoyu Dao in 1885 to the occupation of the islands in 1895, Japan had consistently acted in secrecy without making its moves public. This further proves that Japan's claim of sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao does not have legal effect under international law.

2. Diaoyu Dao was ceded to Japan together with the Taiwan Island

On April 17, 1895, the Qing court was defeated in the Sino-Japanese War and forced to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki and cede to Japan "the island of Formosa (Taiwan), together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa". The Diaoyu Dao Islands were ceded to Japan as "islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa". In 1900, Japan changed the name of Diaoyu Dao to "Senkaku Islands".

III. Backroom Deals Between The United States And Japan Concerning DiaoYu Dao Are Illegal And Invalid

Diaoyu Dao was returned to China after the Second World War. However, the United States arbitrarily included Diaoyu Dao under its trusteeship in the 1950s and "returned" the "power of administration" over Diaoyu Dao to Japan in the 1970s. The backroom deals between the United States and Japan concerning Diaoyu Dao are acts of grave violation of China's territorial sovereignty. They are illegal and invalid. They have not and cannot change the fact that Diaoyu Dao belongs to China.

1. Diaoyu Dao was returned to China after the Second World War

In December 1941, the Chinese government officially declared war against Japan together with the abrogation of all treaties between China and Japan. In December 1943, the Cairo Declaration stated in explicit terms that "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa [Taiwan] and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed." In July 1945, the Potsdam Proclamation stated in Article 8: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." On September 2, 1945, the Japanese government accepted the Potsdam Proclamation in explicit terms with the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and pledged to faithfully fulfill the obligations enshrined in the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation. On January 29, 1946, the Supreme Commander for the
Allied Powers Instruction (SCAPIN) No.677 clearly defined Japan's power of administration to "include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu Islands north of the 30th parallel of North Latitude". On October 25, 1945, the ceremony for accepting Japan's surrender in Taiwan Province of the China War Theater was held in Taipei, and the Chinese government officially recovered Taiwan. On September 29, 1972, the Japanese government committed with all seriousness in the China-Japan Joint Statement that "the Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China [Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China], and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

These facts show that in accordance with the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Diaoyu Dao, as affiliated islands of Taiwan, should be returned, together with Taiwan, to China.

2. The United States illegally included Diaoyu Dao under its trusteeship

On September 8, 1951, Japan, the United States and a number of other countries signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan (commonly known as the Treaty of San Francisco) with China being excluded from it. The treaty placed the Nansei Islands south of the 29th parallel of North Latitude under United Nations' trusteeship, with the United States as the sole administering authority. It should be pointed out that the Nansei Islands placed under the administration of the United States in the Treaty of Peace with Japan did not include Diaoyu Dao.

The United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (USCAR) issued Civil Administration Ordinance No. 68 (Provisions of the Government of the Ryukyu Islands) on February 29, 1952 and Civil Administration Proclamation No. 27 (defining the "geographical boundary lines of the Ryukyu Islands") on December 25, 1953, arbitrarily expanding its jurisdiction to include China's Diaoyu Dao. However, there were no legal grounds whatsoever for the US act, to which China has firmly opposed.

3. The United States and Japan conducted backroom deals concerning the "power of administration" over Diaoyu Dao

On June 17, 1971, Japan and the United States signed the Agreement Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands (Okinawa Reversion Agreement), which provided that any and all powers of administration over the Ryukyu Islands and Diaoyu Dao would be "returned" to Japan. The Chinese people, including overseas Chinese, all condemned such a backroom deal. On December 30, 1971, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a solemn statement, pointing out that "it is completely illegal for the government of the United States and Japan to include China's Diaoyu Dao Islands into the territories to be returned to Japan in the Okinawa Reversion Agreement and that it can by no means change the People's Republic of China's territorial sovereignty over the Diaoyu Dao Islands". The Taiwan authorities also expressed firm opposition to the backroom deal between the United States and Japan.

In response to the strong opposition of the Chinese government and people, the United States had to publicly clarify its position on the sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. In October 1971, the US administration stated that "the United States believes that a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims. The United States cannot add to the legal rights Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the islands to us, nor can the United States, by giving back what it received, diminish the rights of other claimants... The United States has made no claim to Diaoyu Dao and considers that any conflicting claims to the islands are a matter for resolution by the parties concerned." In November 1971, when presenting the Okinawa Reversion Agreement to the US Senate for ratification, the US Department of State stressed that the United States took a neutral position with regard to the competing Japanese and Chinese claims to the islands, despite the return of administrative rights over the islands to Japan.

IV. Japan's Claim Of Sovereignty Over DiaoYu Dao Is Totally Unfounded

On March 8, 1972, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued the Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands in an attempt to explain the Japanese government's claims of sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. First, Japan claims that Diaoyu Dao was "terra nullius" and not part of Pescadores, Formosa [Taiwan] or their affiliated islands which were ceded to Japan by the Qing government in accordance with the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Second, Japan claims that Diaoyu Dao was not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article 2 of the Treaty of San Francisco, but was placed under the administration of the United States as part of the Nansei Islands in accordance with Article 3 of the said treaty, and was included in the area for which the administrative rights were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Okinawa Reversion Agreement. Third, Japan claims that China didn't regard Diaoyu Dao as part of Taiwan and had never challenged the inclusion of the islands in the area over which the United States exercised administrative rights in accordance with Article 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco.

Such claims by Japan fly in the face of facts and are totally unfounded.

Diaoyu Dao belongs to China. It is by no means "terra nullius". China is the indisputable owner of Diaoyu Dao as it had exercised valid jurisdiction over the island for several hundred years long before the Japanese people "discovered" it. As stated above, voluminous Japanese official documents prove that Japan was fully aware that according to international law, Diaoyu Dao has long been part of China and was not "terra nullius". Japan's act to include Diaoyu Dao as "terra nullius" into its territory based on the "occupation" principle is in fact an illegal act of occupying Chinese territory and has no legal effect according to international law.

Diaoyu Dao has always been affiliated to China's Taiwan Island both in geographical terms and in accordance with China's historical jurisdiction practice. Through the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki, Japan forced the Qing court to cede to it "the island of Taiwan, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to it", including Diaoyu Dao. International legal documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation provide that Japan must unconditionally return the territories it has stolen from China. These documents also clearly define Japan's territory, which by no means includes Diaoyu Dao. Japan's attempted occupation of Diaoyu Dao, in essence, constitutes a challenge to the post-war international order established by such legal documents as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation and seriously violates the obligations Japan should undertake according to international law.

Diaoyu Dao was not placed under the trusteeship established by the Treaty of San Francisco, which was signed between the United States and other countries with Japan and is partial in nature. The United States arbitrarily expanded the scope of trusteeship to include Diaoyu Dao, which is China's territory, and later "returned" the "power of administration" over Diaoyu Dao to Japan. This has no legal basis and is totally invalid according to international law. The government and people of China have always explicitly opposed such illegal acts of the United States and Japan.

V. China Has Taken Resolute Measures To Safeguard Its Sovereignty Over DiaoYu Dao

China has, over the past years, taken resolute measures to safeguard its sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao.

China has, through the diplomatic channel, strongly protested against and condemned the backroom deals between the United States and Japan over Diaoyu Dao. On August 15, 1951, before the San Francisco Conference, the Chinese government made a statement: "If the People's Republic of China is excluded from the preparation, formulation and signing of the peace treaty with Japan, it will, no matter what its content and outcome are, be regarded as illegal and therefore invalid by the central people's government." On September 18, 1951, the Chinese government issued another statement stressing that the Treaty of San Francisco is illegal and invalid and can under no circumstances be recognized. In 1971, responding to the ratifications of the Okinawa Reversion Agreement by the US Congress and Japanese Diet, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a stern statement which pointed out that the Diaoyu Dao Islands have been an indivisible part of the Chinese territory since ancient times.

In response to Japan's illegal violation of China's sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao, the Chinese government has taken active and forceful measures such as issuing diplomatic statements, making serious representations with Japan and submitting notes of protest to the United Nations, solemnly stating China's consistent proposition, principle and position, firmly upholding China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, and earnestly protecting the safety of life and property of Chinese citizens.

China has enacted domestic laws, which clearly provide that Diaoyu Dao belongs to China. In 1958, the Chinese government released a statement on the territorial sea, announcing that Taiwan and its adjacent islands belong to China. In light of Japan's repeated violations of China's sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao since the 1970s, China adopted the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1992, which unequivocally prescribes that "Taiwan and the various affiliated islands including Diaoyu Dao" belong to China. The 2009 Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Offshore Islands establishes the protection, development and management system of offshore islands and prescribes the determination and announcement of the names of offshore islands, on the basis of which China announced the standard names of Diaoyu Dao and some of its affiliated islands in March 2012. On September 10, 2012, the Chinese government issued a statement announcing the baselines of the territorial sea of Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands. On September 13, the Chinese government deposited the coordinates table and chart of the base points and baselines of the territorial sea of Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

China has maintained routine presence and exercised jurisdiction in the waters of Diaoyu Dao. China's marine surveillance vessels have been carrying out law enforcement patrol missions in the waters of Diaoyu Dao, and fishery administration law enforcement vessels have been conducting regular law enforcement patrols and fishery protection missions to uphold normal fishing order in the waters of Diaoyu Dao. China has also exercised administration over Diaoyu Dao and the adjacent waters by releasing weather forecasts and through oceanographic monitoring and forecasting.

Over the years, the issue of Diaoyu Dao has attracted attention from Hong Kong and Macao compatriots, Taiwan compatriots and overseas Chinese. Diaoyu Dao has been an inherent territory of China since ancient times. This is the common position of the entire Chinese nation. The Chinese nation has the strong resolve to uphold state sovereignty and territorial integrity. The compatriots across the Taiwan Straits stand firmly together on matters of principle to the nation and in the efforts to uphold national interests and dignity. The compatriots from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan and the overseas Chinese have all carried out various forms of activities to safeguard China's territorial sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao, strongly expressing the just position of the Chinese nation, and displaying to the rest of the world that the peace-loving Chinese nation has the determination and the will to uphold China's state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Conclusion

Diaoyu Dao has been an inherent territory of China since ancient times, and China has indisputable sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. As China and Japan were normalizing relations and concluding the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship in the 1970s, the then leaders of the two countries, acting in the larger interest of China-Japan relations, reached important understanding and consensus on "leaving the issue of Diaoyu Dao to be resolved later." But in recent years, Japan has repeatedly taken unilateral measures concerning Diaoyu Dao and conducted in particular the so-called "nationalization" of Diaoyu Dao. This severely infringed upon China's sovereignty and ran counter to the understanding and consensus reached between the older generation of leaders of the two countries. It has not only seriously damaged China-Japan relations, but also rejected and challenged the outcomes of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War.

China strongly urges Japan to respect history and international law and immediately stop all actions that undermine China's territorial sovereignty. The Chinese government has the unshakable resolve and will to uphold the nation's territorial sovereignty. It has the confidence and ability to safeguard China's state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/9583883/Diaoyu-Dao-history-shall-not-be-reversed.html

DiaoYu Dao: History Shall Not Be Reversed

The purchase of Diaoyu Dao by the Japanese government is invalid, nothing can change the fact that Diaoyu Dao is the territory of China, writes Liu Xiaoming

By Liu Xiaoming

1:25PM BST 03 Oct 2012

My first ambassadorial post was to Egypt. I have many memories of this ancient and beautiful country. One is the Mena House Hotel, which I visited many times. Situated at the foot of the spectacular Cheops Pyramid, the hotel is the venue that produced the famous Cairo Declaration. It was published on 27 November 1943 after discussions between the leaders of China, Britain and the United States, and was the master plan for rebuilding international order following the war with Nazi Germany and Japan.

The Cairo Declaration was a laudable outcome of the war against both Germany, with its repellent Nazism, and Japan, with its equally repugnant military fascism. It stated in explicit terms that: "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China . Japan will also be expelled from all other territories she has taken by violence and greed."

Less than two years later the Potsdam Proclamation, released on 26 July 1945, reaffirmed that: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out." The Japanese government accepted the Potsdam Proclamation in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, and pledged to faithfully fulfil its obligations stipulated in the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation.

All of these facts show that in accordance with the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Diaoyu Dao, as affiliated islands of Taiwan, should be returned, together with Taiwan, to China.

However, up to now Japan still obstinately clings to a colonialist mindset. It is turning a blind eye to the international agreements made at the conclusion of World War II by claiming that Diaoyu Dao is Japan's territory. It reveals that Japan has failed to examine its conscience and remains disappointingly unrepentant about its history of military fascism. Moreover, it attempted to deny the outcomes of the war against fascism and challenge the post-war international order.

History shall not be reversed. We must not forget the untold sufferings incurred during World War II. China and Britain are both victims of fascism. We have shared memories and pains. Chinese and British troops fought side by side on the battleground against Japanese military fascism. It is the common responsibility of China and Britain and the entire international community to reaffirm the outcomes of the war against fascism and maintain the post-war international order.

Nazism was born in Germany. On December 7, 1970, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt travelled to Poland and dropped to his knees before the monument to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943. Many in the world were deeply moved by this famous gesture of repentance and apology. The extraordinary courage and sincerity of Germany won it trust and respect.

After World War II, German and Japanese attitudes form a stark contrast. Unlike Germany, Japan has never seriously reflected on its military fascist past and made a serious apology. Instead, it tried to reverse the history. Such a remorseless attitude has made it difficult for Japan to earn the trust of its neighbours and the forgiveness of people around the world.

Recently Japan has taken a series of provocative steps. In total disregard of the established post World War II agreements, Japan implemented its plan of "purchasing" China's Diaoyu Dao. The so-called purchase of Diaoyu Dao by the Japanese government is illegal and invalid. It can in no way change the fact that Diaoyu Dao is the territory of China.

Historical records show it is an indisputable fact that Diaoyu Dao belongs to China. China's Ming and Qing dynasties had always exercised sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands. Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands were already marked on maps as Chinese territory in the early Ming dynasty. The British authorities supported this sovereignty with maps such as A New Map of China from the Latest Authorities, published in Britain in 1811. Also there is: A Map of China's East Coast: Hong Kong to Gulf of Liao-Tung, compiled by the British Navy in 1877. Both these maps marked Diaoyu Dao as part of China's territory.

In 1895 Japan illegally seized Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands through the first Sino-Japanese war. In 1951 Japan signed the Treaty of San Francisco with the US and a number of other countries, which in effect put the Ryukyu Islands under American administration. It must be stressed that China was excluded from this treaty and islands handed over to the American administration in this treaty did not include Diaoyu Dao.

In 1971 Japan and the US signed the agreement concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, known as Okinawa Reversion Agreement. This treaty provided that powers of administration over the Ryukyu Islands and Diaoyu Dao would be "returned" to Japan.

The Chinese government has consistently opposed these agreements between Japan and the US that excluded China. So, it should be no surprise that China never recognised them.

In 1972 China-Japan relations normalised. In 1978 China and Japan signed the treaty of peace and friendship. Chinese and Japanese leaders agreed on shelving the Diaoyu Dao issue and waiting for a future settlement. Without such understanding and consensus, progress of Chinese and Japanese relations in the four decades that followed would have been impossible.

This year marks forty years of the normalisation of China and Japan relations. It ought to be a propitious year. The two countries had decided to hold a 'Year of Friendly Exchanges' between Chinese and Japanese People and nearly 600 exchange programmes were planned. All these were shelved following Japan's illegal 'purchase' of Diaoyu Dao. The atmosphere of celebration has gone sour.

Now the situation over Diaoyu Dao issue is escalating. Japan is the only one to blame. Japan does not even admit the existence of a dispute over Dioayu Dao! Such a position is an outright denial of the understanding and agreement reached between China and Japan.

It is imperative that Japan respects history and facts. It is vital that Japan reflects on its mistakes and comes to a clear understanding of the situation. It is critical that Japan displays the political courage to correct its wrongdoings, and respect China's territorial sovereignty.

LiuXiaoMing Is Chinese Ambassador To Britain

 

Territories Stolen From The Chinese

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/27/inside-the-anti-japanese-protests-in-china/

"Territories Stolen From The Chinese"

Inside The Anti-Japanese Protests In China

By GARY LEUPP

They've drawn far less attention in the U.S. media than the wave of anti-U.S. protests throughout the Islamic world responding to the infamous online anti-Muslim movie trailer. But the anti-Japanese protests in China might have more enduring significance. These are the largest in the postwar (post-1945) period, involving hundreds of thousands, causing Japanese owned factories and retail shops to shut their doors and even consider closing down permanently. Even Chinese-owned Japanese restaurants are posting Chinese flags and patriotic messages on their doors, hoping to avoid attack.

At the height of the violence," reports the Los Angeles Times, "dozens of Japanese businesses were attacked, including a Panasonic plant in Qingdao, a Toyota dealership and 7-Eleven shops. Hundreds of Japanese model cars were overturned or burned." Reuters reports that 41% of Japanese firms feel affected by the protests and are considering altering their plans for investment in China. As of last week Japanese automakers had lost $ 250 million in output due to the protests; Nissan, Toyota and Honda have suspended some operations.

There is a looming general crisis in the economic and political relationship between the world's second and third largest economies. These have been one another's top trading partners for some years now. Their total annual two-way trade is around $ 345 billon. Theirs is arguably the most important bilateral trade relationship in the world, after the Sino-U.S. relationship. But plans for a gala event to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Japan and China have been postponed. This is all pretty serious.

What occasions the nationwide protests and unprecedented bilateral tensions? Five small uninhabited islands and three rocky outcroppings northeast of Taiwan and southwest of the Ryukyu island chain, which both China and Japan claim as theirs. The Chinese call them the Diaoyu Islands, the Japanese the Senkaku Islands. Some westerners have dubbed them the Pinnacle Islands. Strategically located in the South China Sea, surrounded by rich fisheries, they are thought to hold huge natural gas and oil reserves. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates the seabed around them may hold as much as 100 billion barrels of oil. Sovereignty over them affects control over 21,000 square nautical miles.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has indicated that it does not want the territorial issue to become a "disturbing factor" in the mutually lucrative bilateral relationship with Japan. But the Japanese government has made it such. By moving to purchase three of the islands from their current private Japanese owner, following a campaign by Tokyo's right-wing governor Ishihara Shintaro, the Japanese government has inflamed the situation.

The Japanese government insists that "there is no dispute" about sovereignty over the islands. By this it means that Japan has a clear-cut claim based on international law, specifically the Shimonoseki Treaty signed in 1895 after Japan had defeated China in the Sino-Japanese War. (That is, it was legitimate war spoils, rather like, say, Guam which was won by the U.S. during the Spanish-American War of 1898.) This legalistic argument not only assumes the respectability of imperialism but ignores important details of postwar legal history.

Some relevant historical facts about the issue:

1. Chinese records dated 1403 and 1534 mention the islets, referring to the largest one as Diaoyu and naming two others. The latter text, A Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryukyu, documents the visit of a Chinese diplomatic mission to the Ryukyu Island kingdom (centered on Okinawa), which was then not a part of Japan and never had been. Ming-era officials, en route to the investiture ceremony of the Ryukyuan king, regarded the isles as the border between the province of Taiwan and the Ryukyus, which had a tributary relationship with the Ming court. Neither the Ryukyuans nor the Chinese regarded the Daioyu cluster as part of the Ryukyus. They were obviously part of China.

The Record describes the islands as the "border that separates Chinese and foreign lands." Contemporary Taiwan gazetteers state "Diaoyu Island accommodates ten or more large ships," indicating that it was visited by Chinese junks. Another record of an embassy in 1561 mentions the islands as landmarks passed on the final stage of the voyage from Fuzhou to Okinawa. There is no record of Japanese visits to the Diaoyu islands or even Japanese knowledge of them as of the sixteenth century.

2. In the 1590s, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the warlord who had re-united Japan after centuries of division, sought to make the Ryukuan kingdom a vassal-state and cooperate in an invasion of Korea. The Ryukyuan king refused. But in 1609, forces from Satsuma, one of the many Japanese baronies of the time, invaded the Ryukyu kingdom and kidnapped the king, Sho Nei. They brought him to Japan and forced him to acknowledge both the daimyo of Satsuma and the Japanese shogun as his overlords. From that point the Ryukyus paid tribute to both China and Japan. Japanese officials saw the Ryukyus as a vassal-state—foreign, not part of Japan proper, but obliged to provide such goods as sugar-cane, tobacco, and products from China and Southeast Asia to Japan.

But the Japanese did not view the Diaoyu islands as part of this Ryukyuan vassal-state. Eighteenth century maps produced in both China and Japan plainly show the Diaoyu isles as Chinese territory. A map drawn up in 1785 by Hayashi Shihei, a military scholar in the castle-town of Sendai, in his Illustrated Survey of the Three Countries rendered the islands in the same color as that used for China rather than that used for the Ryukyu kingdom. Japan did not claim sovereignty over the Diaoyu islands during the Edo period (1603-1868).

3. Japan did not assert or obtain internationally recognized sovereignty over the Ryukyus until 1872, when it pronounced the former kingdom a han (barony) under its ruler Sho Tai. In 1879 this became Okinawa Prefecture and Sho Tai was forced to relocate to Tokyo. (He was granted a noble title and disencumbered of any further role in the governance of the islands his ancestors had ruled for over 400 years.) One might say Okinawa was the first Japanese colony. (The Ryukyuans, ethnically distinct from the Japanese of the main islands, and speaking a language incomprehensible to the latter, did not necessarily welcome the regime change.)

Still, Tokyo did not at that point assert sovereignty over the Diaoyu islands south of the Ryukyus. In 1885 the governor of the prefecture proposed that it do so, but the Japanese foreign minister, Inoue Kaoru, and Prime Minister Yamagata Aritomo, refused the suggestion. They felt that since the islands had Chinese names and were considered Chinese by the Qing court, Japan should not lay claim to them. This may have been a purely pragmatic decision, motivated not by any respect for Chinese sovereignty but concern for Japan's international reputation. In any case, the Japanese rulers did not at that time consider the small islands part of their new prefecture but Chinese territory.

4. In 1894-5 Japanese and Chinese forces fought a war in Korea and Manchuria. China had

responded to the Korean king's request for assistance in repressing a huge peasant rebellion. Citing an earlier agreement with China, Japan dispatched troops too. They kidnapped the Korean king and forced him to issue an edict terminating existing Sino-Korean agreements and authorizing the Japanese to expel Chinese troops from the country (even though the rebellion had been quelled and the Chinese had pledged to withdraw).

Most historians believe that Japanese forces provoked the Chinese in July 1894, triggering the Sino-Japanese War and a crushing Chinese defeat. (About 35,000 Chinese dead or wounded, compared to 5,000 Japanese, although twice that many Japanese died from disease.) China sued for peace and was obliged to pay Japan an indemnity, cede control over the Liaodong Peninsula in southern Manchuria, and hand over the island of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (Pescadore) islands west of the island to Japanese colonization. (The Liaodong Peninsula was soon returned to China due to intervention by the Russians, French and Germans.)

Taiwan became, in the words of Diet member and historian Takekoshi Yoshisaburo, Japan's "colonial university" in which administers honed their skills at civilizing "barbarians." After 1905 Japanese carefully studied British colonial policies in Africa and elsewhere, the better to administer the Japanese Empire expanding to include Korea, southern Sakhalin, Shandong, the Northern Marianas, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Manchuria, China.

The Shimonoseki Treaty of 1895 specified that "the island of Formosa, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa" would be ceded to Japan. It did not mention the Diaoyu group by name. But the Japanese claim to sovereignty rests almost entirely on this clause—in an agreement imposed upon China following a war of imperialist aggression.

Tokyo also claims that Japan "discovered" the islands as of 1884 when it carried out a survey. An academic accorded them the name Senkaku in 1890. In January 1895 the Japanese government erected a marker on the Senkaku islands and incorporated them into OkinawaPrefecture as part of Ishigaki City.

5. The establishment of Japanese control over the Ryukyus (1872) and Taiwan and the Diaoyu islands (1895) were all part of a continuum of imperialist expansion appropriately condemned by the Allies in World War II and formally repudiated by postwar Japanese leadership. Following defeat in the Second World War, the Japanese government was forced to accept the Allies' decision expressed in the Cairo Declaration of 1943 which stated that "Japanshall be stripped of … all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese,such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, [which] shall be restoredto the Republic of China." The Potsdam Declaration of 1945 had reiterated that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." That is to say: the Allies did not acknowledge Japanese sovereignty even over the Ryukyu Islands, much less the Diaoyu group.

From the beginning of the Occupation in 1945, the main islands of Japan and the Nansei Shoto ("Southwest Group," the islands between Kyushu and Taiwan including the Ryukyus) were administered separately by U.S. forces. The Ryukyus became a U.S. "trusteeship," the main island of Okinawa covered (to this day) with U.S. military bases. Taiwan reverted to Chinese sovereignty and from 1949 became the headquarters of the routed Guomindang, viewed by Beijing as a "renegade province."

In the spirit of Cairo and Potsdam, the Diaoyu islands between the Ryukyus and Taiwan might have been returned to Chinese control at the end of the war in 1945. Instead the U.S. military treated them as the defense perimeter of the occupied Ryukyus, in effect recognizing the legitimacy of the Japanese claim. In other words, while denying Japanese sovereignty over the Ryukyus, which had been established in 1872 in relatively peaceful fashion, the U.S. recognized the incorporation of the Diaoyu isles into Okinawa Prefecture dating to 1895, established (let us repeat) as the result of a predatory war. It apparently did not regard these islands as "territories…stolen from the Chinese" to be "restored to the Republic of China."

7. In the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, which formally ended the war and paved the way for the return of sovereignty to the Japanese government, Japan agreed to "concur in any proposal of the United States to theUnited Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with theUnited States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shotosouth of 29 degrees north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islandsand the Daito Islands)."

Japan thus acceded to the indefinite U.S. colonization of Okinawa and adjoining islands, including Diaoyu/Senkaku.

In its dispute with Beijing, Tokyo can point out that China did not attend the San Francisco conference that formally ended the war. The U.S. did not invite representatives of the newly founded People's Republic, causing the Soviets and some of their allies to boycott the proceedings or refuse to sign the peace treaty. The Japanese government argues that, having made no agreement with China over the dispensation of the islands, its claim to sovereignty dating to 1895 still holds and that its agreement to return Taiwan to Chinese sovereignty does not include what it calls the Senkaku islands because they're actually part of Okinawa Prefecture.

8. The Occupation ended formally in 1952, and sovereignty was restored to Japan. (This sovereignty was and is shaped by a "security treaty" with the U.S., the presence of tens of thousands of U.S. troops, and virtual U.S. veto power over Japanese foreign policy.) But the U.S. continued to administer the Nansei Shoto including Okinawa Prefecture up until 1972, when following a long campaign by the Japanese people and Diet, sovereignty over Okinawa Prefecture as well as the Diaoyu islands was restored to Japanese control. (Again, a limited sovereignty. Japanese leaders have sought in vain to significantly reduce the unpopular U.S. military presence on Okinawa.)

Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty plainly states: "Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes."

* * *

Such are the basic historical facts pertaining to the conflicting territorial claims. What of the future?

By the terms of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, the U.S. must help defend the security of all Japanese territory. Would it challenge a Chinese effort to seize control of these tiny islands? Washington sends mixed signals.

On the one hand, U.S. diplomats have stated repeatedly that the U.S. takes no position on the sovereignty issue. In Sept. 1996 a State Department spokesman proclaimed the U.S. "neutral" on Senkaku. In April 1999 the U.S. ambassador to Japan, Thomas S. Foley, stated, "The United States notes the Japanese claim to these islands, and we are not, as far as I understand, taking a specific position in the dispute…. We do not believe that these islands will be the subject of any military conflict, and so consequently, we do not assume that there will be any reason to engage the security treaty in any immediate sense." Defense Secretary Leon Panetta again stated in Beijing two weeks ago that the U.S. had no position on the dispute.

On the other hand, in 1996 both Kurt Campbell, assistant secretary of defense, and Secretary of Defense William Perry specified that the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty covered the Senkaku Islands. In 2004 Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman at the State Department declared, "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 in 1972. Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security states that the treaty applies to the territories under the administration of Japan; thus, Article 5 of the Mutual Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands." In 2006 the U.S. ambassador to Japan, Thomas Schieffer, told Kyodo News that he considered "the islands as territory of Japan."

Campbell while acknowledging a U.S. obligation to "defend" the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands if attacked, acknowledges that the sovereignty claim of Japan is dubious. "Sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands," he observed, "is disputed. The U.S. does not take a position on the question of the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. This has been our longstanding view. We expect the claimants will resolve this issue through peaceful means and we urge all claimants to exercise restraint."

Just two months ago a State Department official repeated, "The Senkakus would fall within the scope of Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security because the Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the government of Japan since they were returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972."

In other words: the U.S. doesn't have a position on the sovereignty issue, but will still fight to defend Japan's sovereignty claim, as required by treaty. The remote barren rocks, like all of Japan, fall under the U.S.'s "nuclear umbrella." This position can only embolden those in Japan eager to provoke China by constructing lighthouses (1978 and 1996) and most recently lobbying for the purchase of the islands by the Japanese government.

* * *

Tokyo's case for sovereignty is meager. The Chinese were there first, visiting, mapping, and defining the isles as the boundary between China and the Ryukyu kingdom from at least the fifteenth century. Japan only acquired the islands as war booty in 1895, and as such, pursuant to the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations, they should have been returned to their rightful owner at the end of the Second World War. However, the U.S. elected to retain them within its security parameters as administrator of Okinawa up until 1972, then turned over primary defense responsibilities to the Japanese "Self-Defense Forces" in that year. The U.S. proclaims itself "neutral" but it's not. It's troubled by the rising power of its Chinese rival, worried about conflict in the South China Sea, but committed by treaty and its geopolitical strategy to support its longtime ally Japan.

It's a dangerous situation. While angry protesters pelt the Japanese Embassy with eggs, waving banners with such slogans as "Kill Japanese Robbers," China's most senior military-political commissar, Gen. Xu Caihou, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, orders the People's Liberation Army to be "prepared for any possible military combat." While the likelihood of war seems remote, the Chinese elite has sought to shift attention from the faltering economy by encouraging nationalistic sentiment, especially among the youth who may find in the Diaoyu cause a relatively safe way to vent dissent. Portraits of Mao Zedong have become regular features of mass demonstrations; Mao is remembered as the heroic leader of the struggle against Japanese and later U.S. imperialism—a sharp contrast to the current leadership in their business suits who embrace capitalist-imperialist investment and steer foreign policy to encourage it. The mix of youth, the reverent memory of the eternal rebel Mao, contempt for a corrupt leadership and indignation over historical injuries might have unpredictable consequences.

The Chinese government routinely accuses Japan, more than any other country, of "hurting the Chinese people's feelings" (shang hai zhong guo ren de gan qing)—an understated way of saying the Chinese people are getting very ticked off every time the Japanese Education Ministry approves a high school history textbook that prettifies the Japanese invasion and occupation of China in the 1930s; or when politicians and academics question whether there was ever a Rape of Nanking (the moral equivalent of Holocaust denial); or when prime ministers visit Yasukuni Shrine where Class A war criminals are enshrined; or when Japan claims territory not on valid historical grounds but on narrow legalistic grounds rooted in a predatory war.

It may seem irrational for protesters to attack (mostly Chinese-owned) sushi restaurants or Japanese-owned factories or retail stores to vent such hurt feelings. The rhetoric heard is often nakedly racist ("Kill all Japanese devils!")—plain testimony to the fact that the ideal of proletarian internationalism isn't as prevalent as it should be in a country whose leaders cling to the pretense of "socialism with Chinese characteristics." But for Japan in the face of this wave of hurt feelings to blithely assert that "there is no dispute" is insulting. It compounds the indignation.

And for the U.S. top say simultaneously, "We have no position" and "The Senkakus fall under Article 5 of the Security Treaty" seems illogical, contradictory. Perhaps Washington thinks it can restrain Japan by affecting neutrality in the dispute, while deterring China from action by asserting a treaty obligation to "defend" these islands as Japanese territory. It's a dangerous game.

* * *

Many are talking about the South China Sea as the "new Persian Gulf." Unlike the old—clearly demarcated—Persian Gulf, this one is contested between the PRC, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. India's Oil and Natural Gas Corporation last year (Sept. 2011) signed an agreement with PetroVietnam to explore for oil in ocean blocks claimed by both Vietnam and China. (India has become closely allied to the U.S., while former foe Vietnam now welcomes U.S. warships to its shores.)

The Chinese Foreign Ministry responded: "China enjoys indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea… [W]e are opposed to any country engaging in oil and gas exploration and development in waters under China's jurisdiction." But it offered "to engage in peaceful negotiations and friendly consultations to peacefully solve the disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime rights so as to positively contribute to peace and tranquility in the South China Sea area."

We will see how the claim to "indisputable sovereignty' over the Diaoyu group and other area islands surrounded by oil and natural gas allows for peaceful solutions with countries backed by the U.S.A. Bloodied by two failed wars, the U.S. is led by officials committed to a treaty that could embroil the country in yet more conflict. It has with some fanfare shifted its "pivot" (or "rebalance of forces") from Southwest Asia to the Pacific in order to "contain" rising China. On the one hand Defense Secretary Leon Panetta invites China to participate in joint naval operations with the U.S. (such as the planned 2014 Rimpac exercise); on the other hand he tells Chinese vice president (soon to be president) Xi Jinping on September 19 that the Senkaku Islands are covered by the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.

It's a clear threat to enforce a provision of a shameful treaty signed over a century ago, as Japan and the western powers carved up a weak, demoralized China; ensure that stolen resource-rich territory remains under U.S.-Japanese authority; and remind the peoples of the region that no borders on the Pacific Rim can change without distant Washington's supervision and approval.

For all their bluster, Chinese officials are unlikely to, as they say, allow Diaoyu to become a "disturbing factor" in the Sino-Japanese relationship (or the Sino-U.S. relationship) at least in the short term. Still, there are those angry Chinese youth demanding action, a modernizing military eager to flex its muscles, and those Taiwanese fishermen planning nonviolent protest with hundreds of fishing boats. Smack in the center of the new U.S. "pivot," a situation could spin out of control.

About Author

GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

 

 

 

The Specks Of Land At The Center Of Japan-China Islands Dispute

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-japan-islands-20120925,0,216163.story

 

Only goats live on the islets, known in Japan as Senkaku and in China as Diaoyu. A Japanese businessman in the late 1800s had big plans that didn't pan out.

By Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times

September 24, 2012, 6:28 p.m.

 

BEIJING — In its heyday, the largest island was home to several hundred workers who caught fish and collected albatross feathers to adorn women's hats in Europe.

Nowadays, the only inhabitants are a hardy band of feral, inbred goats descended from a fecund pair left behind in 1978 by Japanese ultranationalists who wanted to establish a living presence on the otherwise deserted shards of land.

Rarely in geopolitics have the stakes been so large over someplace so small.

 

Japanese and Chinese vessels patrol near disputed islands called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, in the East China Sea. (Kyodo News, Associated Press / September 25, 2012)

Political scientists have compared the islands so vociferously contested between China and Japan to the Falklands, which sparked the 1982 war between Argentina and Britain. But in fact they are much, much less. The Senkaku (to the Japanese) and Diaoyu (to the Chinese) consist of eight islands, the largest all of 2 miles long and the smallest a mere rock jutting out of the East China Sea. In their entirety, the islands cover less than 3 square miles.

Nevertheless, they are a tinderbox for Asia's superpowers, one in which the United States is deeply entangled. The U.S. occupied the islands after World War II and was ultimately responsible for handing back administrative authority to Japan.

Until the late 19th century, the Chinese had the strongest claim to the islands. The Chinese name, Diaoyu, (taken from a legend about a fisherman) appears in literature dating back to the 13th century. Ming Dynasty records describe the islands as navigational markers for ships traveling between China and Okinawa, which was then part of a kingdom known as Liuqiu or Ryukyu.

Chinese ships occasionally stopped at the largest island to replenish supplies of fresh water and firewood. The only documented Japanese presence is from the 16th century, when Japanese pirates used an island as a base for launching raids against the Chinese coast.

The border between China and Liuqiu was an underwater trough to the east of the islands, making them clearly part of Chinese territory, wrote Japanese scholar Unryu Suganuma, in a study published in 2000. "There was no ambiguity about the Diaoyu islands being part of Chinese territory; these eight islets belonged to the Middle Kingdom, period!" Suganuma wrote.

That sole claim changed in the late 19th century, as a rapidly modernizing Japan eclipsed China's crumbling Qing Dynasty. In the 1880s, an adventurous businessman from Fukuoka, Tatsushiro Koga, asked the Japanese government for permission to lease them.

The government initially denied his requests, saying the islands probably belonged to China ("It has been found that these islands lie near the border area with the Qing … and have Chinese names," the Japanese foreign minister wrote in an 1884 memorandum, according to Suganuma's book.) But the government changed its mind in 1895, the same year that it annexed Taiwan after its decisive victory in the first Sino-Japanese war. Japan declared the islands terra nullius, basically no man's land, and formally annexed them. The name Senkaku was a translation of "Pinnacle Islands," which British seamen had been using as a nickname for the islands because of their steep rock formations.

"The islands were part of the booty of war," said Han-yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan, which also lays claim to the islands.

Given a 30-year lease to the islands, the Koga family invested substantially in them. On the largest, they built houses, reservoirs and piers, and set up a collection center for albatross feathers for export to Europe as well as a processing plant for dried bonito flakes, an ingredient in Japanese fish broth. Up to 248 workers lived on the island, many of them children, as it was difficult to recruit adults to go to such a remote place.

"There was great hardship living on that island. Charter boats didn't want to stop there; food and fuel had to be imported. Koga hired children between the ages of 7 and 12 and to sweeten the deal built a school for them," said Shaw, who had been studying Japanese documents including Koga's memoir.

Koga's son, Zenji, bought four islands from the Japanese government in 1932 after the lease expired. But the business became unsustainable after Japan's entry into World War II, because of rising fuel costs and economic sanctions.

After Japan's defeat, the islands came under U.S. occupation. They were given to Japan in 1972, along with the hand-over of Okinawa.

"The United States said it wasn't taking sides in the dispute. But this was the Cold War and they didn't want the islands to fall into communist hands," said Suganuma.

Zenji Koga later sold the islands to the Kurihara family, real estate developers who did little with the property except to lease one island to the Japanese Defense Ministry for training exercises and occasional use by the U.S. military.

The current flare-up began in April when the right-wing Tokyo governor, Shintaro Ishihara, announced during a visit to the Washington-based Heritage Foundation that he was raising money to buy the islands from the Kuriharas for an estimated price of $26 million and that he would try to develop them for tourism. The Japanese government stepped in, saying it would purchase three of the islands instead. (The island leased to the military is owned by a Kurihara sister and is not included in the sale.)

There is also a private Chinese claimant to the islands: In the 1970s, the granddaughter of a prominent pharmacist produced a will and purported edict from the late Empress Dowager Cixi bequeathing the island to her grandfather, Sheng Xuanhuai. Scholars have been divided about whether the edict was genuine, but in any case, the family never developed the property. (Ironically, the heirs now operate a Chinese restaurant in Japan.)

Chinese were outraged by the proposed sale of the islands they believe are rightfully theirs. Violent protests broke out this month in dozens of Chinese cities with Japanese stores and factories attacked and Japanese-model cars overturned and set on fire. In Xian, a 51-year-old Chinese man driving his son's Toyota to do the shopping was attacked by a mob and left comatose by a beating.

Hiroyuki Kurihara, a Tokyo architect and spokesman for the Kurihara family, told the English-language Japan Times last week that the dispute should be submitted to the United Nations' International Court of Justice before any more violence takes place.

Taiwanese scholar Shaw suggests that people study the history of the islands.

"This emotional nationalism isn't going to get us anywhere. We have to win or lose on the underlying historical facts — not trash cars," Shaw said. "I don't think anybody wants to go to war over these minuscule islands."

barbara.demick@latimes.com

 

DiaoYuDao Territorial Sea Baseline Charts

The People's Republic Of China DiaoYuDao Islands And Its Subsidiary Island Territorial Sea Baseline Charts

 

 

The DiaoYuDao Islands And LiuQiu Islands Have Been China's Inherent Territory Since Ancient Times, Which Is A Fact Nobody Can Change.It Is Located To The Northeast Of TaiWan Island, Are China's Easternmost Islands.

 

 

China's DiaoYuDao Islands

DiaoYuDao Islands 

 

 

In 1879, Japanese Forcibly To Occupation LiuQiu/Ryukyu(Now Known As Okinawa In Japanese),In 1895 Japan Through The Sino-Japanese War Of 1894-1895 (Launched By Japanese Imperialism To Annex Korea And Invade China).China Lost A War With Japan For Control Of Korea, Japan Forced The China To Sign The Unequal Treaty Of Shimonoseki,And Forcibly Occupied Taiwan And Its Subsidiary DiaoYuDao.

 

 

DiaoYuDao Territorial Sea Baseline Charts 

DiaoYuDao Territorial Sea Baseline Charts 

DiaoYuDao Territorial Sea Baseline Charts 

DiaoYuDao Position

DiaoYuDao Island

HuangWeiYu Island

ChiWeiYu Island

BeiXiaoDao Island

NanXiaoDao Island

BeiYu Island

NanYu Island

FeiYu Island

Baseline Charts 

Baseline Charts 

Baseline Charts 

Baseline Charts 

DiaoYuDao Islands Including 71 Island,All Latitude And Longitude Coordinates.

 

 

In 1945, Japan Declared Surrender And Acceptance Of The Provisions Of The Potsdam Declaration, According To The Cairo Declaration And The Potsdam Proclamation, Japan Must Return All Steal Territory From China.And The Japan's Territory Is Limited To Honshu,Shikoku,Kyushu,Hokkaido,These Four Islands.

But Now That Japan Was Not.

 

 

http://www.telegram.com/article/20120807/NEWS/108079961/0/SEARCH

 

The U.S. In Chinese Eyes

AS I SEE IT

By Paul S. Ropp

 

I am dismayed that the United States Department of Commerce is imposing import tariffs of over 30 percent on Chinese-made solar panels and 21 percent to 73 percent on wind towers made in China on the grounds that the Chinese government is "unfairly" subsidizing these industries. This comes despite our desperate need to curb our dependence on foreign oil and reduce our carbon emissions.

What high moral principle, the Chinese might ask, is violated by devoting public funds to the development of technologies that will be essential to the future environmental health of planet Earth?

Unfortunately, we have a long history of making demands on China that we frame in terms of "universal human values" but that appear to the Chinese as utterly self-serving and hypocritical.

In the 19th century, American missionaries told the Chinese they were doomed to hell unless they embraced Christianity. At the same time British (and some American) merchants, self-professed Christians themselves, sold opium in great quantities to the Chinese people. When Chinese officials tried to suppress the drug trade, Britain went to war with China in 1839 and in 1856 to force the Chinese government to accept the drug trade, which doubled by the 1880s.

Westerners justified the Opium Wars as a matter of "free trade."

Following the first Opium War, "free trade" included the thriving "coolie trade" as hundreds of thousands of Chinese and other Asian laborers were enticed or kidnapped onto overcrowded ships and sent to work as semi-slaves in mines and on plantations and railroad construction sites in the Americas.

As a result of this history (which is drilled into every schoolchild) and our current trade retaliation against China, not to mention talk of burning Chinese-made Olympic uniforms, our hymns to the glories of free trade have a hollow ring in Chinese ears.

American columnists and politicians often argue that the current Chinese system is unsustainable, and that China is heading for a catastrophe if its government doesn't liberalize its political system and follow the American model.

In 2001, the respected Chinese-American author Gordon Chang published a best-selling book titled "The Coming Collapse of China."

How ironic that the American economy collapsed in 2008 while China's has continued to grow at over 8 percent per year. What happened to the supposedly honest, efficient and transparent U.S. financial system that could lead to such a spectacular failure? And why should China aspire to follow the American model of insider trading, predatory lending, credit default swaps and white-collar crime that goes unpunished?

One of China's most serious problems is income inequality, which is a direct result of its American-style free market reforms starting in the 1980s. The Gini coefficient, which measures the degree of inequality in family incomes, ranges across the globe from the highest inequality in Namibia (74.3) to the lowest level of inequality in Sweden, Japan and Denmark (all around 25). On the Gini scale, 100 represents total inequality and 0 represents total equality.

According to United Nations figures, China ranks number 35 in the world in inequality with a Gini coefficient of 44.7, and the U.S. ranks number 52 with a Gini coefficient of 40.8.

The UN has statistics on 125 countries, meaning that 90 countries have less inequality than China, and 73 countries have less inequality than the United States. Just in terms of economic inequality, the U.S. and China are more similar than we are different.

Americans see in China a closed political system run by a small political and financial elite. But from China, America looks very much like a closed political system run by a small political and financial elite. Our Supreme Court has ruled that money is a form of speech and that corporations have the same rights as individual people to contribute unlimited funds to American political campaigns.

Individuals in America clearly have more rights than individuals in China to publish angry letters in newspapers denouncing public officials, but as individuals we have little real access to political power unless we are backed by concentrated wealth and its accompanying fame and influence. Politics in America is very much an elite enterprise, just as it is in China.

So let us spare the Chinese our lectures on the necessity for them to follow the American model. Our system is the one that appears unsustainable with our current level of public debt, and our political system paralyzed by partisanship. When our politicians threaten an American government default rather than compromise with their opponents, they make the Chinese Communist Party seem rational and public-spirited by contrast.

Paul S. Ropp is research professor of Chinese history at Clark University. His most recent book is "China in World History" (Oxford University Press, 2010).

Two Stories Of Confucius: An Eye Into China's Principle Of "Non-Interference In Internal Affairs"

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceng/eng/xw/t957799.htm

EMBASSY OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

 

Two Stories Of Confucius: An Eye Into China's Principle Of "Non-Interference In Internal Affairs"

(2012-08-02)                                

 

(The article below, which is written by our embassy, has been published on Nigerian newspaper DAILY TRUST, on 31th July, 2012.)

Since the beginning of the Syria crisis, some countries have been criticizing China for upholding the principle of "non-interference in internal affairs", calling for earlier military interference in Syria. Analyzing the motivation behind, those countries can be divided into two categories:

A few do have ulterior motives. Out of selfish intent, they are fanning the flame, driving wedges among countries and are eager to see tumult in the world.

Some others, with goodwill, care about the future of Syria and the interests of its people, and call for regime change through military intervention, aiming at restoring peace and stability in Syria.

Could the latter interference with goodwill reach its destination? Has the principle of "non-interference in internal affairs" become outdated on the Syria issue? Let me answer those questions by telling two stories about Confucius, a great philosopher of China during the Spring and Autumn Period (770 BC to 476 BC).

Story 1: How Confucius tried a case

Confucius was once appointed Chief Justice to the State of Lu. Shortly after Confucius taking office, a father and a son filed a lawsuit at his court. The father charged his son with disrespect and lack of filial piety, and requested Confucius to bring the son to justice, while the son also accused his father of committing gaffes. The two kept bickering at the court. Confucius, however, did not deliver his verdict right away. Instead, he detained the two in one cell, and henceforth held no inquiry until three months later when the father took the initiative to see Confucius. According to the father, he had reached a peaceful settlement with his son, and therefore asked for the withdrawal of the suit. Confucius released the two subsequently. Nonetheless, this led to the dissatisfaction of some ministers, who condemned Confucius for his connivance at the son's unfilial behavior, his injustice which is unworthy of his prestige, together with his nonobservance of the advocated filial piety.

As a matter of fact, it was not difficult for Confucius to sentence the son to prison in accordance with law. His refusal was out of his consideration in deeper levels. We may as well imagine, if the son was sentenced to imprisonment, seemingly his father had won the case, but what consequence would he face back home? Over time, the mother would be very much concerned about her son, other relatives would naturally be resentful of the father's heartlessness, and the son in prison would even hate his father all his life. The father himself, therefore, would inevitably be left in long-term embarrassment and remorse. Therefore, a seemingly legitimate and reasonable judgment may cause rupture of family relations as well as irreparable harm to family members, and nobody benefits from it in deed.

The first thing to solve family problem is to calm down. The relevant parties are supposed to resolve differences properly through dialogue and introspection, taking consideration for the overall situation of the solidarity of the family or clan. External mediators or persuaders should also adopt this principle in practice, trying to create a favorable environment for parties to calm down and make more efforts for peace among them. Contrarily, to simply support one party and accuse the other tends to deepen the hatred, intensify the contradictions and complicate the situation, and thus leads to "bad results though with good intentions" at last.

Now we can draw a conclusion that the way Confucius handling this case is for the maintenance of the long-term solidarity of the family and with genuine care for both parties, which is a choice of great rationality and wisdom.

For the same reason, we believe that any "home affairs" like disputes or confrontations within a country, Syria is no exception, should be resolved first and foremost by its own people. Other countries, bearing the principle of just and fairness in mind should do more work to promote peaceful talks between different groups and try to reach reconciliation through peaceful means such as negotiation and dialogue. During the negotiation process, military means should be avoided. Reckless actions, especially sanctions will not be solutions, and coordinators should restrain from supporting one group while against the other.

On the issue of Syria, China adheres to the principle of "non-interference in internal affairs" in order to maintain the long-term peace and stability and safeguard the unity and fundamental interest of that country. It is most noble and there is no weighing of interest for itself at all.

Story 2: Zi Gong redeems slaves

Confucius lived in the war time period when there were many battles between different states, and therefore it could be easy for the citizens of one state to be captured by the other and became the slave there. Confucius's home state Lu had a policy, which rewarded those who paid the ransom to regain the freedom of their enslaved fellow citizens. Once, Zi Gong, a student of Confucius, traveled to another state and paid ransom to free several Lu people. Considering himself from a rich family and a famous student of Confucius, he did not accept the rewards from the Lu government. He thought he did something noble. But when Confucius heard about that, he criticized Zi Gong. The reason was that, most of the Lu people were poor. As an eminent person of the society, Zi Gong's refusal to accept the rewards would gave others the impression that to accept the rewards was shameful. In reality that would hinder the government's efforts to rescue her enslaved people. Therefore, although Zi Gong's behavior was good for his own name, it exerted bad influence on the country, and although it seemed to be good for a short period of time, it would became the bane of the country in the future.

Similarly, when there are some problems within a country, also taking Syria as an example, other countries' interference or direct military involvement in overthrowing that government will become a bad precedent. No matter which county, once there are some problems within, other countries will enjoy the right to use force and change the government. When that happens, the world will be totally out of order.!

The sovereignty, independence and the territory integrity is sacred and inviolable. The UN Charter prescribe that equity of sovereignties and no interference of each other's internal affairs are the fundamental principles when handling the international relations. China's upholding the principle of "non-interference" is to protect the dignity of the UN Charter, to maintain peace and development and eventually to safeguard the fundamental interest of the world. At the time of enough disasters caused by brutally interfering other country's internal affairs, shall we learn some lesson from them?

China has all along participated in solving the Syrian issue in a positive, constructive and responsible manner. Our purpose is to safeguard the interests of the Syrian people and Arab countries, the interests of all countries, the small and medium-sized countries in particular, the role and authority of the United Nations and its Security Council, as well as the basic norms governing international relations.