(Translation)
Ironclad Evidence Shows that Diaoyu Dao is China’s Territory
By Guo Jiping
On 10 September, the Japanese government announced its decision to
“purchase” China’s Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated Nanxiao Dao and
Beixiao Dao in a bid to “nationalize” these islands. In the wake of it, the
Chinese government expressed solemn position and adopted strong
countermeasures, the Chinese people voiced strong indignation and
demonstrated enormous cohesiveness against the Japanese move, and the
voice of justice and great alarm was heard in the international community.
These have combined to deal a serious blow to the arrogance of the
Japanese side. Yet Japan has obstinately refused to correct its erroneous
position. On the contrary, it has continued to take unscrupulous steps to
infringe upon China’s territorial sovereignty and challenge the post-war
international order.
I
“Let’s calm the Diaoyu Dao issue. Let’s look at the big picture of
Japan-China relations. Let peace and stability be maintained in northeast
Asia.” Such were the rhetoric from Japan. But these ostensibly restrained
and constructive gestures could not mask Tokyo’s true intent and
restlessness. The Japanese government claimed that “we cannot cede
what we cannot cede” and that “Japan should make an all-out effort to
strengthen its guard over the waters around the Senkaku Islands”.
Japanese right-wing forces also clamored for the building of facilities on
Diaoyu Dao to strengthen Japan’s capability to confront China.
On the evening of 21 September, quite a few Japanese personnel
landed on Diaoyu Dao. The next day, right-wing groups staged anti-China
protests in Tokyo, claiming that “China has invaded the Senkaku Islands”
and crying for “the stationing of Japan Self-Defense Forces on the
Senkaku Islands”. Besides, Japan Coast Guard assembled patrol vessels
from its jurisdictions across Japan to guard the waters around Diaoyu Dao
and interfere with routine patrol and protection missions of Chinese
maritime surveillance vessels and fishery administration vessels in those
waters.
1
On the occasion of the UN General Assembly session, Japanese Prime
Minister Yoshihiko Noda went to great lengths to talk about the so-called
“legal evidence” of Japanese sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao and insisted
that there is no dispute between Japan and China over the issue. The
Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs put together documents under the
title “Three Truths about the Senkaku Islands” to summarize Japan’s
position and instructed Japanese embassies to communicate with their
host countries accordingly. The Japanese Foreign Ministry also asked for
an additional 600 million yen in its budget of the next fiscal year, which
will be used to fund propaganda and research activities for the sake of
“defending Japanese territory”. Certain Japanese media outlets even
resorted to the despicable act of making up stories to create the
impression that other countries supported Japan’s position.
In fact, not much was new in the "media offensive" Japan has
mounted. It was full of clichés such as Diaoyu Dao being inherent
Japanese territory based on historical facts and international law, and the
goal of Japanese “nationalization” being to “continue its stable and secure
management”. However, to the extent that there was something new, it
was as follows: China had not claimed sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao until
the early 1970s; in the 1972 negotiations to normalize diplomatic
relations and 1978 negotiations to conclude the China-Japan Treaty of
Peace and Friendship, the then leaders of China and Japan did not reach
understanding or consensus to “shelve the dispute” over Diaoyu Dao;
China’s overreaction to the “island purchase” and widespread acts of
violence against Japanese interests in China made Japan feel “under
threat”.
The truth of the matter is: Diaoyu Dao is an integral part of China,
and Japan’s usurpation of China’s Diaoyu Dao is illegal and invalid.
Japan’s so-called “nationalization” of Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated
Nanxiao Dao and Beixiao Dao constitutes serious encroachment on
China’s territorial sovereignty. This principled position of China has been
stated comprehensively in an article titled “How Can Anybody Else
Recklessly ‘Buy’ or ‘Sell’ China’s Diaoyu Dao?”, which was run by the
People’s Daily on 11 September under the byline of “Guo Jiping”. In the
article published today, we will use historical facts and norms of
international law to expose the absurdity and sinister nature of the
so-called "new points" in Japan's recent propaganda.
II
Japan said that China had not made a claim of sovereignty over
2
Diaoyu Dao until the early 1970s. But what was the real situation in
history?
Diaoyu Dao has been China’s inherent territory since ancient times. It
was marked as part of Chinese territory and administered as affiliated
island of Taiwan as early as in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. At the end
of the 19th century, Japan grabbed Diaoyu Dao during the Sino-Japanese
War and forced the Qing government to sign the 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”. That
included Diaoyu Dao. 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 2 September 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 25 October 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. China
has all along stressed that Japan should, in accordance with international
legal documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam
Proclamation, return to China all territories it has stolen from China, and
that naturally includes Diaoyu Dao.
On 8 September 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) from which China was excluded. The Chinese
government has always been opposed to such a treaty. Before the treaty
was signed, Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai made a solemn 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 outcomes are, be regarded as illegal and therefore
invalid by the central people’s government.” After the treaty was signed,
Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai made another statement on 18 September
1951: “The peace treaty with Japan, signed arbitrarily by the US
3
government at the San Francisco Conference without participation of the
People’s Republic of China, is illegal and invalid and could under no
circumstances be recognized by the central people’s government.” The
statement made it very clear that China has never recognized any
provision of the Treaty of San Francisco regarding Chinese territory. That
naturally included Diaoyu Dao. This position of China applies too to
subsequent illegal US acquisition of trusteeship and transfer of Diaoyu
Dao to Japan following the Treaty of San Francisco. All this serves to
show that China’s sovereignty claim over Diaoyu Dao is consistent and
clear-cut. It has never changed, not even a bit.
In the current round of “media offensive”, Japan has tried to play up
isolated arguments that are seemingly in its favor. For instance, Japan has
repeatedly stressed the point that Diaoyu Dao was marked as part of
Japan’s Okinawa in the 1958 and 1960 editions of the World Atlas
published in China.
Since maps have been mentioned, we also want to devote adequate
part of this article to facts related to maps.
The Roadmap to Ryukyu (Liu Qiu Guo Hai Tu) in the Record of the
Imperial Title-Conferring Envoys to Ryukyu (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 considered part of China’s territory. Besides, the Maps and
Names of Provinces and Cities in Japan published in 1892 did not mark
Diaoyu Dao as part of Japanese territory.
The Map of East China Sea Littoral States created by the French
4
cartographer Pierre Lapie and others in 1809 colored Diaoyu Dao,
Huangwei Yu and Chiwei Yu the same as the Island of Taiwan. 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
Chinese territory.
One particular edition of a map cannot be taken out of its context and
used as evidence to reject the position of a government on issues
concerning territory. This is common sense. The World Atlas editions
cited by Japan that marked Diaoyu Dao as part of Japan’s Okinawa
clearly identified their sources of reference as being map archives of the
pre-Anti-Japanese War Shen-pao (Shanghai News). That was the time
when Diaoyu Dao was under Japan’s colonial rule. Under international
law, a particular edition of a map does not constitute the basis for
claiming one’s own rights or negating those of others. Therefore, Japan's
argument that Diaoyu Dao is Japanese territory on the basis of the map in
question is not at all convincing. In fact, many Japanese maps published
before the 1970s did not mark Diaoyu Dao as part of Japan.
Japan's manner of treating such untenable evidence like a rare
treasure and its attempt to make much out of it shows that Japan has
exhausted itself and still could find little legal basis for its sovereignty
claim over Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands.
Why was Japan put in such an awkward position? It is very clear. A
country may dream wild dreams about waging wars of aggression and
enslaving the Asian people. A country may develop illusions that it can
whitewash its historical crimes with a wrong approach to history and
become a “normal country” to be respected by other countries around the
world. But in no way can historical facts be fabricated. A country that
dares to challenge historical facts is dishonest and extremely dangerous.
The international community should really watch out for such a country.
III
Japan claims that the leaders of Japan and China did not reach
understanding and consensus on “shelving the dispute over Diaoyu Dao”
during the negotiations for the normalization of bilateral relations in 1972
and the 1978 Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Could this
be true? For the sake of clarity, let us look at the authoritative historical
records, including the minutes of the talks.
5
It is known to all that it was with the China-Japan Joint Statement
(1972) and the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1978) that
China and Japan finally ended the state of war and normalized bilateral
relations. These two documents formed the bilateral legal basis for the
resolution of the postwar ownership of relevant territories between China
and Japan.
Under the third item of the China-Japan Joint Statement, which
concerns the issue of Taiwan, the Japanese side explicitly committed that
“it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam
Proclamation.” It was further confirmed in the Sino-Japanese Treaty of
Peace and Friendship that “the principles enunciated in the Joint
Statement should be strictly observed.” The core of Article 8 of the
Potsdam Proclamation referred to in the Joint Statement is that “The
terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out.” To be more specific,
as stated clearly in the Cairo Declaration, “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.” This was a
serious commitment Japan had made to the Chinese side in the form of
bilateral treaties. Although it was a commitment made in the context of
the issue of Taiwan, it is applicable to the issue of Diaoyu Dao because
Diaoyu Dao is Taiwan’s affiliated island. It is worth noting that the Cairo
Declaration mentioned these territories in the form of non-exhaustive
enumeration. What it emphasized was that the territories Japan had stolen
from the Chinese through whatever means, be it Taiwan and the
Pescadores, which had been formally ceded to Japan through the Treaty
of Shimonoseki, or Manchuria, which had been under Japan’s actual
control through the puppet government, or Chinese territories stolen by
Japan through other means, shall all be restored to China. Therefore, even
though Japan claimed that Diaoyu Dao was not ceded to Japan in the
Treaty of Shimonoseki as Taiwan’s affiliated island, Japan could not deny
that the island was stolen by Japan from China following the
Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 and that the island, as such, must be
restored to China.
During negotiations for the signing of the China-Japan Joint
Statement and the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship,
Chinese and Japanese leaders, acting in the larger interest of bilateral
relations, decided not to involve the issue of Diaoyu Dao for the time
being and leave it to be resolved later. This, however, does not constitute
an excuse for the Japanese side to deny its commitment afterwards. The
principle that the postwar ownership of relevant territories should be
6
resolved in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam
Proclamation, as enshrined in the China-Japan Joint Statement and the
Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship, still applies to the issue of
Diaoyu Dao.
At a recent press conference, Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro
Gemba cited from the conversation between Prime Minister Kakuei
Tanaka and Premier Zhou Enlai in 1972 about Diaoyu Dao. He said that
Japan and China did not reach common understanding on this issue. For
the sake of clarify, again, let's read the following, which is the main part
of what was really discussed in the conversation:
Prime Minister Tanaka: I wish to take this opportunity to ask about
China’s attitude towards the Senkaku Islands.
Premier Zhou: I do not want to discuss this issue this time. It is no
good discussing it now.
Prime Minister Tanaka: It may make things difficult for me when I go
back if I did not mention this issue at all while I was in Beijing.
Premier Zhou: That’s right, because oil has been discovered under
that part of the sea. Now Taiwan is trying to make a big issue out of it.
The United States might do so, too. The issue has been blown out of
proportion.
That was where Minister Gemba’s citation ended. But in fact, Prime
Minister Tanaka went on to say: Alright. There is no need to discuss it
then. Let’s talk about it sometime in the future.
Premier Zhou: Let's talk about it in the future. This time, let us first
resolve the big and fundamental issues that we can resolve, such as the
normalization of bilateral relations. It is not that other issues are not “big”,
but that normalization of relations is pressing. Some issues need to be
discussed at a later time.
Prime Minister Tanaka: I believe other issues can be resolved once the
relations are normalized.
What issue were they referring to that needed to be resolved? It was
quite clear with the then Chinese and Japanese leaders. It was this -- the
Okinawa Reversion Agreement, signed between the United States and
Japan on 17 June 1971, stated that the power of administration over the
7
Ryukyu Islands and other islands shall be returned to Japan, and
arbitrarily included Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands into the
territories to be returned. On 30 December 1971, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of China issued a statement, stressing that the backroom deals
between the United States and Japan over Diaoyu Dao and other islands
were completely illegal and could by no means change the People’s
Republic of China’s territorial sovereignty over the Diaoyu Dao Islands.
So it was not vague at all what issue needed to be resolved . It was the
issue of sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. Minister Gemba cited only part of
the conversation. Was it because he had no access to the full text? Or did
he do it on purpose?
In October 1978, Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping visited Japan for the
exchange of instruments of ratification of the Sino-Japanese Treaty of
Peace and Friendship. Commenting on the issue of Diaoyu Dao at a
press conference following his talks with Japanese Prime Minister
Takeo Fukuda, Mr. Deng said, “When China and Japan normalized
relations, both countries agreed not to involve this issue. When we
negotiated the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship, we also
agreed not to deal with this issue. We believe that it is wiser to set the
issue aside for a while if we couldn't bridge our difference this time. It is
okay to temporarily shelve such an issue if our generation does not have
enough wisdom to resolve it. The next generation will have more wisdom,
and I am sure they will eventually find a way acceptable to both sides.”
No one on the Japanese side made any objection on this note.
Mr. Zhang Xiangshan, late advisor to the Chinese foreign ministry,
and many others, both in China and Japan, have been personally involved
in or witnessed these historical episodes surrounding the negotiations for
the normalization of China-Japan relations and the conclusion of the
Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship. They have each, in their
own way, recounted these historical facts. Their accounts prove that both
China and Japan were clear about whether the two countries had reached
understanding and consensus on shelving the dispute over Diaoyu Dao.
Japan has proved to be a country that dared to alter and deny
authoritative historical records from just a few decades ago. It even dared
to change what had been put down in black and white in history. Is there
anything Japan dares not do?
IV
8
Japan has confused right and wrong when it claimed that China has
overreacted to Japan's “island purchase” and that China has staged
massive acts of violence against Japan, which put Japan under threat.
There are ample historical and legal evidences to prove that the
sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao belongs to China. After Japan staged the
farce of “island purchase”, China issued the Foreign Ministry's Statement
and the Statement of the Government of the People’s Republic of China
on the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of Diaoyu Dao and its Affiliated
Islands. Following that, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National
People’s Congress, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National
Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the
spokesperson of the Ministry of National Defense and various social
groups also issued statements or made remarks against the Japanese move.
The entire Chinese nation all voiced condemnation of the despicable act
of the Japanese government. China deposited the coordinates table and
chart of the base points and baselines of the territorial sea of China’s
Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands with UN Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon, and presented the Partial Submission concerning the outer
limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the East China
Sea to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. China’s
maritime surveillance vessels carried out law enforcement patrol missions
in the waters of Diaoyu Dao and Chinese fishery administration vessels
conducted routine law enforcement patrols to protect Chinese fishermen
in the waters of Diaoyu Dao. These countermeasures are necessary steps
taken to uphold China’s territorial sovereignty and they embody the
strong will and determination of the Chinese nation to safeguard its
territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.
Japan has claimed that China’s strong reaction was beyond
expectation. We have to ask then: Was Japan fancying a China that would
display obedience and react otherwise on an issue that concerns its core
interests, which is national sovereignty? The countermeasures taken by
China are justified, effective and restrained. Being rooted on the
international moral and legal high ground, China’s position has been
understood and supported by the international community and will stand
the test of history.
China has acted in strict accordance with the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
and has taken measures to protect the interests of foreign institutions in
China in accordance with law. The personnel of Japanese enterprises are
safe in China. What has happened are isolated cases. Competent Chinese
9
authorities have made serious investigation into these cases and dealt with
them accordingly.
Japan has undeniably committed gross infringement upon China’s
territorial sovereignty. But it is playing the victim now by accusing China
of “putting it under threat”. Does this stand to logic? China has never
threatened any country, nor will China ever put any country under any
threat. However, should any country dare to cross the untouchable red
line and harm China’s core interests, China will never sit idly by. If Japan
is truly afraid of being “threatened”, it ought to think hard about how to
correct its mistake now before slipping too far down the wrong path.
V
The Japanese government’s announced “purchase” of China’s Diaoyu
Dao and its affiliated Nanxiao Dao and Beixiao Dao and their so-called
“nationalization” is a serious violation of China’s territorial sovereignty.
The countermeasures taken by China have forcefully demonstrated
China’s position that sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao belongs to China as
well as the legal evidences supporting China's position. They have
effectively exposed the very nature of the farce Japan has staged, which is
in essence a betrayal of the consensus and understanding reached with
China, an outright denial of the outcomes of the World Anti-Fascist War
and a challenge to the post-World War II international order.
China strongly urges Japan to face up to the current grave situation of
China-Japan relations and recognize that there is dispute over the
sovereignty of Diaoyu Dao. Japan should redress the erroneous act of
violating China’s sovereignty and come back to the track of resolving the
Diaoyu Dao issue through negotiations. The Chinese government is firm
and solid in its will to uphold China’s territorial sovereignty. No one
needs to have any illusion about or question China's determination.
Diaoyu Dao belongs to China. China stands on the right side of the
issue. China is on the side of justice.
10