diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes)

Diaoyu Islands 釣魚島 - Undisputed China Territory***

中国领土钓鱼岛 Diaoyu Islands official China Government website http://www.diaoyudao.org.cn/ 


我们的钓鱼岛 Diaoyu Islands - our home
Chapter 第1集 釣魚島 我的家 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaBwzCi2KVU
 
Chapter 第2集 被阻斷的歸途 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIBoDiUsBBI
 
Chapter 第3集 暗流湧動 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKit1sB3QFw
 
Chapter 第4集 風雲再起 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsHjKwkDkJE
 
Chapter 第5集 捍衛主權 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeeaCY69MH0
 
王蓉 我們的釣魚島 Chinese's Diaoyu Islands https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2MSdIqno7Y
 

Worldwide News Coverage on Diaoyu Island - UNDISPUTED Chinese territory  Aug - Sep 2012 October - December 2012

Thumbnail October 12 2012 KISSINGER: US should remain neutral on Diaoyu Islands issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmFDlepshiQ 

Former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger has said the US should remain neutral on the Diaoyu Islands dispute between China and Japan. He expressed the view during a think-tank seminar in Washington. He also mentioned the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China. He said at the time of signing the agreement in 1978, China and Japan had decided to temporarily lay aside the issue of Diaoyu Islands sovereignty. He said, "There was no active American involvement, as I remember, a conclusion that was reached between Japan and China. And my dearest wish is that The United States should NOT take a position on sovereignty." 

diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes)

Prelude to War in the Pacific 太平洋大戰的序幕

U.S. journal criticises Obama administration for provocation in South China Sea 美國雜誌批評奧巴馬政府對中國南海的挑釁

This article appears in the May 6, 2016 issue of Executive Intelligence Review (Leesburg, Virginia, USA)

by William Jones

April 30 2016 President Obamas provocative policy in the Pacific is leading to a conflict between nuclear powers, and can have no other result if the policy is not quickly reversed. These provocations have gone so far as sailing destroyers straight into waters legitimately claimed as territorial waters by the Peoples Republic of China, in alleged freedom of navigation patrols, and attempts to line up local allies to join in. While the naval deployments are accompanied by all sorts of high-falutin moralizing rhetoric from the U.S. government, in reality they have less justification than the European gunboats on the Yangtze in the 19th Century.

(photo) South Pacific Map, College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University

Obamas provocative policy challenging Chinas legitimate claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands includes patrolling, jointly with its ally the Philippines, right up to the 12-mile limit off the shore of the Chinese mainland.

In response to Chinese attempts to assert their legitimate claims to the Nansha (Spratly) and the Xisha (Paracel) Islands, the United States has organized joint sorties with its ally, the Philippines, to patrol the seas right up to the 12-mile limit off the shore of the Chinese mainland. Obama refers to a supposed threat to freedom of navigation, but China has never threatened or contested that freedom in the South China Sea, where the overwhelming majority of all navigation is to and from China itself.

Freedom of Navigation or Gunboat Diplomacy? 導航自由或砲艦外交?

Freedom of navigation in non-territorial waters has long been a staple of maritime law, from Hugo Grotius classic Law of the Seas to the more recent UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS). When the UNCLOS Treaty was promulgated in 1982, the United States did not sign it, ostensibly because of the limitations the treaty would place on its offshore drilling operations.

In reality, the United States had already, during the Carter Administration, pre-empted joining such a treaty by elaborating what it called its Freedom of Navigation Policy, which in effect guaranteed the right of U.S. naval vessels to sail freely anywhere in the world that was not considered sovereign territory (that is, within 12 miles of any countrys land borders). This included freely sailing within any countrys Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, defined by the UNCLOS as a region within 200 miles of a countrys land border). While the UNCLOS also allows innocent passage within the EEZ for military vessels that are not conducting military or reconnaissance operations, the treaty does not prevent a country from requiring notification of such passage.

(photo) U.S. Airforce/Senior Master Sgt. Adrian Cadiz

The United States unilateral Freedom of Navigation Policy allows the U.S. Navy to sail whenever and wherever it wants. These types of military maneuvers have been ratcheted up to the highest level ever by Obama. Above, U.S. Navy sailors, on April 15, are carrying out flight deck operations in the South China Sea on aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis while Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Philippine Secretary of National Defense Voltaire Gazmin are on board as observers.

The U.S. policy effectively allows the U.S. Navy to sail wherever and whenever it wants, unimpeded by the strictures of any treaty. The Freedom of Navigation forays have often been used to warn nations against any restriction on the innocent passage of U.S. military vessels, essentially making them a modern form of gunboat diplomacy, even though no shots have been firedat least not yet. But those operations have never before been ratcheted up in the way they are now by the Obama Administration against China in the South China Sea.

Chinas Territorial Claims 中國的領土

The Western media, in their typical manner, have depicted Chinas claims to the Nansha (Spratly) and Xisha (Paracel) Islands as a Chinese power grab, although for most of Chinas history, these claims have never been contested. In the 1970swith the growth in the importance of the seabeds for offshore drilling and the expansion of the fishing industry with a diminishing fish populationother countries in the region have raised their own claims to the islands, and the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia all began, with the help of their militaries, to build facilities on some of the islands, which China solemnly protested at the time.

After World War II, the United States fully supported China in reclaiming these islands from Japan. But the Cold War and the peaceful rise of China to become a world power have changed all of that. And recent U.S. actions have effectively sent signals to China that the United States will not accept the Chinese claims and is prepared to go to war to prevent China from asserting them, despite Obamas hollow pretense that the United States is not taking sides with respect to those claims.

As early as the Han Dynasty (206 BC-220 AD), the islands are found in Chinese records, clearly documentating their recognition, and perhaps their discovery, by the Chinese. They were incorporated into the administrative region of Qiong Zhou during the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD) and further consolidated into the Chinese Empire during the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368).

Later, during the Ming and Qing Dynasties (1368-1912), the islands were incorporated into the administration of Wanzhou in Guangdong Province. During this time there were extensive activities by Chinese on the islands, including fishing and planting, and some Chinese even lived on the islands for years. Many Chinese relics and remains have been found there, including the remains of temples. During the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the Nansha (Spratly) and Xisha (Paracel) Islands were incorporated into the defense of the Chinese Empire, with regular patrols, coastal defense, and administration by Chinas naval forces.

When the Japanese moved into Southeast Asia in World War II, everything changed. The islands were occupied by Japan until the end of the war. After the war, it was clearly recognized by the Allied Powers that the islands were a part of Chinese territory and should be returned to China. Both the war-time Cairo Declaration and the subsequent Potsdam Declaration are explicit in their demand that Japan should give back these occupied islands to China.

In fact, the United States sent warships to the Kuomintang in 1946 to enable the recovery of the Nansha Islands! And books, periodicals, and maps published in the United States clearly indicated that the Nanshas are part of Chinese territory. While the San Francisco Treaty in 1951 also affirmed that Japan must give up the islands, it did not explicitly state that the territory belongs to China, an argument that is now being used by the Philippines to bolster its own claims. But China was not represented at all at that conference, and had no say in the formulation of the treaty. While the United States wished to invite Taiwan to represent China, Great Britain wanted the Peoples Republic of China, and the dispute resulted in no Chinese representative being invited.

(Photo) This Chinese lighthouse on Zhubi Reef began operations in April. It is one of three China has built in the Nanshas (Spratly Islands). China has also set up emergency rescue facilities in the Spratly and Paracel Islands.

But even after World War II, none of the present claimants challenged Chinas sovereignty over the islands. In 1955, the International Civil Aviation Organization, at its conference in Manila, asked Taiwan to improve meteorological observation on the Nansha Islands, with no objection from any of the participants.

Chinese possession of the islands would have a beneficial effect on navigation in the region. Already China has constructed two lighthouses on Huayang Reef in the Nanshas, and emergency rescue facilities have been established on the Nanshas and Xishas. So why is Obama now so determinedly opposed to the Chinese claims?

Occupation of its coastal islands would definitely be beneficial to Chinese defense capabilities. Even if China did not decide to place military installations there, they would provide a somewhat more advanced perimeter from which to monitor any threats from the region. And given the increased U.S. naval deployments here, such a capability becomes of increasing importance for China.

Remember that the United States in 1872 sent General John Schofield to the then independent kingdom of Hawaii to investigate those islands for the purpose of eventually putting U.S. military facilities on an advanced perimeter in the Pacific. But the Hawaiian Islands are 2,390 miles from the coast of California, while the Nansha Islands are 500 miles from the Chinese coast and the Xisha only 180 miles. And while the United States had no claim to the Hawaiian islands (but would soon annex them in rather murky circumstances), China does have such a claim, a claim which was once universally recognized.

Sabotaging a Resolution of the Conflict 破壞不是解決衝突

China is clearly aware of the conflicts that have arisen with its neighbors over its attempt to make good on its claims. It is also concerned to maintain amicable relations with its neighbors, including those against whom China fought in the last great war. It is therefore engaged in coming to agreements with the various claimants through a process of bilateral negotiations.

The agreements between the countries of the region, encapsulated in the 2012 Declaration of Conduct signed by the members of ASEAN and the Government of China, therefore call on the parties to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force, through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

(Photo) In 1872, the United States sent General John Schofield to what was then the independent kingdom of Hawaii to investigate the viability of the Islands as an advanced perimeter in the Pacific. The Islands were later annexed by the United States, though it had no claim to them.

This declaration committed the parties to resolve their difference through bilateral negotiations. But the Philippines, in its dispute with China on one of the islands, has taken the issue to arbitration, with the blessing of the United States, hoping that the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague will rule in its favor. China, which continues to adhere to the agreement signed in 2012, has clearly said that it is not prepared to accept any judgment stemming from such unilateral action on the part of the Philippines.

If the disputes involved only the countries in the region, they could be resolved amicably. Given the economic strength of China and its clear willingness to use that strength to create a win-win situation for its neighborsas we have seen in Chinas Belt and Road Initiativethere is no reason that satisfactory arrangements beneficial to all could not be worked out.

One of the options that has often been put forward would involve joint ventures to exploit the mineral resources of the area. In fact, in 2004 the Philippines and China agreed to joint exploration for oil in the Nansha islands, and the exploration began, only to be sabotaged by a manipulated anti-China uproar in the Philippines. It was discussed again in 2013, only to be rejected by the Philippines under heavy pressure from Washington.

But the U.S. invasions of Chinese waters, and the attempts by the United States to create a mini-NATO to target China using the few allies it has in the region, have made such a solution all but impossible. And unless the war-mongering Barack Obama is soon removed from office for his crimes, and his policy reversed, we may be looking at another war in the Pacificand the threat of a nuclear tsunami.

374-Page Special Report: The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge https://worldlandbridge.com/ 

http://www.larouchepub.com/ 
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/07/c_135341072.htm 
http://www.larouchepub.com//20/4319_obama_war_pacific.html 

diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes)

Putting the political differences aside, both ROC and PRC agreed on at least 1 thing, Diaoyu Island is Chinese territory
把政治分歧放在一邊,無論是中華民國和中華人民共和國同意至少1件事,釣魚島是中國領土

Peoples Daily: Evidence proves that Diaoyu Island is Chinese territory By Liu Jiangyong People's Daily Online
人民日報: 駁日方在釣魚島問題上的欺人之談 劉江永 20160503日 


In recent years, the Japanese government has been denying the dispute over sovereignty of Diaoyu Island, all while strengthening its own propaganda on the issue. A few days ago, the office of the Cabinet of Japan posted some data and graphics on its official website, claiming that Diaoyu Island is Japans "inherent territory."

However, the so-called proof offered by Japan is either self-deception that goes against history or a misinterpretation of Chinas stance. In order to eliminate its impact on China-Japan relations and enhance the friendship between the two peoples, it is necessary to refute Japan's evidence and clarify the facts.

I. The Japanese government acknowledged China's sovereignty over Diaoyu Island before the First Sino-Japanese War

The Japanese government has repeatedly claimed that Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands used to be uninhabited, and Japan did not claim sovereignty over the islands until it had confirmed that they were not under Chinas jurisdiction, in accordance with the "preemption doctrine." These claims are completely groundless.

First of all, although Diaoyu Island was uninhabited before Japan seized it in 1895, it was by no means unclaimed land. According to official historical records, starting from 1372, the fifth year of the reign of Emperor Hongwu of the Ming Dynasty, imperial title-conferring envoys used Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands as a navigation mark to sail to Ryukyu. The imperial courts of the Ming also sent troops, led by Zhang He and Wu Zhen, to protect the maritime route and incorporated these islands into their coastal defense.

From the Qing Dynasty, the islands were placed under the jurisdiction of Gamalan, Taiwan (known as Yilan County today). Huang Shujing, the first imperial supervision envoy sent by the Qing court to Taiwan, once inspected Diaoyu Island and wrote about it in his report, A Tour of Duty in the Taiwan Strait (Tai Hai Shi Cha Lu).

Later, between 1874 (when Japan first invaded Taiwan) and 1894 (when the Sino-Japanese War began), all kinds of maps and literature drafted by the Navy Ministry of Japan, including one that lays out all the coastal provinces of the Qing court, identified Diaoyu Island, Huangwei Island and Chiwei Island as northeastern islands of Taiwan. Japan's Foreign Ministry and Army Ministry also confirmed the accuracy of those maps.

In 1885, six years after Japan annexed Ryukyu as Okinawa Prefecture, then Home Minister Yamagata Aritomo secretly asked the Prefecture to set up sovereignty marks on no-man islands like Diaoyu Island. The governor of Okinawa Prefecture and the Foreign Minister rejected this maneuver since the occupation of these islands could trigger conflicts with China. Of course, if they had actually believed Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands were unclaimed, they would have had no such concerns.

Looking further back to 20 years before the First Sino-Japanese War, it is clear that the Japanese navy believed Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands were northeastern islands of Taiwan.

For one thing, the nautical journal of H.M.S. Samarang, which chronicled the years 1843-1846 and was published in 1848, as well as other literature and maps published by the British Navy, all marked Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands as northeastern islands of Taiwan while confirming Chiwei Island as the eastern end of the Chinese island chain.

In addition, the Qing Dynasty atlas, published in 1863, also designates Diaoyu Island as being under the jurisdiction of Taiwan. Kume-jima, an affiliated island of Ryukyu facing Chiwei Island, was marked in a different color. This ample historical evidence shows that, before the "critical period" when the dispute over sovereignty of Diaoyu Island escalated, Diaoyu Island always belonged to China.

II. Japan knew Diaoyu Island was uninhabited before its poachers landed

Originally, Japan made up a story about a man named Koga Tatsushiro who supposedly discovered and colonized Diaoyu Island in 1884. After being debunked as a myth, Japan fabricated additional evidence that a man named Izawa Yakita was once saved by Chinese people as he sailed to Kobajima Island (Diaoyu Island) in 1893. This was cited as evidence that China did not prohibit Japanese people from fishing near Diaoyu Island.

However, according to firsthand reports and documents from Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Izawa Yakita, a fisherman from Japans Kumamoto Prefecture, was found poaching albatrosses on Diaoyu Island in 1891.

In June 1893, when Izawa Yakita sailed to Diaoyu Island from the Yaeyama Islands, he and his fellow sailors washed ashore in Pingyang County in eastern Chinas Zhejiang province. Though they were rescued, they again encountered dangerous conditions on their way to Fuzhou, Fujian province. Local officials eventually transferred them to the Japanese Consulate in Shanghai.
However, Izawa Yakita and the other sailors hid the truth from Fujian officials, claiming that they had been transporting coal from the Kyushu Islands to the Yaeyama Islands, but had accidentally floated to Kobajima Island on their way. They told the real story to Hayashi Gonsuke, then Japanese Consul General in Shanghai.

Their motivation for lying to Chinese officials must be explored. The decision overwhelmingly points to one conclusion: they realized that the uninhabited island they were approaching belonged to China, and they knew they would be punished if they told the truth. Instead, the local Chinese officials who were kept in the dark about the real situation helped the sailors get back to Japan. In this way, a philanthropic deed performed by China is being used by Japan as evidence for its own sovereignty over the island.

The truth of the matter is, Izawa Yakita was not living on Diaoyu Island or Huangwei Island until 1895 when Taiwan and its affiliated islands were colonized by Japan. Izawa Masagi, Izawa Yakita's daughter, admitted that she was born in 1901 on Huangwei Island.

She confessed that, although the Japanese government knew China had claimed the island, they nevertheless grabbed it during the Sino-Japanese War and officially included it as part of Japanese territory on a map from 1896 (the 29th year of the Meiji period). In the testimony that she left behind, Izawa Masagi insisted that Japan should establish a sound relationship with China, criticizing Japans unlawful occupation of the island. She also noted that Japan had once promised to return the islands, along with Taiwan, to China at the end of World War II.

In recent years, in a bid to prove that Diaoyu Island belongs to Japan, Japans Ministry of Foreign Affairs has posted pictures of Japanese people from that era standing on the island. But these photos do not stand as evidence; all they prove is that Japan colonized the island after colonizing Taiwan in 1895.

On June 10, 1895, Koga Tatsushiro submitted an application to the Japanese government to rent and develop Diaoyu Island. His application was approved in September of the next year. Koga Tatsushiro admitted that he submitted the application after Japan grabbed the islands in the Sino-Japanese War. However, the Treaty of Shimonoseki, the foundation of Japan's occupation of Diaoyu Island and Taiwan, was abolished in 1945 when Japan surrendered in World War II.

Japans attempt to prove its sovereignty of Diaoyu Island through a few photographs is simply unconvincing. If the claim were valid, Japan could use photos taken on Chinese mainland and Taiwan from those days as proof of the claim.

III. Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation define the territory of Japan after World War II

Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs holds that its territorial scope is determined by the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952, and that the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation cannot place legal restrictions on Japan's territory.

This is a public denial of international law, which negates the promises Japan made in its formal document of surrender in 1945. In the mean time, the Peoples Republic of China was not a part of and never recognized the San Francisco Peace Treaty signed in 1951. China's sovereignty cannot be determined by a treaty between Japan and the U.S. On Sept. 18, 1951, then Chinese Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai stated that China considers the treaty illegal and void, as it failed to involve China. For that reason, China will never acknowledge it.

In 1971, Japan and the U.S. signed the Okinawa Reversion Agreement, which provided that any and all powers of administration over the Ryukyu Islands and Diaoyu Island would be "returned" to Japan. On December 30, 1971, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement pointing out that the agreement was a flagrant violation of China's sovereignty and would never be tolerated by the Chinese people.

"It is completely illegal for the government of the U.S. and Japan to include China's Diaoyu Island as part of the territories to be returned to Japan in the Okinawa Reversion Agreement, read a statement from the Chinese government.

In addition, Diaoyu Island was never even mentioned in Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

After its defeat in World War II, Japan promised to obey the following political documents and regulations regarding territory: According to Article 3 of the China-Japan Joint Communiqu signed in September 1972, the government of the People's Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.

Also, based on the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between China and Japan in August 1978, the principles set out in the Joint Communiqu had to be strictly observed.

Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation stipulated that the terms of the Cairo Declaration be carried out and Japanese sovereignty limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and other such minor islands as later determined.

The Cairo Declaration, signed in 1943, required that all the territories Japan stole from China, such as Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores Islands, be restored to the Republic of China.

It should be noted that in the Japanese version of the Cairo Declaration, it is stipulated that Japan has to return all the territories stolen from the Qing court to the Republic of China, which means all the territories Japan stole from China before and after the signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

The Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War, which was announced by the emperor of Japan on Aug. 15, 1945, ordered the Japanese government to inform the U.S., Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that it accepted their joint declaration.

On Sept. 2 of the same year, the Japanese surrender document was signed, in which Japan promised that "we, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese government and its successors will faithfully implement the terms of the Potsdam Proclamation.

However, the successors of the Japanese government did not faithfully implement the terms of Potsdam Proclamation, nor did they abide by the China-Japan Joint Communiqu and Treaty of Peace and Friendship between China and Japan. Instead, the successors tried to replace those agreements with the San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed only by the U.S. and Japan.

If thats not a violation of international law and order, what is?

(The author is a professor from the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University.) The article is edited and translated from
人民日报:驳日方在钓鱼岛问题上的欺人之谈

人民日報:駁日方在釣魚島問題上的欺人之談 劉江永
20160503

http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0504/c98649-9053223.html  

  近年來,日本政府一方面否認中日圍繞釣魚島主權歸屬認知有爭議,另一方面不斷加強在釣魚島問題上的宣介。日前,日本內閣官房網站發布了一些資料圖片,妄稱釣魚島是日本的固有領土。日方拋出的所謂證據,要么嚴重違反史實,要么歪曲中方立場,純屬自欺欺人。為排除其對中日關係的消極影響,增進中日兩國人民的友好感情,有必要就日方的有關錯誤觀點加以駁斥,以正視聽。

  一、甲午戰爭前日本官方已承認釣魚島屬於中國

  日本政府反复宣揚釣魚島及其附屬島嶼曾經是所謂
無主地,日本政府1885年進行再三調查後沒有發現中國人統治痕跡才決定佔有,這符合有關領土的先佔原則。這完全是無稽之談。

  首先,日本
1895年竊佔這些島嶼之前,釣魚島是中國的無人島,但絕非所謂無主地。據中國官方史書記載,自明朝洪武五年(1372年)起,中國明朝的冊封使等就把釣魚島及其附屬島嶼作為涉海東渡琉球國的海上航標,並派張赫、吳幀率領舟師維護海上通道,將這些島嶼納入中國的海防範圍。中國自清朝起將這些島嶼劃歸台灣府噶瑪蘭廳(今宜蘭縣)管轄。清政府首任巡視台灣的監察御史黃叔璥曾視察過釣魚島,並將其記載入述職報告《台海使槎錄》。

其次,自日本
1874年首次入侵台灣至1894年發動甲午戰爭這20年間,日本海軍省繪製的《清國沿海諸省》圖和出版的各種水路志,均認定釣魚島、黃尾嶼、赤尾嶼是台灣東北諸島。日本外務省、陸軍省也先後對海軍省所繪地圖進行了確認。 1885年,日本吞併琉球國改稱沖繩縣6年後,日本時任內務卿山縣有朋便兩次密令沖繩縣在釣魚島等無人島建立日本的標樁,但遭到當時沖繩縣令和外務大臣婉拒,理由便是日本佔領這些島嶼可能與中國發生衝突。如果他們當時即認定釣魚島及其附屬島嶼是無主地,又怎麼會擔心與中國發生衝突呢?

第三,甲午戰爭前
20年日本海軍省一直認為釣魚島及其附屬島嶼是台灣東北諸島,其主要依據來自兩方面:一是從英國海軍1848年出版的《薩瑪朗號航海記(1843 1846)》到1894年的英國海軍文獻及地圖,均把釣魚島及其附屬島嶼作為台灣東北諸島記載,明確認定赤尾嶼是中國這一島鏈的最東端。二是中國清朝1863年出版的《大清一統輿圖》。該圖也清楚地把釣魚島劃入中國台灣島嶼,而把赤尾嶼對面的琉球屬島久米島用不同方式標出。這些歷史證據充分證明,在中日兩國圍繞釣魚島歸屬發生爭議的關鍵日期之前,釣魚島確屬中國。

  二、甲午戰爭前日本偷獵者已知釣魚島是中國的無人島

  日方曾杜撰了所謂古賀辰四郎
1884年發現並派人開發釣魚島的謊言,經筆者揭穿後現已不再強調此事。但是,最近又拋出另一個所謂證據,即1893年井澤彌喜太赴胡馬島(釣魚島)在海上遇險漂至中國沿海獲救,以此證明中方並不介意日本人前往釣魚島。

  然而,據筆者掌握的第一手資料和日本外務省檔案確認,井澤彌喜太是日本熊本縣人,曾於
1891年在釣魚島偷獵信天翁。 18936月,井澤等人從琉球西南島嶼八重山赴釣魚島送米,但途中遭遇風暴被吹至中國浙江省平陽縣。他們獲救後去福州途中再度遇險,得到中國福建省地方官款待並派人護送到上海,移交給日本駐上海領事館。問題在於,井澤彌喜太等獲救的日本人並未向中國福建地方官講明實情,而是謊稱他們是從家鄉九州到八重山運煤,途中遇險曾漂泊到胡馬島KOBAJIMA ,日方給黃尾嶼篡改的島名久場島)。不過,井澤等人到上海後則向日本總領事代理林權助報告了他們從八重山去胡馬島(實為釣魚島)的真相。

  值得注意的問題是,井澤當時為何要欺騙中國的地方官呢?答案只有一個,就是他們十分清楚前往偷獵的無人島是中國島嶼,擔心一旦實情暴露會受到中方追究。當時的中國地方官無從得知井澤彌喜太曾前往釣魚島偷獵,所以只能按慣例救助日本海上遇難人員並協助他們回國。沿海中國人的大愛善舉,怎麼能成為日本擁有釣魚島的
證據呢?

  事實上,直到
1895年日本殖民統治台灣及其附屬島嶼之後,井澤彌喜太才得以在釣魚島、黃尾嶼常住並進行殖民開發。據井澤彌喜太的長女井澤真伎稱,她1901年出生在黃尾嶼。 197218日井澤真伎留下寶貴的歷史證言指出:當時的日本政府也知道中國早已經對該島嶼命過名,後來通過日清戰爭(甲午戰爭)將其與台灣一同搶奪過來,並於明治二十九年(1896年)正式編入日本版圖。日中兩國之間應該建立良好的關係,此時日本提出要將其占為己有的無理主張是錯誤的。日本戰敗時曾承諾將台灣以及當時一併搶奪的島嶼歸還中國,尖閣列島(釣魚島及其附屬島嶼)理所當然地應該歸還給它的故鄉中國。 這才是歷史的真相。

  近年來,日本外務省網站還展示了一些當年日本人登島開發的照片,以證明釣魚島屬於日本,這根本站不住腳。因為這些照片記錄的都是
1895年日本殖民統治台灣後對釣魚島進行殖民開拓的情形。古賀辰四郎1895610日才向日本政府申請租借開發釣魚島,18969月獲准。古賀承認,其主要背景是日本在甲午戰爭獲勝後擁有了這些島嶼。日本通過甲午戰爭竊佔釣魚島及整個台灣所依賴的《馬關條約》,在1945年日本戰敗投降後已被廢除。拿出幾張日本殖民統治台灣時期對釣魚島毀滅性開發的照片來證明釣魚島是日本的固有領土,莫非日本還要將當年在中國大陸和台灣進行殖民掠奪的照片也作為日本擁有這些領土的依據?

  三、決定戰後日本領土範圍的是《開羅宣言》與《波茨坦公告》

  日本外務省主張,戰後日本領土範圍由
1952年生效的《舊金山和約》決定,而《開羅宣言》和《波茨坦公告》則不能對日本的領土處理形成最終的法律效果

  這是日本政府對戰後國際法及國際秩序的公然否定,推翻了
1945年日本政府在投降書中所作承諾,性質惡劣。 1951年《舊金山和約》排除中華人民共和國政府參與,從未得到新中國政府的承認。中國的領土主權當然不能由美日兩國的任何條約和協定來決定。同年918日,時任中國外長周恩來發表聲明表示:美國政府在舊金山會議中強制簽訂的沒有中華人民共和國參加的對日單獨和約,中央人民政府認為是非法的,無效的,因而是絕對不能承認的。

  針對1971年美日達成歸還沖繩協定擅自將釣魚島劃入歸還日本的區域,中國外交部於同年1230日發表聲明譴責:這是對中國領土主權的明目張膽的侵犯。中國人民絕對不能容忍。中國政府表示,將釣魚島納入歸還區域完全是非法的。更何況,即便是《舊金山和約》第三條,其中也根本沒有提及釣魚島或所謂尖閣諸島

日本作為第二次世界大戰的加害國、戰敗國,在戰後領土劃分問題上承諾遵守的政治文件和國際法規約如下:
19729月《中日聯合聲明》第三條規定:中華人民共和國重申:台灣是中華人民共和國領土不可分割的一部分。日本國政府充分理解和尊重中國政府的這一立場,並堅持遵循波茨坦公告第八條的立場。19788月締結的《中日和平友好條約》規定,聯合聲明所表明的各項原則應予嚴格遵守 19457月《波茨坦公告》第八條規定:開羅宣言之條件必將實施,而日本之主權必將限於本州、北海道、九州、四國及吾人所決定其他小島之內。194312月《開羅宣言》規定:日本所竊取於中國之領土,例如東北四省、台灣、澎湖群島等,歸還中華民國。需要指出的是,《開羅宣言》的日文版表述為,日本必須把從清國人竊佔的一切地域歸還中華民國。即,無論是《馬關條約》之前還是《馬關條約》之後日本竊佔的中國領土,都必須遵守《波茨坦公告》和《開羅宣言》歸還中國。

這是因為,
1945815日,日本天皇發表《終戰詔書》表示:朕已命帝國政府通告美、英、中、蘇四國,接受其聯合公告。同年92日,日本政府簽署的《日本投降書》承諾:餘等為天皇、日本國政府及其後繼者承允忠實履行波茨坦宣言之條款

然而,如今的日本政府後繼者不僅沒有忠實履行《波茨坦公告》和遵守《中日聯合聲明》《中日和平友好條約》,反而企圖以美日為主締結的《舊金山和約》取而代之,並強加於中國等戰勝國和並未參與該和約的國家,這不是公然違反戰後國際法和國際秩序、自食其言又是什麼?

  (作者為清華大學國際關係研究院教授)

http://opinion.people.com.cn/n1/2016/0503/c1003-28319088.html 

  diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes)

November 25 2013

China's new air defense zone is in line with global practice: experts By Zhou Wa zhouwa@chinadaily.com.cn

United States uses same rules to control all flights nearing its national borders - Analysts have rejected criticism by Washington and Tokyo of Beijing's move to set up its first air defense identification zone, saying its establishment is consistent with international practices and can better safeguard regional flight security.

China announced the establishment of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone on Saturday. The zone covers the US military's training area in the East China Sea, analysts said. Beijing also issued related aircraft identification rules and a diagram for the zone.

"Washington's criticism of China is groundless because the United States itself initiated such zones around the world, according to its domestic laws," Xing Hongbo, a military and legal expert, said on Sunday.

The aircraft identification rules for the zone, which China issued, are also based on similar US regulations, he added.

The US formally defined such a zone in the Code of Federal Regulations, which says, "No person may operate an aircraft into, within, or from a departure point within an ADIZ, unless the person files, activates, and closes a flight plan with the appropriate aeronautical facility, or is otherwise authorized by air traffic control."

"On the issue of setting up such zones, the US is exercising double standards. There is no reason for Washington to blame another country for doing the same as it has done," said Fu Xiaodong, another military and legal expert.

It is in line with international practices to set up such zones according to respective domestic laws, he added.

Since 1950, more than 20 countries, including the US, Canada, Australia and Japan, have set up air defense identification zones. Such zones extend beyond a nation's sovereign airspace.

According to the aircraft identification rules, China will take timely measures to deal with air threats and unidentified flights, including identification, monitoring, control and disposition.

"With the increase of normal and abnormal flights over the area, China needs to set up such a zone to remove possible insecurity factors. The establishment of the zone promotes good flight order in the region," Xing said.

The White House, Pentagon and US State Department all voiced concern over China's move on Saturday, while Japan lodged a representation with Chinese acting Ambassador to Japan Han Zhiqiang, arguing that the zone covers Diaoyu Islands. Han rejected the representation.

The White House said China's move increased regional tensions and affected US interests and those of its allies.

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel criticized China's move, calling it a "destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo in the region" and saying it "increases the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculations".

The Diaoyu Islands and surrounding waters belong to China, Xing said. But the US military in Japan frequently uses the airspace over the Huangwei Yu and Chiwei Yu islets of the Diaoyu Islands for training.

The US has also carried out surveillance over Chinese territories for a long time, and the surveillance is taking place from very near to China's territories, according to analysts.

That "makes China feel threatened", Xing said.

"Japan set up its air defense identification zone in 1969 and later expanded the zone several times, including China's Diaoyu Islands into its air defense identification zone," said Fu.

China's zone overlaps with that of Japan, but Fu said China and Japan can sit down to discuss the issue to seek a resolution, adding that it is Japan that refuses to admit that sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands is disputed.

The US has always said that it does not taken a position on sovereignty issues in regional maritime disputes.

But Hagel reaffirmed in his statement on Saturday that the Diaoyu Islands fall within the scope of the 1960 US-Japan security treaty.

US Secretary of State John Kerry urged China not to implement its threat to take action against aircraft that do not identify themselves or obey orders from Beijing.

The possibility of flight friction exists, but it is not because of the establishment of the zone, Xing said.

"If all parties can coordinate with each other well, the establishment of the zone will help improve flight security in the region," he said.

February 23 2013

Japan's PM Shinzo Abe fails to win Obama's support in Diaoyus row By Teddy Ng

US President Barack Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in the Oval Office after a meeting. Abe had hoped to secure his support in the row with China. 

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe failed to get US President Barack Obama to take a tough stand against Beijing during their meeting in Washington, to the relief of Chinese observers.

While Abe kept up his hardline comments about Japan's territorial dispute with China, he avoided disagreement with Obama during their talks on Friday. The Japanese leader declared that both nations would exert pressure on North Korea over its nuclear tests and continue talks about Japan's "possible interest" in joining a trade pact initiated by Washington.

While Obama told Abe, "You can rest assured that you will have a strong partner in the United States through your tenure", the president did not address the territorial dispute.

Jin Canrong , a professor of international relations at Renmin University, said the US backing of Abe was less enthusiastic than Tokyo had hoped.

"The outcome of the talks between Abe and Obama was vague without any concrete promises from Washington," Jin said.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, in a separate meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, "complimented" Japan on its restraint amid the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands, known as the Senkakus in Japan.

Beijing was concerned Washington would support Abe's tough stance towards China, and his plan to boost Japan's defence capability, especially after the then secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, warned China not to challenge Japan's control of the islands a month ago.

But a commentary by Xinhua described Washington's response to Abe as "cold", and said that had prompted Abe to take a step back from his hawkish approach by stressing Japan would handle the dispute calmly.

"The Obama administration will not easily confront China just because of the dispute, which is not the core interest of the US," it said, adding Abe's administration would only "court a rebuff" if it relied on the US.

Ties between China and Japan have deteriorated since September, when the Japanese government announced it would buy three of the five uninhabited islands to thwart their purchase by the Tokyo municipal government of ultranationalist Shintaro Ishihara.

Tensions continued yesterday, with Tokyo saying a Chinese government ship briefly entered its territorial waters around the islands. Abe vowed he would not tolerate China's incursions.

"We simply cannot tolerate any challenge now and in the future," he said at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies after his meeting with Obama.

Professor Su Hao , of China Foreign Affairs University, said Abe wanted Obama's open support for Tokyo's stance in the dispute. "But Washington is concerned Tokyo would feel less restrained in such confrontations if it felt it had a strong backup," he said. "It is in the US interest that China and Tokyo are embroiled to some degree, but that tension has to be kept under control if the US is to exert its influence."

In their talks, Obama said he and Abe were united in their "determination to take strong action" after Pyongyang's third nuclear test this month, vowing to push for tougher sanctions.

Jin Canrong, of Renmin University, said co-operation on North Korea was the less "risky" pledge, as Washington would be seen as confronting Beijing, and other Asian countries, if it backed Tokyo in its territorial disputes.

"The US is in the lead position in the US-Japan alliance," he said. "If the Japanese military is strengthened, then Tokyo will rely less on Washington."

Professor Lian Degui , from the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, expected Abe's tough rhetoric against Beijing to continue.

February 19 2013

U.S. media set the tone to Abe's visit to the United States fear chaos on the Diaoyu Islands disputes (The Wall Street Journal)

"Tell Mr. Obama you will never fire the first shot, and does not endanger the lives of civilians." United States, "Wall Street Journal" published "caused by Shinzo Abe, in an open letter on February 19, requires the Japanese Prime Minister to the upcoming visit to the United States Obama to make such a commitment. The average daily circulation of 2.3 million copies of "The Wall Street Journal is the largest newspaper in the United States, triggered speculation that Abe set off to visit the United States in the 21st occasion of the countdown, the text revealing the" mystery ".

Interpretation of Japan's Jiji news agency said, suggesting that the Diaoyu Islands dispute, Japan, the United States is not assured. Japan disappointed obvious. In the ongoing Sino-Japanese islands dispute, the Japanese government is often like a human from the children after a dispute shouting: You wait, I called the parents to go. Thailand "El Pais" Abe will be the 15th visit to the United States called a "pilgrimage".

The open letter is clearly not and should not be treated as U.S. media support for China, its core meaning is: Do not give the United States to get into trouble. In fact, on May 26, the United States, another influential Washington Post had published an editorial support to shelve the sovereignty dispute over the Diaoyu Islands. U.S. think tank Strategic and International Studies Center survey of more than 200 experts, nearly half of the respondents think that the Abe government policy could harm the national security interests of the United States.

Jin Canrong, scholars of the Chinese People's University, "Global Times" 19 most desired by the United States some concessions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), the U.S. military base in Okinawa, Japan, but these "gifts" with Abe do not come; Japan hope that the commitment the United States has been on the Diaoyu Islands issue, given the green light to Japan and the issue of the constitutional amendment, built IDF. It is expected that Abe's visit does not have much achievements. (Reporter Xiao reached Li Zhen Wang Gang Lu Hao Wang Analysis Lu Changyin)

美媒给安倍访美定调子 恐其在钓鱼岛问题上添乱 (華爾街日報)

告诉奥巴马先生你绝不会开第一枪,不会危及平民生命。美国《华尔街日报》219日刊登致安倍晋三的一封公开信,要求即将访美的日本首相向奥巴马做出这样的承诺。平均日发行量230万份的《华尔街日报》是美国第一大报,在安倍21日启程访美进入倒计时之际,该文透出的玄机引发猜测。

日本时事通讯社解读说,这表明,在钓鱼岛争端上,美国对日本并不放心。日本的失望显而易见。在持续的中日岛屿争端中,日本政府经常像一个与人起了争执后的孩子大声喊叫:你等着,我叫家长去。泰国《国家报》15日就将安倍访美称为朝圣

这封公开信显然也不应该被视为美国媒体支持中国,它最核心的意思是:日本不要给美国惹麻烦。事实上,上月26日,美国另一家颇有影响的《华盛顿邮报》就曾刊登社论,支持搁置钓鱼岛主权争议。美国智库战略与国际研究中心调查了200多名专家,近一半的受访者认为安倍政府的政策可能损害美国的国家安全利益。

中国人民大学学者金灿荣19日对《环球时报》表示,美国最希望的是日本在跨太平洋伙伴关系协议(TPP)、美军驻冲绳基地等问题上有所让步,但这些礼物安倍都带不来;日本则希望美国在钓鱼岛问题上有所承诺,并在修宪、建国防军等问题上对日本开绿灯。所以预计安倍这次访问不会有多大成果。
(记者 萧达 李珍 王刚 卢昊 汪析 卢长银)

EVENT

New York, New York USA Tuesday February 19 2013: Chinese Undisputed Territory: The Diaoyu Islands: 100s of Chinese American protest outside the the Japanese Consulate New York on February 19 2013 on the Japan Prime Minister visit to the USA 

Chinese-Americans hold protest in New York as Japan PM Abes visit nears (By Cherrie Lou Billones) At least 200 Chinese-Americans gathered outside the Consulate General of Japan located in New York yesterday (Tuesday February 19 2013) to protest the claim of Japan to the Senkaku Islands ahead of a U.S. visit by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The protesters came from some 60 local community groups and denounced what they referred to as a resurgence of Japanese militarism under Abe. They also called on the Japanese government to apologize for atrocities committed during World War II. They held signs with slogans such as Diaoyu Islands (as the Senkakus are called in China) belong to China, No American blood for resurgence of Japanese militarism, and Abe is a history denier, a dishonest man. 73-year old protester R.S. Wang said, We are here because Japan tried to occupy our island. Its our island, but Japan is trying to use the Americans help to get it. I want the American government to stay neutral and let the two countries resolve the problem. According to the group, they were there to deliver a letter outlining their sentiments to the Japanese ambassador in New York, asking that it be forwarded to Abe. New York State Assemblyman Charles Lavine was present as one of the speakers in the rally. He just introduced a resolution commending the creation of a New York memorial to Korean women who were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese imperial military during the Second World War. He said that history should never be forgotten and that it is critically important for us today to recognize the pasts tragic mistakes to make sure they do not again occur. While the group lashes out upon the country and its government, in a refreshing twist, they clarify that the protests are not aimed at the Japanese people, who they believe are as peace-loving as the Chinese are.

US rejection of Japan's request over Diaoyu Islands called - A group of Chinese-Americans on Thursday called on U.S. President Barack Obama to reject Japan's request for support over the Diaoyu Islands and Tokyo's attempt to revise its pacifist constitution. The group, which called itself "Concerned Citizens on U.S. Policy Towards Japan," made the call in a letter to Obama, Wenji V. Chang, who drafted the letter, told Xinhua. The scheduled visit of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Washington late this month will have potential impact on the peace, stability and prosperity of the Pacific Rim countries and also the economic recovery of the United States, said Chang, a professor from the University of Southern California. As a Chinese-American and a U.S. citizen, he said, he felt it is important to make the U.S. president aware of people's concerns and urge him to reject the Japanese request for U.S. support. The letter said the main objective of Abe's visit is to seek U.S. support in the dispute with China on the Diaoyu Islands and solicit U.S. opinions on Abe's desire to revise or reinterpret Article 9 of Japan's pacifist constitution. Abe will try to justify his requests by dangling the promise of strong support for U.S. military presence in East Asia, said the letter. "We strongly urge you to reject both attempts, because they are against the fundamental and long-term interests of our country," it stressed. After 20 years of economic stagnation and government ineptitude, Japanese society is rapidly turning nationalistic and militaristic, reminding people in the region of old Japan prior to World War II, noted the letter. "The ultra-conservative wing of the Japanese political spectrum, of which Abe is the leader, will not be our long-term friend," said the letter. It added that Japan would "no longer be a U.S. ally once she is free from the yoke of Article 9 of the pacifist constitution," which states that the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. The letter said the territorial dispute over Diaoyu Islands would not have been an issue if the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation, which obliged Japan to return all Chinese territories it had forcibly occupied, were properly executed as they should have been. "Unfortunately, the dispute developed because of post-WWII geopolitical manipulations. We cannot change history. However, Japan's claim that there is no dispute whatsoever is not only foolish, but closes the door to any meaningful negotiation," the letter said. Provocation by Japanese right-wing politicians with both the Chinese mainland and Taiwan "are not coincidence but a deliberate effort to destroy Article 9 of the Japanese constitution," the letter stressed. "The U.S. should not become a tool of Japanese ultra-conservatives," it said. The group also urged fellow U.S. citizens to support their petition on the White House website.

New York, New York 19 February 2013 US-East Coast Overseas Chinese demonstrators protest against the revival of Japanese militarism, the eastern United States in more than 60 overseas compatriot representatives gathered in front of the building of the Japanese consulate in New York in Manhattan, New York, held protest demonstrations against the revival of Japanese militarism and firmly supports China the inherent territorial sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands, and called on the U.S. to respect the history of the Diaoyu Islands issue. Pictured protest activities in the United States overseas Chinese representatives.美東僑界示威 抗議日本軍國主義復活 - 2192013,美東60多個僑團的代表聚集在紐約曼哈頓的日本駐紐約領事館大樓前,舉行抗議示威活動,反對日本軍國主義復活,堅決支持中國固有領土釣魚島的主權,呼籲美國在釣魚島問題尊重歷史。圖為抗議活動中的美國僑界代表。中國抗日軍人烈士遺族向厚祿老人在抗議示威活動中向大家講述二次大戰期間的抗日曆史,並表達了堅決反對日本軍國主義霸佔中國領土釣魚島的惡劣行徑。美國福建同鄉會主席鄭棋等紐約僑界代表展示抗議信. 圖為紐約州眾議員 New York City Assembly Member Charles D.Lavine 在示威活動中發表演講。

北加州9月15日2012 保釣大遊行花園角 San Francisco Chinatown "Protect Diaoyu Islands - the Undisputed China Territory" Parade program on Saturday, September 15 2012 start at 12:30pm 世界新聞記者李榮佛利蒙報導

More than 200 Organizations including Major Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Chinese Societies and Other Support Groups from San Francisco, South San Francisco, San Mateo, Burlingame, Foster City, Sunset, San Jose, Oakland, Palo Alto and Cities within 100 miles radius of San Francisco Chinatown with total headcounts in excess of 5,000 people have participated.

     

San Francisco Chinatown北加州華體會執行長李競芬介紹,當天將由合唱開場,12 時30分至1時先由多個合唱團演唱保釣歌曲,隨後全體民眾默哀一分鐘,悼念為抗戰犧牲的3500萬同胞。1時01 (1:01pm) 分至2時 (2:00pm) 則安排演講與抗戰歌曲演唱,2 時 (2:00pm) 隊伍正式出發。

遊行由花園角出發,路經華盛頓街、都板街、百老匯街、士德頓街、克里街在回到花園角,預估3時45分時全體集合,重唱「游擊隊之歌」讓活動達到最高潮,4:00pm 時結束。If you need ride to go to San Francisco Chinatown, please contact the people listed here for transportation - 籌備會也歡迎各社團帶著社團橫幅參加示威,北加州中國大專校聯會、中國高等院校校友會聯合會等組織都會參與。聯繫電話:舊金山馬求銳 Metro San Francisco (415)828-6277;中半島賀英明 Central (650)339-1238;南灣林青South Bay (408)922-9927;東灣張碚 East Bay(510)573-3888。電郵:baodiao915@gmail.com  

釣魚台主權爭議愈演愈烈,日本政府甚至使出怪招,要與聲稱擁有所有權的「島主」簽約買下,再「收歸國有」。為表達抗議,多個灣區社團共同組織「毋忘九一八,保衛釣魚台」大遊行,9月15日2012 (周六)於舊金山華埠示威,「九一五示威抗議,中華兒女一起來!」 示威籌畫者之一、抗日戰爭史實維護會會長賀英明指出,「九一八」事變是日本侵華的開始,沒想到日本至今仍不改侵略本性,行徑可惡。他表示,「毋忘九一八,保衛釣魚台」共有五項系列活動,包括在華文媒體刊登保釣廣告、美國國會山莊報刊刊登英文廣告、九一五舊金山華埠花園角廣場萬人示威、九一八日本領事館遞交抗議書,並在9月22日2012 舉辦保釣室內音樂會等。北加州和統會長林青補充,遊行時將有舊金山警察開道,另外主辦單位也安排200位配帶糾察識別證的義工,負責秩序與安全。活動當日的兩部指揮車也特別選擇美系的福特與「GMC」品牌,藉此呼籲民眾拒買日貨。為服務南灣僑胞,示威籌備會也準備10多部遊覽車接送參與遊行的民眾。上車地點包括庫比蒂諾永和超市、密爾比達環球廣場、佛利蒙小台北、聖荷西大華超市等。

當日上午10時45分集合,11時準時開車,示威結束後於下午4 時啟程返回南灣。車資免費,並提供簡單餐點。

林青提醒,僑胞響應熱烈,遊覽車僅剩一成不到的空位,有意參加者一定要事先電話預訂,不接受現場報名上車。由於此活動款項全為民間自籌,她也呼籲愛國民眾熱心捐款,籌備會視能力增加交通車。籌備會呼籲示威不分黨派,希望團結兩岸三地華人,共同抗議日本的軍國主義作為,「釣魚台自始至終都是中國領土,也不會賣的。」 老保釣項武忠指出,保釣40多年,兩岸政府都只有口頭譴責,沒有實際動作,他呼籲大家參加示威,向美、日與兩岸政府施壓,「拿出拳頭出來」。

diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes)

cairocommunique.jpg (178252 bytes) cairodeclarationchineseversion.jpg (87751 bytes) Cairo Declaration: Spratly as part of China see 9-23-12 below 《开罗宣言》《波茨坦公告》宣布南沙群岛属于中国 English  Chinese

 The Potsdam Declaration 波茨坦公告 or the Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender is a statement that called for the Surrender of the Empire of Japan during World War II. On July 26, 1945, United States President Harry S. Truman, United Kingdom Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Chairman of the Nationalist Government of China Chiang Kai-shek issued the document, which outlined the terms of surrender for the Empire of Japan as agreed upon at the Potsdam Conference. This ultimatum stated that, if Japan did not surrender, it would face "prompt and utter destruction." "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration 

Thumbnail Diaoyu Islands history and sovereignty 钓鱼岛 历史与主权 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xw1kZ5lekM 

Boxer rebellion settlement Protocol in 1901.png (249091 bytes) 八國聯軍 Boxer Protocol was signed on September 7 1901 (USA, Japan, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Austria-Hungary)

Boxer rebellion settlement Protocol in 1901.png (249091 bytes) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Protocol Some of the countries here may want to REPEAT what was taken place on Sept 7 1901 (USA, Japan, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia & Austria-Hungary)

 Crimes Against Humanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes (English) 

The 14 Class-A War Criminals Enshrined at Yasukuni - frequent visited & worshipped by Japanese leaders http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/135371.htm

Thumbnail 南京大屠城 Nanjing Massacre - Crimes Against Humanity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSsARS-osc http://www.gendercide.org/case_nanking.html 

  "September 18 Incident" 九一八事變 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident 

 First Sino-Japanese War 甲午戰爭 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sino-Japanese_War 

diaoyuislands4.jpg (35612 bytes) Hong Kong ATV 焦點-美唆擺日本試底線中國釣島寸步不讓 - the conspirator https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqm-Mw-W0D4 (Hong Kong - Cantonese Language)

Thumbnail "全球鹰" 监控钓鱼岛 日美剑指中国 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDB_W6o4NcA (CCTV-4 Mandarin Language)

Thumbnail The Conspiracy and Aggression of Japan on China's Diaoyu Islands http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iiVKYMjW-8 (VVTV-12 Mandarin Language)

 Chiang Kai-shek, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Madame Chiang at the Cairo Conference, Nov 25 1943

   

學生們在「勿忘國恥 愛我中華」橫幅上簽名。小學舉行瞭解「九一八」事變的主題教育活動。

 

Revolutionary soldiers remember martyrs at Bozhou cemetery of revolutionary martyrs, to mark the 81st anniversary of the Sept 18 Incident in Bozhou, East China's Anhui province. Revolutionary soldier Gao Ming, 90, tells students stories about fighting, to mark the 81st anniversary of the Sept 18 Incident, in Qinhuangdao, North China's Hebei province.

October 16  2012

Ex-diplomat says Sino-Japanese rift part of American agenda Julian Ryall in Tokyo

Ukeru Magosaki, left, says US plotted fall of Yukio Hatoyama, center, and Ichiro Ozawa

A former Japanese diplomat has accused the United States of manipulating Japan since the second world war in order to "eliminate" prime ministers who sought to develop better relations with Beijing.

Ukeru Magosaki, who also served as the head of the Foreign Ministry's Intelligence and Analysis Bureau, has recently written a book that has soared to the top of Japan's bestseller lists.

The book - Sengoshi no Shotai (The Truth Behind Post-war History) - states that the US will never remove its military bases from Japanese territory, no matter how much public outcry there is. Magosaki also said he believes that certain factions in the US would even like to see Japan develop nuclear weapons.

"In the book, I divide Japanese leaders into two groups; those who have wanted to pursue independent foreign policies and those who have just followed US instructions and policies," Magosaki said in Tokyo yesterday.

"Those in the first group were not welcomed by the US government and were usually quickly eliminated from the post of prime minister."

This was not achieved directly by Washington, he claimed, but through subtle influence over key politicians, the media, government officials and senior executives of major companies.

A spokeswoman for the US embassy in Tokyo declined to comment on the allegations made in Magosaki's book.

To achieve its control of Japan's political processes, Washington has interfered with media coverage, encouraged opposition parties, twisted public opinion and even brought down governments by "eliminating" key cabinet members, Magosaki claims.

Two of the Japanese politicians who he claims have been hounded for their independent thoughts have been Yukio Hatoyama, who lasted less then nine months as prime minister until June 2010, and Ichiro Ozawa, whose reputation has been tarnished by a financial scandal and a legal case.

Magosaki believes that had Hatoyama remained in power, the government would not be making moves to restart Japan's nuclear reactors - shut down in the aftermath of the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant - and would not have gone ahead with raising the consumption tax or deploying US military Osprey aircraft to Okinawa.

These issues, along with the ongoing debate over the Diaoyu-Senkaku islands and the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade discussions, are all closely connected with Washington's global geopolitical interests, Magosaki said.

The US was "encouraging politicians like [national policy minister Seiji] Maehara to take action against China as that has a benefit for the US," he said.

And while business interests in the US may want closer co-operation with China, the US government was pursuing what Magosaki termed an "offshore balancing strategy" under which neighboring nations - he named South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam and Japan - are encouraged to pursue actions to constrain China and its growing regional influence.

"The Senkaku [Diaoyu] issue is part of that strategy," he said.

"Today, in the US, there are some people who want Japan to have a nuclear bomb.

"This is related to balancing strategy, to counter China by using Japan's military power.

"From China's point of view, Yoshihiko Noda has been the worst prime minister they could have had and they feel there can be no trust" between the two governments, Magosaki said. "That means that anyone who replaces him will be welcome."

China's Claim to Diaoyu Island Chain Indisputable By Zhong Yan

Thumbnail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfQeZ4XPsjc

 

The Sino-Japanese dispute over the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Island Chain has become increasingly pronounced in recent weeks due to provocative acts perpetrated by Japanese right-wingers who illegally constructed various facilities, including a lighthouse, on Diaoyu Island, the main island. This article discusses the ownership of sovereignty over the islands from both historical and legal perspectives.

Historical evidence

Diaoyu Island and adjacent islets in the chain are located 92 nautical miles northeast of Keelung, China's Taiwan Province, and 73 nautical miles off Japan's Ryukyu Islands. Keelung and Ryukyu are separated by a deep oceanic trench. The Diaoyu Island Chain covers a total land mass of 6.3 square km and consists of Diaoyu Island, Huangwei, Chiwei and South and North islets and three small reefs. Diaoyu Island, the largest land mass in the chain, covers 4.3 square meters and rises to elevation of 362 meters above sea level. The southeastern shores of the island feature sharp and steep precipices which remind one of the shape of fork, while formations on eastern shores resemble a lighthouse. The islands have remained uninhabited due to a lack of fresh water.

Chinese documents referring to the Diaoyu Island Chain date back to the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). Although Japan claims that the chain was under the jurisdiction of Okinawa-Ken (Okinawa Prefecture) in ancient times, the fact is that present-day Okinawa was part of the independent Ryukyu Kingdom a short 125 years ago. China maintained friendly ties with the Ryukyu Kingdom for over 500 years prior to the Japanese annexation of same in 1871. In fact, China discovered and named the islands, with the name Diaoyu Island first appearing in 1403 in a book entitled Shunfeng Xiangsong (Smooth Sailing).

China first appointed imperial envoys to the Ryukyu Kingdom in the 1360s. In 1534, Chen Kan, the 11th envoy to the kingdom, described his voyage to the kingdom with Ryukyu envoys in a book entitled Observations on a Voyage to Ryukyu. He wrote: "A brisk southerly wind on the 10th day of the voyage propelled the ship forward. We sailed past Pingjia Mountain, then Diaoyu Island, Huangmao Island and Chiyu Islet, using only one day to cover a distance which would have normally required three days. The Ryukyu boats lagged far behind due to their smaller sails. Komeyama Island (now Japan's Kome-jima) in the Ryukyu Kingdom appeared on the horizon on the evening of the 11th day, with ecstatic Ryukyu envoys singing and dancing out of joy over at long last seeing their home."

The passage quite obviously indicates that even people in ancient Ryukyu regarded their home as an island far distant from the Diaoyu Island Chain. The fact is that Diaoyu, Huangwei and Chiwei islands did not belong to the Ryukyu Kingdom at the time.

Moreover, a nautical map compiled by Zhejiang Provincial Commander Hu Zongxian in 1562 during the Ming Dynasty shows Diaoyu Island and adjacent islets in close proximity to other islands on the coast of Luoyuan and Ningde Counties in Fujian Province. This fact proves that Diaoyu Island was listed as Chinese territory in the 16th century.

Imperial envoy Guo Rulin also penned similar observations in his notes. Guo's notes read: "On the first of May (lunar calendar), we passed Diaoyu Island, and on the third arrived at Chiyu Islet, the dividing line with Ryukyu. A day later we arrived at Komeyama."

This passage clearly demonstrates that China already used Chiyu Islet (present-day Chiwei Islet), the chain's closest islet to Ryukyu, as a marker delineating the boundary between them.

Chinese sailors during the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) were very familiar with the fact that a deep oceanic trench to the south of Diaoyu separated Ryukyu and China. Shi Wangji, the second Qing Dynasty envoy to Ryukyu, confirmed the existence of the trench in his Miscellaneous Observations on a Voyage to Ryukyu. Volume V of the work describes a trip to Ryukyu in 1683. It notes that sailors held a sacrificial rite to pray for safety after passing the Diaoyu and Chiwei islands. The sailors informed Shi that the ship was passing over the trench which separated China and Ryukyu.

Similar documentation can be found in another book entitled A Brief Introduction to the Kingdom of Ryukyu, written by Zhou Huang who visited the island kingdom in 1756. Volume XVI confirms that the islands west of the trench at Chiwei Island were Chinese territory.

In 1719, during the reign of Emperor Kangxi of the Qing Dynasty, another imperial envoy Xu Baoguang was sent to Ryukyu. Xu completed a book entitled Zhongshan Chuanxin Lu (The Record of Zhongshan) after having conducted thorough research, including interviews with local geographers and officials. The book was well organized and supported. It was translated into Japanese and became an important source of information for the Japanese people to understand the Ryukyus.

Xu described his sea route from Fuzhou of China's Fujian Province to the Ryukyus as follows: proceeding along the north side of the islands Huaping, Pengjia and Diaoyu, reaching Komeyama Island via Chiwei Islet. The book notes that Komeyama is the mountain serving to guard the southwest border of the Ryukyus and that the Yonakuni Island, among current Japan's Yaeyama Islands, is that border.

All these documents show that both the courts of the Ming and Qing dynasties designated the Diaoyu Island Chain as Chinese territory. In October 1893, prior to the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, Empress Dowager Cixi issued an edict presenting the islands to Sheng Xuanhuai, then Qing Minister of Posts and Communications, as his possession for gathering medicinal herbs. The edict says, "Sheng Xuanhuai once contributed pills which are very effective. He reported that the medicinal herbs are produced in the Diaoyutai Island beyond Taiwan and show unique effects different from those produced on the mainland. It is commendable that the minister operates some drugstores to offer medical treatment to the public. Therefore, the islands of Diaoyutai, Huangwei and Chiyu are hereby given to Sheng Xuanhuai as his estates for gathering medicinal herbs."

Japanese historians also share the position of the Chinese government that Diaoyu Islands have been Chinese territory since the Ming Dynasty. Well-known Japanese historian Kiyoshi Inoue, through serious textual research, came to the conclusion in his book Historical Analysis of Senkaku-Diaoyu Islands, published in 1972, that Diaoyu Islands "were not an unclaimed land before Japan laid claim to it". After years of consulting historical records, he concluded that Diaoyu Islands were Chinese territory. The scholar said in the book that "before 1868 there was virtually no documents in Japan or Ryukyu which carried any record of Diaoyu Islands, other than Chinese documents."

The first written material which recorded Diaoyu Island in Japan was seen in 1785 in a book titled Illustration on Three Countries by Hayashi Shihei, which contains a map showing three prefectures and 36 islands in Ryukyu. The book, however, was also based on the book by Chinese envoy Xu Baoguang. The map marks the chain with its Chinese name "Diaoyutai" and paints the islands in light red like China's Fujian and Zhejiang provinces; meanwhile, it marks the Kume Island in brown color like Ryukyu. The book also quotes Xu's words, saying that Kume Island is "the mountain serving to guard the southwest border of Ryukyu".

Another book, Annals of Southern Islands, written by Japanese scholar Arai Kimi in 1719, also mentions 36 islands under the jurisdiction of the Ryukyu Kingdom, which do not include Diaoyu Islands. A map published in 1875 showing Japanese prefectures doesn't mark Diaoyu Islands yet. Even in 1879, when the Qing Minister Li Hongzhang negotiated with Japan on the ownership of the Ryukyus, both sides confirmed that they were composed of 36 islands, and did not include the Diaoyu Island Chain.

In addition, the most authoritative history-recording book of the Ryukyu government, written by Kozoken in 1650, recognized the statement of Chinese envoy Chen Kan of the Ming Dynasty that the Kume Island belonged to Ryukyu, but Chiyu Islet and the islands to its west did not. Kozoken was Ryukyu's prime minister and the most authoritative scholar, and his point of view undoubtedly represented the position of the rulers of Ryukyu at that time.

Thereafter the Ryukyuan scholar Teizhunsoku described Kume Island as the mountain guarding the southwest border of Ryukyu in his Guidebook in 1708. Another scholar Saion wrote the Revised Pedigree of Zhongshan and other works in 1726 and pointed out that the Ryukyu territory excluded Diaoyu Islands. Furthermore, the atlas in the Pedigree of Zhongshan that Ryukyu presented to Chinese Emperor Kangxi of the Qing Dynasty also did not cover Diaoyu Islands.

Shogoro Takahashi, former director of the Japan Association for the Promotion of International Trade, concluded from his research that the names of the islets in the Diaoyu Island Chain are of Chinese origin. Huangweiyu (Huangwei Island) and Chiweiyu (Chiwei Island) are obviously Chinese names because they are similar to Huapingyu, Mianhuayu, and Pengjiayu, islands affiliated with Taiwan Island. Japan has no islands with names ending in "yu". In Fujian Province, Penghu Islands and Taiwan Province, however, there are 29 such islands. Moreover, such names can be easily found in ancient Chinese maps. Chiweiyu was mentioned as Chiyu in ancient Chinese books, and took its name from the color of the aqueous rock from which it was formed.

In an attempt to justify Japan's territorial claim to the Diaoyu Island Chain, some Japanese argued that even some Chinese-published maps use the Japanese name of Senkakus for the islets or simply fail to identify them at all. According to Qing Dynasty maps, Diaoyu Islands were named as Diaoyutai, which is still used by Taiwan. In the Chinese maps published during the period of Japanese occupation, like the New Map of China published by Shanghai's Shengpao newspaper, the islands were renamed as the Senkakus, or left unmarked under Japanese pressure. This has either been followed by or exerted an influence on some publishers of maps appearing after 1945 and even those published after the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949. For instance, in its first edition in 1956 and the second edition in 1962, the Map Album of Chinese Provinces noted at the end that the maps were based on those published by Shengpao either during the War of Resistance Against Japan or prior to 1949. These facts suggest that the omissions or mistakes are a result of Japanese aggression and occupation of China. This, however, is just a scar left by colonialism imposed on China, and can in no way provide justification for Japan's territorial claims.

In fact, official Japanese maps and documents once officially used the Chinese names for the islands. Incomplete statistics reveal that two-thirds of the 21 types of Japanese maps and encyclopedias published between 1935 and 1970 did not record the so-called Senkaku Islands, and some of them used the designation of Uotsuri-jima. The naming of the adjacent islands of the Diaoyu Chain is even more chaotic. It is said that the word Senkaku was in fact borrowed from Sento, a British term for the islands, by Iwatsune Kuroda, a teacher from the Okinawa Normal College in May 1900. It was not until July 25, 1921, when the Japanese government included the islands as "imperial territory" into the Japanese maps, did Japan rename Chiweiyu as Taishoto, although it was not officially used over a long period of time.

Even the nautical maps the Japanese surrendered to the allied headquarters after the end of World War II still used Chinese names Huangweiyu and Chiweiyu to name the two islands. Huangweiyu and Chiweiyu, among others, were also used in the US-occupied Ryukyu government's official documents and posters in 1969. In May 1969, when news that oil was discovered near the Diaoyu chain was reported, oil companies rushed in to apply to the Okinawa government for oil-drilling rights. Only then did the Japanese, under the order of the mayor of Ishigaki in Ryukyu, start to erect stakes on the Diaoyu islets and renamed Huangweiyu as Kubato and Chiweiyu as Taishoto.

However, without official approval for the Japanese names from the emperor, the Japanese government was unable to specify the names of all the islands in a bid to justify its territorial claim before 1972. Instead, it had been giving these islands a general names of "Senkaku retto" or "Senkaku gunto". To date, some Japanese maps are still marking these islands with their Chinese names. For instance, the World Map published by Japan's Heibon Publishing House clearly marked the islands with the Chinese names and their pronunciation in Japanese - Yudiaodao (Uotsuri-jima), Huangweiyu (Kobi sho), Chiweiyu (Sekibi sho). In addition, the local government in Okinawa and the Japanese government also use the Chinese names Huangweiyu and Chiweiyu as the names for the islands in their official documents. Even in February 1995, the Japanese Defense Agency still used the Chinese names of Huangweiyu and Chiweiyu when mentioning these islands in an official report submitted to the House of Representatives' Budget Committee.

Japanese seizure

Japan's encroachment on the Diaoyu Island Chain was simply an extension of the expansionist policy of the Japanese Meiji government, and a long premeditated act based on war.

Japan first "discovered" the chain in 1884 after annexing and renaming Ryukyu as Okinawa, some 500 years later than China's documented records concerning the islands.

According to Japanese historical documents, Tatsushiro Koga, a Fukuoka resident, discovered a large flock of albatross on "Kobi" (Huangwei) Island in 1884, and thereafter devised a plan to market the birds to Europe. The following year he wrote to the magistrate in Okinawa requesting permission to exploit the island's resources. He later landed on the island and erected a signboard inscribed with the words "Opened by Koga of Kobi Island". The Japanese government has cited the event as evidence that Diaoyu Islands were "unclaimed land" which was first occupied by the Japanese rather than seized from China during the Sino-Japanese War 1894-95. What are the true historical facts?

According to Volume XVIII of Japanese Diplomatic Documents, the official archives of Japan, Nishimura, the magistrate of Okinawa, submitted a report to the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs on September 22, 1885, following an investigation conducted under orders from the the ministry. Nishimura's report read: "With regard to the uninhabited islands located between our prefecture and Fuzhou of the Qing Dynasty, a secret investigation was conducted in accordance with orders received by Prefecture Secretary Morimoto from the capital. Please refer to the attached appendix for a summary of the investigation. Kume Aka-shima, Kobi and Chogyo have been place names in our prefecture since ancient times.... I dare not raise any objections with regard to the matter of the islands being under the jurisdiction of Okinawa-Ken However, the physical features of the islands are quite different from those of Daitojima which is located between our prefetune and Ogasahar Island. A report on the latter has been submitted under separate cover. I am convinced that they belong to the same islands and are located in the same area as the Diaoyutai, Huangweiyu and Chiweiyu islands recorded in The Record of Zhongshan. Obviously, Duke Zhongshan, whose title was conferred by the Qing government, got to know these islands when he undertook various voyages to the area, and named these islands as navigation marks in Ryukyu. Given these facts, I doubted the appropriateness of erecting markers on the islands during the course of investigation as we did on Daito-jima."

The secret investigation indicated that the Meiji government was already aware that the islands were not "unclaimed land", or at least they were areas that might create territorial disputes with China. However, then Minister of Internal Affairs Aritomo Yamagata expressed discontentment with the results of the investigation, and requested a second investigation in order to erect Japanese "territorial markers" on the islands. Although realizing that the islands were similar to those described in The Record of Zhongshan, Yamagata reasoned that the Qing government used them simply as navigation marks, and that "no other evidence or signs proving they belonged to the Qing state have been found". He also reasoned that different Japanese and Chinese names for the islands were insignificant, and further that the uninhabited islands were adjacent to the Yaeyama Archipelago.

Despite the fact that Japan seemingly agreed to put Yaeyama under China's jurisdiction in its plan to divide Ryukyu into two parts, it nonetheless harbored an ambition to "stretch an inch into a yard". It turned out, however, the results of the investigation prevented Yamagata from acting rashly.

On October 21, 1885, Japanese Foreign Minister Kaoru informed Aritomo Yamagata: "Based on a careful investigation and due consideration, we have determined that the islands in question are also close to the territory of the Qing state. When compared with our prior investigation of Daito-jima Island, we found that they cover smaller areas and that they have all been named by the Qing government. Qing newspapers recently published rumors that our government is attempting to seize the islands adjacent to Taiwan which are under Qing jurisdiction. They harbor suspicions of our country and repeatedly bring actions to the attention of the Qing government. Any attempt to openly erect state markers will definitely invite suspicion on the part of the Qing government. Therefore, we should limit our actions to on-the-spot investigations and drafting detailed reports on the configuration of various bays and on whether or not the islands have important resources which can be exploited in the future. Matters such as erecting territorial markers and undertaking development can be done in the future as the opportunity arises." Inoue also informed Yamagata that it would be totally inappropriate to make the secret Japanese investigation public via the media, and that the investigation should proceed in utmost secrecy in order to avoid opposition from China and the international community.

On November 24 that same year, Okinawan Magistrate Nishimura submitted the results of investigation to the minister of internal affairs and requested that the latter issue instructions in case disputes with China might arise. According to Nishimura, "As I noted in the previous report, the matter of erecting state markers will not necessarily be considered completely irrelevant to the Qing state. We may face trouble if conflicts arise." The very next day, Japan's ministers of internal and foreign affairs jointly issued the following order: "Ensure that no state markers are erected at the present time." Quite obviously, Japanese imperialists were at that very time accelerating arms expansion and war preparations, and awaiting the most opportune time to annex Korea and eventually engage in an all-out confrontation with the Qing government. It is equally as obvious they they did not want to act rashly to alert the enemy.

In 1893, only one year before the outbreak of the 1894-95 Sino-Japanese War, the Okinawan magistrate requested permission to place Diaoyu and various other islands under the jurisdiction of his prefecture Japanese internal and foreign affairs ministers postponed their reply for 12 months. Even by 1894, when the Sino-Japanese War broke out, the Japanese government, unsure of whether Japan would win the war, rejected the request by reasoning that "it is unclear whether or not the islands belong to the Empire".

However, shortly after the Japanese army occupied Lushun and blockaded the Qing navy in the Weihai Defensive Zone at the end of November 1894, the Japanese Meiji government was firmly convinced victory was at hand and proceeded to draft a treaty designed to pressure China into ceding Taiwan as a precondition for peace. At the same time, the Japanese secretly seized Diaoyu Islands without making any prior representations to the Chinese side. On December 27 that same year, Japanese Minister of Internal Affairs Yasushi Nomura sent a secret letter to Minister of Foreign Affairs Munemitsu Mutsu claiming that "the situation has changed" with regard to postponing the placement of markers on Kobi (Huangwei) and Chogyo islands, and "it is essential to strengthen management" over said islands. He stressed the necessity to review the situation in light of prevailing conditions. The Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs raised no objections this time, and instead issued instructions reading, "Please handle appropriately in accordance with set plans." As a result, on January 14, 1896, just prior to the end of the war, the Japanese government adopted a "cabinet resolution" which placed the Diaoyu Island Chain under the jurisdiction of Okinawa, and approved the decision to erect markers on the islands. On April 17 that same year, China and Japan signed the Shimonoseki Treaty which forced China to cede Taiwan and neighboring islands. Japan then ruled Taiwan for over 50 years until its defeat in World War II. Diaoyu and various other islands surrounding Taiwan were also subjected to long-term occupation by Japan.



The post-World War II Sino-Japanese face-off concerning sovereignty over Diaoyu Island Chain represents a territorial dispute left behind by the United States.

The United Nations Supreme Command Headquarters issued Order No. 667 on January 29, 1946, shortly after US troops occupied Ryukyu. Article 3 clearly stipulated the extent of Japanese territory, namely Japan's four main islands-Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu, and 1,000-odd neighboring islands, including Tsu-shima and the Ryukyu Archipelago, located south of 30 degrees north latitude. The Diaoyu Island Chain was definitely not included.

On December 25, 1953, along with the emerging Cold War, the US government issued the Order No.27 defining the "geographical boundary lines of the Ryukyu Archipelago". The order noted that it was necessary to redefine said boundary lines "in accordance with the peace treaty signed with Japan on September 8, 1951". The territory defined by the order, all of which was under the jurisdiction of the US and Ryukyu governments, included all islands, islets, annular rocks, lithoherms and territorial waters in close proximity to the intersection 24 degrees north latitude and 122 degrees east longitude. The issuance of the order marked the illegal occupation of the Diaoyu Islands by the United States.

On June 17, 1971, Japan and the United States signed an agreement marking the return of Okinawa to the former. The extent of Japanese territory defined in the document - The US-Japanese Agreement on the Ryukyu Archipelago and Daito-jima - was identical to aforementioned Order No. 27 dated 1953. The Diaoyu Islands were sliced away and placed under the jurisdiction of Japan's Okinawa. The Japanese government used this as a basis to claim that the islands were part of Okinawa, and thus included the island chain and surrounding waters into the "air defense identification sphere" of its Self-Defense Forces. The fact that the United States handed the Diaoyu Islands over to Japan triggered a worldwide movement to defend the islands in the 1970s, involving Chinese the world over, including those in the United States.

The mounting pressure forced the U.S. government to issue a declaration in October 1971 which noted, "The State Department's position that the reversion treaty did not constitute US recognition of Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, currently administered by the United States, was endorsed by the committee."

As late as September 11, 1996, U.S. State Department Spokesman Nicholas Burns stated: "The United States neither recognizes, nor supports the claim of any country to sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands."

International law provisions

The Diaoyu Island Chain which Japan has stolen from China is in no way "unclaimed land".

The view taken by the Japanese government, which holds that the islands are "land without prior claim" and are Japan's "inherent territory" because it first occupied them, has no historical or legal basis.

"Inherency" means something inherent, but not belonging to others. In fact, however, Diaoyu Islands were illegally taken from China by the Japanese Empire. Therefore, the claim of "inherent ownership" is totally out of the question.

The Japanese government argues that various on-the-spot investigations conducted by the Okinawa prefectural authorities after the 18th year of Meiji (1885) not only found that the island chain was uninhabited, but also confirmed that there were no markers which would have indicated the rule of the government of China's Qing Dynasty. Japan then made a decision on January 14 in the 28th year of Meiji (1895) to erect stakes on the islands and formally included them in Japanese territory.

However, numerous historical facts, as mentioned above, fully demonstrate that the Japanese government's statement is sheer nonsense.

Firstly, the chain was no longer "unclaimed" as early as the Ming Dynasty and was included in the coastal defense area subject to the sovereignty of the Ming government. The islands remained uninhabited for so long because of their forbidding environment. But this lack of habitation did not mean the islands were unclaimed. Moreover, China was the first country which discovered, named, recorded, used, governed and defended them and included them in historical maps.

Secondly, Japan was well aware of the above facts as early as 10 years prior to the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95. The fact is that Japan surreptitiously seized, rather than originally occupied, the Diaoyu Chain because its decision to put the islets under the jurisdiction of Okinawa-Ken and erect stakes there was carried out secretly. The decision was not made public even afterwards, nor did a single word about the Diaoyu Island Chain, or "Senkaku retto" in Japanese, appear in then Japanese Prime Minister Ito Hirofumi's Order on the Establishment of Counties Under Okinawa-Ken, issued on March 5, 1896.

Neither treaties nor agreements between the United States and Japan have any legal effect in determining the territorial ownership of Diaoyu Islands.

The Japanese government alleges that the San Francisco Treaty did not list the "Senkakus" in Article 2 as part of the territories Japan should surrender. In Article 3, the chain was placed under the United States administration. After the United States returned the trusteeship area to Japan, Tokyo claims, the islands naturally became part of Japanese territory, to which China had never raised any objection. This thus indicated that China did not regard the "Senkakus" (Diaoyu) as part of Taiwan. It was only when it became apparent that the continental shelf of East China Sea might be rich in oil that China proceeded to claim its sovereignty over the chain, according to the Japanese government.

This obviously goes against historical facts. The Cairo Declaration issued by China, the United States and Britain on December 1, 1943 clearly stipulated, "All the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed." The Potsdam Proclamation, also signed by the same three countries on July 26, 1945 to urge the surrender of Japan, stressed, "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu and Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Proclamation means that it readily surrendered all Chinese territories it seized, which naturally included the Diaoyu Island Chain attached to Taiwan.

The Government of the People's Republic of China has always regarded the administrative right which the US unilaterally proclaimed over the chain after World War II as illegal. In June 1950, the then Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai lodged a strong protest against the US action, stating that the Chinese people were determined to recover Taiwan and all other territories belonging to China.

The San Francisco Treaty was a peace agreement the United States separately negotiated with Japan in the absence of China. On September 18, 1951, 10 days after it was signed, Foreign Minister Zhou declared on behalf of the Chinese government that this so-called treaty, prepared and signed without the presence of China, was illegal and invalid, and China would never recognize it.

How can it be said that China had never raised objections?

The Japanese government repeatedly mentions that the agreement on return of Okinawa signed by the United States and Japan on June 17, 1971 contained articles about the "Senkakus", and attempts to take this as a major international document to acknowledge Japan's sovereignty over the Diaoyu Island Chain.

However, even the US government has not as yet recognized this. Furthermore, how can the US-Japanese agreement decide on territories of China? On the issue of postwar territorial ownership, Japan can do nothing but strictly abides by the Potsdam Proclamation and Cairo Declarations which it accepted in 1945.

Recently, the Japanese newspaper Sankei Shinbun published "a letter of thanks" from the then Republic of China's consul to Nagasaki dated May 20, 1920. The letter said: "In 1919, the eighth year of the Republic of China, Guo Heshun and 30 other fishermen from Huian County, Fujian Province, were caught in a storm and drifted to Wayoto of Senkaku Islands in Yaeyama County, Okinawa-Ken." The newspaper cited the letter as a historical record of "top value", "the most powerful evidence demonstrating China once recognized Senkaku Islands as Japanese territory", and "a convincing material" which can repudiate China's stand.

Simple analysis of historical facts easily leads to the conclusion that this so-called "letter of thanks" cannot prove such a point. As early as 1895, Japan occupied China's Taiwan Province through the unjust Treaty of Shimonoseki and had before that seized Diaoyu Islands, which are actually islets attached to Taiwan. Such a state of affairs lasted until Japan's defeat and surrender in 1945.

The description in the so-called "letter of thanks" can, at most, merely reflect some people's understandings at that time when Taiwan and the nearby islets were occupied by Japan. It cannot be taken as an evidence proving the Diaoyu Islands were the "inherent territory" of Japan.

According to historical documents, in 1941 Okinawa and Taiwan, both then under Japan's control, had a dispute over the chain due to fishery undertakings, and a court in Tokyo decided to place the islands under jurisdiction of "Taipei Prefecture". This demonstrates that at that time Japan did not legally recognize the jurisdiction of Okinawa over Diaoyu Islands.

It was impossible for Japan to acquire sovereignty over Diaoyu Islands through the so-called "positive prescription". The continuous disturbances on the Diaoyu Island Chain by Japanese right-wing organizations are a futile effort.

Some analysts have pointed out that one of the reasons for Japan continuously provoking disturbances on the islands is that it is trying to lay the foundations for its occupation under the "positive prescription" clause as contained in international law.

Actually, the so-called "positive prescription" principle has not yet been accepted by the majority of international jurists, and so far there has been no international case actually judged in accordance with the principle. Moreover, there is a basic prerequisite to the "positive prescription" clause, that is, "continuously exercising state sovereignty without interference".

The dispute over the territorial sovereignty of the chain between China and Japan could have been handled through consultations between the two governments in a candid, sober-minded and realistic manner. But, some Japanese, with government connivance, landed on the main island to build structures to demonstrate Japan's possession and actual control. These acts have repeatedly irritated China. Some Japanese officials described the Diaoyu Island Chain as Japan's "private land" and the Japanese government is unable to intervene in the activities carried out by the right-wing organizations. Viewed from the Chinese side, this indicates that the Japanese right-wing organizations will continue to have official green light to provoke incidents on the islands, and also implies a demand that the Chinese government give tacit consent to the claim that the territory is "private land" under the sovereignty of Japan. This is, of course, unacceptable to China.

Peaceful coexistence between China and Japan benefits both, while fighting each other is harmful to both. In the face of this unresolved case left over from history, people of vision in both countries should seek common ground, respect history and international laws and show sincerity and wisdom. Efforts should be made to prevent the issue from becoming a destabilizing factor leading to continuous deterioration of bilateral relations, but instead to try to solve the dispute peacefully and creatively.

History Proves Diaoyu Islands Are China's Territory

The Diaoyu Islands, in the East China Sea between China and Japan, have belonged to China since ancient times. The islands include some small islands and reefs, with the Diaoyu Island the largest one covering an area of five square kilometers. No one can live there due to the lack of fresh water.

The islands are 120 nautical miles northeast of Taiwan, 200 nautical miles east of China's mainland and 200 nautical miles west of Japan's southernmost island Okinawa.

Geologically the islands are attached to Taiwan. The waters around the islands are 100 to 150 meters deep and there is a 2,000-meter deep oceanic trench between the islands and Japan's Okinawa islands.

Fishermen from China's Taiwan and Fujian and other provinces have fished and collected herbs in the area for centuries.

The islands are recorded in a book published during the rule of Emperor Yong Le (1403-1424) in the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), more than 400 years before Japan claimed discovery of the Diaoyu Islands in 1884. Since then many Chinese historical documents refer to the islands.

In the 15th century during the Ming Dynasty, China included the Diaoyu Islands into its coastal defense area. In 1556, General Hu Zongxian was appointed governor to fight Japanese pirates and defend the coastal area, including the Diaoyu Islands.

A map published in Japan between 1783 and 1785 marking the boundary of the Ryukyu Kingdom showed the Diaoyu Islands as belonging to China.

Japan never questioned China's sovereignty over the islands before the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895.

In April 1895, the government of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) was forced to sign the Treaty of Shimonoseki, under which China ceded the whole island of Taiwan and its surrounding islands including the Penghu Islands to Japan.

Only since then has Japan had its own name for the area where the Diaoyu Islands are located. Before that, Japanese maps marked the islands by their Chinese names.

Japan was occupied by the United States after it was defeated in World War II.

In 1951, Japan and the United States illegally signed a treaty in San Francisco without the presence of China, one of the victorious countries in World War II.

Although Article 2 of the treaty said that Japan surrendered its claim over Taiwan and the Penghu Islands to China, Article 3 wrongly assigned the Diaoyu Islands, which Japan had stolen from China, and other islands, to the Ryukyu zone which was under U.S. control.

The then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai lodged a strong protest and said the Chinese government would never recognize the San Francisco Treaty.

In a statement on territorial waters in 1958, the Chinese government said that Japan should return all the territory of the People's Republic of China including Taiwan and the islands around it to China.

On November 11, 1969, Japan and the United States signed an agreement to return the Okinawan Islands to Japan. In 1971, the United States, proceeding from its Cold War policy against China, returned the area under its trusteeship, including the Diaoyu Islands, to Japan.

The Japanese Government thereby regarded the islands as a part of its Okinawa-Ken Prefecture and included them in the "air defense distinguishing rim" of its Self-Defense Forces.

On this situation, the Chinese Government issued a solemn statement on December 30, 1971, announcing that the Diaoyu islands are islands attached to Taiwan and like Taiwan, have always been an alienable part of Chinese territory since ancient times.

Consequently, it is an indisputable fact that the Diaoyu Islands have historically been a part of China's territory.

The issue of the Diaoyu Islands once served as an obstacle to the normalization of Sino-Japanese relations and the conclusion of the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Taking into consideration the overall interest to develop Sino-Japanese friendship, the then Chinese and Japanese governments agreed to settle the issue in the future.

However, the Japanese side has broken its promises repeatedly and has provoked incidents one after another in recent years in an attempt to seize the islands.

The State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China on Tuesday published a white paper on Diaoyu Dao, an inherent territory of China.

 

Following is the full text of the white paper: 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.

Managed by Hong Kong China Hawaii Chamber of Commerce (HKCHcc)

***Information obtained from public sources deemed reliable but not guaranteed

How to Contact Us: Webmaster: Johnson Choi, Phone: 808-524-5738; Email: johnsonchoi@johnsonchoi.com - Last Update 03-18-2011

 

pon.jpg (13583 bytes)    Powered by ProjectOnNet.com - "Connecting the Building Industry"  & Hong Kong.China.Hawaii Chamber of Commerce (HKCHCC)      

 

Honolulu, Hawaii

Hong Kong

Shanghai

Taipei

San Francisco

New York

London