‘Diaoyu Islands can’t be bought’

territorial sovereignty. The Chinese government and people firmly oppose it and have strongly protested against the move.
Diaoyu Islands have been China’s inherent territory since ancient times and were first discovered, named and exploited by the Chinese people.
Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands, including Huangwei Islet, Chiwei Islet, Nanxiao Island and Beixiao Island (hereafter referred to as the Diaoyu Islands) have been an integral part of Chinese territory since ancient times. As early as the 14th century, in the early years of the Ming Dynasty, the Chinese coastal defence generals Zhang He and Wu Zhen patrolled China’s southeast coast and drove Japanese pirates to the “Ryukyu Ocean”, the Ryukyu Trench. At the time the Diaoyu Islands had become a coastal front line in the battle against Japanese pirates and were under the jurisdiction of China’s coastal defence.
This shows that China, at the time, affirmed that Diaoyu Islands were geographically affiliated and connected to Taiwan. Thus it can be seen that China, by the early 1400s at the latest, had discovered Diaoyu Islands and placed them under its jurisdiction as affiliated to Taiwan. The international community, including Japan, had recognised the fact. This shows that Diaoyu Islands were by no means terra nullius. Japan’s claim to “sovereignty” over Diaoyu Islands on the ground of the “occupation” principle is nothing, but a historical lie and will only serve to expose its motive.
Japan’s occupation of Diaoyu Islands is illegal and invalid. Immediately after seizing Ryukyu in 1879, Japan began to extend its reach to China’s Diaoyu Islands. Tatsushiro Koga, a Japanese explorer, landed on Diaoyu Islands in 1884, claiming that they were terra nullius. Between September and November 1885, the Japanese government secretly dispatched three fact-finding missions to the islands which concluded that, these “terra nullius” islands were, in fact, the same Diaoyu Tai, Huangwei Islet and Chiwei Islet that were recorded in the Records of Messages from Chong-shan and well known to imperial title-conferring envoys of the Qing court on their voyages to Ryukyu.
Between 1885 and 1893, the then authorities in Okinawa Prefecture three times submitted a written request to the Japanese government that Diaoyu Islands, Huangwei Islet and Chiwei Islet be put under its jurisdiction and boundary markers erected. China reacted to this. On September 6, 1885 (July 28 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.”
China’s reaction made the Japanese government think twice before taking any further action. The then Japanese Foreign Minister Inoue Kaoru expressed his concern in his letter to Yamagata Aritomo, the Japanese Minister of Internal Affairs, “At present, any open moves such as placing boundary 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 boundary markers and embarking on development on the islands.”
Japan started the first 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 ensuring the defeat of the Qing court. Against this backdrop, the Japanese Minister of Internal Affairs Yasushi Nomura wrote to Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu on December 27 that “I am writing to discuss with you about setting up boundary markers in Kuba-jima (Huangwei Islet) and Uotsuri-jima (Diaoyu Islands)”.
“The circumstances have now changed and it is possible to submit this issue to the cabinet for a reconsideration.” Mutsu Munemitsu expressed his support for the proposal in his reply to Yasushi Nomura on January 11, 1895. The Japanese government secretly passed a resolution on January 14 to place Diaoyu Islands under the jurisdiction of Okinawa Prefecture. But in fact, at the time, the Japanese government neither erected any boundary markers on Diaoyu Islands, nor did it include in the Japanese Emperor’s decree on the geographical scope of Okinawa Prefecture.
On April 17 the same year, China was forced to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki with Japan, under which the entire island of Taiwan, together with all its affiliated islands, including Diaoyu Islands, were ceded to Japan. Thereafter, Japan imposed colonial rule over Taiwan and its affiliated Diaoyu Islands for 50 years from the signing of the unequal treaty until Japan’s surrender at the end of World War II.
On December 1, 1943, China, the US and the UK issued the Cairo Declaration, which 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, China, the US and the UK issued the Potsdam Proclamation (The Soviet Union signed the Proclamation in August that year) which 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 August 15, 1945, Japan accepted the Potsdam Proclamation and surrendered unconditionally.
On September 2, the Japanese government pledged to faithfully fulfill the obligations enshrined in the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation in Articles 1 and 6 of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. These documents all testify to the fact that Taiwan and its affiliated Diaoyu Islands should be simultaneously returned to China.
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 excluded from it, which 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.
On September 18, 1951, Zhou Enlai, the then Chinese premier and foreign minister, made a solemn statement on behalf of the Chinese government that the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed in San Francisco was illegal and invalid and could under no circumstances be recognised by the Chinese government since China had been excluded from its preparation, formulation and signing.
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 Islands would be “reverted” to Japan. The Chinese government and people, including overseas Chinese, expressed their strong opposition to the backroom deal between Japan and the United States over Diaoyu Islands.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement, fiercely condemning the US and Japanese governments for wilfully including China’s Diaoyu Islands into the territories to be returned to Japan in the Agreement. The statement pointed out that “the agreement was a blatant violation of Chinese territorial sovereignty and would not be tolerated by the Chinese people.”
In face of this, the United States administration had to make clarifications. It publicly 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, 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 Islands and considers that any conflicting claims to the islands are a matter for resolution by the parties concerned.”
The facts have shown that both the Japanese stealing of Diaoyu Islands from China in the late 19th century and the backroom deals by the US and Japan concerning Diaoyu Islands in 1970s are acts of grave violation of China’s territorial sovereignty. They were illegal and invalid, did not and cannot in any way change China’s ownership of Diaoyu Islands.
During the negotiations between China and Japan on the normalisation of their diplomatic relations in 1972 and on the conclusion of the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1978, the then leaders of the two nations, with the overall interests of bilateral ties in mind, reached an important understanding and consensus to “leaving the issue of the Diaoyu Island to be resolved later”.
Japan has also deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations a chart which marks its “territorial waters” around Diaoyu Islands.
In February 1992, China issued the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, which reiterates China’s territorial sovereignty over Diaoyu Islands in the form of legislation. On May 15, 2008, China sent a note to the Secretary-General of United Nations in opposition to Japan’s depositing with the United Nations of a chart which marks its “territorial waters” around Diaoyu Islands.
On March 3, 2012, China released standard names and descriptions of Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands. On September 10, 2012, China released territorial baselines of Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands.
Since the beginning of this year, the Japanese government has taken actions one after another over the issue of Diaoyu Islands. The root cause of Japan’s wrong stance on Diaoyu Islands lies in the absence of a correct understanding and profound remorse by some forces in Japan of the crime of militarist aggression that Japan committed in the past.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the normalisation of China-Japan diplomatic relations. Forty years ago, the then leaders of the two countries showed great foresight and political wisdom and overcame many difficulties to resume diplomatic relations between the two countries and put China-Japan relations on the track of normal development.
But today some Japanese politicians are going against the trend of the times and damaging the foundations of relations between the two countries, much to the indignation of the people. — China Daily.