Op-Ed Contributors

No matter how well Japan tries, it cannot deny history

By Liu Jiangyong (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-10-27 08:10

After decades of territorial dispute with China over Diaoyu Islands, Japan changed its stance in the 1990s and began denying it had any territorial dispute with China. Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara has gone to the extent of saying the islands are an "integral part of Japanese territory". By doing so, Japan is ignoring reality and distorting historical facts.

Japan has adduced several reasons for its territorial rights over the Diaoyu Islands. First, it says the Diaoyu Islands were terra nullius before 1895, the year when it was forcibly incorporated into Japan. Second, Japan claims the islands were never part of Taiwan, which was ceded to it in 1895, and hence it should not renounce its claim over the islands under the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, which actually surrendered the islands to the administration of the US. Japan has been exercising administrative rights over the region since 1972 when the islands, along with Okinawa, were handed over to it by the United States. Third, it says that China has recognized the islands as part of Japan more than once.

Those are indeed lame explanations and can be easily proved wrong.

Let's deal with Japan's first excuse first. China has historical facts to prove the Diaoyu Islands were included in its territory and maritime defense sector during the early period of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). So, Japan's terra nullius claim does not hold water.

The most striking evidence of China's sovereignty exists in an extensive account of China's investiture envoy Xu Baoguang during the reign of Emperor Kangxi (1654-1722) of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). The investiture was held in what was then known as the Ryukyu Kingdom, which was annexed by Japan in 1879 as Okinawa prefecture. Xu's account makes it clear that the Diaoyu Islands belong to China and were not included among the 36 islets of the Ryukyu Kingdom.

Besides, the earliest record on Japan's part, a map of the Ryukyu Kingdom prepared in 1785 by Japanese geologist and military strategist Hayashi Shihei, tells the same story by distinguishing the Diaoyu Islands from the 36 islets with different colors.

In retrospect, China's sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands was recognized by the Ryukyu Kingdom and Japan both until the islands were ceded to Japan as subsidiary islands of Taiwan following the defeat of the Qing Dynasty in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895.

But Japan today wrongly claims that the islands had been uninhabited and had no proof of being Chinese territory before the field surveys conducted by the Japanese government in 1885. This is an unsuccessful attempt by Japan to justify its so-called sovereignty over the islands.

Nevertheless, the state of being uninhabited does not necessarily mean the islands were terra nullius. Even Japan's official documents on diplomacy show the surveyors were uncertain about whether the uninhabited islands were part of Chinese territory as recorded by Xu Baoguang.

Japanese rightists, hell-bent on whitewashing historical facts on China's sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands even before 1885, erased that part of the survey report and replaced it with some ellipsis.

Now let's move to Japan's second excuse. The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty is illegal, hence Japan cannot use it to claim the Diaoyu Islands as its territory.

To avoid provoking the Qing Dynasty, according to the same Japanese diplomacy document, Japan put off erecting markers on the islands till the war almost ended in 1895. After that, the Diaoyu Islands were ceded to Japan as subsidiary islands of Taiwan under the infamous Treaty of Shimonoseki. According to international norms, they should have been returned to China after World War II.

Japan commits another mistake by resorting to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which set the Diaoyu Islands apart from those deemed to be renounced by Japan and single-handedly surrendered them to the US. The treaty, signed in 1951, has never been recognized by China. Hardly had the treaty been drafted when Zhou Enlai, then Chinese premier, declared that it was illegal and ineffective.

When Washington handed over the "administrative jurisdiction rights" of the Diaoyu Islands to Japan under the Okinawa Reversion Agreement in 1972, the Chinese Foreign Ministry responded by saying that the agreement was unlawful and reiterated China's sovereignty over the islands. One thing is important: Even such a pro-Japan agreement does not and could not recognize Japan's sovereignty over the islands.

Indeed, what Japan has extracted is "administrative jurisdiction rights" and has only been administering the islands. But it cannot annex the islands as its territory because it has no sovereignty rights over the region. Besides, its "administrative jurisdiction rights" has been frequently interrupted by China's diplomatic protests.

Let's deal with Japan's third excuse now. The old documents that are proof of China's humility throughout history can't be used by Japan to lay claim on the Diaoyu Islands.

Having its sovereignty claim refuted, Japan is trying to manipulate the historical limitations of some Chinese documents. Among them is the thank-you note purportedly sent by Feng Mian, the Chinese consul in Japan's Nagasaki, in 1920 to Japanese fishermen who rescued some Chinese in a shipwreck. The letter, referring to the Diaoyu Islands as Japanese territory, is being used by Japan as argument against China.

Such argument is indefensible. The reference in the letter is understandable because by then Japan had already colonized the Diaoyu Islands.

Another document mentioned by Japan is an article published in 1953 in the People's Daily. The article, on the protest by Okinawa's civilians against US occupation, included the Diaoyu Islands among the Ryukyu Islands, which is now being used by Japan as proof of China's stance on the Diaoyu Islands after World War II.

The article, compiled from sources in languages other than Chinese, does not and cannot reflect the opinion of the media, let alone the stance of a country.

Japan uses an atlas published in 1958 to fuel the territorial dispute, too. The atlas, which included the Diaoyu Islands among the Ryukyu Islands, actually made it clear that part of China's borderline was based on the atlases published during the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (1937-1945).

The atlas in question has its historical limitation. Before the end of World War II, Taiwan and its subsidiary islands remained Japan's colony. Moreover, atlases published before the end of WWII cannot be applicable to postwar conditions.

After World War II, China resumed its sovereignty over Taiwan and its subsidiary islands. Atlases published in the 1950s by the People's Republic of China's map authority, including one in 1953 and one in 1956, clearly excluded the Diaoyu Islands from the map of Japan.

After decades of disputing China's sovereignty and territorial claim over the Diaoyu Islands and trying to justify its so-called sovereignty over the region, Japan seems to have fired the first shot in the territorial dispute, which it tries so hard to deny nowadays. This sheds some light on the fluidity of its stance.

In 1972, upon the normalization of Sino-Japanese diplomatic relations, Zhou Enlai suggested the two countries shelve the territorial dispute over the Diaoyu Islands. In 1974, in an effort to prompt the treaty of peace and friendship between the two countries, Deng Xiaoping, too, suggested "shelving territorial dispute for common development".

Deng reiterated it in 1978, before the two countries signed the treaty. This makes it clear that Japan must have acknowledged the existence of territorial dispute with China over the Diaoyu Islands and accepted Chinese leaders' proposal. Otherwise, it would have raised an objection.

In one word, Tokyo should not slam the door for "common development". Instead, it should acknowledge the existing dispute, respect historical facts and seek bilateral dialogue with China.

(China Daily 10/27/2010 page9)