Foreign and Military Affairs
Japan defies fact, draws protest on Diaoyu Islands
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2010-09-21 20:39
 |
Large Medium Small |
BEIJING - Japan's latest decision to prolong the illegal detention of a Chinese trawler captain has kept the dispute over Diaoyu Islands under spotlight, as such a defiance against facts and international norms continued to draw strong protests from the Chinese government and people.
|
||||
The Diaoyu Islands, 120 nautical miles northeast of China's Taiwan province, have been China's territory ever since ancient times.
All records, whether in historical books, academic research or on old maps, have well proved China's undeniable sovereignty over these islands.
The name Diaoyutai island appeared in 1403 in a Chinese book "Voyage with the Tail Wind." By 1534, all the major islets had been identified and named in the book "Record of the Imperial Envoy to Ryukyu."
"'Record of the Imperial Envoy to Ryukyu' clarified the boundaries between China and Ryukyu and attested to the fact that the Diaoyu Islands are part of China's territory, which was acknowledged by scholars in China, Japan and Ryukyu as well as the governments of China and Ryukyu in later centuries, " Mi Qingyu, a professor at China's Nankai University wrote in a history book about the Diaoyu Islands.
On a map published by Japan between 1783 and 1785, the Diaoyu Islands were marked as within China's borderlines.
A recently discovered book written during the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912)called "Record of Ocean Nation" has again proved the islands have always been part of China.
Kiyoshi Inoue, a renowned Japanese historian, confirmed in his book titled "The Diaoyu Islands and Its Adjacent Islands" that historical facts as early as the 16th century attest, the Diaoyu, in the East China Sea between China and Japan, have been an intrinsic part of China's territory.
"It is a well-known fact that the Diaoyu Islands have been part of China's territory since the Ming Dynasty(1368-1644)," he wrote in Chapter Three of the book.
His viewpoint was based on documents such as sea charts, logbooks and exploration records about South China, Taiwan region and the Ryukyu Islands found in the library of British Admiralty Board, as well as many Japanese historical records.
Though the Diaoyu Islands were ceded to Japan after China lost the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 and signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki, the Cairo Declaration in 1943 stipulated that Japan should return all China's territories it occupied including these islands.
These provisions were later reinforced in the Potsdam Proclamation in 1945. In the same year, Japan announced its unconditional surrender while accepting the proclamation in its entirety.
With all these powerful evidence, China's sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands is undisputed.
Japan's claim to the Diaoyu Islands contradicts international norms.
One of Tokyo's arguments is that the islets were "terra nullius," (land belonging to no one) which "had been uninhabited and showed no trace of having been under the control of China."
In fact, the Diaoyu Islands had no longer been terra nullius at least since China's Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), which established a maritime defense zone that included the islets.
By that time the Diaoyu Islands had already been discovered, named, documented and defended by China. Obviously, the islets have long been incorporated into the Chinese territory and under Chinese jurisdiction since ancient times.
Another argument for Japan's claim to the Diaoyu Islands is that the islets are not included in the territory which Japan renounced under the San Francisco Treaty signed with the United States in 1951 and at the time they had been placed under the administration of the United States. Japan also cited a bilateral agreement signed with the United States in 1971, claiming the United States "reverted" administrative rights of the Diaoyu Islands to it under that document.
However, these claims are inconsistent with historical facts. The Cairo Declaration issued by China, the United States and the United Kingdom in December 1943 clearly stated that Japan must return all the territories it seized from China.
Moreover, in urging Japan to surrender, the three countries issued the Potsdam Proclamation on July 26, 1945, which reiterated that conditions set by the Cairo Declaration must be met. In accepting the proclamation, Japan obviously has agreed to give up all the territories it took from China, including the Diaoyu Islands.
Meanwhile, the government of the People's Republic of China has long maintained that it is illegal for the United Stats to have unilaterally exercised so-called "administrative rights" over the Diaoyu Islands and other islands after World War II. And China never accepted the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, which was signed with the exclusion of the government of the People's Republic of China.
Japan's attempt to use the 1971 US-Japan agreement as a legal basis for its claim to the Diaoyu Islands is also absurd because there is no way that an issue on China's territory can be solved by any agreements between two foreign countries.
On post-WWII territory issues and disputes, it is obvious that there are no international norms other than the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation for Japan to follow.
Japan's recent action of illegally detaining the Chinese trawler and its crew and the latest decision to prolong its illegal detention of the ship's captain also violated international law, said Zhu Wenqi, a law professor at China's Renmin University.
The incident derived from an international dispute, but Japan's decision to resort to its domestic law ran counter to international norms and was unhelpful to solve the issue, he wrote in Monday's Fazhi Daily.
