Chinese embassy clarifies Japan-China relations

I am writing to express our grave concerns about an article with the title of “Japan-China relations at a crossroads” published on The STAR of Nov. 30, 2012, and to make clarifications of the history and facts.

1. The Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands are China’s inherent territory, of which Japan has no right to engage in any form of “buying” or “selling”.

Ample historical and legal evidences support China’s sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. It was the Chinese people who first discovered and named the Diaoyu Islands. From the Ming Dynasty some 500 years ago to the modern times, China has exercised sovereignty over Diaoyu Islands. Japan grabbed and occupied China’s territory during its aggression to China in 1895 and after the US “reversion of” Okinawa to Japan. China has been underlining that Japan’s so-called “presence” in and “control” of the waters off the Diaoyu Islands are illegal and invalid, which China never accepts from the very beginning till today.

There are clear provisions in international legal documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation that the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands be returned to China along with Taiwan. It was made very clear in these two legal documents that Japan should restore to China all the territories it has stolen from China. Therefore from the legal perspective, Diaoyu Islands and its affiliated Dao, together with Taiwan, should have been returned to China.

In 1971, the United States, through a backroom deal, transferred to Japan the administrative rights over Diaoyu Islands which had been placed under illegal US trusteeship. At that time, the Chinese government issued a solemn statement pointing out that this action was illegal and could not change, not even in the slightest way, the People’s Republic of China’s territorial sovereignty over Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands. In 1972, when China and Japan restored diplomatic relations, the two sides reached understanding and consensus on “putting aside the issue of Diaoyu Islands to be resolved later”.

On September 10, 2012, the Japanese government, in defiance of the firm opposition of China, announced the so-called “purchase” of Diaoyu Islands. This move grossly infringed upon China’s territorial sovereignty, seriously tramples on historical facts and international jurisprudence and caused the most severe disruption to China-Japan relations since the normalization of relations 40 years ago.

With regard to China’s “challenge to the status quo” alleged by this article, I would like to stress that it is Japan that occupied China’s Diaoyu Islands by aggression, China never recognizes or accepts Japan’s illegal occupation and so-called “actual control” of the Diaoyu Islands if that is what the Japanese side means by “status quo”.

2. It is untenable in jurisprudence for Japan to claim sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands based on the so-called “Treaty of San Francisco”.

The Treaty of San Francisco will not help Japan. Firstly, it is widely known that this treaty was signed amid the Cold War between Japan and the Western allies of World War II. It excluded the Soviet Union and China, which had contributed greatly to victory in the war. Since China was not a signatory to the treaty, it is not legally binding to China and can in no way serve as the legal basis for China and Japan to settle the post-war ownership of relevant territories.

Secondly, even according to the Treaty of San Francisco, we can hardly draw the conclusion that the Diaoyu Islands belong to Japan. Article 2 of the treaty states that “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.” Here Formosa definitely included the Diaoyu Islands.

Thirdly, even the United States, the initiator of the treaty, admits the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands. In 1971 when the US “returned” the “administrative power” of the Dao to Japan, it publicly announced that it took no side in the territorial dispute over the islands between China and Japan.

The Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation formed the legal basis between Allied Powers and Japan to end the status of war and build the post-war international order in the Asia Pacific as well as for China and Japan to settle post-war ownership of relevant territories, with which many parts of the Treaty of San Francisco did not accord.

Japan’s repeated provocative actions on the Diaoyu Islands issue are essentially an attempt to deny the effects of the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation and a challenge to the post-war international order. We have shared historic memories and pains. It is the common responsibility of the entire international community to reaffirm the outcomes of the war against fascism and maintain the post-war international order.

3. The development of right-wing forces in Japan gives Asian countries and peoples cause for concern.

The big picture is that the right-wing forces in Japan instigated the farce of the “island purchase”. It is a demonstration of the increasing tilt to the right in Japanese politics. We may take a look at what has been said and done in Japan in recent years: denial of the Nanjing Massacre, denial of the so-called “comfort women”, the visits by Japanese leaders to the Yasukuni War Shrine, advocacy of military buildup and preparation for war and abandonment of Japan’s pacifist constitution. It deserves attention of countries across Asia and the entire international community, not just China to watch how Japan reacts to these dangerous political trends.

It must be emphasized that the root cause for the current situation is Japan’s failure to think hard about and repent the history of its militarist aggression. Taking history as a mirror and looking into the future will continue to be the political prerequisite for ensuring stable and healthy development of Sino-Japan relations.