论文部分内容阅读
THE U.S. government recently stated that although the Okinawa Reversion Treaty of June 17, 1971 parceled up the “administrative rights” of the Diaoyu Islands to Japan, the American government has never recognized Japan’s sovereignty over this territory.
The U.S. Congressional Research Service report entitled Diaoyu Islands Dispute: US Treaty Obligations, published on September 25 this year, states that the U.S. only recognizes Japan’s administrative rights over the Diaoyu Islands. U.S. Senate deliberations in October 1971 on whether or not to consent to the ratification of the Okinawa Reversion Treaty show that the U.S. remains neu- tral on the Diaoyu Islands issue, thus clarifying the U.S. government’s stand on sovereignty in this respect.
The U.S. State Department asserted that the United States takes a neutral position on the competing claims of Japan and China to the islands, “despite the return of the islands to Japanese administration,” according to the report.
In Congress hearings on the impact of the Okinawa Reversion Treaty on sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands, then U.S. Secretary of State William P. Rogers stated that the treaty would not influence this territory’s juridical status.
What was not mentioned in the report, however, is that the so-called return of administrative rights over the islands to Japan is an infringement of the principles of the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945.
The Diaoyu Islands were originally affiliated to the island of Taiwan. Having lost the first Sino-Japanese War, the Qing Dynasty was forced to sign the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895, ceding Taiwan Island and its affiliated islets to Japan.
According to the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation with respect to the international order after World War Two, all Japanese-occupied Chinese territory, including the Diaoyu Islands, should be returned to China.
In the early Cold War period of 1951, the U.S. and certain other countries signed with Japan the Treaty of Peace, also known as the Treaty of San Francisco. But China was not a signatory country. The treaty stated that the islands southwest of Japan south of 29 degrees latitude north, at that time administered by the U.S., would come under the U.N. trusteeship. The Diaoyu Islands were not included in this area.
In 1953, the U.S. Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands expanded its jurisdiction to include the Diaoyu Islands without any form of jurisprudential justification. China firmly opposed this move. The Okinawa Reversion Treaty signed by Japan and the U.S. in 1971 returned “the administrative rights over the Ryukyu Islands and the Diaoyu Islands” to Japan. The Chinese government accordingly claimed sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands, thus making clear its stance against this il- legal action. The Japanese government unilaterally announced on September 10 this year the “purchase” and “nationalization”of Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets Nan Xiaodao and Bei Xiaodao.
This action seriously undermines China’s sovereignty, and constitutes a challenge to the international order since World War Two. The Chinese government has demanded that Japan immediately cease all actions that infringe China’s territorial sovereignty, making clear its “unshakable resolve” to safeguard the country’s sovereignty.
This farce has also aroused fierce protests among the Chinese people.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said on October 3 in Washington D.C. that the U.S. should not take sides on sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands.
Radio Australia quoted Kissinger on October 5 as saying it was his “dearest wish” that China and Japan resolve the issue without the involvement of the United States. He also noted that late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping had reached a consensus with his Japanese counterpart on the Diaoyu Islands.
China and Japan normalized their relations in 1972 and signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1978. Leaders from both sides reached an understanding and consensus at that time to shelve the disputes over the Diaoyu Islands for later settlement.
The U.S. Congressional Research Service report entitled Diaoyu Islands Dispute: US Treaty Obligations, published on September 25 this year, states that the U.S. only recognizes Japan’s administrative rights over the Diaoyu Islands. U.S. Senate deliberations in October 1971 on whether or not to consent to the ratification of the Okinawa Reversion Treaty show that the U.S. remains neu- tral on the Diaoyu Islands issue, thus clarifying the U.S. government’s stand on sovereignty in this respect.
The U.S. State Department asserted that the United States takes a neutral position on the competing claims of Japan and China to the islands, “despite the return of the islands to Japanese administration,” according to the report.
In Congress hearings on the impact of the Okinawa Reversion Treaty on sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands, then U.S. Secretary of State William P. Rogers stated that the treaty would not influence this territory’s juridical status.
What was not mentioned in the report, however, is that the so-called return of administrative rights over the islands to Japan is an infringement of the principles of the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945.
The Diaoyu Islands were originally affiliated to the island of Taiwan. Having lost the first Sino-Japanese War, the Qing Dynasty was forced to sign the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895, ceding Taiwan Island and its affiliated islets to Japan.
According to the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation with respect to the international order after World War Two, all Japanese-occupied Chinese territory, including the Diaoyu Islands, should be returned to China.
In the early Cold War period of 1951, the U.S. and certain other countries signed with Japan the Treaty of Peace, also known as the Treaty of San Francisco. But China was not a signatory country. The treaty stated that the islands southwest of Japan south of 29 degrees latitude north, at that time administered by the U.S., would come under the U.N. trusteeship. The Diaoyu Islands were not included in this area.
In 1953, the U.S. Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands expanded its jurisdiction to include the Diaoyu Islands without any form of jurisprudential justification. China firmly opposed this move. The Okinawa Reversion Treaty signed by Japan and the U.S. in 1971 returned “the administrative rights over the Ryukyu Islands and the Diaoyu Islands” to Japan. The Chinese government accordingly claimed sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands, thus making clear its stance against this il- legal action. The Japanese government unilaterally announced on September 10 this year the “purchase” and “nationalization”of Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets Nan Xiaodao and Bei Xiaodao.
This action seriously undermines China’s sovereignty, and constitutes a challenge to the international order since World War Two. The Chinese government has demanded that Japan immediately cease all actions that infringe China’s territorial sovereignty, making clear its “unshakable resolve” to safeguard the country’s sovereignty.
This farce has also aroused fierce protests among the Chinese people.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said on October 3 in Washington D.C. that the U.S. should not take sides on sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands.
Radio Australia quoted Kissinger on October 5 as saying it was his “dearest wish” that China and Japan resolve the issue without the involvement of the United States. He also noted that late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping had reached a consensus with his Japanese counterpart on the Diaoyu Islands.
China and Japan normalized their relations in 1972 and signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1978. Leaders from both sides reached an understanding and consensus at that time to shelve the disputes over the Diaoyu Islands for later settlement.