http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/coming-attractions/

The History

The first recorded mention of the islets was in 1534 in Chen Kan's "Records of the Imperial Mission to Ryukyu". Chen, an envoy of the Ming Dynasty emperor to the Ryukyus, described his trip from China to Naha, as well as the customs of the native Okinawans.

In his and several other accounts over the next two centuries, the islets were mentioned merely as geographic landmarks. The Chinese never indicated they considered them their territory, or anything more than specks in the ocean.

The first Japanese mention is in the "Chuzan Seikan" (Mirror of Chuzan), i.e., records of the Ryukyu Dynasty, which dates from 1650. As in the Chinese records, there is no indication they were considered anyone’s territory.

Fukuoka native Koga Tatsuhiro was making a living in Naha, Okinawa, catching and exporting finfish and shellfish when he discovered in 1884 that the islets were the habitat of the rare short-tailed albatross. He started collecting albatross feathers for sale in addition conducting to his fishing business.

Ten years later, he applied to the government of Okinawa Prefecture to lease the islands. They turned him down because they weren’t sure who the islands belonged to. Koga then applied to the interior and agriculture ministries in Tokyo, and they turned him down for the same reason.

That did bring the islets to the attention of the Japanese government, however, and Koga’s persistence paid off. The Japanese claimed the islands under the legal principle of "terra nullius"—any nation can claim as its own, territory that is unclaimed by any other nation—and it became part of Japan.

The Senkakus were uninhabited and unclaimed—indeed, they had never been administered at any time by the Chinese government, and there is no record of any Chinese ever living or working there.

The Chinese later charged the Japanese swiped the islets at the same time they wound up with the booty of Taiwan and the Penghu Islands at the end of the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese War.

The Japanese Communist Party, nationalist scalawags that they are, addresses those claims on their website:
http://www.jcp.or.jp/english/e-senkaku.html

"The Senkaku Islands question has nothing to do with the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95. The Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty to conclude the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 decided to cede Taiwan and the Penghu Islands to Japan. This was Japan’s territorial expansion, which can never be justified.

But every historical document tells us that the Senkaku Islands question was dealt with separately from the Taiwan and Penghu Islands question. In the negotiations on the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, the question of title to the Senkaku Islands was not taken up."

The JCP, by the way, also complained that the U.S. military used the islets for target practice.

In addition to albatross feathers, the islets for a time became a center for the production of "katsuobushi", or dried bonito flakes, which are often used in Japanese cuisine. Koga finally relinquished the business in 1940, however, when more inexpensive sources were found. Other than that, the islets were ignored.

The next noteworthy mention of them comes in 1920. That year, the Japanese rescued 31 Chinese fishermen who were shipwrecked on one of the smaller islets. The Chinese consul in Nagasaki wrote a letter of gratitude to the Japanese thanking them for their help. In the body of the letter, he referred to them by the Japanese term Senkaku islets (尖閣列島) instead of the Chinese name, Daiyutai (釣魚島). In other words, the Chinese considered them Japanese territory in 1920.
http://ampontan.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/senkaku-3.jpg?w=394&h=283

The government of China claimed other islands in the South China Sea in 1932 and 1935, some of which were under the control of the French and the Japanese. The People’s Republic claimed them again in 1949. Despite their insistence that other islands in Japanese possession were theirs in 1935, the Chinese said nothing about the Senkakus.

There matters stood until the end of the Second World War in the Pacific. Under the "Treaty of Peace with Japan" (AKA The San Francisco Treaty),
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sanfrancisco01.htm
which went into force on 28 April 1952, the Japanese disposed of all the territory they conquered over the years to create their empire. Some of that territory was Chinese:

Article 2 (b)
Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

Article 2 (f)
Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.

The treaty gave the United States the right to continue to administer part of Japan after the Allied occupation ended:

Article 3
Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

The Senkakus were considered part of the Nansei Shoto, as a U.S. State Department official later explicitly stated:

“The term “Nansei Shoto” was understood to mean all islands [south of 29 degrees north latitude] under Japanese administration at the end of the war … The term, as used in the treaty, was intended to include the Senkaku Islands.” (Suganuma Unryu, Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations, p. 134)

In fact, though several island groups are mentioned, most of the territory here was—and still is—a single administrative unit: Okinawa Prefecture (state/province). In short, everything cited in Article 3 of the treaty is just as much Japan as is The Ginza in Tokyo. (The Nanpo Shoto lie to the east and are part of the Tokyo Metro District.) Uninhabited islands are part of the territory of most maritime nations; not all of the 5,000 islands that are part of China are inhabited either.

The Americans administered the rest of Okinawa until they returned the prefecture to Japanese control under the 17 June 1971 "Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands":
http://www.ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/docs/19710617.T1E.html

Article I
1. With respect to the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, as defined in paragraph 2 below, the United States of America relinquishes in favor of Japan all rights and interests under Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, effective as of the date of entry into force of this Agreement. Japan, as of such date, assumes full responsibility and authority for the exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the said islands.

2. For the purpose of this Agreement, the term “the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands” means all the territories and their territorial waters with respect to which the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction was accorded to the United States of America under Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan other than those with respect to which such right has already been returned to Japan in accordance with the Agreement concerning the Amami Islands and the Agreement concerning Nanpo Shoto and Other Islands signed between Japan and the United States of America, respectively on December 24, 1953 and April 5, 1968.

Neither Taiwan nor the People’s Republic of China were signatories to the San Francisco Treaty, but neither objected to the inclusion of the Senkakus at the time. That’s because they considered them to be part of Japan.
To be specific:

8 January 1953: Renmin Ribao (People's Daily) published an article titled “The Ryukyu Islanders’ Struggle against American Occupation”　(i.e., Okinawa). The article mentioned the Senkakus, used that name, and stated they were part of the Ryukyus.

《人民日报》 (1953.01.08)
琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛屿，总计共有五十个以上有名称的岛屿和四百多个无名小岛，全部陆地面积为四千六百七十平方公里。

November 1958: A Beijing company published a map of the world showing the Senkakus as Japanese territory and using the Japanese name.

October 1965: The Research Institute for Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense published a series of world maps. It showed the islets as part of Japanese territory and used the Japanese name Senkakus. Here is a color reproduction of the map itself
http://richter.pixnet.net/blog/post/18881937
on a Taiwanese website. The poster worries about how the map would affect the Taiwanese claim. Scroll down to see the magical mystery change on the map for the 1972 edition.

6 October 1968: The Taiwanese newspaper Lianhebao (United Daily News) published an article explaining that Taiwanese fishermen were prohibited from fishing in the Senkakus. They used the Japanese name.

★12 October – 29 November 1968: Maritime specialists from Taiwan and South Korea conducted sea floor surveys of the East China Sea with the cooperation of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE), the regional arm of the United Nations Secretariat for the Asian and Pacific region.

The report stated there was a possibility of large quantities of oil and natural gas under the seabed. It was later confirmed that there are at least 92 million bbl of oil available, with estimates of up to 100 billion bbl of oil, roughly equivalent to the 112.4 billion bbl of Iraq.

May 1969: The government of Taiwan provided oil exploration rights to Gulf, planted the Taiwanese flag on the Senkakus, and notified the world’s wire services of its action.

January 1970: The Taiwan government published a geography textbook for junior high school students that called the islands the Senkakus and treated them as Japanese territory. The following is a copy of the key part of the map. (Refer to the respective Chinese characters for the name of the islets above):
http://ampontan.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/senkakus-4.jpg?w=910&h=761

September 1970: The Okinawan police sent a ship to the Senkakus, removed the Taiwanese flag, and gave it to the Americans.

★11 June 1971: The Taiwanese government claimed the islands as their own territory for the first time. Less than one week later:

17 June 1971: The treaty returning Okinawa to Japan from American control was signed.

★30 December 1971: The People's Republic of China claimed the islands as their own territory for the first time.

In 1992, China adopted legislation that authorized the use of force to enforce Chinese claims to the islets.

The Chinese and Taiwanese change of mind was followed by a few decades of posturing by the Chinese, low-profiling it by the Japanese, and occasional forays by small boatloads of buckos from China, Taiwan and Japan planting flags on the islets. In 1996, a group Japanese put up an aluminum lighthouse. The Chinese excitables stepped up their activity in 2004, which prompted Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to make a clear statement of American policy about the islands.

Here’s how the Asahi Shimbun described it on 2 February 2004:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040210220119/http://www.asahi.com/column/funabashi/eng/TKY200402100133.html

"U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage made the following comments at a news conference at the Japan National Press Club in Tokyo Feb. 2 with reference to the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty: “That treaty would require any attack on Japan, or the administrative territories under Japanese control, to be seen as an attack on the United States.”

The statement simply reiterated the contents of Article 5 of the treaty and is nothing new. However, an expert on East Asian affairs at the U.S. State Department noted that Armitage used the phrase administrative territories under Japanese control instead of simply saying Japan or Japanese territory and pointed out that it connotes the Senkaku islands (Chinese name Diaoyu islands) whose ownership is disputed between Japan and China.

The State Department official added that Armitage’s statement amends the ambiguous stance of a past U.S. administration over the issue, meaning the neutral position of the Clinton administration, which implied that the United States is not necessarily obliged under the bilateral security treaty to oversee the defense of the Senkaku islands. "

One month after Mr. Armitage spoke in Tokyo, the BBC ran an article on Chinese swashbuckling on the Senkakus.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040402172055/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3563777.stm

They noted:
China and Taiwan both laid claim to the Senkaku Islands in the 1970s after oil deposits were found nearby.

They were declared Japanese territory in 1895 and fall under the jurisdiction of Japan’s southern Okinawa prefecture.

http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/coming-attractions/ 　

コメント
01. 2010年10月03日 11:43:52: 9oOHTBv4UA 米　New York Times http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/more-on-the-senkakudiaoyu-islands/?scp=1&sq=senkaku&st=cse （コメント欄 28.A View from Myself, Sep 21st, 2010） 県治処秘第十二号ノ内 復第百五十三号 久場島、魚釣島港湾ノ形状及其他ノ件ニ付秘別第三四号御照会ノ趣了承致候。然ル処該島ハ去ル十八年中、県属警部等派出踏査セシメ候、以来更ニ実地調査致ササルヲ以テ確報難及候得共、当時出張員ノ調書及回航船出雲丸船長報告書ハ別紙ノ通リニ有之候。条具詳写シ并略図相添ヘ此段及御回答候也。 　　明治二七年五月十二日 　　　　　　　　　　　　　沖縄県知事　奈　良　原　繁 ㊞ 　　　内務省県治局長　　江　木　千　之　殿 追テ該島ニ関スル旧記書類及我邦ニ属セシ証左ノ明文又ハ口碑ノ伝説等モ無之古来県下ノ漁夫時々八重山島カラ南嶋ヘ渡航漁漁猟致シ候関係ノミ有之候条此段申添候也。 (English translation) May 12, 1894 Return No. 153 Your letter of inquiry, Secret No. 34, concerning the formation of the harbors and other related matters of Kuba-shima and Uotsuri-shima has been received. However, ever since the islands were surveyed by persons dispatched by police agencies of Okinawa Prefecture back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted. As a result, it is difficult to provide any specific reports on them. Enclosed as attachment papers are the previous investigation reports by the dispatched personal and the captain of Izumo-maru. Copies of the above reports and a general map [from the 1885 survey] are both included in this letter of response. [From:] Okinawa Prefecture Governor Naraha Shigeru [To:] Director of the Prefecture Administration Bureau of the Home Ministry Egi Kazuyuki Additionally, there exist no old records related to the said islands or any transcribed evidence or folklore and legends demonstrating that the islands belong to our country. The only relation [with the islands] is that fishermen from Okinawa Prefecture have since ancient times occasionally sailed from the Yaeyama Islands to the southern islands for fishing and hunting purposes. I hereby supplement this letter with the above information.
02. 2010年10月03日 12:04:39: 9oOHTBv4UA （同上コメント欄105.A View from Myself, Sep 23rd, 2010） 十月廿一日発遣 親展第三十八号 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　外務卿伯爵　井上　馨 　　内務卿伯爵　山県有朋殿 　沖縄県ト清国福州トノ間ニ散在スル無人島、久米赤島外二嶋、沖縄県ニ於テ実地調査ノ上国標建設ノ義、本月九日附甲第八十三号ヲ以テ御協議ノ趣致熟考候処、右嶋嶼ノ義ハ清国国境ニモ接近致候。曩ニ踏査ヲ遂ケ候大東島ニ比スレハ、 周回モ小サキ趣ニ相見へ、殊ニ清国ニハ其島名モ附シ有之候ニ就テハ、近時、清国新聞紙等ニモ、我政府ニ於テ台湾近傍清国ノ所屬ノ島嶼ヲ占拠セシ等ノ風説を 掲載シ、我国ニ対シテ猜疑ヲ抱キ、頻ニ清政府ノ注意ヲ促シ候モノモ有之際ニ付、此際ニ遽ニ公然国標ヲ建設スル等ノ処置有之候テハ、清国ノ疑惑ヲ招キ候間、差向実地ヲ踏査セシメ、港湾ノ形状并ニ土地物産開拓見込ノ有無ヲ詳細報告セシムルノミニ止メ、国標ヲ建テ開拓等ニ着手スルハ、他日ノ機会ニ譲リ候方可然存候。 　且曩ニ踏査セシ大東島ノ事并ニ今回踏査ノ事共、官報并ニ新聞紙ニ掲載不相成候方可然存候間、夫々御注意相成置候様致度候。 　右回答旁拙官意見申進候也。 追テ御差越ノ書類及御付候御落手相成度候也。 (English translation) Sent October 21 Personal Correspondence No. 38 [From] Foreign Minister Count Inoue Kaoru [To] Home Minister Count Yamagata Aritomo In response to your letter Annex A No. 38 received on the ninth of this month, in which you requested deliberation over the matter concerning placing national markers on the uninhabited islands of Kumeseki-shima and two other islands spread out in between Okinawa and Fuzhou: after investigating them, I have given much thought to the matter. The aforementioned islands are close to the border of China, and it has been found through our surveys that the area of the islands is much smaller than the previously surveyed island, Daito-jima; and in particular, China has already given names to the islands. Most recently, Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our government’s intention of occupying certain islands owned by China located next to Taiwan, demonstrating suspicion toward our country and consistently urging the Qing government to be aware of this matter. At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers on the islands, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion toward us. Currently we should limit ourselves to investigating the islands, understanding the formations of the harbors, seeing whether or not there exist possibilities to develop the island’s land and resources, which all should be made into detailed reports. In regard to the matter of placing national markers and developing the islands, it should await a more appropriate time. Moreover, the surveys conducted earlier of Daito-jima and the investigation of the above mentioned islands should not be published in the Official Gazette or newspapers. Please pay special attention to this. The foregoing is my opinion on the matter.
03. 2010年10月03日 12:13:07: 9oOHTBv4UA （補足）上記０２文章の日付十月廿一日は、October 21 1885 のこと。
04. 2010年10月03日 12:25:10: 9oOHTBv4UA （同上コメント欄73. A View from Myself, Sep 22nd, 2010) （清が実効支配していたという主張の根拠となる文件について） You requested historical evidence of Chinese effective control over the Diaoyu Island. Below is a list of the many gazetteers written on Fujian Province and its subsidiary Taiwan Prefecture throughout the Qing Dynasty which contained descriptions indicating usage of the disputed islands by the Chinese naval forces: ・Revised Gazetteer of Taiwan Prefecture 重修台灣府志 and Subsequent Revision of the Gazetteer of Taiwan Prefecture 續修台灣府志 both written by Fan Xian 范咸 in 1747 and 1764, respectively ・Records of Taiwan 台灣志略 by Li Yuanchun 李元春 ・Subsequent Revision of the Gazetteer of Taiwan Prefecture 續修台灣府志 by Yu Wenyi 余文儀 in 1764 ・Revised Gazetteer of Taiwan County 重修台灣縣志 by Wang Bichang 王必昌 in 1752 ・Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province 重纂福建通志 by Chen Shouqi 陳壽祺 in 1871 Some of these works even went further and indicated the precise administrative division to which the disputed islands belonged. In Chen Shouqi’s Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province 重纂福建通志 (published in 1871), for example, the islands are listed under the jurisdiction of the navel commands stationed at Gemalan Department (噶瑪蘭廳). In the section “Key Locations of Each County 各縣衝要“ under the chapter of “Costal Defence,” Chen records the following: Gemalan Department Gemalan constitutes a department (廳) which to the north borders Sandiao, and to the east faces the ocean. Wild savages are found to gather and reside within; and pirate ships frequently lurk about [the area]... Suao Harbor is located at the southern part of the Department, with a broad entrance capable of accommodating large ships --- it belongs to the defence sector of Gemalan. In addition, in the north of the ocean behind the mountain [ie., Taiwan] there lies Diaoyutai where ten or so large ships can be anchored. Xuebolan of Chongyao [both place names] can accommodate sampan boats. 噶瑪蘭廳 噶瑪蘭即廳志北界三貂東，沿海生番聚處，時有匪舶淺蹤… 蘇澳港在廳志南，港門�ｪ闊可容大舟，屬噶瑪蘭廳分防。後山大洋北有釣魚台，港深可泊大船十艘，崇爻之薛坡蘭可進杉板船。
05. 2010年10月03日 12:44:40: 9oOHTBv4UA （同上コメント欄114. Youjin, Sep　24, 2010) As a Chinese looking feverishly for any historical evidence that would prove China’s sovereign claim over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, I have to admit that my conclusion would favor the Japanese. Not only was there no mention of the islands in the official histories of the Ming and Qing dynasties (明史, 清史稿), there was no indication of them being a part of China’s sovereign territory in either Chinese official atlases (坤舆全图, 1767; 皇朝中外一统舆图, 1863) or administrative maps (皇朝直省府厅州县全图, 1864). Several Chinese travelogues and nautical charts (使琉球录, 1534; 日本一鉴桴海图经, 1556; 中山传信录, 1720) did mention these islands. But again I could find no evidence of them having been regarded as Chinese territories. The two Japanese maps that many Chinese claim to be iron-clad proofs of China’s historic rights over these islands turned out to be questionable at best. Military scholar Hayashi Shihei’s Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu (三国通覧図說, 1785) was based on one of the afore-mentioned Chinese travelogue/nautical charts (中山传信录), and was banned until Japan lifted its Isolation Policy in 1854. The other, geographer Yamada Ren’s world atlas of 1810 (地球輿地全図) like Hayashi’s map, seemed to indicate by coloration that these islands belonged to China. http://www.lib.meiji.ac.jp/perl/exhibit/ex_search_detail?detail_sea_param=4,12,0,a But neither was official (in fact, the former was banned until Japan lifted its Isolation Policy in 1854). And in both cases, there were incongruencies. For example, in the former, Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands were colored red (China’s color) while Taiwan was colored yellow (Japan’s color). One has to come to the conclusion that before Japan’s formal annexation of these islands in January 1895 (three months before the Shimonoseki Treaty), they were basically uninhabited and undesired “terra nullius.”
06. 2010年10月03日 13:01:59: 9oOHTBv4UA (同上コメント欄 135. teriyaki2, Tokyo, Sep 25, 2010) (日本サイドからの反駁） “右嶋嶼ノ義ハ清国国境ニモ接近致候(The aforementioned islands are close to the border of China)”Inoue's understanding was that the border with China (Quing) is on the far of the aforementioned islands (Senkaku). Japan recognized that Senkaku was out of Quin’s territory. Then “右嶋嶼(Senkaku)” and ”清国ニ属スル台湾地方ノ島嶼(islands of the Taiwan region belonging to China)” are another islands. HS’s interpretation is wrong and rough. #73 “噶瑪蘭即廳治，北界三貂，東沿大海，生番聚處。(Gemalan constitutes a department (廳) which to the north borders Sandiao.)” Senkaku is in the north of Sandiao and out of their jurisdiction. A map(福建海防全図) which shows the range of coast defense is attached to the 重纂福建通志. The map doesn’t contain the Senkaku as Quin's territory too.
07. 2010年10月03日 13:16:27: 9oOHTBv4UA (同上コメント欄 209. Johnny C. Chiang, Taiwan, R.O.C., Oct 1st, 2010) (台湾政府からのコメント） Dear Mr. Kristof, On behalf of the government of the Republic of China (Taiwan), I would like to provide clarifications of our stance regarding issues raised in your Sept. 10 article “Look Out for the Diaoyu Islands” and Sept. 20 article “More on Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.” 1. In agreement with your view, the ROC government has always advocated that sovereignty disputes over the islets should be settled through peaceful means rather than through show of force. 2. Concerning recent developments in the vicinity of the Diaoyutai Islets, the ROC government has consistently given them its highest degree of attention and has repeatedly reiterated its resolute stance that the ROC has sovereignty over the islets. 3. This assertion is founded on international law, geographic and geological factors, and history, with Taiwanese fishermen and Chinese officials and people utilizing the islets since the 15th century, from the Ming and Qing dynasties up to contemporary times. By the Treaty of Shimonoseki signed in 1895, China ceded Taiwan to Japan along with the Penghu (Pescadore) Islands and other adjacent islands, including the Diaoyutai Islets. After the defeat of Japan in World War II, in the Instrument of Surrender, Japan promised to return to the Republic of China the territories it had stolen—the three northeastern provinces (Manchuria), Taiwan and the Penghu Islands. This was reaffirmed in the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty signed in April 1952. The Diaoyutai Islets should of course be returned along with Taiwan and its various other adjacent islands. 4. Later, prior to the United States’ transfer of administrative rights over the Diaoyutai Islets to Japan, bundled together with rights over the Ryukyu Islands, the ROC government solemnly declared on June 11, 1971 that it absolutely could not accept such action, nor could this action affect the ROC’s claim of sovereignty over the islets. 5. In the future, we shall continue to resolutely safeguard our territorial integrity and national dignity, defend our sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islets, and protect our fishermen’s safety. 6. In view of the reality that sovereignty disputes over the Diaoyutai Islets cannot be satisfactorily resolved in the immediate future, the ROC government has urged all parties to suspend disputation and, instead, jointly manage, develop and enjoy the islets’ natural resources. Johnny C. Chiang Minister Government Information Office Republic of China (Taiwan) October 1, 2010
08. 2010年10月03日 13:33:16: 9oOHTBv4UA （上記コメントに対する反駁　212.Hunter, USA, Oct 2nd, 2010) I found the statements of Mr Chiang from ROC somewhat misleading. DiaoYuDao/DiaoYuTai/Senkaku islands has never appeared in any treaties, including the one signed in 1952 between Japan and ROC. Other than the fact that Japan had already administrated the island as part of the Ryukyu Island in Jan 1895, ROC had a second chance to renounce it's claim over this island in 1953, when the US has listed this island within the Ryukyu island more explicitly. Why ROC has never said a word on this if the island was indeed a part of any treaties? 下関条約 http://www004.upp.so-net.ne.jp/teikoku-denmo/no_frame/history/kaisetsu/other/shimonoseki.html 第二条 清国ハ左記ノ土地ノ主権並ニ該地方ニ在ル城塁、兵器製造所及官有物ヲ永遠日本国ニ割与ス 二 台湾全島及其ノ附属諸島嶼 日本国と中華民国との間の平和条約 （１９５２年８月５日効力発生） http://www.ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/docs/19520428.T1J.html 第二条 日本国は、千九百五十一年九月八日にアメリカ合衆国のサン・フランシスコ市で署名された日本国との平和条約（以下「サン・フランシスコ条約」という。）第二条に基き、台湾及び澎湖諸島並びに新南群島及び西沙群島に対するすべての権利、権原及び請求権を放棄したことが承認される。

この記事を読んだ人はこんな記事も読んでいます（表示まで20秒程度時間がかかります。）
★登録無しでコメント可能。今すぐ反映　通常 ｜動画・ツイッター等 ｜htmltag可（熟練者向）
（タグCheck ｜タグに'だけを使っている場合のcheck ｜checkしない）（各説明）

（←ペンネーム新規登録ならチェック）
↓ペンネーム（2023/11/26から必須）

↓パスワード（ペンネームに必須）

（ペンネームとパスワードは初回使用で記録、次回以降にチェック。パスワードはメモすべし。）
↓画像認証
（ 上画像文字を入力）
ルール確認＆失敗対策
画像の URL (任意):
　コメントの２重投稿は禁止です。 　ＵＲＬ紹介はタイトル必須
ペンネームの新規作成はこちら← 　最新投稿・コメント全文ページ
フォローアップ:

　次へ 　前へ

▲このページのＴＯＰへ　　　　　 ★阿修羅♪ > 中国2掲示板

★阿修羅♪　http://www.asyura2.com/ since 1995
スパムメールの中から見つけ出すためにメールのタイトルには必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
すべてのページの引用、転載、リンクを許可します。確認メールは不要です。引用元リンクを表示してください。