šˆ¢C—…ô > ’†‘2 > 580.html
@šˆ¢C—…ô @
£ƒRƒTop@¥ƒRƒBtm@ŽŸ‚ց@‘O‚Ö
ëŠt”“‡‚Ì—ðŽjEEE ð–ñE’n}‚È‚Ç‚ÌŽ‘—¿•ti‰p•¶j
http://www.asyura2.com/09/china02/msg/580.html
“ŠeŽÒ ‚Ñ‚Ú “úŽž 2010 ”N 10 ŒŽ 03 “ú 09:37:18: 0cYXJ4o7/SPzg
@

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fs 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ft 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fs 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fs 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 (ëŠt—ñ“‡) instead of the Chinese name, Daiyutai (’Þ‹›“‡). 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fs 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:

gThe term gNansei Shotoh was understood to mean all islands [south of 29 degrees north latitude] under Japanese administration at the end of the war c The term, as used in the treaty, was intended to include the Senkaku Islands.h (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 gthe Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islandsh 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fs Republic of China were signatories to the San Francisco Treaty, but neither objected to the inclusion of the Senkakus at the time. Thatfs because they considered them to be part of Japan.
To be specific:

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

sl–¯“ú报t (1953.01.08)
—®‹…ŒQ岛ŽU•zÝ‰ä‘‘ä˜p东–k˜a“ú–{‹ãF岛¼“ì”V间“IŠC–ʏãC•ïŠ‡ë阁诸岛Aæ岛诸岛A‘å东诸岛A™t绳诸岛A‘å岛诸岛A“y噶šh诸岛A‘å‹÷诸岛“™Žµ组岛屿C每组“s—L许‘½‘召岛屿C总计‹¤—LŒÜ\˜¢ˆÈã—L–¼Ì“I岛屿˜aŽl•S‘½˜¢Ù–¼¬岛C‘S•”陆’n–Ê积为Žlç˜Z•SŽµ\•½•ûŒö—¢B


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fs 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.


š12 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fs 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.


š11 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.


š30 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fs 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: gThat treaty would require any attack on Japan, or the administrative territories under Japanese control, to be seen as an attack on the United States.h

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fs 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fs southern Okinawa prefecture.

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

@@”Žè‚Í‚¹‚¸A”Žèˆê——‚ðŒ©‚é

ƒRƒƒ“ƒg
 
01. 2010”N10ŒŽ03“ú 11:43:52: 9oOHTBv4UA
•Ä@New York Times
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/more-on-the-senkakudiaoyu-islands/?scp=1&sq=senkaku&st=cse

iƒRƒƒ“ƒg—“ 28.A View from Myself, Sep 21st, 2010j


Œ§Ž¡ˆ”é‘æ\“ñ†ƒm“à
•œ‘æ•SŒÜ\ŽO†

‹vê“‡A‹›’Þ“‡`˜pƒmŒ`ó‹y‘´‘¼ƒmŒƒj•t”é•Ê‘æŽOŽl†ŒäÆ‰ïƒmŽï—¹³’vŒóB‘Rƒ‹ˆŠY“‡ƒn‹Žƒ‹\”ª”N’†AŒ§‘®Œx•”“™”ho“¥¸ƒZƒVƒŒóAˆÈ—ˆXƒjŽÀ’n’²¸’vƒTƒTƒ‹ƒ’ˆÈƒeŠm•ñ“ï‹yŒó“¾‹¤A“–Žžo’£ˆõƒm’²‘‹y‰ñq‘Do‰_ŠÛ‘D’·•ñ‘ƒn•ÊŽ†ƒm’ʃŠƒj—L”VŒóBð‹ïÚŽÊƒV›ó—ª}‘Š“YƒwŸ’i‹yŒä‰ñ“šŒó–çB

@@–¾Ž¡“ñŽµ”NŒÜŒŽ\“ñ“ú
@@@@@@@@@@@@@‰«“ꌧ’mŽ–@“ށ@—ǁ@Œ´@”É ㊞
@@@“à–±ÈŒ§Ž¡‹Ç’·@@]@–؁@ç@”V@“a

’ǃeŠY“‡ƒjŠÖƒXƒ‹‹Œ‹L‘—Þ‹y‰ä–Mƒj‘®ƒZƒVØ¶ƒm–¾•¶–”ƒnŒû”èƒm“`à“™ƒ‚–³”VŒÃ—ˆŒ§‰ºƒm‹™•vŽžX”ªdŽR“‡ƒJƒ‰“쓈ƒw“nq‹™‹™—Â’vƒVŒóŠÖŒWƒmƒ~—L”VŒóðŸ’i\“YŒó–çB

(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”N10ŒŽ03“ú 12:04:39: 9oOHTBv4UA
i“¯ãƒRƒƒ“ƒg—“105.A View from Myself, Sep 23rd, 2010j

\ŒŽ“ùˆê“ú”­Œ­
e“W‘æŽO\”ª†

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ŠO–±‹¨”ŒŽÝ@ˆäã@Š]
@@“à–±‹¨”ŒŽÝ@ŽRŒ§—L•ü“a

@‰«“ꌧƒg´‘•ŸBƒgƒmŠÔƒjŽUÝƒXƒ‹–³l“‡A‹v•ÄÔ“‡ŠO“ñ“ˆA‰«“ꌧƒj‰—ƒeŽÀ’n’²¸ƒmã‘•WŒšÝƒm‹`A–{ŒŽ‹ã“ú•b‘攪\ŽO†ƒ’ˆÈƒeŒä‹¦‹cƒmŽï’vnlŒóˆA‰E“ˆ›×ƒm‹`ƒn´‘‘‹«ƒjƒ‚Ú‹ß’vŒóBžGƒj“¥¸ƒ’‹ƒPŒó‘å“Œ“‡ƒj”äƒXƒŒƒnA Žü‰ñƒ‚¬ƒTƒLŽïƒj‘ŠŒ©‚ցAŽêƒj´‘ƒjƒn‘´“‡–¼ƒ‚•ƒV—L”VŒóƒjAƒeƒnA‹ßŽžA´‘V•·Ž†“™ƒjƒ‚A‰ä­•{ƒj‰—ƒe‘ä˜p‹ß–T´‘ƒmŠ›¢ƒm“‡›×ƒ’è‹’ƒZƒV“™ƒm•—à‚ð ŒfÚƒVA‰ä‘ƒj‘΃Vƒeàȋ^ƒ’•øƒLA•pƒj´­•{ƒm’ˆÓƒ’‘£ƒVŒóƒ‚ƒmƒ‚—L”VÛƒj•tAŸÛƒj篃jŒö‘R‘•Wƒ’ŒšÝƒXƒ‹“™ƒmˆ’u—L”VŒóƒeƒnA´‘ƒm‹^˜fƒ’µƒLŒóŠÔA·ŒüŽÀ’nƒ’“¥¸ƒZƒVƒA`˜pƒmŒ`ó›óƒj“y’n•¨ŽYŠJ‘ñŒ©žƒm—L–³ƒ’Ú×•ñƒZƒVƒ€ƒ‹ƒmƒ~ƒjŽ~ƒA‘•Wƒ’ŒšƒeŠJ‘ñ“™ƒj’…ŽèƒXƒ‹ƒnA‘¼“úƒm‹@‰ïƒj÷ƒŠŒó•û‰Â‘R‘¶ŒóB

@ŠŽžGƒj“¥¸ƒZƒV‘å“Œ“‡ƒmŽ–›óƒj¡‰ñ“¥¸ƒmŽ–‹¤AŠ¯•ñ›óƒjV•·Ž†ƒjŒfÚ•s‘Š¬Œó•û‰Â‘R‘¶ŒóŠÔA•vXŒä’ˆÓ‘Š¬’uŒó—l’v“xŒóB

@‰E‰ñ“šÓÙŠ¯ˆÓŒ©\iŒó–çB

’ǃeŒä·‰zƒm‘—Þ‹yŒä•tŒóŒä—ŽŽè‘Š¬“xŒó–çB


(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fs 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fs 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fs 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”N10ŒŽ03“ú 12:13:07: 9oOHTBv4UA
i•â‘«jã‹L‚O‚Q•¶Í‚Ì“ú•t\ŒŽ“ùˆê“ú‚́AOctober 21 1885 ‚Ì‚±‚ƁB

04. 2010”N10ŒŽ03“ú 12:25:10: 9oOHTBv4UA
i“¯ãƒRƒƒ“ƒg—“73. A View from Myself, Sep 22nd, 2010)

i´‚ªŽÀŒøŽx”z‚µ‚Ä‚¢‚½‚Æ‚¢‚¤Žå’£‚̍ª‹’‚ƂȂ镶Œ‚ɂ‚¢‚āj

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:


ERevised Gazetteer of Taiwan Prefecture dC‘äàs•{Žu and Subsequent Revision of the Gazetteer of Taiwan Prefecture 㔏C‘äàs•{Žu both written by Fan Xian 䗙÷ in 1747 and 1764, respectively

ERecords of Taiwan ‘äàsŽu—ª by Li Yuanchun —›Œ³t

ESubsequent Revision of the Gazetteer of Taiwan Prefecture 㔏C‘äàs•{Žu by Yu Wenyi —]•¶‹V in 1764

ERevised Gazetteer of Taiwan County dC‘äàsãpŽu by Wang Bichang ‰¤•K¹ in 1752

ERevised Gazetteer of Fujian Province dŽ[•ŸŒš’ÊŽu by Chen Shouqi ’šæâQ in 1871


Some of these works even went further and indicated the precise administrative division to which the disputed islands belonged.

In Chen Shouqifs Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province dŽ[•ŸŒš’ÊŽu (published in 1871), for example, the islands are listed under the jurisdiction of the navel commands stationed at Gemalan Department (噶à󗖜K). In the section gKey Locations of Each County ŠeãpÕ—vg under the chapter of gCostal Defence,h Chen records the following:

Gemalan Department
Gemalan constitutes a department (œK) 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à󗖜K
噶à󗖑¦œKŽu–kŠEŽO渓ŒC‰ˆŠC¶”Ôãڙ|CŽž—L”Ù”•ŸÇçFc ‘hàS`ÝœKŽu“ìC`–åúªèˆ‰Â—e‘åMC›¢噶à󗖜K•ª–hBŒãŽR‘å—m–k—L’Þ‹›‘äC`[‰Â”‘‘å‘D\äzC’à©”VåLš±—–‰Âi™”‘DB


05. 2010”N10ŒŽ03“ú 12:44:40: 9oOHTBv4UA
i“¯ãƒRƒƒ“ƒg—“114. Youjin, Sep@24, 2010)

As a Chinese looking feverishly for any historical evidence that would prove Chinafs 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 (–¾Žj, ´Žje), there was no indication of them being a part of Chinafs sovereign territory in either Chinese official atlases (£舆‘S图, 1767; c’©’†ŠOˆê统舆图, 1863) or administrative maps (c’©’¼È•{厅B县‘S图, 1864).

Several Chinese travelogues and nautical charts (Žg—®‹…录, 1534; “ú–{ˆê鉴žŠC图经, 1556; ’†ŽR传M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fs historic rights over these islands turned out to be questionable at best.

Military scholar Hayashi Shiheifs Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu (ŽO‘’Ê——}說, 1785) was based on one of the afore-mentioned Chinese travelogue/nautical charts (’†ŽR传M录), and was banned until Japan lifted its Isolation Policy in 1854.

The other, geographer Yamada Renfs world atlas of 1810 (’n‹…—`’n‘S}) like Hayashifs 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fs color) while Taiwan was colored yellow (Japanfs color).

One has to come to the conclusion that before Japanfs formal annexation of these islands in January 1895 (three months before the Shimonoseki Treaty), they were basically uninhabited and undesired gterra nullius.h


06. 2010”N10ŒŽ03“ú 13:01:59: 9oOHTBv4UA
(“¯ãƒRƒƒ“ƒg—“ 135. teriyaki2, Tokyo, Sep 25, 2010)

(“ú–{ƒTƒCƒh‚©‚ç‚Ì”½”j

g‰E“ˆ›×ƒm‹`ƒn´‘‘‹«ƒjƒ‚Ú‹ß’vŒó(The aforementioned islands are close to the border of China)hInoue'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fs territory. Then g‰E“ˆ›×(Senkaku)h and h´‘ƒj‘®ƒXƒ‹‘ä˜p’n•ûƒm“‡›×(islands of the Taiwan region belonging to China)h are another islands. HSfs interpretation is wrong and rough.

#73
g噶à󗖑¦œKŽ¡C–kŠEŽO渁C“Œ‰ˆ‘åŠCC¶”Ôãڙ|B(Gemalan constitutes a department (œK) which to the north borders Sandiao.)h

Senkaku is in the north of Sandiao and out of their jurisdiction. A map(•ŸŒšŠC–h‘S}) which shows the range of coast defense is attached to the dŽ[•ŸŒš’ÊŽu. The map doesnft contain the Senkaku as Quin's territory too.


07. 2010”N10ŒŽ03“ú 13:16:27: 9oOHTBv4UA
(“¯ãƒRƒƒ“ƒg—“ 209. Johnny C. Chiang, Taiwan, R.O.C., Oct 1st, 2010)

(‘ä˜p­•{‚©‚ç‚̃Rƒƒ“ƒgj

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 gLook Out for the Diaoyu Islandsh and Sept. 20 article gMore on Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.h


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f 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fs 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fs 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f natural resources.


Johnny C. Chiang
Minister
Government Information Office
Republic of China (Taiwan)
October 1, 2010


08. 2010”N10ŒŽ03“ú 13:33:16: 9oOHTBv4UA
iã‹LƒRƒƒ“ƒg‚ɑ΂·‚锽”@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?


‰ºŠÖð–ñ
http://www004.upp.so-net.ne.jp/teikoku-denmo/no_frame/history/kaisetsu/other/shimonoseki.html

‘æ“ñð
´‘ƒn¶‹Lƒm“y’nƒmŽåŒ •ÀƒjŠY’n•ûƒjÝƒ‹é—ہA•ºŠí»‘¢Š‹yŠ¯—L•¨ƒ’‰i‰““ú–{‘ƒjŠ„—^ƒX

“ñ ‘ä˜p‘S“‡‹y‘´ƒm•‘®”“‡›×

“ú–{‘‚Æ’†‰Ø–¯‘‚Æ‚ÌŠÔ‚Ì•½˜að–ñ i‚P‚X‚T‚Q”N‚WŒŽ‚T“úŒø—Í”­¶j
http://www.ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/docs/19520428.T1J.html

‘æ“ñð
“ú–{‘‚́Aç‹ã•SŒÜ\ˆê”N‹ãŒŽ”ª“ú‚ɃAƒƒŠƒJ‡O‘‚̃Tƒ“Eƒtƒ‰ƒ“ƒVƒXƒRŽs‚ŏ–¼‚³‚ꂽ“ú–{‘‚Æ‚Ì•½˜að–ñiˆÈ‰ºuƒTƒ“Eƒtƒ‰ƒ“ƒVƒXƒRð–ñv‚Æ‚¢‚¤Bj‘æ“ñð‚ÉŠî‚«A‘ä˜p‹y‚ÑàOŒÎ”“‡•À‚тɐV“ìŒQ“‡‹y‚ѐ¼¹ŒQ“‡‚ɑ΂·‚é‚·‚ׂĂ̌ —˜AŒ Œ´‹y‚ѐ¿‹Œ ‚ð•úŠü‚µ‚½‚±‚Æ‚ª³”F‚³‚ê‚éB


@@”Žè‚Í‚¹‚¸A”Žèˆê——‚ðŒ©‚é

‚±‚Ì‹LŽ–‚ð“Ç‚ñ‚¾l‚Í‚±‚ñ‚È‹LŽ–‚à“Ç‚ñ‚Å‚¢‚Ü‚·i•\Ž¦‚Ü‚Å20•b’ö“xŽžŠÔ‚ª‚©‚©‚è‚Ü‚·Bj
š“o˜^–³‚µ‚ŃRƒƒ“ƒg‰Â”\B¡‚·‚®”½‰f@’Êí b“®‰æEƒcƒCƒbƒ^[“™ bhtmltag‰Âin—ûŽÒŒüj
iƒ^ƒOCheck bƒ^ƒO‚É'‚¾‚¯‚ðŽg‚Á‚Ä‚¢‚éê‡‚Ìcheck bcheck‚µ‚È‚¢jiŠeà–¾j

i©ƒyƒ“ƒl[ƒ€V‹K“o˜^‚È‚çƒ`ƒFƒbƒNj
«ƒyƒ“ƒl[ƒ€i2023/11/26‚©‚ç•K{j

«ƒpƒXƒ[ƒhiƒyƒ“ƒl[ƒ€‚É•K{j

iƒyƒ“ƒl[ƒ€‚ƃpƒXƒ[ƒh‚͏‰‰ñŽg—p‚Å‹L˜^AŽŸ‰ñˆÈ~‚Ƀ`ƒFƒbƒNBƒpƒXƒ[ƒh‚̓ƒ‚‚·‚ׂµBj
«‰æ‘œ”FØ
i ã‰æ‘œ•¶Žš‚ð“ü—́j
ƒ‹[ƒ‹Šm”F•Ž¸”s‘΍ô
‰æ‘œ‚Ì URL (”CˆÓ):
@ƒRƒƒ“ƒg‚Ì‚Qd“Še‚Í‹ÖŽ~‚Å‚·B @‚t‚q‚kÐ‰î‚̓^ƒCƒgƒ‹•K{
ƒyƒ“ƒl[ƒ€‚̐V‹Kì¬‚Í‚±‚¿‚灩 @ÅV“ŠeEƒRƒƒ“ƒg‘S•¶ƒy[ƒW
ƒtƒHƒ[ƒAƒbƒv:

@

@ŽŸ‚Ö @‘O‚Ö

£‚±‚̃y[ƒW‚Ì‚s‚n‚o‚ց@@@@@ šˆ¢C—…ô > ’†‘2ŒfŽ¦”Â

šˆ¢C—…ô@http://www.asyura2.com/ since 1995
ƒXƒpƒ€ƒ[ƒ‹‚Ì’†‚©‚猩‚‚¯o‚·‚½‚߂Ƀ[ƒ‹‚̃^ƒCƒgƒ‹‚É‚Í•K‚¸uˆ¢C—…‚³‚ñ‚ցv‚Æ‹Lq‚µ‚Ä‚­‚¾‚³‚¢B
‚·‚ׂẴy[ƒW‚̈ø—pA“]ÚAƒŠƒ“ƒN‚ð‹–‰Â‚µ‚Ü‚·BŠm”Fƒ[ƒ‹‚Í•s—v‚Å‚·Bˆø—pŒ³ƒŠƒ“ƒN‚ð•\Ž¦‚µ‚Ä‚­‚¾‚³‚¢B

@@@@@£‚±‚̃y[ƒW‚Ì‚s‚n‚o‚ց@@@@@ šˆ¢C—…ô > ’†‘2ŒfŽ¦”Â

@
£ã‚ց@@@@@ @
šˆ¢C—…ô @
‚±‚̔“Šeˆê—— @
@
@