钓鱼岛白皮书中英对照

钓鱼岛是中国的固有领土
   
(2012年9月)
  
 中华人民共和国国务院新闻办公室
 

　　目　录
 
　　前　言
    一、钓鱼岛是中国的固有领土
    二、日本窃取钓鱼岛
　 三、美日对钓鱼岛私相授受非法无效
    四、日本主张钓鱼岛主权毫无依据
    五、中国为维护钓鱼岛主权进行坚决斗争
    结束语

    前　言

    钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿是中国领土不可分割的一部分。无论从历史、地理还是从法理的角度来看，钓鱼岛都是中国的固有领土，中国对其拥有无可争辩的主权。

     日本在1895年利用甲午战争窃取钓鱼岛是非法无效的。第二次世界大战后，根据《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦公告》等国际法律文件，钓鱼岛回归中国。无论日本对钓鱼岛采取任何单方面举措，都不能改变钓鱼岛属于中国的事实。长期以来，日本在钓鱼岛问题上不时制造事端。2012年9月10日，日本政府宣布“购买”钓鱼岛及附属的南小岛、北小岛，实施所谓“国有化”。这是对中国领土主权的严重侵犯，是对历史事实和国际法理的严重践踏。

    中国坚决反对和遏制日本采取任何方式侵犯中国对钓鱼岛的主权。中国在钓鱼岛问题上的立场是明确的、一贯的，维护国家主权和领土完整的意志坚定不移，捍卫世界反法西斯战争胜利成果的决心毫不动摇。

    一、钓鱼岛是中国的固有领土

   钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿位于中国台湾岛的东北部，是台湾的附属岛屿，分布在东经123°20′-124°40′，北纬25°40′-26°00′之间的海域，由钓鱼岛、黄尾屿、赤尾屿、南小岛、北小岛、南屿、北屿、飞屿等岛礁组成，总面积约5.69平方千米。钓鱼岛位于该海域的最西端，面积约3.91平方千米，是该海域面积最大的岛屿，主峰海拔362米。黄尾屿位于钓鱼岛东北约27千米，面积约0.91平方千米，是该海域的第二大岛，最高海拔117米。赤尾屿位于钓鱼岛东北约110千米，是该海域最东端的岛屿，面积约0.065平方千米，最高海拔75米。

    (一)中国最先发现、命名和利用钓鱼岛

   中国古代先民在经营海洋和从事海上渔业的实践中，最早发现钓鱼岛并予以命名。在中国古代文献中，钓鱼岛又称钓鱼屿、钓鱼台。目前所见最早记载钓鱼岛、赤尾屿等地名的史籍，是成书于1403年(明永乐元年)的《顺风相送》。这表明，早在十四、十五世纪中国就已经发现并命名了钓鱼岛。

    1372年(明洪武五年)，琉球国王向明朝朝贡，明太祖遣使前往琉球。至1866年(清同治五年)近500年间，明清两代朝廷先后24次派遣使臣前往琉球王国册封，钓鱼岛是册封使前往琉球的途经之地，有关钓鱼岛的记载大量出现在中国使臣撰写的报告中。如，明朝册封使陈侃所著《使琉球录》(1534年)明确记载“过钓鱼屿，过黄毛屿，过赤屿，……见古米山，乃属琉球者”。明朝册封使郭汝霖所著《使琉球录》(1562年)记载，“赤屿者，界琉球地方山也”。清朝册封副使徐葆光所著《中山传信录》(1719年)明确记载，从福建到琉球，经花瓶屿、彭佳屿、钓鱼岛、黄尾屿、赤尾屿，“取姑米山(琉球西南方界上镇山)、马齿岛，入琉球那霸港”。

    1650年，琉球国相向象贤监修的琉球国第一部正史《中山世鉴》记载，古米山(亦称姑米山，今久米岛)是琉球的领土，而赤屿(今赤尾屿)及其以西则非琉球领土。1708年，琉球学者、紫金大夫程顺则所著《指南广义》记载，姑米山为“琉球西南界上之镇山”。

    以上史料清楚记载着钓鱼岛、赤尾屿属于中国，久米岛属于琉球，分界线在赤尾屿和久米岛之间的黑水沟(今冲绳海槽)。明朝册封副使谢杰所著《琉球录撮要补遗》(1579年)记载，“去由沧水入黑水，归由黑水入沧水”。明朝册封使夏子阳所著《使琉球录》(1606年)记载，“水离黑入沧，必是中国之界”。清朝册封使汪辑所著《使琉球杂录》(1683年)记载，赤屿之外的“黑水沟”即是“中外之界”。清朝册封副使周煌所著《琉球国志略》(1756年)记载，琉球“海面西距黑水沟，与闽海界”。

    钓鱼岛海域是中国的传统渔场，中国渔民世世代代在该海域从事渔业生产活动。钓鱼岛作为航海标志，在历史上被中国东南沿海民众广泛利用。

    (二)中国对钓鱼岛实行了长期管辖

    早在明朝初期，为防御东南沿海的倭寇，中国就将钓鱼岛列入防区。1561年(明嘉靖四十年)，明朝驻防东南沿海的最高将领胡宗宪主持、郑若曾编纂的《筹海图编》一书，明确将钓鱼岛等岛屿编入“沿海山沙图”，纳入明朝的海防范围内。1605年(明万历三十三年)徐必达等人绘制的《乾坤一统海防全图》及1621年(明天启元年)茅元仪绘制的中国海防图《武备志·海防二·福建沿海山沙图》，也将钓鱼岛等岛屿划入中国海疆之内。

    清朝不仅沿袭了明朝的做法，继续将钓鱼岛等岛屿列入中国海防范围内，而且明确将其置于台湾地方政府的行政管辖之下。清代《台海使槎录》、《台湾府志》等官方文献详细记载了对钓鱼岛的管辖情况。1871年(清同治十年)刊印的陈寿祺等编纂的《重纂福建通志》卷八十六将钓鱼岛列入海防冲要，隶属台湾府噶玛兰厅(今台湾省宜兰县)管辖。

    (三)中外地图标绘钓鱼岛属于中国

    1579年(明万历七年)明朝册封使萧崇业所著《使琉球录》中的“琉球过海图”、1629年(明崇祯二年)茅瑞徵撰写的《皇明象胥录》、1767年(清乾隆三十二年)绘制的《坤舆全图》、1863年(清同治二年)刊行的《皇朝中外一统舆图》等，都将钓鱼岛列入中国版图。

    日本最早记载钓鱼岛的文献为1785年林子平所著《三国通览图说》的附图“琉球三省并三十六岛之图”，该图将钓鱼岛列在琉球三十六岛之外，并与中国大陆绘成同色，意指钓鱼岛为中国领土的一部分。

    1809年法国地理学家皮耶·拉比等绘《东中国海沿岸各国图》，将钓鱼岛、黄尾屿、赤尾屿绘成与台湾岛相同的颜色。1811年英国出版的《最新中国地图》、1859年美国出版的《柯顿的中国》、1877年英国海军编制的《中国东海沿海自香港至辽东湾海图》等地图，都将钓鱼岛列入中国版图。

　　二、日本窃取钓鱼岛

    日本在明治维新以后加快对外侵略扩张。1879年，日本吞并琉球并改称冲绳县。此后不久，日本便密谋侵占钓鱼岛，并于甲午战争末期将钓鱼岛秘密“编入”版图。随后，日本又迫使中国签订不平等的《马关条约》，割让台湾全岛及包括钓鱼岛在内的所有附属各岛屿。

    (一)日本密谋窃取钓鱼岛

    1884年，有日本人声称首次登上钓鱼岛，发现该岛为“无人岛”。日本政府随即对钓鱼岛开展秘密调查，并试图侵占。日本上述图谋引起中国的警觉。1885年9月6日(清光绪十一年七月二十八日)《申报》登载消息：“台湾东北边之海岛，近有日本人悬日旗于其上，大有占据之势。”由于顾忌中国的反应，日本政府未敢轻举妄动。

    1885年9月22日冲绳县令在对钓鱼岛进行秘密调查后向内务卿山县有朋密报称，这些无人岛“与《中山传信录》记载的钓鱼台、黄尾屿和赤尾屿应属同一岛屿”，已为清朝册封使船所详悉，并赋以名称，作为赴琉球的航海标识，因此对是否应建立国家标桩心存疑虑，请求给予指示。同年10月9日，内务卿山县有朋致函外务卿井上馨征求意见。10月21日，井上馨复函山县有朋认为，“此刻若有公然建立国标等举措，必遭清国疑忌，故当前宜仅限于实地调查及详细报告其港湾形状、有无可待日后开发之土地物产等，而建国标及着手开发等，可待他日见机而作”。井上馨还特意强调，“此次调查之事恐均不刊载官报及报纸为宜”。因此，日本政府没有同意冲绳县建立国家标桩的请求。

   1890年1月13日，冲绳县知事又请示内务大臣，称钓鱼岛等岛屿“为无人岛，迄今尚未确定其管辖”，“请求将其划归本县管辖之八重山官署所辖”。1893年11月2日，冲绳县知事再次申请建立国标以划入版图。日本政府仍未答复。甲午战争前两个月，即1894年5月12日，冲绳县秘密调查钓鱼岛的最终结论是：“自明治十八年(1885年)派县警察对该岛进行勘察以来，未再开展进一步调查，故难提供更确切报告。……此外，没有关于该岛之旧时记录文书以及显示属我国领有的文字或口头传说的证据。”

    日本外务省编纂的《日本外交文书》明确记载了日本企图窃取钓鱼岛的经过，相关文件清楚地显示，当时日本政府虽然觊觎钓鱼岛，但完全清楚这些岛屿属于中国，不敢轻举妄动。

    1894年7月，日本发动甲午战争。同年11月底，日本军队占领中国旅顺口，清朝败局已定。在此背景下，12月27日，日本内务大臣野村靖致函外务大臣陆奥宗光，认为“今昔形势已殊”，要求将在钓鱼岛建立国标、纳入版图事提交内阁会议决定。1895年1月11日，陆奥宗光回函表示支持。同年1月14日，日本内阁秘密通过决议，将钓鱼岛“编入”冲绳县管辖。

    日本官方文件显示，日本从1885年开始调查钓鱼岛到1895年正式窃占，始终是秘密进行的，从未公开宣示，因此进一步证明其对钓鱼岛的主权主张不具有国际法规定的效力。

    (二)钓鱼岛随台湾岛被迫割让给日本

    1895年4月17日，清朝在甲午战争中战败，被迫与日本签署不平等的《马关条约》，割让“台湾全岛及所有附属各岛屿”。钓鱼岛等作为台湾“附属岛屿”一并被割让给日本。1900年，日本将钓鱼岛改名为“尖阁列岛”。

    三、美日对钓鱼岛私相授受非法无效

    第二次世界大战后，钓鱼岛回归中国。但20世纪50年代，美国擅自将钓鱼岛纳入其托管范围，70年代美国将钓鱼岛“施政权”“归还”日本。美日对钓鱼岛进行私相授受，严重侵犯了中国的领土主权，是非法的、无效的，没有也不能改变钓鱼岛属于中国的事实。

    (一)“二战”后钓鱼岛归还中国

    1941年12月，中国政府正式对日宣战，宣布废除中日之间的一切条约。1943年12月《开罗宣言》明文规定，“日本所窃取于中国之领土，例如东北四省、台湾、澎湖群岛等，归还中华民国。其他日本以武力或贪欲所攫取之土地，亦务将日本驱逐出境”。1945年7月《波茨坦公告》第八条规定：“《开罗宣言》之条件必将实施，而日本之主权必将限于本州、北海道、九州、四国及吾人所决定之其他小岛。”1945年9月2日，日本政府在《日本投降书》中明确接受《波茨坦公告》，并承诺忠诚履行《波茨坦公告》各项规定。1946年1月29日，《盟军最高司令部训令第677号》明确规定了日本施政权所包括的范围是“日本的四个主要岛屿(北海道、本州、九州、四国)及包括对马诸岛、北纬30度以北的琉球诸岛的约1000个邻近小岛”。1945年10月25日，中国战区台湾省对日受降典礼在台北举行，中国政府正式收复台湾。1972年9月29日，日本政府在《中日联合声明》中郑重承诺，充分理解和尊重中方关于台湾是中国不可分割一部分的立场，并坚持《波茨坦公告》第八条的立场。

    上述事实表明，依据《开罗宣言》、《波茨坦公告》和《日本投降书》，钓鱼岛作为台湾的附属岛屿应与台湾一并归还中国。

    (二)美国非法将钓鱼岛纳入托管范围

    1951年9月8日，美国等一些国家在排除中国的情况下，与日本缔结了“旧金山对日和平条约”(简称“旧金山和约”)，规定北纬29度以南的西南诸岛等交由联合国托管，而美国为唯一施政当局。需要指出的是，该条约所确定的交由美国托管的西南诸岛并不包括钓鱼岛。

    1952年2月29日、1953年12月25日，琉球列岛美国民政府先后发布第68号令(即《琉球政府章典》)和第27号令(即关于“琉球列岛的地理界限”布告)，擅自扩大托管范围，将中国领土钓鱼岛划入其中。此举没有任何法律依据，中国坚决反对。

    (三)美日私相授受钓鱼岛“施政权”

    1971年6月17日，美日签署《关于琉球诸岛及大东诸岛的协定》(简称“归还冲绳协定”)，将琉球群岛和钓鱼岛的“施政权”“归还”给日本。海内外中国人对此同声谴责。同年12月30日，中国外交部发表严正声明指出：“美、日两国政府在‘归还’冲绳协定中，把我国钓鱼岛等岛屿列入‘归还区域’，完全是非法的，这丝毫不能改变中华人民共和国对钓鱼岛等岛屿的领土主权。”台湾当局对此也表示坚决反对。

    面对中国政府和人民的强烈反对，美国不得不公开澄清其在钓鱼岛主权归属问题上的立场。1971年10月，美国政府表示，“把原从日本取得的对这些岛屿的施政权归还给日本，毫不损害有关主权的主张。美国既不能给日本增加在他们将这些岛屿施政权移交给我们之前所拥有的法律权利，也不能因为归还给日本施政权而削弱其他要求者的权利。……对此等岛屿的任何争议的要求均为当事者所应彼此解决的事项”。同年11月，美国参议院批准“归还冲绳协定”时，美国国务院发表声明称，尽管美国将该群岛的施政权交还日本，但是在中日双方对群岛对抗性的领土主张中，美国将采取中立立场，不偏向于争端中的任何一方。

　　四、日本主张钓鱼岛主权毫无依据

    1972年3月8日，日本外务省发表《关于尖阁列岛所有权问题的基本见解》，阐述日本政府对于钓鱼岛主权归属问题的主张：一是钓鱼岛为“无主地”，不包含在《马关条约》规定的由清政府割让给日本的澎湖列岛和台湾及其附属岛屿的范围之内。二是钓鱼岛不包含在“旧金山和约”第二条规定的日本所放弃的领土之内，而是包含在该条约第三条规定的作为西南诸岛的一部分被置于美国施政之下，并根据“归还冲绳协定”将施政权“归还”日本的区域内。三是中国没有将钓鱼岛视为台湾的一部分，对“旧金山和约”第三条规定将钓鱼岛置于美国施政区域内从未提出过任何异议。

    日本的上述主张严重违背事实，是完全站不住脚的。

    钓鱼岛属于中国，根本不是“无主地”。在日本人“发现”钓鱼岛之前，中国已经对钓鱼岛实施了长达数百年有效管辖，是钓鱼岛无可争辩的主人。如前所述，日本大量官方文件证明，日本完全清楚钓鱼岛早已归属中国，绝非国际法上的无主地。日本所谓依据“先占”原则将钓鱼岛作为“无主地”“编入”其版图，是侵占中国领土的非法行为，不具有国际法效力。

    无论从地理上还是从中国历史管辖实践看，钓鱼岛一直是中国台湾岛的附属岛屿。日本通过不平等的《马关条约》迫使清朝割让包括钓鱼岛在内的“台湾全岛及所有附属各岛屿”。《开罗宣言》、《波茨坦公告》等国际法律文件规定，日本必须无条件归还其窃取的中国领土。上述文件还对日本领土范围作了明确界定，其中根本不包括钓鱼岛。日本试图侵占钓鱼岛，实质是对《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦公告》等法律文件所确立的战后国际秩序的挑战，严重违背了日本应承担的国际法义务。

    美国等国家与日本签订的片面媾和条约“旧金山和约”所规定的托管范围不涵盖钓鱼岛。美国擅自扩大托管范围，非法将中国领土钓鱼岛纳入其中，后将钓鱼岛“施政权”“归还”日本，都没有任何法律依据，在国际法上没有任何效力。对于美日上述非法行径，中国政府和人民历来是明确反对的。

    五、中国为维护钓鱼岛主权进行坚决斗争

    长期以来，中国为维护钓鱼岛的主权进行了坚决斗争。

    中国通过外交途径强烈抗议和谴责美日私相授受钓鱼岛。1951年8月15日，旧金山会议召开前，中国政府声明：“对日和约的准备、拟制和签订，如果没有中华人民共和国的参加，无论其内容和结果如何，中央人民政府一概认为是非法的，因而也是无效的。”1951年9月18日，中国政府再次声明，强调“旧金山和约”是非法无效的，绝对不能承认。1971年，针对美、日两国国会先后批准“归还冲绳协定”的行为，中国外交部严正声明，钓鱼岛等岛屿自古以来就是中国领土不可分割的一部分。

    针对日本侵犯中国钓鱼岛主权的非法行径，中国政府采取积极有力措施，通过发表外交声明、对日严正交涉和向联合国提交反对照会等举措表示抗议，郑重宣示中国的一贯主张和原则立场，坚决捍卫中国的领土主权和海洋权益，切实维护中国公民的人身和财产安全。

    中国通过国内立法明确规定钓鱼岛属于中国。1958年，中国政府发表领海声明，宣布台湾及其周围各岛属于中国。针对日本自20世纪70年代以来对钓鱼岛所采取的种种侵权行为，中国于1992年颁布《中华人民共和国领海及毗连区法》时，明确规定“台湾及其包括钓鱼岛在内的附属各岛”属于中国领土。2009年颁布的《中华人民共和国海岛保护法》确立了海岛保护开发和管理制度，对海岛名称的确定和发布作了规定，据此，中国于2012年3月公布了钓鱼岛及其部分附属岛屿的标准名称。2012年9月10日，中国政府发表声明，公布了钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿的领海基线。9月13日，中国政府向联合国秘书长交存钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿领海基点基线的坐标表和海图。

    中国始终在钓鱼岛海域保持经常性的存在，并进行管辖。中国海监执法船在钓鱼岛海域坚持巡航执法，渔政执法船在钓鱼岛海域进行常态化执法巡航和护渔，维护该海域正常的渔业生产秩序。中国还通过发布天气和海洋观测预报等，对钓鱼岛及其附近海域实施管理。

    一直以来，钓鱼岛问题受到港澳同胞、台湾同胞和海外侨胞的共同关注。钓鱼岛自古以来就是中国的固有领土，这是全体中华儿女的共同立场。中华民族在维护国家主权和领土完整问题上有着坚定的决心。两岸同胞在民族大义面前，在共同维护民族利益和尊严方面，是一致的。港澳台同胞和海内外广大华侨华人纷纷开展各种形式的活动，维护钓鱼岛领土主权，强烈表达了中华儿女的正义立场，向世界展示了中华民族爱好和平、维护国家主权、捍卫领土完整的决心和意志。

    结束语

    钓鱼岛自古以来就是中国的固有领土，中国对其拥有无可争辩的主权。20世纪70年代，中日在实现邦交正常化和缔结《中日和平友好条约》时，两国老一辈领导人着眼两国关系大局，就将“钓鱼岛问题放一放，留待以后解决”达成谅解和共识。但近年来，日本不断对钓鱼岛采取单方面举措，特别是对钓鱼岛实施所谓“国有化”，严重侵犯中国主权，背离中日两国老一辈领导人达成的谅解和共识。这不但严重损害了中日关系，也是对世界反法西斯战争胜利成果的否定和挑战。

    中国强烈敦促日本尊重历史和国际法，立即停止一切损害中国领土主权的行为。中国政府捍卫国家领土主权的决心和意志是坚定不移的，有信心、有能力捍卫国家主权，维护领土完整。

国新办发表《钓鱼岛是中国的固有领土》白皮书（英文）

 

Diaoyu Dao, an Inherent Territory of China
(September 2012)
State Council Information Office
The People's Republic of China
 

Contents
Foreword
I. Diaoyu Dao is China's Inherent Territory
II. Japan Grabbed Diaoyu Dao from China
III. Backroom Deals Between the United States and Japan Concerning Diaoyu Dao are Illegal and Invalid
IV. Japan's Claim of Sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao is Totally Unfounded
V. China has Taken Resolute Measures to Safeguard its Sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao
Conclusion

Foreword

Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands are an inseparable part of the Chinese territory. Diaoyu Dao is China's inherent territory in all historical, geographical and legal terms, and China enjoys indisputable sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao.

Japan's occupation of Diaoyu Dao during the Sino-Japanese War in 1895 is illegal and invalid. After World War II, Diaoyu Dao was returned to China in accordance with such international legal documents as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. No matter what unilateral step Japan takes over Diaoyu Dao, it will not change the fact that Diaoyu Dao belongs to China. For quite some time, Japan has repeatedly stirred up troubles on the issue of Diaoyu Dao. On September 10, 2012, the Japanese government announced the 'purchase' of Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated Nanxiao Dao and Beixiao Dao and the implementation of the so-called 'nationalization'. This is a move that grossly violates China's territorial sovereignty and seriously tramples on historical facts and international jurisprudence.

China is firmly opposed to Japan's violation of China's sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao in whatever form and has taken resolute measures to curb any such act. China's position on the issue of Diaoyu Dao is clear-cut and consistent. China's will to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity is firm and its resolve to uphold the outcomes of the World Anti-Fascist War will not be shaken by any force.

I. Diaoyu Dao is China's Inherent Territory

Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands, which consist of Diaoyu Dao, Huangwei Yu, Chiwei Yu, Nanxiao Dao, Beixiao Dao, Nan Yu, Bei Yu, Fei Yu and other islands and reefs, are located to the northeast of China's Taiwan Island, in the waters between 123o20'-124o40'E (East Longitude) and 25o40'-26o00'N (North Latitude), and are affiliated to the Taiwan Island. The total landmass of these islands is approximately 5.69 square kilometers. Diaoyu Dao, situated in the western tip of the area, covers a landmass of about 3.91 square kilometers and is the largest island in the area. The highest peak on the island stands 362 meters above the sea level. Huangwei Yu, which is located about 27 kilometers to the northeast of Diaoyu Dao, is the second largest island in the area, with a total landmass of about 0.91 square kilometers and a highest elevation of 117 meters. Chiwei Yu, situated about 110 kilometers to the northeast of Diaoyu Dao, is the easternmost island in the area. It covers a landmass of approximately 0.065 square kilometers and stands 75 meters above the sea level at its peak.

1. Diaoyu Dao was first discovered, named and exploited by China

Ancient ancestors in China first discovered and named Diaoyu Dao through their production and fishery activities on the sea. In China's historical literatures, Diaoyu Dao is also called Diaoyu Yu or Diaoyu Tai. The earliest historical record of the names of Diaoyu Dao, Chiwei Yu and other places can be found in the book Voyage with a Tail Wind (Shun Feng Xiang Song) published in 1403 (the first year of the reign of Emperor Yongle of the Ming Dynasty). It shows that China had already discovered and named Diaoyu Dao by the 14th and 15th centuries.P In 1372 (the fifth year of the reign of Emperor Hongwu of the Ming Dynasty), the King of Ryukyu started paying tribute to the imperial court of the Ming Dynasty. In return, Emperor Hongwu (the first emperor of the Ming Dynasty) sent imperial envoys to Ryukyu. In the following five centuries until 1866 (the fifth year of the reign of Emperor Tongzhi of the Qing Dynasty), the imperial courts of the Ming and Qing Dynasties sent imperial envoys to Ryukyu 24 times to confer titles on the Ryukyu King, and Diaoyu Dao was exactly located on their route to Ryukyu. Ample volume of records about Diaoyu Dao could be found in the reports written by Chinese imperial envoys at the time. For example, the Records of the Imperial Title-conferring Envoys to Ryukyu (Shi Liu Qiu Lu) written in 1534 by Chen Kan, an imperial title-conferring envoy from the Ming court, clearly stated that 'the ship has passed Diaoyu Dao, Huangmao Yu, Chi Yu... Then Gumi Mountain comes into sight, that is where the land of Ryukyu begins.' The Shi Liu Qiu Lu of another imperial envoy of the Ming Dynasty, Guo Rulin, in 1562 also stated that 'Chi Yu is the mountain that marks the boundary of Ryukyu'. In 1719, Xu Baoguang, a deputy title-conferring envoy to Ryukyu in the Qing Dynasty, clearly recorded in his book Records of Messages from Chong-shan (Zhong Shan Chuan Xin Lu) that the voyage from Fujian to Ryukyu passed Huaping Yu, Pengjia Yu, Diaoyu Dao, Huangwei Yu, Chiwei Yu and reached Naba (Naha) port of Ryukyu via Gumi Mountain (the mountain guarding the southwest border of Ryukyu) and Machi Island.

In 1650, the Annals of Chong-shan (Zhong Shan Shi Jian), the first official historical record of the Ryukyu Kingdom drafted under the supervision of Ryukyu's prime minister Xiang Xiangxian (Kozoken), confirmed that Gumi Mountain (also called Gumi Mountain, known as Kume Island today) is part of Ryukyu's territory, while Chi Yu (known as Chiwei Yu today) and the areas to its west are not Ryukyu's territory. In 1708, Cheng Shunze (Tei Junsoku), a noted scholar and the Grand Master with the Purple-Golden Ribbon (Zi Jin Da Fu) of Ryukyu, recorded in his book A General Guide (Zhi Nan Guang Yi) that 'Gumi Mountain is the mountain guarding the southwest border of Ryukyu'.

These historical accounts clearly demonstrate that Diaoyu Dao and Chiwei Yu belong to China and Kume Island belongs to Ryukyu, and that the separating line lies in Hei Shui Gou (today's Okinawa Trough) between Chiwei Yu and Kume Island. In 1579, Xie Jie, a deputy imperial title-conferring envoy of the Ming Dynasty, recorded in his book, Addendum to Summarized Record of Ryukyu (Liu Qiu Lu Cuo Yao Bu Yi) that he entered Ryukyu from Cang Shui to Hei Shui, and returned to China from Hei Shui to Cang Shui. Xia Ziyang, another imperial envoy of the Ming court, wrote in 1606 that 'when the water flows from Hei Shui back to Cang Shui, it enters the Chinese territory.' Miscellaneous Records of a Mission to Ryukyu (Shi Liu Qiu Za Lu), a book written in 1683 by Wang Ji, an imperial envoy of the Qing Dynasty, stated that 'Hei Shui Gou', situated outside Chi Yu, is the 'boundary between China and foreign land'. In 1756, Zhou Huang, a deputy imperial envoy of the Qing Dynasty, recorded in his book, the Annals of Ryukyu (Liu Qiu Guo Zhi Lue), that Ryukyu 'is separated from the waters of Fujian by Hei Shui Gou to the west'.

The waters surrounding Diaoyu Dao are traditionally Chinese fishing ground. Chinese fishermen have, for generations, engaged in fishery activities in these waters. In the past, Diaoyu Dao was used as a navigation marker by the Chinese people living on the southeast coast.

2. Diaoyu Dao had long been under China's jurisdiction。

In the early years of the Ming Dynasty, China placed Diaoyu Dao under its coastal defense to guard against the invasion of Japanese pirates along its southeast coast. In 1561 (the 40th year of the reign of Emperor Jiajing of the Ming Dynasty), An Illustrated Compendium on Maritime Security (Chou Hai Tu Bian) compiled by Zheng Ruozeng under the auspices of Hu Zongxian, the supreme commander of the southeast coastal defense of the Ming court, included the Diaoyu Dao Islands on the 'Map of Coastal Mountains and Sands' (Yan Hai Shan Sha Tu) and incorporated them into the jurisdiction of the coastal defense of the Ming court. The Complete Map of Unified Maritime Territory for Coastal Defense (Qian Kun Yi Tong Hai Fang Quan Tu), drawn up by Xu Bida and others in 1605 (the 33rd year of the reign of Emperor Wanli of the Ming Dynasty) and the Treatise on Military Preparations.Coastal Defense II.Map of Fujian's Coastal Mountains and Sands (Wu Bei Zhi.Hai Fang Er.Fu Jian Yan Hai Shan Sha Tu), drawn up by Mao Yuanyi in 1621 (the first year of the reign of Emperor Tianqi of the Ming Dynasty), also included the Diaoyu Dao Islands as part of China's maritime territory.

The Qing court not only incorporated the Diaoyu Dao Islands into the scope of China's coastal defense as the Ming court did, but also clearly placed the islands under the jurisdiction of the local government of Taiwan. Official documents of the Qing court, such as A Tour of Duty in the Taiwan Strait (Tai Hai Shi Cha Lu) and Annals of Taiwan Prefecture (Tai Wan Fu Zhi) all gave detailed accounts concerning China's administration over Diaoyu Dao. Volume 86 of Recompiled General Annals of Fujian (Chong Zuan Fu Jian Tong Zhi), a book compiled by Chen Shouqi and others in 1871 (the tenth year of the reign of Emperor Tongzhi of the Qing Dynasty), included Diaoyu Dao as a strategic location for coastal defense and placed the islands under the jurisdiction of Gamalan, Taiwan (known as Yilan County today).

3. Chinese and foreign maps show that Diaoyu Dao belongs to China

The Roadmap to Ryukyu (Liu Qiu Guo Hai Tu) in the Shi Liu Qiu Lu written by imperial title-conferring envoy Xiao Chongye in 1579 (the seventh year of the reign of Emperor Wanli of the Ming Dynasty), the Record of the Interpreters of August Ming (Huang Ming Xiang Xu Lu) written by Mao Ruizheng in 1629 (the second year of the reign of Emperor Chongzhen of the Ming Dynasty), the Great Universal Geographic Map (Kun Yu Quan Tu) created in 1767 (the 32nd year of the reign of Emperor Qianlong of the Qing Dynasty), and the Atlas of the Great Qing Dynasty (Huang Chao Zhong Wai Yi Tong Yu Tu) published in 1863 (the second year of the reign of Emperor Tongzhi of the Qing Dynasty) all marked Diaoyu Dao as China's territory.

The book Illustrated Outline of the Three Countries written by Hayashi Shihei in 1785 was the earliest Japanese literature to mention Diaoyu Dao. The Map of the Three Provinces and 36 Islands of Ryukyu in the book put Diaoyu Dao as being apart from the 36 islands of Ryukyu and colored it the same as the mainland of China, indicating that Diaoyu Dao was part of China's territory.

The Map of East China Sea Littoral States created by the French cartographer Pierre Lapie and others in 1809 colored Diaoyu Dao, Huangwei Yu, Chiwei Yu and the Taiwan Island as the same. Maps such as A New Map of China from the Latest Authorities published in Britain in 1811, Colton's China published in the United States in 1859, and A Map of China's East Coast: Hongkong to Gulf of Liao-Tung compiled by the British Navy in 1877 all marked Diaoyu Dao as part of China's territory.

II. Japan Grabbed Diaoyu Dao from China

Japan accelerated its invasion and external expansion after the Meiji Restoration. Japan seized Ryukyu in 1879 and changed its name to Okinawa Prefecture. Soon after that, Japan began to act covertly to invade and occupy Diaoyu Dao and secretly 'included' Diaoyu Dao in its territory at the end of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895. Japan then forced China to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki and cede to Japan the island of Formosa (Taiwan), together with Diaoyu Dao and all other islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa.

1. Japan's covert moves to seize Diaoyu Dao

In 1884, a Japanese man claimed that he first landed on Diaoyu Dao and found the island to be uninhabited. The Japanese government then dispatched secret facts-finding missions to Diaoyu Dao and attempted to invade and occupy the island. The above-mentioned plots by Japan triggered China's alert. On September 6, 1885 (the 28th day of the 7th month in the 11th year of the reign of Emperor Guangxu of the Qing Dynasty), the Chinese newspaper Shen-pao (Shanghai News) reported: 'Recently, Japanese flags have been seen on the islands northeast to Taiwan, revealing Japan's intention to occupy these islands.' But the Japanese government did not dare to take any further action for fear of reaction from China.

After the secret facts-finding missions to Diaoyu Dao, the governor of Okinawa Prefecture sent a report in secrecy to the Minister of Internal Affairs Yamagata Aritomo on September 22, 1885, saying that these uninhabited islands were, in fact, the same Diaoyu Tai, Huangwei Yu and Chiwe Yu that were recorded in the Records of Messages from Chong-shan (Zhong Shan Chuan Xin Lu) and known well to imperial title-conferring envoys of the Qing court on their voyages to Ryukyu, and that he had doubts as to whether or not sovereignty markers should be set up and therefore asked for instruction. The Minister of Internal Affairs Yamagata Aritomo solicited opinion from the Foreign Minister Inoue Kaoru on October 9. Inoue Kaoru replied in a letter to Yamagata Aritomo on October 21, 'At present, any open moves such as placing sovereignty markers are bound to alert the Qing imperial court. Therefore, it is advisable not to go beyond field surveys and detailed reports on the shapes of the bays, land and other resources for future development. In the meantime, we will wait for a better time to engage in such activities as putting up sovereignty markers and embarking on development on the islands.' Inoue Kaoru also made a special emphasis that 'it is inappropriate to publicize the missions on official gazette or newspapers.' As a result, the Japanese government did not approve of the request of Okinawa Prefecture to set up sovereignty markers.

The governor of Okinawa Prefecture submitted the matter for approval to the Minister of Internal Affairs once again on January 13, 1890, saying that Diaoyu Dao and other 'above-mentioned uninhabited islands have remained under no specific jurisdiction', and that he 'intends to place them under the jurisdiction of the Office of Yaeyama Islands.' On November 2, 1893, the governor of Okinawa Prefecture applied once again for setting up sovereignty markers to incorporate the islands into Japan's territory. The Japanese government did not respond. On May 12, 1894, two months before the Sino-Japanese War, the secret facts-finding missions to Diaoyu Dao by Okinawa Prefecture came to a final conclusion, 'Ever since the prefecture police surveyed the island in 1885 (the 18th year of the Meiji period), there have been no subsequent investigations. As a result, it is difficult to provide any specific reports on it... In addition, there exist no old records related to the said island or folklore and legends demonstrating that the island belongs to our country.'

Japan's attempts to occupy Diaoyu Dao were clearly recorded in Japan Diplomatic Documents compiled by the Japanese Foreign Ministry. Relevant documents evidently show that the Japanese government intended to occupy Diaoyu Dao, but refrained from acting impetuously as it was fully aware of China's sovereignty over these islands.

Japan waged the Sino-Japanese War in July 1894. Towards the end of November 1894, Japanese forces seized the Chinese port of Lushun (then known as Port Arthur), virtually securing defeat of the Qing court. Against such backdrop, the Japanese Minister of Internal Affairs Yasushi Nomura wrote to Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu on December 27 that the 'circumstances have now changed', and called for a decision by the cabinet on the issue of setting up sovereignty markers in Diaoyu Dao and incorporating the island into Japan's territory. Mutsu Munemitsu expressed his support for the proposal in his reply to Yasushi Nomura on January 11, 1895. The Japanese cabinet secretly passed a resolution on January 14 to 'place' Diaoyu Dao under the jurisdiction of Okinawa Prefecture.

Japan's official documents show that from the time of the facts-finding missions to Diaoyu Dao in 1885 to the occupation of the islands in 1895, Japan had consistently acted in secrecy without making its moves public. This further proves that Japan's claim of sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao does not have legal effect under international law.

2. Diaoyu Dao was ceded to Japan together with the Taiwan Island

On April 17, 1895, the Qing court was defeated in the Sino-Japanese War and forced to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki and cede to Japan 'the island of Formosa (Taiwan), together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa'. The Diaoyu Dao Islands were ceded to Japan as 'islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa'. In 1900, Japan changed the name of Diaoyu Dao to 'Senkaku Islands'.

III. Backroom Deals Between the United States and Japan Concerning Diaoyu Dao are Illegal and Invalid

Diaoyu Dao was returned to China after the Second World War. However, the United States arbitrarily included Diaoyu Dao under its trusteeship in the 1950s and 'returned' the 'power of administration' over Diaoyu Dao to Japan in the 1970s. The backroom deals between the United States and Japan concerning Diaoyu Dao are acts of grave violation of China's territorial sovereignty. They are illegal and invalid. They have not and cannot change the fact that Diaoyu Dao belongs to China.

1. Diaoyu Dao was returned to China after the Second World War

In December 1941, the Chinese government officially declared war against Japan together with the abrogation of all treaties between China and Japan. In December 1943, the Cairo Declaration stated in explicit terms that 'all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa [Taiwan] and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.' In July 1945, the Potsdam Proclamation stated in Article 8: 'The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.' On September 2, 1945, the Japanese government accepted the Potsdam Proclamation in explicit terms with the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and pledged to faithfully fulfill the obligations enshrined in the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation. On January 29, 1946, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction (SCAPIN) No.677 clearly defined Japan's power of administration to 'include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu Islands north of the 30th parallel of North Latitude'. On October 25, 1945, the ceremony for accepting Japan's surrender in Taiwan Province of the China War Theater was held in Taipei, and the Chinese government officially recovered Taiwan. On September 29, 1972, the Japanese government committed with all seriousness in the China-Japan Joint Statement that 'the Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China [Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China], and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.'

These facts show that in accordance with the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Diaoyu Dao, as affiliated islands of Taiwan, should be returned, together with Taiwan, to China.

2. The United States illegally included Diaoyu Dao under its trusteeship

On September 8, 1951, Japan, the United States and a number of other countries signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan (commonly known as the Treaty of San Francisco) with China being excluded from it. The treaty placed the Nansei Islands south of the 29th parallel of North Latitude under United Nations' trusteeship, with the United States as the sole administering authority. It should be pointed out that the Nansei Islands placed under the administration of the United States in the Treaty of Peace with Japan did not include Diaoyu Dao.

The United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (USCAR) issued Civil Administration Ordinance No. 68 (Provisions of the Government of the Ryukyu Islands) on February 29, 1952 and Civil Administration Proclamation No. 27 (defining the 'geographical boundary lines of the Ryukyu Islands') on December 25, 1953, arbitrarily expanding its jurisdiction to include China's Diaoyu Dao. However, there were no legal grounds whatsoever for the US act, to which China has firmly opposed.

3. The United States and Japan conducted backroom deals concerning the 'power of administration' over Diaoyu Dao

On June 17, 1971, Japan and the United States signed the Agreement Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands (Okinawa Reversion Agreement), which provided that any and all powers of administration over the Ryukyu Islands and Diaoyu Dao would be 'returned' to Japan. The Chinese people, including overseas Chinese, all condemned such a backroom deal. On December 30, 1971, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a solemn statement, pointing out that 'it is completely illegal for the government of the United States and Japan to include China's Diaoyu Dao Islands into the territories to be returned to Japan in the Okinawa Reversion Agreement and that it can by no means change the People's Republic of China's territorial sovereignty over the Diaoyu Dao Islands'. The Taiwan authorities also expressed firm opposition to the backroom deal between the United States and Japan.

In response to the strong opposition of the Chinese government and people, the United States had to publicly clarify its position on the sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. In October 1971, the US administration stated that 'the United States believes that a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims. The United States cannot add to the legal rights Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the islands to us, nor can the United States, by giving back what it received, diminish the rights of other claimants... The United States has made no claim to Diaoyu Dao and considers that any conflicting claims to the islands are a matter for resolution by the parties concerned.' In November 1971, when presenting the Okinawa Reversion Agreement to the US Senate for ratification, the US Department of State stressed that the United States took a neutral position with regard to the competing Japanese and Chinese claims to the islands, despite the return of administrative rights over the islands to Japan.

IV. Japan's Claim of Sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao Is Totally Unfounded

On March 8, 1972, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued the Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands in an attempt to explain the Japanese government's claims of sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. First, Japan claims that Diaoyu Dao was 'terra nullius' and not part of Pescadores, Formosa [Taiwan] or their affiliated islands which were ceded to Japan by the Qing government in accordance with the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Second, Japan claims that Diaoyu Dao was not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article 2 of the Treaty of San Francisco, but was placed under the administration of the United States as part of the Nansei Islands in accordance with Article 3 of the said treaty, and was included in the area for which the administrative rights were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Okinawa Reversion Agreement. Third, Japan claims that China didn't regard Diaoyu Dao as part of Taiwan and had never challenged the inclusion of the islands in the area over which the United States exercised administrative rights in accordance with Article 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco.

Such claims by Japan fly in the face of facts and are totally unfounded.

Diaoyu Dao belongs to China. It is by no means 'terra nullius'. China is the indisputable owner of Diaoyu Dao as it had exercised valid jurisdiction over the island for several hundred years long before the Japanese people 'discovered' it. As stated above, voluminous Japanese official documents prove that Japan was fully aware that according to international law, Diaoyu Dao has long been part of China and was not 'terra nullius'. Japan's act to include Diaoyu Dao as 'terra nullius' into its territory based on the 'occupation' principle is in fact an illegal act of occupying Chinese territory and has no legal effect according to international law.

Diaoyu Dao has always been affiliated to China's Taiwan Island both in geographical terms and in accordance with China's historical jurisdiction practice. Through the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki, Japan forced the Qing court to cede to it 'the island of Taiwan, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to it', including Diaoyu Dao. International legal documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation provide that Japan must unconditionally return the territories it has stolen from China. These documents also clearly define Japan's territory, which by no means includes Diaoyu Dao. Japan's attempted occupation of Diaoyu Dao, in essence, constitutes a challenge to the post-war international order established by such legal documents as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation and seriously violates the obligations Japan should undertake according to international law.

Diaoyu Dao was not placed under the trusteeship established by the Treaty of San Francisco, which was signed between the United States and other countries with Japan and is partial in nature. The United States arbitrarily expanded the scope of trusteeship to include Diaoyu Dao, which is China's territory, and later 'returned' the 'power of administration' over Diaoyu Dao to Japan. This has no legal basis and is totally invalid according to international law. The government and people of China have always explicitly opposed such illegal acts of the United States and Japan.

V. China has Taken Resolute Measures to Safeguard its Sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao

China has, over the past years, taken resolute measures to safeguard its sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao.

China has, through the diplomatic channel, strongly protested against and condemned the backroom deals between the United States and Japan over Diaoyu Dao. On August 15, 1951, before the San Francisco Conference, the Chinese government made a statement: 'If the People's Republic of China is excluded from the preparation, formulation and signing of the peace treaty with Japan, it will, no matter what its content and outcome are, be regarded as illegal and therefore invalid by the central people's government.' On September 18, 1951, the Chinese government issued another statement stressing that the Treaty of San Francisco is illegal and invalid and can under no circumstances be recognized. In 1971, responding to the ratifications of the Okinawa Reversion Agreement by the US Congress and Japanese Diet, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a stern statement which pointed out that the Diaoyu Dao Islands have been an indivisible part of the Chinese territory since ancient times.

In response to Japan's illegal violation of China's sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao, the Chinese government has taken active and forceful measures such as issuing diplomatic statements, making serious representations with Japan and submitting notes of protest to the United Nations, solemnly stating China's consistent proposition, principle and position, firmly upholding China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, and earnestly protecting the safety of life and property of Chinese citizens.

China has enacted domestic laws, which clearly provide that Diaoyu Dao belongs to China. In 1958, the Chinese government released a statement on the territorial sea, announcing that Taiwan and its adjacent islands belong to China. In light of Japan's repeated violations of China's sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao since the 1970s, China adopted the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1992, which unequivocally prescribes that 'Taiwan and the various affiliated islands including Diaoyu Dao' belong to China. The 2009 Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Offshore Islands establishes the protection, development and management system of offshore islands and prescribes the determination and announcement of the names of offshore islands, on the basis of which China announced the standard names of Diaoyu Dao and some of its affiliated islands in March 2012. On September 10, 2012, the Chinese government issued a statement announcing the baselines of the territorial sea of Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands. On September 13, the Chinese government deposited the coordinates table and chart of the base points and baselines of the territorial sea of Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

China has maintained routine presence and exercised jurisdiction in the waters of Diaoyu Dao. China's marine surveillance vessels have been carrying out law enforcement patrol missions in the waters of Diaoyu Dao, and fishery administration law enforcement vessels have been conducting regular law enforcement patrols and fishery protection missions to uphold normal fishing order in the waters of Diaoyu Dao. China has also exercised administration over Diaoyu Dao and the adjacent waters by releasing weather forecasts and through oceanographic monitoring and forecasting.

Over the years, the issue of Diaoyu Dao has attracted attention from Hong Kong and Macao compatriots, Taiwan compatriots and overseas Chinese. Diaoyu Dao has been an inherent territory of China since ancient times. This is the common position of the entire Chinese nation. The Chinese nation has the strong resolve to uphold state sovereignty and territorial integrity. The compatriots across the Taiwan Straits stand firmly together on matters of principle to the nation and in the efforts to uphold national interests and dignity. The compatriots from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan and the overseas Chinese have all carried out various forms of activities to safeguard China's territorial sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao, strongly expressing the just position of the Chinese nation, and displaying to the rest of the world that the peace-loving Chinese nation has the determination and the will to uphold China's state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Conclusion

Diaoyu Dao has been an inherent territory of China since ancient times, and China has indisputable sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. As China and Japan were normalizing relations and concluding the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship in the 1970s, the then leaders of the two countries, acting in the larger interest of China-Japan relations, reached important understanding and consensus on 'leaving the issue of Diaoyu Dao to be resolved later.' But in recent years, Japan has repeatedly taken unilateral measures concerning Diaoyu Dao and conducted in particular the so-called 'nationalization' of Diaoyu Dao. This severely infringed upon China's sovereignty and ran counter to the understanding and consensus reached between the older generation of leaders of the two countries. It has not only seriously damaged China-Japan relations, but also rejected and challenged the outcomes of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War.

China strongly urges Japan to respect history and international law and immediately stop all actions that undermine China's territorial sovereignty. The Chinese government has the unshakable resolve and will to uphold the nation's territorial sovereignty. It has the confidence and ability to safeguard China's state sovereignty and territorial integrity.