Distribution map of Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands
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, have approximately a total landmass of 5.69 square kilometers. Diaoyu Dao is the largest, with an area of about 3.90 square kilometers. It is comparatively flat on its northern side but rises steeply on its southeastern side. In shape it resembles a barbed fishing spear because of the jagged reefs to the east and central mountains running from east to west.
Remote sensing image of Diaoyu Dao
Remote sensing image of Huangwei Yu
Remote sensing image of Chiwei Yu
2. Natural resources
Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands are rich in camellia, palm, cactus, sea lotus and rare Chinese medicinal herbs. Many species of seabirds nest on the islands, and they have been called “the islands of flowers and birds.” The surrounding waters are the traditional fishing grounds of Chinese fishermen with abundant fishery resources such as mackerel, bonito and lobster. There are also rich oil and natural gas in this area.
II. Diaoyu Dao has been China’s Inherent Territory since Ancient Times
1. Diaoyu Dao was first discovered, named and exploited by China
Diaoyu Dao has been China’s inherent territory since ancient times. Numerous documents and historical evidence attest to the fact that Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands were first discovered, named and exploited by the Chinese people. Diaoyu Dao has been part of China’s territory since the early years of the Ming Dynasty. Chinese fishermen have exploited the islands and their adjacent waters for generations.
The earliest existent historical record of Diaoyu Dao is in the book Voyage with a Tail Wind (Shun Feng Xiang Song), in 1403 (the first year of the reign of Emperor Yongle of the Ming Dynasty). The book clearly shows the names of islands regularly passed by Chinese voyagers including "Diaoyu Yu" and "Chikan Yu" (known today as Diaoyu Dao and Chiwei Yu).
Description of "Diaoyu Yu" and "Chikan Yu", known today as Diaoyu Dao and Chiwei Yu, in the book Voyage with a Tail Wind (Shun Feng Xiang Song).
The imperial courts of the Ming and Qing dynasties sent imperial title-conferring envoys to the Ryukyu Kingdom 24 times. The Records of the Imperial Title-Conferring Envoys to Ryukyu (Shi Liu Qiu Lu) and voluminous materials left by the envoys depict the topography and geography of Diaoyu Dao in detail and clearly state that Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands are part of the China’s territory. In 1534 (the 13th year of the reign of Emperor Jiajing of the Ming Dynasty), Chen Kan, an imperial title-conferring envoy from the Ming court to Ryukyu, stated in Records of the Imperial Title-Conferring Envoys to Ryukyu: "Diaoyu Yu, Huangmao Yu, Chi Yu, so many islands unfold before my eyes. Then Kume Mountain comes into sight; that is where the land of Ryukyu begins. The Ryukyuans on my ship start singing and dancing excitedly, because they know they have finally returned to their homes." The passage indicates that Ryukyuans believed they had arrived at Ryukyu when they saw Kume Mountain (known as Kumejima Island today) after passing Chi Yu (known as Chiwei Yu today). This indicates that Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands belong to China, not Ryukyu.
Passages about Diaoyu Dao from Records of the Imperial Title-Conferring Envoys to Ryukyu
In 1719 (the 58th year of the reign of Emperor Kangxi of the Qing Dynasty), Xu Baoguang, a deputy title-conferring envoy to Ryukyu, recorded in his book Records of Messages from Chong-shan (Zhong Shan Chuan Xin Lu (Chong-shan is another name for the Ryukyu Kingdom) that the Yaeyama Islands formed the "southwest border of Ryukyu". 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". The "mountain" herein referred to the main island among a group of islands and islets southwest of Ryukyu. Cheng Shunze (Tei Junsoku), a noted scholar and the Grand Master with the Purple-Golden Ribbon (Zi Jin Da Fu) of Ryukyu, gave a similar account in A General Guide (Zhi Nan Guang Yi), which was published earlier than Records of Messages from Chong-shan. These records prove that China and Ryukyu clearly had an identical understanding of the maritime boundaries and jurisdictions over the various islands.
2. Diaoyu Dao had long been under China’s jurisdiction
Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands were under China’s jurisdiction during the Ming and Qing dynasties.
In 1556 (the 35th year of the reign of Emperor Jiajing of the Ming Dynasty), Zheng Shungong wrote A Mirror of Japan (Ri Ben Yi Jian) after being dispatched by the Ming court to Japan on a study trip. An illustration in the book – A Mirror of the Seas and Fords (Cang Hai Jin Jing) – depicts Diaoyu Dao with the caption "Diaoyu Yu is a small islet adjacent to Xiaodong". Xiaodong was another name for Taiwan. This shows that China, at that time, affirmed that Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands were geographically affiliated and connected to Taiwan.
An Illustrated Compendium on Maritime Security (Chou Hai Tu Bian) compiled by the geographer Zheng Ruozeng under the auspices of Hu Zongxian, Supreme Commander of the southeast coastal defenses of the Ming court in 1561 (the 40th year of the reign of Emperor Jiajing of the Ming Dynasty), marked the islands as under the jurisdiction of the Ming court's coastal defense forces. In the book’s first volume, A Map of Fujian’s Coastal Mountains and Sands (Fu Jian Yan Hai Shan Sha Tu) included Diaoyu Island and its adjacent islets. This shows that by the Ming Dynasty at the latest, the islands were under the jurisdiction of China’s coastal defense forces.
"Map of Fujian's Coastal Mountains and Sands" from An Illustrated Compendium on Maritime Security
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 followed the Ming court in placing the Diaoyu Dao Islands under the jurisdiction of China's coastal defense forces. A Tour of Duty in the Taiwan Sea (Tai Hai Shi Cha Lu), written by imperial envoy Huang Shujing after an inspection tour to Taiwan in 1722 (the 61st year of the reign of Emperor Kangxi of the Qing Dynasty), included accounts of Diaoyu Dao; “there is an island to the north of the ocean that can harbor more than ten ships. Its name is Diaoyu Tai.” Official documents of the Qing Court such as Annals of Taiwan Prefecture (Tai Wan Fu Zhi) gave detailed accounts of the administration of the Diaoyu Islands. The Recompiled General Annals of Fujian (Chong Zuan Fu Jian Tong Zhi), issued in 1871, established categorically that the Diaoyu Dao Islands were affiliated with Gamalan in Taiwan (known as Yilan County today).
3. Chinese maps prove that Diaoyu Dao belongs to China.
The Roadmap to Ryukyu (Liu Qiu Guo Hai Tu) in the Records of the Imperial Title-conferring Envoys to Ryukyu (Shi Liu Qiu Lu), complied by the imperial title-conferring envoy Xiao Chongye in 1579 (the seventh year of the reign of Emperor Wanli of the Ming Dynasty) clearly marked and recorded Diaoyu Yu, Huangwei Yu and Chiwei Yu.
Michel Beno？t, a French Jesuit who arrived in China in 1744 (the ninth year of the reign of Emperor Qianlong of the Qing Dynasty), was commissioned by the Qing court in 1767 to create the Great Universal Geographic Map (Kun Yu Quan Tu), which labeled Diaoyu Dao in China's coastal waters using words from the Minnan dialect (Ban Lam Gu).
Part of the Atlas of the Great Qing Dynasty
The Atlas of the Great Qing Dynasty (Da Qing Yi Tong Yu Tu) published in 1863 (the second year of the reign of Emperor Tongzhi of the Qing Dynasty) also clearly marked and recorded Diaoyu Yu, Huangwei Yu and Chiwei Yu. From the map, we can see that the voyage from Meihua in Fujian to Naba (Naha) port of Ryukyu passed Dongshan, Small Ryukyu, Pengjia Yu, Diaoyu Yu, Huangwei Yu and Chiwei Yu – all islands named by China.
III. Japan and the International Community Recognized Diaoyu Dao as Part of China in Explicit Terms
Until modern times, none of Japan's official historical accounts, national records or academic papers had ever challenged China’s territorial sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao, and the Chinese names for the islands were used in all these documents.
In 1785, the Japanese scholar Hayashi Shihei wrote the book Illustrated Outline of the Three Countries. An attached Map of the Three Provinces and 36 Islands of Ryukyu depicted Diaoyu Dao in the same color as the mainland of China, indicating that Diaoyu Tai (Diaoyu Dao), Chiwei Mountain (Chiwei Yu) and Huangwei Mountain (Huangwei Yu) were part of China’s territory, and clearly separate from Ryukyu. All Japanese maps published prior to the mid-19th century marked Diaoyu Dao and the mainland of China in the same color.
The Map of the Three Provinces and 36 Islands of Ryukyu attached to the Illustrated Outline of the Three Countries
A Complete Map of the Ryukyu Islands attached to New Annals of Ryukyu which was published in Japan in 1873, a Map of Great Japan with Rectified Prefectures published in 1875, a Map of Great Japan, drawn up in 1876 by the General Staff Office of Japan's Army Ministry, and a Map of Okinawa published in the Annals of Okinawa in 1877 all excluded the Diaoyu Dao Islands. These islands were neither included in the Maps and Names of Provinces and Cities in Japan published as late as 1892.
Relevant 19th century documents and maps from Western countries including Britain, France, the United States and Spain also acknowledged that Diaoyu Dao belonged to China. A New Map of China from the Latest Authorities, published in Britain in 1811, marked Diaoyu Dao as part of China’s territory. A Map of China's East Coast: Hong Kong to Gulf of Liao-Tung, compiled by the British Navy in 1877, identified the Diaoyu Dao Islands as affiliated to Taiwan Island and clearly separated them from Japan’s Nansei Islands. This map was later widely referred to in international exchanges. A map of Asia drawn by the Spaniard J. P. Morales in 1879 marked Diaoyu Dao and Chiwei Yu as China’s territory.
A Map of China's East Coast: Hong Kong to the Gulf of Liao-Tung, compiled by the British Navy
In 1971, aware of the backroom deals between the United States and Japan concerning Diaoyu Dao, some Japanese scholars, including Arahata Kanson, Inoue Kiyoshi and Hani Goro maintained that, historically, Diaoyu Dao was grabbed from China by the Japanese government during the First Sino-Japanese War. Inoue Kiyoshi, a professor emeritus of Kyoto University, later wrote the book “Senkaku” Islands - Historical Facts of the Diaoyu Islands. Based on a variety of historical documents from Japan, Ryukyu, China and the archives of the British Navy as well as field investigations, he proved that Diaoyu Dao and its adjacent islands have been China’s territory since ancient times. They were excluded from the old-time Ryukyu Kingdom and were not part of Japan’s territory. He criticized the farfetched arguments invented to justify the illegal occupation of China’s territory.
Thus it can be seen that the international community, including Japan, once recognized China’s sovereignty over the Diaoyu Dao Islands.
IV. Japan’s Claim of Sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao is Totally Unfounded
1. Japan's claim to sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao on the grounds of the “preemption” principle is contradicted by the historical facts
According to the Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan in 1972, one of the justifications for claiming Diaoyu Dao as part of Japan’s territory is the "preemption" principle. Japan claims that Koga Tatsushiro, a Japanese explorer, landed on Diaoyu Dao in 1884. From 1885 on, the Japanese government had dispatched facts-finding missions to Diaoyu Dao and claimed that the islands had been previously uninhabited and showed no trace of having been under the control of the Qing court. Based on this, the Japanese government formally "incorporated" Diaoyu Dao into Japan’s territory in 1895.
However, the truth is that Diaoyu Dao had been discovered, named and exploited by the Chinese people, and had been under the jurisdiction of China’s coastal defense forces since before 1403. In the 500-year period from the early Ming Dynasty to the late Qing Dynasty, the Chinese government continued to conduct inspections of, and maintained its jurisdiction over the Diaoyu Dao Islands and their surrounding waters. Between 1885 and 1893, Okinawa Prefecture three times requested permission from the Japanese government to place Diaoyu Dao under its jurisdiction and erect sovereignty markers. The Japanese government rejected the requests, fearing reaction from the Qing court. According to the Diplomatic Documentation of Japan, Okinawa Governor Nishimura Sutezo wrote to the Minister of Internal Affairs Yamagata Aritomo saying that the fact-finding missions, in fact, showed that these “uninhabited islands” were the same Diaoyu Tai, Huangwei Yu and Chiwei Yu that had been recorded in the Records of Messages from Chong-shan and were well known to imperial title-conferring envoys of the Qing court on their voyages to Ryukyu. On October 21, 1885, Japanese Foreign Minister Inoue Kaoru wrote to Yamagata Aritomo, saying that “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.”
It is beyond question that the Diaoyu Dao Islands have been China’s territory since the Ming and Qing dynasties. They were not “terra nullius” and Japan cannot claim “sovereignty” over Diaoyu Dao on the basis of the “preemption” principle.
2. Backroom deals between the United States and Japan Concerning Diaoyu Dao are illegal and invalid
In The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands issued by the Japanese Foreign Ministry in 1972, the Japanese government invoked the Treaty of Peace with Japan (commonly known as the Treaty of San Francisco) and the Agreement concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands (Okinawa Reversion Agreement) to support its claim that “power of administration” over Diaoyu Dao had “returned” to Japan and therefore Japan had “sovereignty” over the islands.
But, it is not true. Japan started the first 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 saying “I am writing to discuss with you about placing sovereignty markers in Kuba-jima and Uotsuri-jima” (Huangwei Yu and Diaoyu Dao). “The circumstances have now changed and it is possible to submit this issue to the cabinet for reconsideration.” 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. But in fact, at the time, the Japanese government neither set up sovereignty markers on Diaoyu Dao, nor did it include them in an imperial decree on the geographical scope of Okinawa Prefecture. On April 17 the same year, China was forced to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki with Japan, under which the entire island of Taiwan, together with all its affiliated islands, including Diaoyu Dao, were ceded to Japan.
In December 1943, China, the United States and the United Kingdom issued the Cairo Declaration, which 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, China, the US and the UK issued the Potsdam Proclamation (The Soviet Union signed the Proclamation in August that year) which 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 August 15, 1945, Japan accepted the Potsdam Proclamation and surrendered unconditionally. On September 2, in Articles 1 and 6 of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the Japanese government pledged to faithfully fulfill the obligations enshrined in the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation. These documents all testify to the fact that Taiwan and its affiliated Diaoyu Dao should have been simultaneously returned to China.
Cairo Declaration (English edition)
Cairo Declaration (Chinese edition)
In 1951, the United States and a number of other countries, deliberately excluding China, signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan (commonly known as the Treaty of San Francisco), which 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. The islands placed under the administration of the United States in the treaty did not include the Diaoyu Dao Islands. However, on December 25, 1953, the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (USCAR) issued Civil Administration Proclamation No. 27 defining the “geographical boundary lines of the Ryukyu Islands”, arbitrarily expanding its jurisdiction to include China's Diaoyu Dao. On June 17, 1971, the United States and Japan signed the Agreement Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands (the Okinawa Reversion Agreement), which provided that any and all powers of administration over the Ryukyu Islands and Diaoyu Dao would be “returned” to Japan.
On September 18, 1951, Zhou Enlai, the then Chinese Foreign Minister, made a solemn statement on behalf of the Chinese government that “ the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed in San Francisco is illegal and invalid and can under no circumstances be recognized by the Chinese government since China has been excluded from its preparation, formulation and signing.” On December 30, 1971, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement, saying 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 and overseas Chinese also expressed strong opposition to the backroom deal between the United States and Japan over the Diaoyu Dao Islands.
In response to the strong opposition of the Chinese government and people, the United States had to clarify that no agreements or treaties it signed with Japan could constitute recognition of Japan’s sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. In October 1971, the United States administration publicly 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.” On September 11, 1996, the United States administration again stated, “The United States neither recognizes, nor supports the claim of any country to sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao”. In 2012, the US administration again reiterated that it does not take a position on the question of the ultimate sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao.
Thus it can be seen that the “legal basis” formulated by the Japanese government to justify its claim to “sovereignty” over Diaoyu Dao does not hold water.
V. China Resolutely Claims and Safeguards Its Sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao
1. China’s determination to safeguard its sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao is unshakable.
The Diaoyu Dao Islands have been China’s inherent territory since ancient times. This is supported by historical facts and jurisprudential evidence. China does not recognize, and resolutely opposes, the unlawful and invalid treaty that Japan used to justify its theft of Diaoyu Dao. In recent years, sovereignty-infringing behavior by Japan such as encouraging right-wingers to land on the islands, constructing “lighthouses”, leasing the Diaoyu Dao Islands from their “owners”, “naming” the subsidiary islands of Diaoyu Dao and “purchasing” the islands have provoked strong protests by the Chinese people that demonstrate China’s determination to safeguard its sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao.
Chinese Foreign Ministers and spokesmen have, on different occasions, stated clearly that Diaoyu Dao has always been China's inherent territory. China has solid and sufficient historical and legal basis to support this fact. Any unilateral action by Japan is invalid and will exert no influence on China’s sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. The fact that Diaoyu Dao belongs to China can never be changed and altered.
On November 24, 1996, then Chinese President Jiang Zemin stated China's consistent position on the issue of Diaoyu Dao during talks with the late Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto when they were attending the Fourth APEC Informal Leaders’ Meeting.
On September 10, 2012, at the 20th APEC Informal Leaders’ Meeting, Chinese President Hu Jintao said “China’s stance on Diaoyu Dao is consistent and clear. Any attempt Japan makes to “purchase” Diaoyu Dao is illegal and invalid and China resolutely rejects it. The Chinese government is steadfast in its defense of territorial integrity and sovereignty. Japan must be fully aware of the gravity of the situation and retreat from the wrong path. The two countries should join hands to safeguard the overall situation and development of Sino-Japanese relations.”
On September 10, 2012, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao delivered a speech at the China Foreign Affairs University affirming the Chinese government and people’s commitment to defending its hard-won national sovereignty and national dignity. He said China has always been unshakable and unyielding even when facing extreme hardship. He restated that Diaoyu Dao is China’s inherent territory and China will never retreat on sovereignty and territorial issues.
On September 10, 2012, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a statement firmly opposing and strongly protesting against Japan’s announcement of its “nationalization” of Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated Nanxiao Dao and Beixiao Dao. The statement added that Diaoyu Dao has always been China’s sacred territory and that the so-called “island purchase” is completely illegal and invalid, can never change the historical facts regarding Japan’s occupation of Chinese territory, and will never change China’s territorial sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao.
2. China’s actions to safeguard its sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao are firm and forceful.
China continues to resolutely and forcefully resist Japan’s violations of its territorial sovereignty. The Chinese government has made solemn diplomatic representations to the Japanese government and has taken strong counter-measures. The Japanese government has been compelled to state clearly that it is “not supporting, inciting and recognizing” right-wingers’ activities regarding Diaoyu Dao. Japan has also promised to control the right-wingers’ activities and has prohibited them from landing on the islands.
China has taken legal steps to reiterate its sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. On February 25, 1992, China issued the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone reaffirming China’s sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. On May 15, 2008, China sent a formal note to the Secretary General of the United Nations protesting against the Japanese government marking Diaoyu Dao as Japanese “territorial waters” on a nautical chart submitted to the UN. On March 3, 2012, China announced the standard names of Diaoyu Dao and some of its affiliated islands. 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’s marine surveillance vessels have been carrying out regular law enforcement patrol missions in the waters of Diaoyu Dao to safeguard sovereignty and exercise jurisdiction. China’s 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. The Chinese government has incorporated Diaoyu Dao and its adjacent waters into the National Sea Area Dynamic Surveillance, Monitoring and Management System, as well as the National Islands Monitoring and Surveillance System. China has also begun releasing weather forecasts and marine environmental forecasts for Diaoyu Dao.
China marine surveillance vessels, Haijian-50 and Haijian-46 patrol waters close to Diaoyu Dao on December 8, 2008.
China fishery administration law enforcement vessel, Yuzheng-204, patrols waters close to Diaoyu Dao on July 11, 2012.
China marine surveillance vessel patrols waters close to Diaoyu Dao on September 14, 2012.
Statement of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of Diaoyu Dao and Its Affiliated Islands
September 10, 2012
In accordance with the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone adopted and promulgated on 25 February 1992, the Government of the People’ Republic of China hereby announces the baselines of the territorial sea adjacent to Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands of the People’ Republic of China.
I. The baselines of the territorial sea adjacent to Diaoyu Dao, Huangwei Yu, Nanxiao Dao, Beixiao Dao, Nan Yu, Bei Yu and Fei Yu are composed of all the straight lines joining the adjacent base points listed below:
1. Diaoyu Dao 1 25°44.1′N 123°27.5′E
2. Diaoyu Dao 2 25°44.2′N 123°27.4′E
3. Diaoyu Dao 3 25°44.4′N 123°27.4′E
4. Diaoyu Dao 4 25°44.7′N 123°27.5′E
5. Haitun Dao 25°55.8′N 123°40.7′E
6. Xiahuya Dao 25°55.8′N 123°41.1′E
7. Haixing Dao 25°55.6′N 123°41.3′E
8. Huangwei Yu 25°55.4′N 123°41.4′E
9. Haigui Dao 25°55.3′N 123°41.4′E
10. Changlong Dao 25°43.2′N 123°33.4′E
11. Nanxiao Dao 25°43.2′N 123°33.2′E
12. Changyu Dao 25°44.0′N 123°27.6′E
1. Diaoyu Dao 1 25°44.1′N 123°27.5′E
Ⅱ. The baselines of the territorial sea adjacent to Chiwei Yu are composed of all the straight lines joining the adjacent base points listed below:
1. Chiwei Yu 25°55.3′N 124°33.7′E
2. Wangchi Dao 25°55.2′N 124°33.2′E
3. Xiaochiwei Dao 25°55.3′N 124°33.3′E
4. Chibeibei Dao 25°55.5′N 124°33.5′E
5. Chibeidong Dao 25°55.5′N 124°33.7′E
1. Chiwei Yu 25°55.3′N 124°33.7′E
Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China
December 30, 1971
Over the past years, regardless of historical facts and the firm opposition of the Chinese people, the Eisaku Sato administration has repeatedly claimed that Japan has “sovereignty” over Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands, which, in fact, belong to China, and the Japanese government has worked hand in glove with American imperialism in an attempt to seize Chinese territory. Recently, the US congress and the Japanese cabinet concluded the Okinawa Reversion Agreement, arbitrarily including the Diaoyu Islands among territories to be reversed to Japan. This is a blatant violation of China’s territorial sovereignty and will not be tolerated by the Chinese people.
The “reversion of Okinawa” is a hoax perpetrated by the US and Japanese governments. It is also a critical step in the reinforcement of military collusion between the two countries and the accelerating resurgence of Japanese militarism. The Chinese government and people have always supported the valiant struggle of the Japanese people to oppose this hoax and achieve the full and unconditional return of Okinawa. We are also firmly opposed to any actions taken by US and Japanese reactionaries to barter China’s Diaoyu Islands and use Chinese territory to sow dissension between the Chinese and Japanese people.
The Diaoyu Islands have been China’s territory since ancient times. As early as in the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), they were placed under the jurisdiction of China’s naval defenses as affiliated islands of Taiwan. They were never under the jurisdiction of Ryukyu, today’s Okinawa. The demarcation line between China and Ryukyu always lies between Chiwei Islet and Kumejima Island. The area has always been a fishing ground for fishermen from China’s Taiwan. However, during the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894, Japan illegally occupied the Diaoyu Islands and in April 1895 forced the Qing court to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki that ceded to Japan “the island of Formosa (Taiwan), together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa”, as well as the Penghu Islands. Today, the Sato administration is using this invasion as evidence of Japan’s “sovereignty”. This is simply the mindset of robbers.
After World War II, the Japanese government illegally handed over the Diaoyu Islands, which are affiliated to China’s Taiwan, to the US, and the latter unilaterally proclaimed its “administrative rights” over the area. There were no legal grounds whatsoever for this action. On June 28, 1950, soon after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the then Chinese Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai made a solemn statement on behalf of the Chinese government, strongly protesting the American imperialists’ deployment of its Seventh Fleet to invade Taiwan and the Taiwan Straits and declaring that the Chinese people are determined to “recover Taiwan and all other territories belonging to China”. Now, the US and Japanese governments are once again trying to make backroom deals over the Diaoyu Islands. Such a wanton violation of Chinese territorial sovereignty will certainly arouse the strong indignation of the Chinese people.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China solemnly affirms that Diaoyu Island, Huangwei Islet, Chiwei Islet, Nanxiao Island, Beixiao Island and the other islands are affiliated to Taiwan. They have been, along with Taiwan, an inherent part of Chinese territory since ancient times. The inclusion of China’s Diaoyu Islands among the “reversed areas” of the Okinawa Reversion Agreement signed by the US and Japan is totally illegal and will never alter China’s sovereignty over the territory. The Chinese people are determined to liberate Taiwan! We will also recover sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands and other islands affiliated to Taiwan!
Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China
September 10, 2012
Regardless of repeated strong representations of the Chinese side, the Japanese government announced on 10 September 2012 the “purchase” of the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated Nanxiao Dao and Beixiao Dao and the implementation of the so-called “nationalization” of the islands. This constitutes a gross violation of China’s sovereignty over its own territory and is highly offensive to the 1.3 billion Chinese people. It seriously tramples on historical facts and international jurisprudence. The Chinese government and people express firm opposition to and strong protest against the Japanese move.
The Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands have been China’s sacred territory since ancient times. This is supported by historical facts and jurisprudential evidence. The Diaoyu Islands were first discovered, named and exploited by the Chinese people. Chinese fishermen had long been engaged in production activities on these islands and in their adjacent waters. The Diaoyu Islands have been put under the jurisdiction of China’s naval defense as affiliated islands of Taiwan, China since the Ming Dynasty. The Diaoyu Islands have never been “terra nullius”. China is the indisputable owner of the Diaoyu Islands.
In 1895, as the Qing government’s defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War was all but certain, Japan illegally occupied the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands. After that, Japan forced the Qing government 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”. After the end of the Second World War, China recovered the territories invaded and occupied by Japan such as Taiwan and the Penghu Islands in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. According to international law, the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands have already been returned to China. Facts are facts, and history is not to be reversed. Japan’s position on the issue of the Diaoyu Island is an outright denial of the outcomes of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War and constitutes a grave challenge to the post-war international order.
In 1951, the Treaty of Peace with Japan (commonly known as the Treaty of San Francisco, a treaty partial in nature) was signed between Japan, the United States and other countries, placing the Ryukyu Islands (known as Okinawa today) under the trusteeship of the United States. In 1953, the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands arbitrarily expanded its jurisdiction to include the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands, which are in fact Chinese territories. In 1971, Japan and the United States signed the Okinawa Reversion Agreement, which arbitrarily included the Diaoyu Islands in the territories and territorial waters to be reversed to Japan. The Chinese government has, from the very beginning, firmly opposed and never acknowledged such backroom deals between Japan and the United States concerning Chinese territories. The claims of the Japanese government that the Diaoyu Island is Japan’s inherent territory and that there is no outstanding territorial dispute between Japan and China showed total disregard of historical facts and jurisprudential evidence and are absolutely untenable.
During the negotiations on the normalization of China-Japan relations in 1972 and on the signing of the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1978, the then leaders of the two countries, acting in the larger interest of China-Japan relations, reached important understanding and common ground on “leaving the issue of the Diaoyu Island to be resolved later”. This opened the door to normalization of China-Japan relations and was followed by tremendous progress in China-Japan relations and stability and tranquility in East Asia in the following 40 years. Now, if the Japanese authorities should deny and negate the previous common understanding reached between the two countries, then how could the situation of the Diaoyu Island remain stable? How could China-Japan relations continue to grow smoothly? And how could Japan ever win trust from its neighbors and people of the world?
The Japanese government has repeatedly stirred up troubles in recent years on the issue of the Diaoyu Island. Particularly since the start of the year, the Japanese government has endorsed rightwing forces to clamor for the “purchase” of the Diaoyu Island and some of its affiliated islands in an attempt to pave the way for a government “purchase” of the islands. People have reason to believe that what Japan did regarding the Diaoyu Island was nothing accidental. The political tendency these actions point to may well put people on the alert. We cannot but ask: where is Japan heading to? Can anyone rest assured of Japan’s future course of development?
The Chinese government has always attached importance to developing relations with Japan. China and Japan and the Chinese and Japanese peoples can live together only in friendship, not confrontation. To advance the China-Japan strategic relationship of mutual benefit serves the fundamental interests of the two countries and two peoples and is conducive to peace, stability and development of the region. Yet, to ensure sound and stable development of China-Japan relations, the Japanese side needs to work together and move in the same direction with China. The “purchase” of the Diaoyu Island by the Japanese government runs counter to the goal of upholding the larger interest of China-Japan relations.
The Chinese government solemnly states that the Japanese government’s so-called “purchase” of the Diaoyu Island is totally illegal and invalid. It does not change, not even in the slightest way, the historical fact of Japan’s occupation of Chinese territory, nor will it alter China’s territorial sovereignty over the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands. Long gone are the days when the Chinese nation was subject to bullying and humiliation from others. The Chinese government will not sit idly by watching its territorial sovereignty being infringed upon. The Chinese side strongly urges the Japanese side to immediately stop all actions that may undermine China’s territorial sovereignty. Japan should truly come back to the very understanding and common ground reached between the two sides, and should return to the track of negotiated settlement of the dispute. Should the Japanese side insist on going its own way, it shall have to bear all serious consequences arising therefrom.
Brief Introduction to the national Marine Data and Information Service
Founded in 1958, the National Marine Data and Information Service (NMDIS) is a public institution directly under the State Oceanic Administration. Its main functions are to manage the national marine information resource, guide and coordinate the national professional work of marine informationization, take charge of the management and service of marine data, administer the China Marine Archives and the marine library, undertake the operation and management of the operational system for the monitoring and evaluation of the national marine economy functioning, the island supervising and monitoring system, the operation and management of the digital ocean system and information professional network, carry out the research on marine strategies, policies and plans, operational information support for marine administration, operational tide and tidal current forecast as well as prediction and evaluation of sea level change, and fulfill the national duties of international informational organizations on the marine information work.