• The Diaoyutai Islands are a group of eight uninhabited islands located 120 miles northeast of Taiwan on the continental shelf and are separated from the Liu Chiu Islands (Ryukyu Islands, also known as Okinawa) by a deep underwater trench (over 1000 meters deep). Chinese historical records detailing the discovery and geographical features of these islands date back to the year 1403. For several centuries they have been administered as part of Taiwan and have always been used exclusively by Chinese fishermen as an operational base, both before and after World War II.

• In 1874, Japan took Liu Chiu Islands from China by force. Diaoyutai, however, remained under the administration Taiwan, a part of China.

• Taiwan (including Diaoyutai) was ceded to Japan in 1895 after the first Sino-Japanese War, and was returned to China at the end of World War II in 1945 based upon the 1943 agreement of the Big Three in Cairo. Diaoyutai as part of the Taiwan hence was included in that package. But in 1945, the United States kept that group of small islets for occasional bombing practice targets, largely for its Liu Chiu based Air Force.

• After 1968 when large deposit of oil and natural gas were discovered in that region, Japan claimed that the Diaoyutai Islands are part of Liu Chiu. In 1969 when the Okinawa Reversion Treaty was signed between the US and Japan, it included the Diaoyutai Islands. Since then Japan insists repeatedly that the islet group is part of Japan's territory.

• This development enraged Chinese people all over the world. At that time the Nationalist government in Taipei also communicated to Washington about this mistake. Chinese students in the United States protested through demonstrations and marches in New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, and Honolulu. Meanwhile, they sent letters to President Nixon and the 92nd Congress to explain this mistake[a].

• As the result of all these, the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated on the eve of returning Liu Chiu to Japan's control that the United States "in transferring its rights of administration to Japan does not specifically constitute a transfer of underlying sovereignty nor can it affect the underlying claims of any of the disputants." [b] Here, what the US did was "transferring the rights of administration" of Liu Chiu and Diaoyutai, not their sovereignty.

• At this juncture, Chinese government in Beijing formally declared that Diaoyutai islet group is an integral part of Chinese territory. But the Japanese government in Tokyo insisted that the islet group is a part of Liu Chiu, therefore, a part of Japan's territory. Such a claim is even against its own map and administration divisions before 1945.

• Since Liu Chiu reversed to Japan's administration in 1972, the Japanese government constantly send its naval forces, called Maritime Security Forces, to eject Chinese fishermen from the area. In fact, for centuries a substantial number of Chinese fishermen from Taiwan made their living largely depending on their catches in the area.

• In the same period, Japanese "naval force" mutilated the Nationalist Chinese flag on the islet and repelled Chinese boat full of athletes from Taiwan who intended to plant an Olympic torch on the Diaoyutai rock.

• These quasi-military actions are diametrically against the spirit of Article IX of the Japanese Constitution.

• Since 1972, Japan attempted to build a heliport on the main islet of Diaoyutai, and encouraged a right-wing group to build a lighthouse on another islet in the group. After Chinese strong protests the Japanese government softened down somewhat. But recently, Tokyo again allowed the right wing group to erect another lighthouse and repeatedly using military force to repel the approaching Chinese fishing boats and other members from Taiwan and Hong Kong. At the same time, Japanese Foreign Minister sternly claims that the Diaoyutai islet group is Japanese territory.

• This bullish approach to such kind of a black and white negotiable issue aroused the rage of the Chinese people all over the world. Such outrageous behavior also reminds all the Chinese victimized by the Japanese aggressions in modern history clearly as an indication the possible revival of a new wave of Japanese Militarism in East Asia of which we are all obligated to prevent.

[a] page E7, May 23, 1971, New York Times.
[b] Congressional Record, November 9, 1971, Proceedings and Debates of the 92nd Congress, First Session.