Press Conference by the Assistant Press Secretary, 2 October 2012
- Japan’s stance on the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands
- Question concerning the rules of engagement in the area around the Senkaku Islands
- Question concerning the influence of the restructuring of the Cabinet
- Question concerning an article in the New York Times on the Senkaku Islands
- Question concerning the individual islands among the Senkaku Islands
- Follow-up question concerning the article in the New York Times on the Senkaku Islands
- Question concerning China’s assertions over the Senkaku Islands
- Question concerning Japan’s call for a calm reaction
- Question concerning the International Court of Justice
1. Japan’s stance on the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands
Assistant Press Secretary Mr. Masaru Sato: Good morning everybody. Before starting I would like to welcome some Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ (MOFA) trainees who are going to observe this conference. My name is Masaru Sato and I am a spokesperson of MOFA. The purpose of today’s press briefing is to share with you a line of our case that we used when we replied to the Chinese delegation’s statement at the United Nations (UN) General Debate last week, on 27 September.
Mr. Sato: I would like to start by explaining our case. This consists of three pillars. First, Prime Minister Noda, in his general debate statement, stated that the various issues of international society must be solved by reason and not by force. Also he repeatedly pointed out the importance of the rule of law, which is the basis of global peace, stability and prosperity. Any attempt to realize a country’s ideology or claim in a unilateral manner, or a unilateral use of force or threats, is inconsistent with the fundamental spirit of the UN Charter. In this connection there is no doubt that the Senkaku Islands are clearly an inherent territory of Japan, based on historical facts and international law. Indeed the islands are under the valid control of Japan. China’s own assertions have no grounds at all. In any case, there exists no issue of territorial sovereignty concerning the Senkaku Islands.
Secondly - this actually relates to historical facts and legal context – the Government of Japan made a Cabinet decision in January, 1895, to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan, while the island of Formosa and the islands appertaining or belonging to it were ceded to Japan, in accordance with the Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed in April, 1895. Therefore, it is clear that the Chinese claim that Japan stole the Senkaku islands from China during the course of the Sino-Japanese War cannot logically stand at the outset. In any case, from 1885, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had been thoroughly conducted by Japan. Through this ten year survey, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been uninhabited, and had no trace of having been under the control of China. Based on this confirmation, Japan formally incorporated the islands into the territories of Japan. Actually, Japan renounced the territorial sovereignty over the island of Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores ceded by China, under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which legally defined the Japanese territory after World War II. However, it was made clear that the Senkaku Islands were not included among Formosa and the Pescadores, by the fact that the United States actually exercised administrative rights over the islands as part of the Nansei Shoto (Southwest) Islands, in accordance with Article Three of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The Senkaku islands were explicitly included in the areas whose administrative rights returned to Japan in 1972.
Third and finally, it has only been since the 1970s that the Government of China began making its own assertions of territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, which constitutes Japan’s inherent territory. Until then they had never expressed any objections to Japan, nor did they protest the fact that the islands were included in the area over which the United States exercised administrative rights, in accordance with Article Three of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. This is our stance on the Senkaku Islands, which was explained in last week’s UN General Debate. The posture to easily attribute the difference of opinion to the past war is an action to evade from the essence of the issue, we view that it is not just unconstructive, unconvincing, but also very unproductive.
I would like to stop here and open the floor to your questions. I would like to limit questions to members of the media.
2. Question concerning the rules of engagement in the area around the Senkaku Islands
Mr. Dan Slater, The Economist Group: I wonder if you could share with us what the rules of engagement are, that are currently prevailing around the Senkaku Islands. In other words, we know that there are a lot of Japan Coast Guard (JCG) ships there. Under what circumstances might they fire on the Chinese ships?
Mr. Sato: Regarding the rules of engagement, again, since the Senkaku Islands are an inherent Japanese territory, we have been carrying out law enforcement activities when necessary. As of this morning, I think at 10 a.m., according to the JCG, six Chinese public vessels had been cruising around the contiguous area near the Japanese territorial waters. Again, we are implementing our laws, because the islands are part of Japan. We have been enhancing surveillance and readiness to deal with any situation or any untoward event. That instruction has been given by the Prime Minister to all the relevant ministries and agencies of Japan.
3. Question concerning the influence of the restructuring of the Cabinet
Ms. Jenny Wong, Hong Kong Phoenix TV: I just want to ask, how would you comment about the influence of the restructuring of the Cabinet by Prime Minister Noda on the issue of the Diaoyu Islands dispute between China and Japan? Do you think that the new Cabinet is going to use resolve and tough strategies towards the issue? Thank you.
Mr. Sato: Actually, it is very difficult for a Government official to comment on the intention of the Prime Minister, who made the decision on the reshuffling of the Cabinet. I should refrain from making any comments from this podium at this moment, but former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Makiko Tanaka, is the daughter of former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, as you may know, who negotiated with China to normalize the relations between Japan and China in 1972. Our position has been consistent in that the specific issue related to the Senkaku islands should not adversely affect the broader perspective of China and Japan. So we would like, first of all, to stabilize the situation, and we have been calling on the Chinese side to take a calm response which does not lose sight of the broader perspective. We will carry this out with consistency.
4. Question concerning an article in the New York Times on the Senkaku Islands
Mr. Siegfried Knittel, Freelance Journalist: There was an article in the New York Times by a Taiwanese researcher. He said that the Koga family told the Japanese Government in 1885 that the Government should own the Senkaku Islands but the Government did not want it, perhaps because they thought that there was a claim from China on the islands, so they refrained from doing so. This means that it was perhaps not clear at that time, who owned the Senkaku Islands. Perhaps the Japanese Government believed it was a Chinese territory. What is your comment?
Mr. Sato: I believe that the article you are referring to is the "On the Ground" column of the New York Times. I think that was written by a Taiwanese scholar. We have been actually preparing our case because that article pointed out various detailed points. I can share with you that yes, the fact we decided to carry out the survey in 1885 is an indication of our prudent and thorough approach. This was intended to confirm that the Senkaku Islands were uninhabited or whether they had any trace of having been under the control of China. That is exactly why we started the survey.
The Koga party, who you mentioned, actually sailed to the island. There were albatrosses there. He wanted to sell the bird’s fur on the market, but he was not sure if it was permissible to do that. So that is why he made an inquiry to the Japanese Government on whether they could license for the economic activities he wished to conduct. There were also business activities related to dried bonito processing.
But as I said, after the ten year survey, we confirmed two facts – they were uninhabited, and they had no trace of having been under the Chinese control. After that survey, in January 1895 - it was months before the signing of the Shimonoseki Treaty, which was the peace treaty of the Sino-Japanese War - the Japanese Cabinet officially, incorporated the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan, by establishing markers on the islands. This is the background and we distributed a factsheet including an attachment (the photo image of the Cabinet Decision) to the main body, although it is written in Japanese. Mr. Koga made an application to the Japanese Government so that he could legally conduct business activities, and after that, there was the survey. And after the survey a Cabinet decision was made and he was given a proper license. So that clearly shows that Japan’s intention to own the islands has been demonstrated very clearly.
5. Question concerning the individual islands among the Senkaku Islands
Ms. Foo Choo Wei, Singapore Press Holdings: I know that there are five more islands that belong to the Senkaku Islands. This time you actually nationalized three of them. Am I right? How about the other two?
Mr. Sato: Actually there are eight islands – five large islands and three small islands. On September 11, we decided to purchase three islands: Uotsurijima; Kitakojima; and Minamikojima. There are other islands – Kubashima and Taishoto. Actually, Kubajima continues to be in the private ownership. Taishoto has been owned by the Government. But this time only the first three islands changed ownership from a Japanese private owner to the Government, which should not create any diplomatic concerns with any other country or region, because the procedure was legitimately conducted under Japanese law and regulations. The reason why we decided to buy them is that we believe it was the best and most practical approach to continue to maintain the peaceful and stable management of the islands. Actually, they had been previously owned by the Government of Japan, since 1895 when the Japanese Government incorporated the Senkaku Islands into Japan’s territories. In the beginning, the Government owned them and in 1932, the three islands we are talking about were sold to a private citizen, who is different from the previous owner, and there was some ownership transfer among private citizens. Since 2002, ten years ago, the Japanese Government started leasing the three islands from the owner. The purpose has been consistent and it is to maintain the stable and peaceful management of the islands. Because they are the inherent territory of Japan, there should be no confusion whatsoever. So it is a quite natural exercise of our sovereignty.
6. Follow-up question concerning the article in the New York Times on the Senkaku Islands
Mr. Kosuke Takahashi, Jane's Defence Weekly: I also read the New York Times column piece written by a Taiwanese scholar. Japan said that it conducted a ten year survey back in 1885, but he said that Japan actually did not. He showed some official documents which showed that Japan did not fully investigate the ownership, but you said that Japan did. Do you have any official document to prove that?
Mr. Sato: I read the article and found it has at least several critical faults, which makes his argument irrelevant. I cannot present a copy of the document now, although they are available at the National Diet Library or the Diplomatic Archive of the Japanese Foreign Ministry. We are now in the process of checking ourselves because this is a very interesting article which deserves our counter-argument on details. But at this moment, I can share with you several points.
First of all, as you indicated quite rightly, actually, he cites documents without identifying sources. Maybe he found some documents, but there are also some misquotations in the article, which makes it difficult for us to correctly respond. But under such limitations I tried my best. Actually one of the main assertions in the article is that the Senkaku Islands are “booty of war” between Japan and China. But as I indicated in the initial remark, Japan clearly demonstrated its will to incorporate and own the islands after the ten year survey. So this decision in January, 1895, which preceded the signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki in April 1895, was a result of the ten year survey since 1885 that confirmed that these islands had been uninhabited and showed no traces of having been under the control of China. Therefore Mr. Shaw’s argument, is, in our view, without merit.
Secondly, this is a historical fact, but the Senkaku Islands were not included in the territory as I said, which Japan renounced under the San Francisco Peace Treaty. This is the important treaty which legally defined Japan’s territory after World War II. The Cairo Declaration or the Potsdam Declaration may be the reflection of the Allied Power’s general direction concerning the postwar disposal of matters. But they have no final legal effect, while the San Francisco Peace Treaty is an international agreement. It has been an established fact that after a war there has to be an international agreement to legally finalize the territory of the concerned states. But in the case of World War II, it was not the Cairo nor Potsdam Declarations, but the San Francisco Peace Treaty. So, under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the area we renounced did not include the Senkaku Islands. After that, it was only after 1970 and after the UN survey indicated the potential of petroleum resources in the East China Sea that China started to make its own case. Prior to this, there had been no objection by China or Taiwan to Japan’s sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands. They have failed to present their explanations of why there was such an about-face in their position.
Actually there is a raft of compelling evidence that China recognized the Senkaku Islands as part of Japan before 1970. If you look at the fact sheet, there is a photo image of a letter of appreciation that also appeared in Mr. Shaw’s article. But I will skip that and go to the following page which is about an article of the People’s Daily dated January 8, 1953. This article was titled “the battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against US occupation.” There was a period when the US government exercised their administrative rights on parts of Japan. In this article, the official newspaper of China, five years after the foundation of the country, described the Ryukyu Islands as consisting of seven groups of islands - first of all the Senkaku Islands. So this is very compelling in our view, and also there are some official maps published in China even in 1960. If you look at Attachment Five, I managed to provide a larger photo image of the relevant part of the map. They described the Senkaku Islands as the Senkaku Islands by the Japanese name. So there are various documents which show that China recognized the Senkaku Islands as part of Japan before 1970. But these facts were not mentioned in the article, probably because they were considered “inconvenient” for his argument.
Thirdly, there was an interesting mention in the article to a letter which was apparently sent from Foreign Minister Kaoru Inoue in 1885 to the Minister for Home Affairs Aritomo Yamagata. Probably he mentioned this letter, but this is only part of the process surrounding the beginning years of the ten year survey. This is actually another indicator of the prudent approach of the Japanese Government. That shows Japan’s thorough procedure for incorporating the islands into the territory of Japan. Actually, Minister Inoue’s support for the conduct of the survey reconfirms the fact that he did not consider the islands as part of the Qing Dynasty.
Fourth, if I may, in the last part of the article, there are mentions to some old documents, but in our view, they are just old maps or travel writings. Mr. Han-yi Shaw cites them to justify the Chinese case for sovereignty in vain. If China were able to claim sovereignty just by citing ancient documents which only refer to the existence or descriptions of the islands, it would mean that many parts of the world have to be part of China. The important thing is that China has never effectively controlled the islands. There is no evidence of that at all, whereas Japan has established sovereignty over the islands in accordance with ways of duly acquiring land belonging to no state under international law, and they have been under the valid control of Japan until today. These are the preliminary comments which I can make, but we will try our best to reply to the article in the near future.
7. Question concerning China’s assertions over the Senkaku Islands
Ms. Wong: According to your fact sheet, Japan aims to further deepen the mutually beneficial relationship between China and Japan, but we consider recently, Japan is taking a very strong and aggressive role, especially in the acquisition of the Diaoyu islands which, according to China’s stance, actually Japan is violating Chinese territory. What is your position about that?
Mr. Sato: As I said at the outset, in our view - if you look at another handout, which is entitled “Three Truths about the Senkaku Islands” - we are going to publish this on the Foreign Ministry’s website soon - but if you look at the second point, which describes the background of the recent purchase decision by the Government. This is not a major change of the current situation. Our Government has consistently responded in a calm way since 10 September, and actually, this purchase decision is a kind of reacquisition of the islands.
Before 1932, the Japanese Government owned the three islands. It was just a nominal transfer of ownership from a private citizen to the Government. The purpose has been consistent in pursuing the peaceful and stable management of the islands.
It is said that in recent years, China has actively made inroads into the ocean, and has taken provocative action around the Senkaku Islands, and wave after wave of Government-owned vessels and activist boats have entered the territorial waters of Japan, which has caused mounting concern in Japan, in our view, this is what is happening in Japan.
Under these circumstances, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government announced its plan to purchase the three islands last April. While the Government of Japan rejects the assertions of China, we are very concerned that the movement could have substantial impact on the Japan-China relationship, which should be taken care of with a broad perspective by both sides. There is no change in Japan’s policy to ensure continued peaceful and stable maintenance and management of the islands over the long term. The transfer decision was, in our view, the most practical approach. We would like to call on the Chinese side to take a calm and appropriate response to manage the situation based on the broad perspective.
8. Question concerning Japan’s call for a calm reaction
Ms. Wei: You mentioned so many times about a calm reaction. What kind of calm reaction are you actually asking for from China?
Mr. Sato: Actually, if you look at the third pillar, for whatever reasons, acts of violence shall not be condoned. It is very regrettable that after September 10, we have seen Chinese overreactions, and that the Government of China tolerated anti-Japanese protests. This has exacerbated the situation since 10 September, and we are very deeply concerned about the wide range of violent acts in China against Japanese personnel and Japanese factories. This is not beneficial, not only to Japan, but also to China, because Japan’s foreign direct investment is number one in China, and the number of Japanese companies in China is number one. China is the number one trading partner for Japan. We are closely intertwined economically, so we should not lose sight of this broad perspective. That is exactly why we have been calling on China to take a calm response, and we have been conveying our message that any form of violence shall not be tolerated for whatever reasons. That is also why we are calling on the global community to call for China’s calm response.
9. Question concerning the International Court of Justice
Mr. Takahashi: Mr. Sato, if you are confident that the Senkaku Islands really belong to Japan, why don’t you go to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? I think it is double standards that Japan tells the Republic of Korea (ROK) to go to the ICJ, but refuses to go to the ICJ with China. What do you think of this point?
Mr. Sato: Actually, we have not taken any action regarding refusal, with regard to the last part of your question, but last week Prime Minister Noda made a statement at the UN General Debate. He said that there are sometimes collisions over the issue of territory or territorial waters among states, and on such occasions, Japan believes that it is desirable to bring the matter to a reasonable and amicable solution using means including the ICJ. Japan has made human and financial contributions with this regard. Our basic stance is based on this recognition.
Having said that, Takeshima is an inherent territory of Japan under international law based on historical facts. Unfortunately, the ROK has illegally occupied the island. In that situation, we have been asking the ROK to jointly bring the case to the ICJ, but they rejected our proposal. This is very unfortunate, but our stance is that we should resolve the issue by utilizing international judicial bodies.
With regard to the Senkaku Islands issue, they are also an inherent territory of Japan based on international law and historical facts, but the difference is that Japan has them under its valid control. Therefore, our position is that there is no territorial dispute to be resolved over the islands, and we believe that we should maintain this basic position.
In line with what I said, with regard to the Prime Minister’s speech, we need to respond calmly and reasonably to disputes. While China may have its own case, we do not feel any need to bring this matter to the ICJ. The important thing at the moment is to explore the possibility of cooling down and stabilizing the situation through dialogue at various channels.
Therefore, we do not take the same approach with regard to the Senkaku Islands. We do not believe in taking the lead to bring the matter to the ICJ on the issue of the Senkaku Islands. We are not aware of any Chinese move to bring the matter to the ICJ, and there has been no such move in the past. We believe that we are not in a situation where doing anything using the ICJ is required.
Is there any other question? Then, this concludes today’s briefing.
Back to Index
