The Treaty of Shimonoseki, the Diaoyu Islands and the Ryukyu Issue

ABSTRACT

This paper refutes the view of the Japanese government that the Diaoyu Islands have nothing to do with the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and points out that “stealing” the Diaoyu Islands was one step in the Japanese strategy of the invasion of China in the Sino-Japanese War in 1894. Only because the Japanese cabinet was fully assured of winning the war did it “steal” the Diaoyu Islands before the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and the treaty was nothing but a means of legitimating this theft. Large numbers of historical documents are cited in this paper to prove that the Diaoyu Islands are affiliated islands of Chinese Taiwan. Although Japan annexed Ryukyu in 1879, these documents show that the Qing government protested immediately, and later on negotiated with Japan concerning Ryukyu. According to the Sino-Japanese negotiations over Ryukyu in 1880, the Japanese government agreed to give the Miyako and Yaeyama islands back to China. Until 1887, Zeng Jize, an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Qing Dynasty, continued to declare that the Ryukyu issue had not been resolved. It was only because China lost the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 that the Ryukyu issue fell into abeyance amid the cloud of failure. Because the Chinese government subsequently repudiated the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and under the terms of the Cairo Declaration, the Ryukyu issue should again be back on the table.

KEYWORDS:

• Treaty of Shimonoseki
• the Diaoyu Islands
• the Sino-Japanese negotiation on the Ryukyu Islands
• reconsideration on the Ryukyu issue

Acknowledgements

This article was translated into English by Associate Researcher Zhang Zhiyong of the Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and was corrected by Professor Kim Donggil of the History Department of Peking University, and Qiao Xiufeng, assistant researcher at the Institute of Foreign Literature, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on Contributors

Zhang Haipeng (following Chinese practice, the surname, Zhang, is placed first) is a member of the Academic Division of Philosophy, Literature and History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences;

Li Guoqiang (following Chinese practice, the surname, Li, is placed first) is a researcher at the Institute of Chinese Borderland Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Notes

1 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan published the Chinese version of “Guanyu Jiange Zhudao de Jiben Jianjie” (Basic View on Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands) on its website (http://www.cn.emb-japan.go.jp/territory/senkaku/basic_view.html) in November 2012, with views and wording similar to the declaration issued in 1972.

2 For the text of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, see http://www.taiwandocuments.org/shimonoseki01.htm.

3 Now kept in the First Historical Archives of China.

4 In addition to this edition, there are also a block-reprinted edition from the early Qing dynasty, a block-printed edition from the 4th year of Kanbun (1664) in Japan, a block-reprinted edition by Lianxi Caotang, a movable-type printed edition from the Daoguang period of the Qing dynasty, a block-reprinted Hunan edition from the late Qing dynasty, and so on.

5 Zheng Hailin from the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies questions whether “Diaoyu Tai” in this book actually refers to the “Diaoyu Islands” of today. He asks,

Which island, located in the ocean to the north behind a hill as recorded in The Record of the Voyage to Taiwan, does “Diaoyu Tai” refer to? It is indeed very hard to come to any definite conclusion based on the available documents about Taiwan. Skepticism should be maintained until clear evidence is identified. (Zheng 2013, 51)

This skeptical spirit is valuable, but questioning is not the same thing as reaching a conclusion. Zheng also points out that,

Logically, Diaoyu Tai as noted in The Record of the Voyage to Taiwan should be located near Xuepolan, and it seems unlikely that it refers to the Diaoyu Islands 160 kilometers away. The exact geographic location of the “sea behind a hill” may be the coastal areas of Taidong, Hualian, and Yilan, i.e., the “Houshan (behind the mountain)” area as it was called during the Qing Dynasty. (Zheng 2013, 51)

This conclusion seems problematic. With no definite evidence, the idea that “Diaoyu Tai” might not refer to the Diaoyu Islands 160 kilometers away is just a conjecture. The statement that “the sea behind a hill” refers to Taidong, Hualian, and Yilan near the sea, i.e. the “Houshan” area during the Qing Dynasty is also a conjecture, and a groundless one. This conjecture is in contradiction with the idea of “the sea to the north behind a hill.” Li Woteng, a Taiwan resident, thinks that this Diaoyu Tai was not the Diaoyu Islands of today, but some place (probably where Sanxian Tai is today) to the south of Xiugu Hill on the south-eastern coast of Taiwan (http://blog.sina.com.cn/dddnibelungen; accessed October 24, 2012). These conclusions are all questionable, but I will leave the topic to be dealt with in another paper.

6 This record is very important. It dates from more than 100 years later than The Record of the Voyage to Taiwan by Huang Shujing, and the location given for Diaoyu Tai, in the ocean to the north behind a hill, is more precise. The source states that, “its (Diaoyu Tai’s) north is next to Sandiao, and reaches the sea to the east.” This geographic description is generally close to the reality, but the capacity to anchor “a thousand big ships” might be a clerical error.

7 Now kept in the First Historical Archives of China.

8 Now kept in the Affiliated Library of the University of Tokyo.

9 This ancient map of Taiwan is now kept in the Asian Library of the University of British Columbia.

10 The term Ryûkyû shobun is most commonly given in English as “the Disposition of Ryûkyû.” However, this has nothing to do with “disposition” in the sense of one’s mood or temperament, or inclinations or tendencies. Rather, the word shobun is much more closely related in meaning to the English word “disposal” (see http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/index.php?title=Ryukyu_Shobu). In the context here, it could simply mean “forced annexation.”

11 See Inoue Kiyoshi (1996, ch. 9); see also The 70 Years of Japanese Invasion of China, ch. 1, part 1 (Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1992).

12 This was not the first time that Japan had brought the King of Ryukyu to Tokyo. In 1609 (the 37th year of Emperor Wanli during the Ming Dynasty), Taru Jiwuji of Satsuma led his adherents in attacking Port Naha in Zhongshan (the name of Ryukyu at the time). The Japanese invaders surrounded the city, and all the villages were looted. The attackers then called on the King of Ryukyu to surrender and cede territory, stating that if their demands were not satisfied, they would destroy the city, kill all the people of Ryukyu, and occupy the entire territory. The King of Ryukyu concluded that Japan not only wanted to seize Ryukyu, but also Jilong in Taiwan: “Although Jilong is an uncivilized island, it is located at a key point adjacent to the sea near Fujian. Once Jilong is occupied, how can the people in the coastal areas of Fujian be safe?” The King of Ryukyu was taken forcibly to Japan (see “Report from the King of Ryukyu on Preventing the Payment by Ryukyu of Tribute to the Japanese of Satsuma,” 1972).

13 On the study of the Disposition of Ryukyu, see Inoue (1996, 1997) and Naoki (2012).

14 Chiang Kai-shek wanted to take back the Ryukyu Islands before the Cairo Conference, noting this several times in his diary. However, the different view taken by the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs affected Chiang Kai-shek’s attitude on the issue during the Cairo Conference. For details of a related study, see Hou (2010).

15 For the text of the Treaty of Peace with Japan see: http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sanfrancisco01.htm.

16 For the text of the Cairo Declaration, see: http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo/01/002_46/002_46tx.html.

17 http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html.