釣魚島白皮書中英對照

釣魚島是中國的固有領土
   
(2012年9月)
  
 中華人民共和國國務院新聞辦公室
 

　　目　錄
 
　　前　言
    一、釣魚島是中國的固有領土
    二、日本竊取釣魚島
　 三、美日對釣魚島私相授受非法無效
    四、日本主張釣魚島主權毫無依據(jù)
    五、中國為維護釣魚島主權進行堅決斗爭
    結束語

    前　言

    釣魚島及其附屬島嶼是中國領土不可分割的一部分。無論從歷史、地理還是從法理的角度來看，釣魚島都是中國的固有領土，中國對其擁有無可爭辯的主權。

     日本在1895年利用甲午戰(zhàn)爭竊取釣魚島是非法無效的。第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后，根據(jù)《開羅宣言》和《波茨坦公告》等國際法律文件，釣魚島回歸中國。無論日本對釣魚島采取任何單方面舉措，都不能改變釣魚島屬于中國的事實。長期以來，日本在釣魚島問題上不時制造事端。2012年9月10日，日本政府宣布“購買”釣魚島及附屬的南小島、北小島，實施所謂“國有化”。這是對中國領土主權的嚴重侵犯，是對歷史事實和國際法理的嚴重踐踏。

    中國堅決反對和遏制日本采取任何方式侵犯中國對釣魚島的主權。中國在釣魚島問題上的立場是明確的、一貫的，維護國家主權和領土完整的意志堅定不移，捍衛(wèi)世界反法西斯戰(zhàn)爭勝利成果的決心毫不動搖。

    一、釣魚島是中國的固有領土

   釣魚島及其附屬島嶼位于中國臺灣島的東北部，是臺灣的附屬島嶼，分布在東經(jīng)123°20′-124°40′，北緯25°40′-26°00′之間的海域，由釣魚島、黃尾嶼、赤尾嶼、南小島、北小島、南嶼、北嶼、飛嶼等島礁組成，總面積約5.69平方千米。釣魚島位于該海域的最西端，面積約3.91平方千米，是該海域面積最大的島嶼，主峰海拔362米。黃尾嶼位于釣魚島東北約27千米，面積約0.91平方千米，是該海域的第二大島，最高海拔117米。赤尾嶼位于釣魚島東北約110千米，是該海域最東端的島嶼，面積約0.065平方千米，最高海拔75米。

    (一)中國最先發(fā)現(xiàn)、命名和利用釣魚島

   中國古代先民在經(jīng)營海洋和從事海上漁業(yè)的實踐中，最早發(fā)現(xiàn)釣魚島并予以命名。在中國古代文獻中，釣魚島又稱釣魚嶼、釣魚臺。目前所見最早記載釣魚島、赤尾嶼等地名的史籍，是成書于1403年(明永樂元年)的《順風相送》。這表明，早在十四、十五世紀中國就已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)并命名了釣魚島。

    1372年(明洪武五年)，琉球國王向明朝朝貢，明太祖遣使前往琉球。至1866年(清同治五年)近500年間，明清兩代朝廷先后24次派遣使臣前往琉球王國冊封，釣魚島是冊封使前往琉球的途經(jīng)之地，有關釣魚島的記載大量出現(xiàn)在中國使臣撰寫的報告中。如，明朝冊封使陳侃所著《使琉球錄》(1534年)明確記載“過釣魚嶼，過黃毛嶼，過赤嶼，……見古米山，乃屬琉球者”。明朝冊封使郭汝霖所著《使琉球錄》(1562年)記載，“赤嶼者，界琉球地方山也”。清朝冊封副使徐葆光所著《中山傳信錄》(1719年)明確記載，從福建到琉球，經(jīng)花瓶嶼、彭佳嶼、釣魚島、黃尾嶼、赤尾嶼，“取姑米山(琉球西南方界上鎮(zhèn)山)、馬齒島，入琉球那霸港”。

    1650年，琉球國相向象賢監(jiān)修的琉球國第一部正史《中山世鑒》記載，古米山(亦稱姑米山，今久米島)是琉球的領土，而赤嶼(今赤尾嶼)及其以西則非琉球領土。1708年，琉球學者、紫金大夫程順則所著《指南廣義》記載，姑米山為“琉球西南界上之鎮(zhèn)山”。

    以上史料清楚記載著釣魚島、赤尾嶼屬于中國，久米島屬于琉球，分界線在赤尾嶼和久米島之間的黑水溝(今沖繩海槽)。明朝冊封副使謝杰所著《琉球錄撮要補遺》(1579年)記載，“去由滄水入黑水，歸由黑水入滄水”。明朝冊封使夏子陽所著《使琉球錄》(1606年)記載，“水離黑入滄，必是中國之界”。清朝冊封使汪輯所著《使琉球雜錄》(1683年)記載，赤嶼之外的“黑水溝”即是“中外之界”。清朝冊封副使周煌所著《琉球國志略》(1756年)記載，琉球“海面西距黑水溝，與閩海界”。

    釣魚島海域是中國的傳統(tǒng)漁場，中國漁民世世代代在該海域從事漁業(yè)生產(chǎn)活動。釣魚島作為航海標志，在歷史上被中國東南沿海民眾廣泛利用。

    (二)中國對釣魚島實行了長期管轄

    早在明朝初期，為防御東南沿海的倭寇，中國就將釣魚島列入防區(qū)。1561年(明嘉靖四十年)，明朝駐防東南沿海的最高將領胡宗憲主持、鄭若曾編纂的《籌海圖編》一書，明確將釣魚島等島嶼編入“沿海山沙圖”，納入明朝的海防范圍內。1605年(明萬歷三十三年)徐必達等人繪制的《乾坤一統(tǒng)海防全圖》及1621年(明天啟元年)茅元儀繪制的中國海防圖《武備志·海防二·福建沿海山沙圖》，也將釣魚島等島嶼劃入中國海疆之內。

    清朝不僅沿襲了明朝的做法，繼續(xù)將釣魚島等島嶼列入中國海防范圍內，而且明確將其置于臺灣地方政府的行政管轄之下。清代《臺海使槎錄》、《臺灣府志》等官方文獻詳細記載了對釣魚島的管轄情況。1871年(清同治十年)刊印的陳壽祺等編纂的《重纂福建通志》卷八十六將釣魚島列入海防沖要，隸屬臺灣府噶瑪蘭廳(今臺灣省宜蘭縣)管轄。

    (三)中外地圖標繪釣魚島屬于中國

    1579年(明萬歷七年)明朝冊封使蕭崇業(yè)所著《使琉球錄》中的“琉球過海圖”、1629年(明崇禎二年)茅瑞徵撰寫的《皇明象胥錄》、1767年(清乾隆三十二年)繪制的《坤輿全圖》、1863年(清同治二年)刊行的《皇朝中外一統(tǒng)輿圖》等，都將釣魚島列入中國版圖。

    日本最早記載釣魚島的文獻為1785年林子平所著《三國通覽圖說》的附圖“琉球三省并三十六島之圖”，該圖將釣魚島列在琉球三十六島之外，并與中國大陸繪成同色，意指釣魚島為中國領土的一部分。

    1809年法國地理學家皮耶·拉比等繪《東中國海沿岸各國圖》，將釣魚島、黃尾嶼、赤尾嶼繪成與臺灣島相同的顏色。1811年英國出版的《最新中國地圖》、1859年美國出版的《柯頓的中國》、1877年英國海軍編制的《中國東海沿海自香港至遼東灣海圖》等地圖，都將釣魚島列入中國版圖。

　　二、日本竊取釣魚島

    日本在明治維新以后加快對外侵略擴張。1879年，日本吞并琉球并改稱沖繩縣。此后不久，日本便密謀侵占釣魚島，并于甲午戰(zhàn)爭末期將釣魚島秘密“編入”版圖。隨后，日本又迫使中國簽訂不平等的《馬關條約》，割讓臺灣全島及包括釣魚島在內的所有附屬各島嶼。

    (一)日本密謀竊取釣魚島

    1884年，有日本人聲稱首次登上釣魚島，發(fā)現(xiàn)該島為“無人島”。日本政府隨即對釣魚島開展秘密調查，并試圖侵占。日本上述圖謀引起中國的警覺。1885年9月6日(清光緒十一年七月二十八日)《申報》登載消息：“臺灣東北邊之海島，近有日本人懸日旗于其上，大有占據(jù)之勢?！庇捎陬櫦芍袊姆磻?，日本政府未敢輕舉妄動。

    1885年9月22日沖繩縣令在對釣魚島進行秘密調查后向內務卿山縣有朋密報稱，這些無人島“與《中山傳信錄》記載的釣魚臺、黃尾嶼和赤尾嶼應屬同一島嶼”，已為清朝冊封使船所詳悉，并賦以名稱，作為赴琉球的航海標識，因此對是否應建立國家標樁心存疑慮，請求給予指示。同年10月9日，內務卿山縣有朋致函外務卿井上馨征求意見。10月21日，井上馨復函山縣有朋認為，“此刻若有公然建立國標等舉措，必遭清國疑忌，故當前宜僅限于實地調查及詳細報告其港灣形狀、有無可待日后開發(fā)之土地物產(chǎn)等，而建國標及著手開發(fā)等，可待他日見機而作”。井上馨還特意強調，“此次調查之事恐均不刊載官報及報紙為宜”。因此，日本政府沒有同意沖繩縣建立國家標樁的請求。

   1890年1月13日，沖繩縣知事又請示內務大臣，稱釣魚島等島嶼“為無人島，迄今尚未確定其管轄”，“請求將其劃歸本縣管轄之八重山官署所轄”。1893年11月2日，沖繩縣知事再次申請建立國標以劃入版圖。日本政府仍未答復。甲午戰(zhàn)爭前兩個月，即1894年5月12日，沖繩縣秘密調查釣魚島的最終結論是：“自明治十八年(1885年)派縣警察對該島進行勘察以來，未再開展進一步調查，故難提供更確切報告?！送?，沒有關于該島之舊時記錄文書以及顯示屬我國領有的文字或口頭傳說的證據(jù)?！?BR>
    日本外務省編纂的《日本外交文書》明確記載了日本企圖竊取釣魚島的經(jīng)過，相關文件清楚地顯示，當時日本政府雖然覬覦釣魚島，但完全清楚這些島嶼屬于中國，不敢輕舉妄動。

    1894年7月，日本發(fā)動甲午戰(zhàn)爭。同年11月底，日本軍隊占領中國旅順口，清朝敗局已定。在此背景下，12月27日，日本內務大臣野村靖致函外務大臣陸奧宗光，認為“今昔形勢已殊”，要求將在釣魚島建立國標、納入版圖事提交內閣會議決定。1895年1月11日，陸奧宗光回函表示支持。同年1月14日，日本內閣秘密通過決議，將釣魚島“編入”沖繩縣管轄。

    日本官方文件顯示，日本從1885年開始調查釣魚島到1895年正式竊占，始終是秘密進行的，從未公開宣示，因此進一步證明其對釣魚島的主權主張不具有國際法規(guī)定的效力。

    (二)釣魚島隨臺灣島被迫割讓給日本

    1895年4月17日，清朝在甲午戰(zhàn)爭中戰(zhàn)敗，被迫與日本簽署不平等的《馬關條約》，割讓“臺灣全島及所有附屬各島嶼”。釣魚島等作為臺灣“附屬島嶼”一并被割讓給日本。1900年，日本將釣魚島改名為“尖閣列島”。

    三、美日對釣魚島私相授受非法無效

    第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后，釣魚島回歸中國。但20世紀50年代，美國擅自將釣魚島納入其托管范圍，70年代美國將釣魚島“施政權”“歸還”日本。美日對釣魚島進行私相授受，嚴重侵犯了中國的領土主權，是非法的、無效的，沒有也不能改變釣魚島屬于中國的事實。

    (一)“二戰(zhàn)”后釣魚島歸還中國

    1941年12月，中國政府正式對日宣戰(zhàn)，宣布廢除中日之間的一切條約。1943年12月《開羅宣言》明文規(guī)定，“日本所竊取于中國之領土，例如東北四省、臺灣、澎湖群島等，歸還中華民國。其他日本以武力或貪欲所攫取之土地，亦務將日本驅逐出境”。1945年7月《波茨坦公告》第八條規(guī)定：“《開羅宣言》之條件必將實施，而日本之主權必將限于本州、北海道、九州、四國及吾人所決定之其他小島?！?945年9月2日，日本政府在《日本投降書》中明確接受《波茨坦公告》，并承諾忠誠履行《波茨坦公告》各項規(guī)定。1946年1月29日，《盟軍最高司令部訓令第677號》明確規(guī)定了日本施政權所包括的范圍是“日本的四個主要島嶼(北海道、本州、九州、四國)及包括對馬諸島、北緯30度以北的琉球諸島的約1000個鄰近小島”。1945年10月25日，中國戰(zhàn)區(qū)臺灣省對日受降典禮在臺北舉行，中國政府正式收復臺灣。1972年9月29日，日本政府在《中日聯(lián)合聲明》中鄭重承諾，充分理解和尊重中方關于臺灣是中國不可分割一部分的立場，并堅持《波茨坦公告》第八條的立場。

    上述事實表明，依據(jù)《開羅宣言》、《波茨坦公告》和《日本投降書》，釣魚島作為臺灣的附屬島嶼應與臺灣一并歸還中國。

    (二)美國非法將釣魚島納入托管范圍

    1951年9月8日，美國等一些國家在排除中國的情況下，與日本締結了“舊金山對日和平條約”(簡稱“舊金山和約”)，規(guī)定北緯29度以南的西南諸島等交由聯(lián)合國托管，而美國為唯一施政當局。需要指出的是，該條約所確定的交由美國托管的西南諸島并不包括釣魚島。

    1952年2月29日、1953年12月25日，琉球列島美國民政府先后發(fā)布第68號令(即《琉球政府章典》)和第27號令(即關于“琉球列島的地理界限”布告)，擅自擴大托管范圍，將中國領土釣魚島劃入其中。此舉沒有任何法律依據(jù)，中國堅決反對。

    (三)美日私相授受釣魚島“施政權”

    1971年6月17日，美日簽署《關于琉球諸島及大東諸島的協(xié)定》(簡稱“歸還沖繩協(xié)定”)，將琉球群島和釣魚島的“施政權”“歸還”給日本。海內外中國人對此同聲譴責。同年12月30日，中國外交部發(fā)表嚴正聲明指出：“美、日兩國政府在‘歸還’沖繩協(xié)定中，把我國釣魚島等島嶼列入‘歸還區(qū)域’，完全是非法的，這絲毫不能改變中華人民共和國對釣魚島等島嶼的領土主權?！迸_灣當局對此也表示堅決反對。

    面對中國政府和人民的強烈反對，美國不得不公開澄清其在釣魚島主權歸屬問題上的立場。1971年10月，美國政府表示，“把原從日本取得的對這些島嶼的施政權歸還給日本，毫不損害有關主權的主張。美國既不能給日本增加在他們將這些島嶼施政權移交給我們之前所擁有的法律權利，也不能因為歸還給日本施政權而削弱其他要求者的權利。……對此等島嶼的任何爭議的要求均為當事者所應彼此解決的事項”。同年11月，美國參議院批準“歸還沖繩協(xié)定”時，美國國務院發(fā)表聲明稱，盡管美國將該群島的施政權交還日本，但是在中日雙方對群島對抗性的領土主張中，美國將采取中立立場，不偏向于爭端中的任何一方。

　　四、日本主張釣魚島主權毫無依據(jù)

    1972年3月8日，日本外務省發(fā)表《關于尖閣列島所有權問題的基本見解》，闡述日本政府對于釣魚島主權歸屬問題的主張：一是釣魚島為“無主地”，不包含在《馬關條約》規(guī)定的由清政府割讓給日本的澎湖列島和臺灣及其附屬島嶼的范圍之內。二是釣魚島不包含在“舊金山和約”第二條規(guī)定的日本所放棄的領土之內，而是包含在該條約第三條規(guī)定的作為西南諸島的一部分被置于美國施政之下，并根據(jù)“歸還沖繩協(xié)定”將施政權“歸還”日本的區(qū)域內。三是中國沒有將釣魚島視為臺灣的一部分，對“舊金山和約”第三條規(guī)定將釣魚島置于美國施政區(qū)域內從未提出過任何異議。

    日本的上述主張嚴重違背事實，是完全站不住腳的。

    釣魚島屬于中國，根本不是“無主地”。在日本人“發(fā)現(xiàn)”釣魚島之前，中國已經(jīng)對釣魚島實施了長達數(shù)百年有效管轄，是釣魚島無可爭辯的主人。如前所述，日本大量官方文件證明，日本完全清楚釣魚島早已歸屬中國，絕非國際法上的無主地。日本所謂依據(jù)“先占”原則將釣魚島作為“無主地”“編入”其版圖，是侵占中國領土的非法行為，不具有國際法效力。

    無論從地理上還是從中國歷史管轄實踐看，釣魚島一直是中國臺灣島的附屬島嶼。日本通過不平等的《馬關條約》迫使清朝割讓包括釣魚島在內的“臺灣全島及所有附屬各島嶼”?！堕_羅宣言》、《波茨坦公告》等國際法律文件規(guī)定，日本必須無條件歸還其竊取的中國領土。上述文件還對日本領土范圍作了明確界定，其中根本不包括釣魚島。日本試圖侵占釣魚島，實質是對《開羅宣言》和《波茨坦公告》等法律文件所確立的戰(zhàn)后國際秩序的挑戰(zhàn)，嚴重違背了日本應承擔的國際法義務。

    美國等國家與日本簽訂的片面媾和條約“舊金山和約”所規(guī)定的托管范圍不涵蓋釣魚島。美國擅自擴大托管范圍，非法將中國領土釣魚島納入其中，后將釣魚島“施政權”“歸還”日本，都沒有任何法律依據(jù)，在國際法上沒有任何效力。對于美日上述非法行徑，中國政府和人民歷來是明確反對的。

    五、中國為維護釣魚島主權進行堅決斗爭

    長期以來，中國為維護釣魚島的主權進行了堅決斗爭。

    中國通過外交途徑強烈抗議和譴責美日私相授受釣魚島。1951年8月15日，舊金山會議召開前，中國政府聲明：“對日和約的準備、擬制和簽訂，如果沒有中華人民共和國的參加，無論其內容和結果如何，中央人民政府一概認為是非法的，因而也是無效的?！?951年9月18日，中國政府再次聲明，強調“舊金山和約”是非法無效的，絕對不能承認。1971年，針對美、日兩國國會先后批準“歸還沖繩協(xié)定”的行為，中國外交部嚴正聲明，釣魚島等島嶼自古以來就是中國領土不可分割的一部分。

    針對日本侵犯中國釣魚島主權的非法行徑，中國政府采取積極有力措施，通過發(fā)表外交聲明、對日嚴正交涉和向聯(lián)合國提交反對照會等舉措表示抗議，鄭重宣示中國的一貫主張和原則立場，堅決捍衛(wèi)中國的領土主權和海洋權益，切實維護中國公民的人身和財產(chǎn)安全。

    中國通過國內立法明確規(guī)定釣魚島屬于中國。1958年，中國政府發(fā)表領海聲明，宣布臺灣及其周圍各島屬于中國。針對日本自20世紀70年代以來對釣魚島所采取的種種侵權行為，中國于1992年頒布《中華人民共和國領海及毗連區(qū)法》時，明確規(guī)定“臺灣及其包括釣魚島在內的附屬各島”屬于中國領土。2009年頒布的《中華人民共和國海島保護法》確立了海島保護開發(fā)和管理制度，對海島名稱的確定和發(fā)布作了規(guī)定，據(jù)此，中國于2012年3月公布了釣魚島及其部分附屬島嶼的標準名稱。2012年9月10日，中國政府發(fā)表聲明，公布了釣魚島及其附屬島嶼的領?；€。9月13日，中國政府向聯(lián)合國秘書長交存釣魚島及其附屬島嶼領?；c基線的坐標表和海圖。

    中國始終在釣魚島海域保持經(jīng)常性的存在，并進行管轄。中國海監(jiān)執(zhí)法船在釣魚島海域堅持巡航執(zhí)法，漁政執(zhí)法船在釣魚島海域進行常態(tài)化執(zhí)法巡航和護漁，維護該海域正常的漁業(yè)生產(chǎn)秩序。中國還通過發(fā)布天氣和海洋觀測預報等，對釣魚島及其附近海域實施管理。

    一直以來，釣魚島問題受到港澳同胞、臺灣同胞和海外僑胞的共同關注。釣魚島自古以來就是中國的固有領土，這是全體中華兒女的共同立場。中華民族在維護國家主權和領土完整問題上有著堅定的決心。兩岸同胞在民族大義面前，在共同維護民族利益和尊嚴方面，是一致的。港澳臺同胞和海內外廣大華僑華人紛紛開展各種形式的活動，維護釣魚島領土主權，強烈表達了中華兒女的正義立場，向世界展示了中華民族愛好和平、維護國家主權、捍衛(wèi)領土完整的決心和意志。

    結束語

    釣魚島自古以來就是中國的固有領土，中國對其擁有無可爭辯的主權。20世紀70年代，中日在實現(xiàn)邦交正?；途喗Y《中日和平友好條約》時，兩國老一輩領導人著眼兩國關系大局，就將“釣魚島問題放一放，留待以后解決”達成諒解和共識。但近年來，日本不斷對釣魚島采取單方面舉措，特別是對釣魚島實施所謂“國有化”，嚴重侵犯中國主權，背離中日兩國老一輩領導人達成的諒解和共識。這不但嚴重損害了中日關系，也是對世界反法西斯戰(zhàn)爭勝利成果的否定和挑戰(zhàn)。

    中國強烈敦促日本尊重歷史和國際法，立即停止一切損害中國領土主權的行為。中國政府捍衛(wèi)國家領土主權的決心和意志是堅定不移的，有信心、有能力捍衛(wèi)國家主權，維護領土完整。

國新辦發(fā)表《釣魚島是中國的固有領土》白皮書（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.