A REBUTTAL TO CHINA’S FRAUDULENT CLAIMS ON THE SENKAKUISLANDS
Prof. Shimojo Masao, Takushoku University
China’s online propaganda campaign
On December 30, 2014, the PRC’s State Oceanic Administration launched a website
entitled “Diaoyu Dao: The Inherent Territory of China.”1 The site is China’s platform for its
claims on the Senkaku Islands, which the Chinese call “Diaoyu Dao and its affiliatedislands. It contains the following tabs:
Basic Facts on Diaoyu Dao (visitors must click on the “Homepage” tab to find this)Natural Environment
Historical BasisHistorical Literatures [sic]Legal Documents
Books and Essays
News & Trends
VideosThe Chinese want the world to believe that they have effective control of the Senkaku
Islands, and are hoping to succeed in presenting that control as a fait accompli. For thatvery reason we should be suspicious of the News & Trends section, which documents the
China Coast Guard’s numerous violations of Japanese territorial waters in the vicinity of
the Senkaku Islands. It behooves Japan to, without delay, repudiate China’s claims bydemonstrating that they have absolutely no historical basis, and to transmit video footage
showing the Maritime Safety Agency’s patrol boats in action.
Incidentally, the China Coast Guard operates under the oversight of the State Oceanic
Administration.
The following four arguments in the Basic Facts section (paraphrased here for the sake ofintelligibility)2 form China’s rationale for its acts of provocation:
1.

Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands are an integral part of China; China’s
sovereignty over them has been established both historically and in terms ofinternational law.

2.

China had jurisdiction over “Diaoyu Dao” and its affiliated islands several
hundred years before Japan discovered them.

1

http://www.diaoyudao.org.cn/en/index.htm.

2

The website’s content is in three languages: Chinese, Japanese, and unidiomatic English.

1

3.

In accordance with the Treaty of Shimonoseki, Diaoyu Dao and its affiliatedislands were ceded to Japan, along with Taiwan and its affiliated islands.
However, all were returned to China after World War II in accordance with
provisions of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration, and the Japanese
Instrument of Surrender.

4.

China’s determination to protect the fruits of its victory in an anti-Fascist war
will not be shaken. China has the confidence and capability to thwart Japan’s
acts in defiance of historical fact and international law, and to maintain peaceand order in the region.

The reference to victory in an anti-Fascist war suggests an opportunistic historicalperception that capitalizes on the fact that 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of the end ofWorld War II.
Unfortunately, there is a fatal flaw in that historical perception and in the State Oceanic
Administration’s website, which maintains that the Senkaku Islands are an integral part ofChina, and that they are islands affiliated with Taiwan. The creators of the website do notoffer any evidence supporting these claims.
In this article I will analyze two of the State Oceanic Administration’s claims: (1) the
Senkaku Islands were under Chinese jurisdiction several hundred years before Japandiscovered them, and (2) they are islands affiliated with Taiwan.

The history of Chinese claims on the Senkaku Islands
The PRC government claimed the Senkaku Islands as Chinese territory on December 30,
1971. The government of Taiwan (Republic of China) had issued a diplomatic statement six
months earlier, on June 11, declaring them Taiwanese territory.
The motivation for these declarations was the reversion of Okinawa, including the Senkaku
Islands, to Japan on May 15, 1972. Following in the footsteps of Taiwan, the PRC’s
Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement asserting that the Senkaku Islands areaffiliated islands of Taiwan and, like Taiwan, have been an integral part of China sinceancient times. The statement said also that the PRC would without fail recover Diaoyu Dao
and other islands affiliated with Taiwan.
The PRC’s fixation on the Senkaku Islands can be explained by the Chinese intention ofabsorbing Taiwan by designating the Senkaku Islands as its affiliates.
The State Oceanic Administration’s assertion in its website’s Basic Facts section that the
Senkaku Islands became Chinese territory through provisions in the Cairo Declaration, thePotsdam Declaration, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender is based on the
aforementioned statements issued in the 1970s. Since then the PRC government, intent on
possessing the Senkaku Islands, has taken aggressive action in that direction. In 1992 the2PRC enacted the Law of the People's Republic of China Concerning the Territorial Sea andthe Contiguous Zone. In 2008 PRC government ships made incursions into waters off the
Senkaku Islands. Furthermore, on May 5, 2010, a multitude of comments pertaining to the
Senkaku Islands dispute were posted to a website commemorating the Eighth Route Army,3
the precursor of the PLA (People’s Liberation Army).
Four months later, on September 7, the captain of a Chinese fishing boat that rammed aJapanese Maritime Safety Agency patrol boat was arrested and charged with obstructing thework of government officials. Prior to that Chinese vessels were persistently and illegallyfishing in the vicinity of the Senkaku Islands. Subsequently, such brazen acts on the part of
the Chinese expanded to the South China Sea. Today the PRC bears sole responsibility forthe disruption of peace and order in the region, its lofty proclamation notwithstanding (see4. above).
This provocative behavior is reminiscent of the Nagasaki Incident, which took place about
130 years ago during the Qing dynasty. On August 1, 1886 China’s Beiyang Fleet(battleships Dingyuan, Zhenyuan, Jiyuan, and Weiyuan) entered Nagasaki harbor. Chinese
sailors went ashore without permission and ran amok, committing acts of violence
throughout the city. At that time the Chinese were intent on vaunting their naval prowess.
However, the four vessels involved in the Nagasaki Incident were captured, attacked andsunk, or sank in the subsequent First Sino-Japanese War. The Nagasaki Incident loomed
large in that war, and foreshadowed the collapse of the Qing dynasty after the RussoJapanese War.
Today, more than 100 years after the fall of China’s last imperial dynasty, the PRC is again
resorting to dangerous, provocative behavior. Why is that we Japanese don’t seem to beable to learn from history?
For years China has been bombarding Japan with the “historical basis” for these claims.
The PRC cites (Voyage with a Tailwind),4 a navigational guide supposedly compiled in the
15th century, as proof that China had jurisdiction over the Senkaku Islands several hundredyears before Japan discovered them on the grounds that the islands were sighted by Chinese
envoys as early as the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), during journeys to the Ryukyus (presentday Okinawa prefecture). The Japanese have consistently and patiently, but firmly, refuted
these claims.
Japanese scholar’s opinion cited as international law
The PRC insists that the Senkaku Islands are Chinese territory both historically and interms of international law. Here we have the rare case in which the Chinese turn to a
Japanese source: The Senkaku Islands, a book written by the late Inoue Kiyoshi, and issued

3

www.balujun.org (in Chinese)4

Shun feng xiang song (顺风相送).

3

in 1972. Inoue’s book is listed as a reference on the Books and Essays tab of the State
Oceanic Administration website.5
The Chinese esteem Inoue because of his stance on the Senkaku Islands:
We must hasten to resolve (and resolve correctly) the dispute over theownership of the Diaoyu Islands. Because of Japanese imperialism, false
patriotism will arise among our countrymen. Historians must take the highroad and 0act to resolve the dispute and forestall the completion of the firstphase of infringement of a foreign nation’s territory (which would pave theway for the second and subsequent phases).6

Inoue believed that Japan had taken advantage of its victory in the First Sino-Japanese War
and seized the Senkaku Islands when the attention of China and the Western powers was
focused elsewhere.
But first we must ascertain that the Senkaku Islands were indeed affiliated islands of
Taiwan and establish the date on which Taiwan came under Chinese jurisdiction. Claiming
territorial rights without a firm historical basis is imperialism at its most intrinsic.
Unfortunately, Inoue does not establish such a historical basis in his book. He maintains
that the Senkaku Islands are Chinese territory because the name “Diaoyu Island” appears in
written Chinese records, including the following:

Date
1534
1562
1683
1719
1756
1800
1808

Title
Record of a Mission to the Ryukyus7
Record of a Mission to the Ryukyus: Updated Version8
Account of a Mission to the Ryukyus9
Record of Messages from Zhongshan (the Ryukyus)10
A Short History of the Ryukyus11
Record of a Mission to the Ryukyus12
A Short History of the Ryukyus, Continued13

5

http://www.diaoyudao.org.cn/en/node_7219356.htm.

6Inoue Kiyoshi, Senkaku retto (Senkaku Islands) (Tokyo: Daisan Shokan, 1996).

7

Shi Liuqiu lu (使琉球録).

8

Chongbian shi Liuqiu lu (重編使琉球録).

9Shi Liuqiu zalu (使琉球雑録).

10

Zhongshan chuanxin lu (中山伝信録).

11

Liuqiuguo zhilue (琉球国志略).

12Shi Liuqiu lu (使琉球録).

13

Xu Liuqiuguo zhilue (続琉球国志略).

4

Taiwan was a foreign land during the Ming dynasty
The mention of a place name in a written work does not prove that the Senkaku Islands
were Chinese territory several hundred years before Japan discovered them. To prove thatthe islands were under their jurisdiction at that time, the Chinese must establish that Taiwan
is described as belonging to Ming China in official regional topographical works likeComprehensive Gazetteer of the Ming Dynasty,14 or official histories such as History of the
Ming Dynasty.15
Inoue Kiyoshi boasted that he did everything that a historian could possibly do. However, it
is surprising that he refers to neither of these works, because an examination of thedescriptions in the Comprehensive Gazetteer and the maps in the History of the Ming
Dynasty, both imperially commissioned, should reveal whether Taiwan (Jilong) was under
Ming China jurisdiction.
The sections of History of the Ming Dynasty dealing with geography reveal that Taiwan
was considered a foreign land, as were Korea, Annam (Vietnam), Japan, and the Ryukyus.
This is unambiguous evidence that Taiwan was not Chinese territory during the Ming
dynasty. Furthermore, in the sections that deal with foreign barbarians, the Penghu(Pescadores) Islands and Taiwan are described as affiliate islands of the Ryukyus!
These descriptions are proof that Taiwan was not part of Ming China. For a more visual
analysis we can consult the volume of the History of the Ming Dynasty entitledComprehensive Maps of Ming China, which shows all of China’s territory and does notshow Taiwan (see Maps 1 and 2). In other words, Taiwan is not depicted across the Taiwan
Strait from Fujian province.

Map 2: “Map of Fujian in Comprehensive
Gazetteer of the Ming Dynasty

Map 1: “Atlas” in Comprehensive Gazetteer of the
Ming Dynasty

14

Daming yitongzhi (大明一統志).

15

Ming shi (明史).

5This makes perfect sense, of course, since Taiwan did not become Chinese territory(Taiwan prefecture) until the Qing dynasty (1683-1895). On December 22, 1683, Admiral
Shi Lang conquered Taiwan, about which he wrote the following in “Observations on theConquest of Taiwan,” which appears in Draft History of the Qing Dynasty.16
During the Ming dynasty markers were placed on Jinmen Island.17 Travelers
sailed from there and ended their journey at Penghu Island. Taiwan is aforeign land inhabited by barbarians, and does not yet belong to China.

Prior to 1683 Taiwan was a foreign land, and decidedly not Chinese territory. China
annexed Taiwan on the advice of Shi Lang, who reported that Taiwan “is important to thedefense of four provinces, and must not be relinquished.”
The historical facts that I have laid out notwithstanding, the PRC insists that Taiwan has
been Chinese territory since the Ming dynasty. By doing so, the Chinese are revealing
themselves as imperialist forgers of history who disregard historical facts and international
legal principles.

Taiwan prefecture did not include the Senkaku Islands
Were the Senkaku Islands included in the new
prefecture (Taiwan prefecture) established by the Qing
Chinese? To answer that question, we must consult twoworks, both bearing the same title, The Gazetteer of
Taiwan Prefecture, and both published in 1698.
According to the gazetteer compiled by Jiang Yuying,
Jilong Fort defines the northern boundary of Taiwan. In“Boundaries” (Jiangjie) Gao Gongqian, the compiler ofthe other gazetteer, places it at Mt. Jilong, 2,315 li 18
from the southernmost point in Taiwan. Both Jilong Fort
and Mt. Jilong are today located in the northernmost
part of Taiwan near Keelung (Jilong) City.
The Senkaku Islands, which the PRC defines as a coreinterest, are located approximately 170 kilometers
northeast of Keelung, the border of Taiwan prefecture.
The islands are not affiliated with Taiwan.
Map 3: Comprehensive Map of
Taiwan Prefecture
16

Qing shi gao.

17

Also known as Quemoy Island and Kinmen Island.

18

One li is approximately equivalent to 6,640 feet.

6This position is corroborated by “A Comprehensive Map of Taiwan Prefecture” included in
Gao Gongqian’s gazetteer, and by “Map of Three Prefectures Including Taiwan.” The
Senkaku Islands are nowhere to be found on either of these two maps (see Map 3). Diaoyu
Islands and its affiliates were not an integral part of China.
When Admiral Shi Langadvised that Taiwan should
never be relinquished, heprovided a map of Taiwan. An
early Qing-dynasty work thatshows Taiwan is “World
Atlas” 19 in the revised editionof the Gazetteer of the Vast
Realm 20 compiled during theMing dynasty by Cai Fangbing.
In a map of Fujian, whichappears in the Preface of theEnlargedandRevisedGazetteer of the Vast Realm,21
published in 1686, only thewestern side of Taiwan’s
Map 4: Map of Fujian in Enlarged and Revised
Central Mountain Range andGazetteer of the Vast Realm
the Penghu Islands are shown.
Missing are Pengjia Islet, Mienhua Island, and Huaping Island, all situated between Taiwan
and the Senkaku Islands (see Map 4).
The image of Taiwan that appears in Enlarged and Revised Gazetteer of the Vast Realm issimilar to that found in the Complete Atlas of the Empire,22 the result of a geographicalsurvey Qing Emperor Kangxi commissioned the Jesuits to conduct in 1708; its maps
were drawn on the basis of modern measurements (see Map 5). Drawings of Taiwan in later
Qing-dynasty atlases, such as the Yongzheng Atlas23 and the Qianlong Atlas,24 do notinclude the Senkaku Islands. Furthermore, the Senkaku Islands do not appear on the map of
Taiwan in the Imperial Encyclopedia,25 published in 1728, or on the regional map of19

Tianxia diyu quantu (天下地輿全図).

20

Guang yu ji (廣輿記).

21

Chongding guang yu ji (重訂廣輿記).

22Kanxi huang’yu chuanlan tu (康煕皇輿全覧圖図).

23

Yongzheng shipai tu (雍正十排図).

24

Qianlong shisanpai tu (乾隆十三排図).

25

Gujin tushu jicheng (古今図書集成).

7

Fujian26 including Taiwan in
the official Comprehensive
Gazetteer of the Great Qing
Realm,27 published in 1744 (seeMap 6).
The Chinese need to provide
valid proof. They cannot claimthat China had jurisdiction over“Diaoyu Dao” and its affiliatedislands several hundred years
before Japan discovered themsimply because an envoy
headed for the Ryukyus spotted
the Senkaku Islands.

Map 5:Map of Taiwan in Complete Atlas of the Empire
Empire Empire

Map 6: Map of Fujian in Comprehensive Gazetteer of
the Great Qing Realm
26

Fujian dili zhi tu (福建地理之図).

27

Da Qing yitong zhi (大清一統志).

28

Dongying baiyong (東瀛百詠).

8

Qi Kun, a Qing envoy who
made a journey to the Ryukyus
in 1808, provides us with astraightforward example in
One Hundred Verses from theEast.28
Sailing from Fuzhou in Fujian
province, his ship passed Mt.
Jilong on Taiwan, then the
Diaoyutai (Senkaku) Islands,
Chiwei (Taisho) Island, andthe Taiwan Strait. Qi described
Mt. Jilong as “China’s border.”He did so because Mt. Jilong
was established as theboundary when Qing China
took possession of Taiwan.
Therefore, the Senkaku Islands,e.g., Uotsuri and Taisho
islands, located between Mt.
Jilong and Kume Island in the
Ryukyus, were not owned byany nation. The Chinese have been attempting to use sightings of the Senkaku Islands in a
Record of a Mission to the Ryukyus (1534) and subsequent works like Record of a Mission
to the Ryukyus: Updated Version, Account of a Mission to the Ryukyus, A Short History of
the Ryukyus, Record of a Mission to the Ryukyus, and A Short History of the Ryukyus,
Continued to support their claims.
Qi Kun may have glimpsed the Senkaku Islands after passing the Chinese border, but asighting is obviously not grounds for the claim that they are Chinese territory. There was nochange in the perception of the border of Taiwan prefecture, i.e., Mt. Jilong, even after
China acquired Taiwan during the Qing dynasty.
Ding Shaoyi wrote about a journey hemade to Taiwan in 1847 in A Brief
Account of the Eastern Seas,29 which
was published in 1873. In a section
entitled “Boundaries” (Jiangjie) Ding
describes Tamsui and the base of Mt.
Jilong as marking Taiwan prefecture’s
northern border. His mention of Tamsui
can be explained by the establishment of
the Tamsui district in 1723. Taiwan’s
boundaries remained unchanged; its
northern boundary was still Jilong.
Several years after the publication of A
Brief Account of the Eastern Seas, Wang
Zhichun, who had a keen interest in
diplomacy and national defense, beganwriting Pacification of a Distant Land,30
which was published in 1891. The mapof Taiwan (“Taiwan Houshan Map”)
included in his book does not show theSenkaku Islands.
Once Taiwan became Qing territory, thesize of the controlled area grew larger
with the passage of time. However, theboundaries of Taiwan, which are theboundaries of exactly one island have not changed since 1684. In 1887 Taiwan’s status was
upgraded from prefecture to province. The first governor of Taiwan province, Liu
Mingchuan, described the island’s length as at least 700 li from north to south, and fromeast to west at least 200 li at its narrowest, and 300-400 li at its widest.
Map 7: Map of Taiwan prefecture in
Pictorial Section of the Collected Statutes of
the Qing Dynasty

29

Dongying shilue

30

Guochao rouyuan ji (国朝柔遠記).

9The map showing Taiwan in its entirety in the Pictorial Section of the Collected Statutes of
the Qing Dynasty,31 compiled during the First Sino-Japanese War and published in 1899,
again, does not show the Senkaku Islands (see Map 7). There is absolutely no basis for the
Chinese claim that “China was forced to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki withJapan, under which the entire island of Taiwan and all of its affiliated islands including
Diaoyu Dao, were ceded to Japan.”32
The Senkaku Islands were never affiliated islands of Taiwan province. Nor did they
become Chinese territory by virtue of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration, or
the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.
The boomerang effect of China’s claims
I believe that I have demonstrated the degree to which claims made by China’s State
Oceanic Administration (which seeks possession of the Senkaku Islands) deviate from both
historical fact and international law, and disrupt the “regional peace and order,” thesafeguarding and maintenance of which the PRC professes to be dedicated to. Its
subordinate agency, the China Coast Guard, operates under a fraudulent historicalperception, which it uses as an excuse to justify its acts of provocation: repeated violationsof Japanese territorial waters in the vicinity of the Senkaku Islands. The situation becomes
perfectly clear if we turn to a statement made by Inoue Kiyoshi, and simply substitute“China” for “Japan.”
We object to the [Chinese] imperialistic seizure of the Diaoyu Islands
because it is the objective of the current [Chinese] imperialistic aggression.
Once it is accomplished, a point of departure will have been established forfurther [Chinese] imperialist aggression.

Earlier I mentioned the Nagasaki Incident. We must be mindful that in the past, provocative
Chinese acts against neighboring nations, like that incident, have always placed China
squarely on the road to ruin. If the PRC hopes to become a superpower, it should strive toact with dignity, instead of being unpleasantly self-assertive.

*Note: This article was first published in Japanese in Seiron, May 2015 Issue.

31

Qinding da Qin huidian tu (欽定大清會典圖).

32

http://www.diaoyudao.org.cn/en/index.htm

10