山陽論叢 第 20 巻（2013）
山陽論叢 第 20 巻 （2013）

論文

The United States Commitment to the Senkaku Islands Issue
Han I *
Key words: the Senkaku Islands, Potsdam Proclamation, the San Francisco Peace
Treaty, Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, Okinawa Reversion Agreement
I．Introduction
The conflict around Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Dao in Chinese) is becoming
ever more dangerous. Since 11 September 2012, when the Japanese government
nationalized three of the islands by buying them from their private owner, China has
been challenging not only Japan’s claim to sovereignty over the islands, but also its
control of them by force. This month, anti-Japanese demonstrations spread across
China, some of which resulted in violent with the connivance of the government. In thelast year, China has strengthened its own claims and sent patrol boats to encroach on
Japanese territorial waters repeatedly, Chinese aircraft also raided into Japan’s
airspace over the islands. Finally, Beijing declared its “air defense identification zone”
on 23 November 2013, which over a wide swath of the East China Sea and covers the
Senkaku Islands. These events have sharply escalated tensions in the region.
Why is China acting in such a way? It seems that the Chinese government
wants to fuel tensions for turning people’s attention away from the serious domestic
problems, such as widening rich-poor gap, political corruption, environmental pollution
and social unrest. To make matters worse, China’s new top leader Xi Jinping takes afirm attitude toward Japan, and will wand to appear a strong commander-in-chief.
Recently, he uses the word “core interest” in talking about the Senkaku problem, anddeclared that “no foreign country should ever nurse hopes that we will bargain over
our core national interests.……Nor should they nurse hopes that we will swallow thebitter fruit of harm to our country’s sovereignty, security and development interests.”1

Anyway, the Chinese leadership has enough problems at home; they do indeed havereasons to maintain their hard-liner’s image. In fact, China has become morenationalistic over the past 20 years; growing nationalism in China aggravates thethreat to the Asia-Pacific region’s peace and prosperity.
The Senkaku matter, therefore, is less because of fishing, oil or natural gas than as
counters in the high-stakes game for Asia’s future. Whereas China claims that Diaoyu
Dao has been its inherent territory since ancient times, and Japan “stole” them in theend of Sino-Japanese War 1894-95, Japan, for its part, has always insisted that the
Senkakus are historically part of Ryukyu Islands and thus no dispute exists over the―――――――――――――*山陽学園大学総合人間学部言語文化学科- 61 -

Han I ： The United States Commitment to the Senkaku Islands Issue

territory, which initially placed under its control in 14 January 1895. Before then, theSenkakus were uninhabited and without owner as terra nullius. Japan basicallymaintains that China acquiesced to Japan’s title until 1970s, not once raising a claim
to the islands. But then, with evidence of oil in the islands’ vicinity, Taiwan and China
took to asserting title over them one after the other. On 28 September 2012, the staterun China Daily put a full-page advertisement in The New York Times to publicity
China’s claims of its territorial sovereignty over the islands, without offering any solid
evidences to support their own assertions.2 That is why China would not refer the
Senkaku sovereignty issue to the International Court of Justice.
The United States of America, as an ally with Japan, is now in a delicate position
toward the situation in the East China Sea. America has confirmed that it takes noposition on the territorial dispute over the Senkaku Islands, but it also has made it
clear that it has an obligation to defend the islands under the Japan-U.S. Security
Treaty Article 5, if it comes under armed attack. Meanwhile, America has been urging
Japan and China to solve the dispute through dialogue and manage disagreement
through peaceful means. Actually, the Obama Administration warned Japan not topurchase the Senkaku Islands last fall. According to an interview of former U.S.
Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell, the Japanese
government was advised by the U.S. to be “careful” in handling the matter.3
Despite there is a gap in perception over the Senkakus dispute between Japanand the United States, China still suspects America is not taking a neutral stance on
the issue. China has also been angered by what it sees as the U.S. support for its
opponent in dispute with Japan, because “Japan would not have been so aggressive
without the support and actions of the U.S.” After all, China’ s display seems to be
testing the strength of Japan’s alliance with the U.S., the main aim is to influence
America to exclude the Senkakus from the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty’s ambit, for fearof sucked into war with China. Actually, the state-run People’s Daily, Global Times and
CCTV hopefully suggested that America would not go to war “over a rock”.4
In this context, therefore, to think about the Senkaku Islands issue, America’s
commitment to them becomes a crucial point. Because the United States not only has
important relationships with all three disputants: Japan, China and Taiwan, 5 but also
played a significant role in the territorial disputes, at least in the initial stages. In
China and especially in Japan, questions have arisen concerning the U.S. relationshipand obligations to the islands. This paper will focus on that issue, which has threeelements: (1) the U.S. administration of the Senkakus after the war; (2) the status of
the Senkakus in the Okinawa Reversion Agreement; and (3) the applicability of theJapan-U.S. Security Treaty to the islands.
II．The U.S. Administration of the Senkakus after World War II
As is well known, the claims of China and Taiwan have a similar basis. They

- 62 -

山陽論叢 第 20 巻（2013）
山陽論叢 第 20 巻 （2013）

asserted that “Diaoyu Dao was first discovered, named, and used by Chinese”, “theDiaoyu Islands, along with Taiwan, became the territory of Ming and Qing dynasties”,
and “On 17 April 1895, the Qing court was defeated in the Sino-Japan War, and forced
to sign the unequal treaty in Shimonoseki and cede Taiwan along with Diaoyu Dao to
Japan”. However, Japan argued that the islands were not officially controlled by China
at that time. The Chinese government and propaganda were wrong when they insisted
that China has claimed the sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands for centuries and has
always treated Japan’s annexation as illegal. The fact is that China didn’t claim
ownership of the islands until the 1970s. Its world atlases always showed them asJapanese territories, and even an article in the People’s Daily dated 8 January 1953
depicted the Senkakus as belonging to the Ryukyu Islands.
The Chinese government and propaganda were also wrong in stating that the
Potsdam Proclamation deprived Japan of all its overseas territories including the
Diaoyu Islands. A careful reading of the proclamation together with the Cairo
Declaration that preceded it and the Peace Treaty of Shimonoseki would tell him thatno reference was made to “Diaoyu Dao” in these international documents, that is to say,
not on the mind of world leaders at Potsdam, Cairo and Shimonoseki.
According to the white paper of the Chinese government, “Japan's occupation of
Diaoyu Dao during the Sino-Japanese War in 1895 is illegal and invalid. After WorldWar II, Diaoyu Dao was returned to China in accordance with such international legal
documents as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation.……However, theUnited 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 actsof grave violation of China's territorial sovereignty. They are illegal and invalid.”6
China always tried to justify itself in such a way.
In view of this situation, the Japanese government made unequivocal its formal
position on 7 March 1972, through an official statement of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (MOFA): On the Issue of Territorial Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands.
According to a new appeal of MOFA,“The Senkaku Islands were neither part of Taiwan
nor part of the Pescadores Islands, which were ceded to Japan from the Qing Dynasty
of China in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace signed at Shimonoseki.”Moreover, “The Senkaku Islands are not included in the territory which Japanrenounced under Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which came into effect inApril 1952 and legally demarcated Japan’s territory after World War II. There wereplaced under the administration of the United States of America as part of the Nansei
shoto Islands, in accordance with Article 3 of the said treaty, and were included in theareas whose administrative rights were reverted to Japan in accordance with theAgreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu
Islands and the Daito Islands, which came into force in May 1972. The facts outlined- 63 -

Han I ： The United States Commitment to the Senkaku Islands Issue

herein clearly indicate the status of the Senkaku Islands as being part of the territoryof Japan.” 7 On 26 September 2012, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda delivered a speechat the United Nations, during which he passed along the word that “no dispute exists.”
Which of these two opposing opinions told the truth? Of course, it takes courage
to tell the truth. The historical fact is that the Treaty of Shimonoseki did not mention“Diaoyu Dao” (this point was specified in the original article 2 as follows: China cedes
Formosa to Japan “together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the saidisland of Formosa.”),and the islands were not discussed during the negotiating sessions.
Far from it, even the word “Diaoyu Dao” had never appeared in the official records ofMing and Qing Dynasty or Taiwan gazetteers(except some clearly inaccurate accounts)
at that time. 8 Although China and Taiwan make their own assertions about the
Senkakus over and over again, they are completely without positive proof indeed. It
will be necessary to consult the international legal documents relating to the territorial
issue as following.
As a well-known fact, the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation
with laid out the terms for the Japanese surrender at the end of World War II, obliged
Japan to return all the Chinese territories it had occupied. On 27 November 1943, theCairo Declaration stated in explicit terms that “all the territories Japan has stolen
from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa 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.”9 The Potsdam Proclamation of 26 July 1945
referred to the Cairo Declaration, clearly defined the postwar territory of Japan. In
accordance with Article 8: “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out andJapanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu,
Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.”10 Lastly, Japan announced its
acceptance of the Potsdam Proclamation as well as its unconditional surrender inAugust 1945. Later, when Japan was accepted as a member of the U.N. in 1956, it wason the condition it accepted the Potsdam Proclamation, and this was also the casewhen Japan and China restored diplomatic relations in September 1972.
All these international documents remain legally binding on the respective
countries today, including America, Japan, China and Taiwan. It should be pointed outthat both Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation did not mention the Senkaku
Islands; therefore, the Senkaku Islands were not included in the territory which Japanrenounced under the two international legal documents. In other words, the Senkaku
Islands were incontrovertibly not part of the territory it was treaty-bound to renounce
after Japan lost World War II.
After the end of World War II, on 29 January 1946, the Supreme Commander
for the Allied Powers Instruction (SCAPIN) No.677( subject: Governmental and
Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan) clearly definedJapan’s power of administration to “included the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido,- 64 -

山陽論叢 第 20 巻（2013）
山陽論叢 第 20 巻 （2013）

Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands,
including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 300 North
Latitude(excluding Kuchinoshima Island); and excluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island,… … ; (b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 300 North Latitude (including
Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin(Ogasawara) and Volcano(Kazan or Iwo)
Island Groups, and all other outlying Pacific Islands……; and(c)the Kurile(Chishima)Islands,……”.11 Although the commander did not enumerate the Senkakus in detail,but definitely included them in the area of “(b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of
300 North Latitude”, where placed under the military occupation of the Allied Forces.
The U.S. administration of Okinawa Islands with the Senkakus began in 1952as a result of the Treaty of Peace with Japan (commonly known as the San Francisco
Peace Treaty) which signed on 8 September 1951 and came into effect on 28 April 1952.
Although the treaty did not mention the Senkakus in detail, but the Article 3 placed“Nansei Shoto south of 290 north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito
Islands)” under the United Nations’ trusteeship system with the U. S. administering
authority.12 Since the Senkaku Islands lie to the waters between 25040' to 260northlatitude and 123020' to 1240 40'east longitude, it is clear that the Article 3 included the
Senkakus as part of the Nansei Shoto Islands.
Before Japan and a number of countries signed the treaty, the U.S. Secretary ofState Dulles John Foster stated the legal status of Ryukyus clearly in his remarks on 5
September 1951, “Article 3 deals with the Ryukyus and other islands to the south andsoutheast of Japan.These,since the surrender, have been under the sole administrationof the United States. Several of the Allied Powers urged that the treaty should require
Japan to renounce its sovereignty over these islands in favor of United States
sovereignty. Others suggested that these islands should be restored completely to
Japan. In the face of this division of Allied opinion, the United States felt that the bestformula would be to permit Japan to retain residual sovereignty, while making it
possible for these islands to be brought into the United Nations trusteeship system,with the United States as administering authority.”13 It means that America permitted
Japan has the “residual sovereignty” of Ryukyu Islands under their own administering
authority. As a concept of international law, the “residual sovereignty” means that theJapanese sovereignty is suspended temporarily until the final politico-administrative
settlements.
Hence we may well assume, as is quite clear from the above facts, that the
Senkaku Islands are clearly a part of the territory of Japan, in light of the historicalfacts and based upon the international law. Since these international legal documents,
which demarcated Japan’s territory after World War II, were all designed under theAmerica’s hegemony, China’s criticisms like “Japan’s plot to deny the outcomes of theAllied Powers’ victory in the war against fascism”, or “Japan want to subvert the
postwar international order”,14 are completely unreasonable and just a nonsense.

- 65 -

Han I ： The United States Commitment to the Senkaku Islands Issue

On 10 September 1970, when asked “what is the U.S. position regarding thefuture disposition of the Senkaku Islands?” State Department spokesman Robert
McCloskey answered that “under Article 3 of the Peace Treaty with Japan, the U.S.
has administrative rights over the Nansei Shoto. This term, as used in that treaty,
refers to all islands south of 29 degrees north latitude, under Japanese administration
at the end of the Second World War, that were not otherwise specifically referred to in
the treaty. The term, as used in the treaty, was intended to include the Senkaku
Islands.” He also stated clearly that “under the treaty, the U.S. government
administers the Senkaku Islands as a part of the Ryukyu Islands, but considers that
residual sovereignty over the Ryukyus remains with Japan. As a result of anagreement reached by President Nixon and Prime Minister Sato in November 1969, it
is anticipated that administration of the Ryukyus will revert to Japan in 1972.”15 In
this way, the United States of America had exercised the administrative authority on
the Senkaku Islands after World War II until the reversion of Okinawa.
III．The Status of the Senkakus in the Okinawa Reversion Agreement
On 17 June 1971, Japan and the United States signed the Agreement Concerning
the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands (commonly known as Okinawa Reversion
Agreement),which provided that any and all powers of administration over the Ryukyu
Islands with the Senkakus would be returned to Japan. However, China condemned
the agreement as “a backroom deal”, and complained that “China has opposed thebackroom deals between the United States and Japan concerning the Diaoyu Islands.”
America had carefully reviewed China’s such claims, but it cannot agree with them.16
It was in 23 June 1945, when the Tenth Army of Japanese Forces, which had
stationed in Ryukyu Islands, surrendered to the U.S. forces. The Surrender was signed
on 7 September 1945, in which “the undersigned Japanese Commanders, in conformity,with the general surrender executed by the Imperial Japanese Government, at
Yokohama, on 2 September 1945, hereby formally render unconditional surrender ofthe islands in the Ryukyus within the following boundaries:300 North1260 East, thence
240 North1220 East, thence 240 North1330 East, thence 290 North1310 East, thence 300
North131030’ East, thence to point of origin.”17 Since then, the Senkaku Islands havebeen placed under the U.S. military occupation together with other Ryukyu Islands.
When the Allied Occupation ended and Japan regained sovereignty in 1952
under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Okinawa was still put under the U.S. rule.
Under a 1969 deal struck between Prime Minister Eisaku Sato and President Richard
M. Nixon, Okinawa was returned to Japanese rule in 1972. During that period of 20
years, the Senkakus were placed with other Nansei Islands under the American
authority; they have been under the effective control by U.S. Civil Administration andthe Ryukyu government. The United States has never denied Japan’s residual
sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands. We can see the facts through some ordinances- 66 -

山陽論叢 第 20 巻（2013）
山陽論叢 第 20 巻 （2013）or proclamations as following.
On 29 February 1952, the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu
Islands (USCAR) issued Ordinance No.68, for publishing the Provisions of theGovernment of the Ryukyu Islands. In accordance with Article 1 of the Provisions,“The administrative and territorial jurisdiction of the Government of the Ryukyu
Islands are designated as all of those islands and territorial waters within thefollowing geographic boundaries: 290 North Latitude, 125022’ East Longitude; thence
240North Latitude,1220East Longitude; thence 240North Latitude,1330East Longitude;
thence 290 North Latitude, 1310 East Longitude; thence to the point of origin.”18
Furthermore, on 25 December 1953, the USCAR issued Proclamation No.27, fordefining the geographical boundary lines of the Ryukyu Islands. In accordance with
Article 1 of the Proclamation, the territorial jurisdiction of the Ryukyu government
are redesigned as “all of those islands, islets, atolls and rocks and territorial waters
within the following geographic boundaries:280 North Latitude,124040’East Longitude;
thence 240 North Latitude,1220 East Longitude; thence 240 North Latitude,1330 East
Longitude; thence 270 North Latitude,131050’East Longitude;thence270 North Latitude,
128018’East Longitude; thence 280 North Latitude,128018’ East Longitude; thence tothe point of origin.”19 Both the two enactments clearly provide that the Senkakus was
included in the area where the U.S. administration extends. Moreover, during theperiod of U.S. administration, the U.S. Navy established firing ranges on the Kuba
Island and Taisho Island from 1955, and paid an annual rent to Mr. Jinji Koga, the sonof the first Japanese settler of the islands.
Since then, there have been numerous cases of unlawful entry into the Senkakus,
for the control of which the Ryukyu government have taken various measures from1968. One such measure was the erection. On 12 July 1970, the Ryukyu government
set up some warning signs on the Senkaku Islands in the Japanese, English andChinese language, the warning signs had the following content: “Entry into any of the
Ryukyu Islands including this islands, or their territorial waters other than innocent
passage, by persons other than the residents of the Ryukyu Islands, is subject tocriminal prosecution except as authorized by the U.S. High Commissioner.”20
With the coming into force of the Okinawa Reversion Agreement on 15 May 1972,
Japan has recovered her full sovereignty over the Ryukyu and Daito Islands. Article 1of the Agreement defines the term “with respect to the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito
Islands, as defined in paragraph 2 below, the United States of America relinquishes infavor of Japan all rights and interests under Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace with Japansigned at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, effective as of the date ofentry into force this Agreement. Japan, as of such date, assumes full responsibility andauthority for the exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation andjurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of said islands.”21
Moreover, Agreed Minute of the Agreement defines the boundaries of the Ryukyu- 67 -

Han I ： The United States Commitment to the Senkaku Islands Issue

Islands as designated under the USCAR No.27, the latitude and longitude boundaries
set forth in the Agreed Minute appear to include the Senkakus.“The territories definedin paragraph 2 of Article 1 are the territories under the administration of the UnitedStates of America under Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, and are, as
designated under Civil Administration Proclamation Number 27 of December 25, 1953,
all of those islands, islets, atolls and rocks situated in an area bounded by the straightlines connecting the following coordinates in the listed order:……”22
In the beginning, China raised no objections when the Senkakus were placed
under the U.S. administration. But when the reversion of Okinawa to Japanese control
was decided in 1970, the United States was asked by both China and Taiwan at thattime not to recognize Japanese sovereignty over the Senkakus. The Republic of China
has set to formulate a territorial claim from 1970 in an informal manner; the People’s
Republic of China has acted in a similar way. In 1971, both the Chinese governments
have taken the official position to the effect that the Senkaku Islands constitute an
integral part of Chinese territory, such as the statement of the Department of Foreign
Affairs of the Republic of China dated 11 June 1971, and the same of the Department
of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China dated 30 December 1971.
However, a report compiled by the CIA on the Senkakus dispute, which wasdrafted in May 1971 and was included in declassified documents from the National
Security Archive of George Washington University, concluded that “the Japanese claim
to sovereignty over the Senkakus is strong, and the burden of proof of ownership would
seem to fall on the Chinese.” The intelligence report noted that some Chinese atlas,which was published in 1966 in Beijing during the Cultural Revolution, definitely
indicates that the ocean area in which the Senkakus are located is beyond China’s
border. In addition, the atlas along with another maps indicate that “the Senkaku
Islands belong to the Ryukyus, and therefore to Japan”; and “none of the Chinese
Nationalist (Taiwanese) maps that were examined indicate that the Senkaku oceanarea is within China’s boundaries.” 23 The report also pointed out that a random

selection of maps published in Europe also fail to show the Senkakus are part ofChina’s sovereign territory, while the 1967 edition of the Soviet Union’s official world
atlas included a chart specifically designating the Senkakus as Japanese territory.
In this situation, the government of America has once and again manifested its
intention of neutrality and non-intervention in the territorial issue over the Senkaku
Islands. For example, State Department spokesman Brey declared on 17 June 1971,
that “the United States Government is aware that a dispute exists between the
Government of the Republic of China and Japan regarding the sovereignty of the
Senkaku Islands. The United States believes that a return of administrative rights
over those islands to Japan, from which those rights were received, can in no way
prejudice the underlying claims of the Republic of China. The United States cannot
add to the legal rights of Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the- 68 -

山陽論叢 第 20 巻（2013）
山陽論叢 第 20 巻 （2013）

islands to the United States, nor can the United States by giving back what it received
diminish the rights of the Republic of China.”24 After that, successive American
governments have restated this position of neutrality regarding the issue. For thisreason, some experts in China and Japan see the issue of the Senkakus “as a timebomb planted by the U.S. between China and Japan.”25
Actually, the declassified documents along with the CIA report demonstrate thatwhile affirming that the Senkakus fall under Japan’s jurisdiction, U.S. administrations
dating bake to the 1970s have consistently maintained a neutral stance on the issue.
An April 1978 memorandum the U.S. National Security Council prepared for Zbigniew
Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter,said that “our interest
is in doing nothing to undercut the Japanese, but at the same time remaining aloof
from this potentially contentious Sino-Japanese territorial issue.”26
After all, the historical fact is that when the U.S. returned Okinawa to Japan in
1972, the Senkaku Islands were included in the package. At the same time, however,there has long been speculation about the possibility of U.S. involvement in the eventof a military clash between China and Japan over these disputed islands.
IV．The Applicability of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty to the Senkakus
As we have seen above, although the U.S. government does not take a formal
position on the sovereignty issue of the Senkaku Islands, but it has made it clear theJapan-U.S. Security Treaty would extend protection to the islands. On 20 September
2012, U.S. Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell told asubcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying, “We acknowledge
clearly that Japan retains effective administrative control over the Senkaku Islands,
and they are included clearly under Article 5 of the bilateral security treaty, underwhich American forces are required to defend Japanese territory in the event of an
attack.”27 Later, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also sent a clear warning to
China in a joint news conference on 18 January 2013, after meeting with JapaneseForeign Minister Fumio Kishida in Washington, said that the Obama Administration
opposed“any unilateral actions that would seek to undermine Japanese administrationof the Senkakus.”28 These remarks, however, provoked sharp response from China.
After the war, Japan entered into an alliance with the United States, this allianceremains the centerpiece of Japan’s strategic policy. Under a longstanding security
treaty with Japan, the United States is obliged to defend the country including the
Senkaku Islands ―it is the position that Clinton referred. She also declared that theUnited States recognized the islands were administered by Japan. In fact, the more
powerful China grows, the more Japan should depend on U.S. security guarantees. In
recent years, China’s foreign policy behavior has become more insolent, as an article of
the People’s Daily saying that “even the United States, the world’s sole superpower,
acknowledged that it cannot encircle and contain China, so why should Japan?” The- 69 -

Han I ： The United States Commitment to the Senkaku Islands Issue

Chinese leadership seems to think that America has been weakened by the financial
crisis and its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even as China has grown stronger. In
reality, however, it does worry about the Japan- U.S. military alliance indeed.
As is well known, the Security Treaty between Japan and the United States ofAmerica was signed on 8 September 1951,the same day of the signing of San Francisco
Peace Treaty, and has become the foundation of state security for Japan since then. In
accordance with Article 1,“Japan grants, and the United States of America accepts, theright, upon the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace and of this Treaty, to dispose
United States land, air and sea forces in and about Japan. Such forces may be utilized
to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far Eastand to the security of Japan against armed attack from without, including assistancegiven at the express request of the Japanese Government to put down large-scaleinternal riots and disturbances in Japan, caused through instigation or intervention by
an outside power or powers.”29 During the Cold War era, the treaty had become thelifeline to Japan, since it was always under the threat from the Soviet Union.
On 19 January 1960, the treaty was revised, and changed its name into Treatyof Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America.
In accordance with Article 5, “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against
either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous
to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangerin accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.”30 It should bear in mind
that the treaty itself declares here that each party would act in response to “an armed
attack, in the territories under the administration of Japan.” There, “administration”
rather than “sovereignty” in the key distinction that applies to the Senkaku Islands.
Since then, the United States and Japan have not altered the application of the
Security Treaty to the islands.
On the Agreed Minute of the treaty, the Japanese plenipotentiary asked for
U.S. support as follows, “While the question of the status of the islands administeredby the United States under Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan has not been
made a subject of discussion in the course of treaty negotiation, I would like toemphasize the strong concern of the government and people of Japan for the safety ofthe people of these islands since Japan possesses residual sovereignty over theseislands. If an armed attack occurs or is threatened against these islands, the twocountries will of course consult together closely under Article 4 of the Treaty of Mutual
Cooperation and Security. In the event of an armed attack, it is the intention of thegovernment of Japan to explore with the United States measures which in might beable to take for the welfare of the islanders.”31 The United States plenipotentiary
promised him that “in the event of an armed attack against these islands, the UnitedStates government will consult at once with the government of Japan and intends totake necessary measures for the defense of these islands, and to do its utmost to- 70 -

山陽論叢 第 20 巻（2013）
山陽論叢 第 20 巻 （2013）

secure the welfare of the islanders.”32
Moreover, the inclusion of the Senkakus in the Okinawa Reversion Agreement
under the definition of the Ryukyu Islands made Article 2 of the Agreement applicableto the islands. According to the Article 2, “ It is confirmed that treaties, conventions
and other agreements concluded between Japan and the United States of America,
including, but without limitation, the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security
between Japan and the United States of America……become applicable to the Ryukyu
Islands and the Daito Islands as of the date of entry into force of this Agreement.” 33
Say it in another way, Japan-U.S. Security Treaty becomes applicable to Okinawa, thesame as applied to the Japanese home islands. In short, while maintaining neutrality
on the competing claims, America agreed in the Okinawa Reversion Agreement toapply the Security Treaty to the treaty area including the Senkaku Islands.
In recent years, top American military officials has announced many times that
the Senkaku Islands clearly fall under the scope of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, andAmerican forces are required to defend them in the event of an attack. For example,
when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta visited Tokyo, and hold a news conference withJapanese Defense Minister Satoshi Morimoto after their meeting on 17 September
2012, he restated U.S. stance that it won’t take sides on the competing sovereignty
claims, but the United States will stand by treaty obligation with Japan, which
includes defending Japanese soil, based on the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty Article 5.34
In a statement on 23 November 2013, the same day Beijing declared its air defense
zone, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, as part of a rapid American response, made it
clear that the announcement “will not in any way change how the United States
conducts military operations in the region”, and warned that the U.S. government
viewed the Chinese move “as a destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo in theregion.” He also reaffirmed that the U.S. would stand by its security treaty obligations
to aid Japan if it were attacked.35 Three days later, Washington defiantly flew two B-52
bombers through the air defense zone without warning.
In fact, with its shift to Asia, the U.S. has expanded military presence in thisregion and placed important military resources in strategic Asian locations. On 22
September 2012, Japan’s Ground Self-Defense Force and the U.S. Marine Corps held ajoint drill on Guam aimed at bolstering their ability to defend remote islands. The
exercise was shown to media and conducted amid rising tensions between Japan and
China.36 On 10 June 2013, the U. S. and Japan began another joint drill in California
that simulates retaking remote islands using MV-22 Osprey aircraft for landing
exercises. It is the first time the Ground, Maritime and Air Self-Defense Forces havejointly participated in such a drill on American mainland. Although Japan and the U.S.
said they had no particular enemy country in mind while planning the drill, but China
still requested that the exercise be halted.37 It is needless to say that Japan’s security
ties with the United States serve as a strong message to China.

- 71 -

Han I ： The United States Commitment to the Senkaku Islands Issue

The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty obliges the U.S. to defend Japan if an area underJapanese administration is attacked by another country. But it is believed that if aremote island is attacked, it would likely be up to Japan to respond first, not the U.S.
military. Thus the United States and Japan have not only increased the number ofjoint exercises, but also started to discuss worst-case contingency plans for retaking the
Senkaku Islands, if China moves to seize them. Several concrete scenarios are believed
under consideration, including one in which Japan’s air, ground and maritime forces
would conduct operations with U.S. forces if the Chinese military invaded the Senkaku
Islands. In addition, the two countries have agreed to review the 1997 guidelines forbilateral defense cooperation, it is likely they will separate the work of creating joint
operation plans involving the Senkakus from the whole process and advance it first.38
America has made clear that its alliance with Japan applies to the Senkakus, raising
the possibility of U.S. military action in support of Japan.
After all, the Senkaku Islands are geopolitically important to the U.S. defenseline on West Pacific area linking Okinawa, Taiwan and Guam. Control of them(so-called the “first island chain”) would give China unobserved access to the Pacific
Ocean, something it lacks. China’s aims are far beyond the Senkaku Islands. 39 For thisreason, the United States treats them de facto as Japanese territory, since Japan is oneof its few vital allies, and has become the vanguard of the American strategy to contain
China. The implication is that China should be ready to take on the U.S. which has
made clear that its security treaty with Japan covers the disputed islands. Japan’s
alliance with the United States has served as a powerful deterrent to against China.
V．Conclusion
Today, America’s China policy is changing: withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan
while shift to the Asia-Pacific－the world’s most economically dynamic region. However,
the Chinese leadership sees it was aimed at China and ramping up military spending.
In fact, China’s fast-growing military and increasingly firm assertions of its territorial
claims have concerned neighboring countries, pushing them to seek stronger relations
with the U.S.－the region’s traditional superpower.
Meanwhile, Obama’s new strategy so-called “pivot to Asia” (recently rather known
as “rebalancing”) will shift 60 percent of the U.S. Navy to the region by 2020. America
has deployed additional weapons and personnel to the Asia-Pacific region, along withincreasing cooperation both with treaty partners, including Japan, South Korea andthe Philippines, as well other countries, such as India and Vietnam, that aren’t
traditional allies. To criticizes China’s decision of air defense zone, The New York Timesinsisted that “given China’s unilateral decision, with its threat of possible military
action, the United States needed to stand up for its ally Japan, for the principle offreedom of navigation of the seas and skies, and for other Asian nations that also haveterritorial disputes with China in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.”40- 72 -

山陽論叢 第 20 巻（2013）
山陽論叢 第 20 巻 （2013）

The risks of a clash between Japan and China are rising, and the consequences
could be calamitous. Since the Senkaku Islands are the first line of defense against
rising China, the world, including America, has a duty to warn China before it too late.
Like Japan, other Asian countries also have territorial disputes with China, such as
India, Vietnam and the Philippines; they also would look even more keenly towards
America for support. 41 In the coming years, China’s menace will be the main focus of
the American defense policy. Therefore, Obama’s “pivot to Asia” would be a useful startin showing America’s powerful commitment to its allies, especially to Japan.
Notes
1 “China Leader Affirms Policy On Islands”, The New York Times, January 30, 2013.
2 China Daily, “ Diaoyu Islands Belong to China ”, The New York Times, September 28, 2012.
3 “U.S. said don’t buy Senkakus: Campbell”, The Japan Times, April 11, 2013.
4 Some Western experts also express similar views, such as “Japan’s trust in U.S. support has
diminished ”;“Finally, Japan cannot expect much U.S. support in its conflict with China ”;“America
has desired to improve relations with china” and so no. See Reinhard Drifte, “Engagement Japanese
Styly”, in Marie Soderberg ed., Chinese-Japanese Relations in the Twenty-first Century, London and
New York: The European Institute of Japanese Studies, 2002, p.55. Also see Brahma Chellaney,“Japan’s Security Dilemma”, The Japan Times, August 7, 2013.
5 The Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan) began asserting its claim over the Senkaku
Islands around 1970, before China began to do so. On 5 August 2012, President Ma Ying-jeoulaunched his East China Sea Peace Initiative, which calls on all parties concerned to respect
international law and resolve disputes by peaceful means. After that, Taipei Economic andCultural Office in New York, one of the Taiwanese diplomatic offices, also put a full-pageadvertisement: The East China Sea Peace Initiative in The New York Times, October10, 2012.
6

State Council Information Office, The People’s Republic of China, Diaoyu Dao, an Inherent

Territory of China, September 25, 2012. http://www.scio.gov.cn
7 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands,
October 2012. http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html
8 The earliest historical record of the names of “Diaoyu Yu” and its affiliated islands can found in thebook Shun Feng Xiang Song published in China in 1403. It shows that Chinese had alreadydiscovered and named “Diaoyu Dao” by the 15th centuries. Chinese envoy mission records during
this period are also cited. However, they don’t indicate that those uninhabited islands had been
under Chinese control at that time. Actually, Chinese just used the islands as navigation posts
en-route to Ryukyu Kingdom during the Ming and Qing period. See Han I, “The Status of the
Diaoyu Islands in Historical Documents”, The Sanyo Review, Vol.19, December 2012, pp.39-59.
9 The Cairo Conference, 外務省条約局 編『主要条約集』昭和 55 年、1693-1694 頁。
10 Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender, Article 8, Ibid., p.1701.
11 General Headquarters The Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, No.677, Division of Special
Records, Foreign Office, Japanese Government, Documents Concerning the Allied Occupation and- 73 -

Han I ： The United States Commitment to the Senkaku Islands Issue

Control of Japan, Vol. II, March 1949, p.24.
12 Treaty of Peace with Japan, Article 3. The original text is as following, “Japan will concur in any
proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with theUnited States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29０north latitude(including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including
the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands ) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island.
Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will havethe right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the
territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.” 外務省条約局 編『主要条約集』昭和 55 年、7-8 頁。
13 Dulles, John Foster’s Remarks, 浦野起央 等編『釣魚台群島（尖閣諸島）問題研究資料』励志出版社
刀水書房、2001 年、177 頁。
14 Yang Bojiang, “Japan in danger of losing moral compass”, China Daily, September 4, 2013.
15 Robert McCloskey’s comment, 浦野起央 等編『釣魚台群島（尖閣諸島）問題研究資料』励志出版社 刀水書房、2001 年、199 頁。
16 For excellent research of the U.S. stand on China’s claims of the dispute, see U. S. Congressional
Research Service (CRS) reports: (1)Larry A. Niksch, Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands Dispute: The U.S.

Legal Relationship and Obligations, September 30,1996. http://wlstorage.net/tile/crs/96-798.pdf (2)Mark E. Manyin, Senkaku (Diaoyu/ Diaoyutai) Islands Dispute: U.S. Treaty Obligations, January
22, 2013. The second has been updated and modified slightly from the first. http://www.fas.org/
17 Surrender of Headquarters Tenth Army, 百瀬孝 編著『史料検証 日本の領土』河出書房新社、2008
年、177 頁。
18 Civil Administration Ordinance No.68 (Provisions of the Government of the Ryukyu Islands), 沖
縄県教育委員会発行『沖縄県史資料編 14』2002 年、269 頁。
19 Civil Administration Proclamation No.27, The ryukyu-okinawa history and culture website
1995-2013. http//www.nirakanai.wwma.net/pages/archive/caproc27.html
20 Order of the High Commissioner of the Ryukyu Islands, 浦野起央 等編『釣魚台群島（尖閣諸島）問題研究資料』励志出版社 刀水書房、2001 年、190 頁。
21 Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands andthe Daito Islands, Article I, 外務省条約局 編『主要条約集』昭和 55 年、66 頁。
22

Agreed Minutes, Ibid., p74.

23 “CIA: Japan’s Senkaku claim the strongest”, The Japan Times, October 5, 2012.
24 Brey’s Remarks, 浦野起央 等編『釣魚台群島（尖閣諸島）問題研究資料』励志出版社 刀水書房、2001
年、252 頁。
25 For example, according to Professor Kimiko Hara, the San Francisco Peace Treaty did not clearly
establish sovereignty of the Senkakus (same case with Liancourt Rocks, known as Takeshima inJapan). In 1972, the United States returned the Senkaku s to Japan, and Japan has administeredthem since. But the Okinawa Reversion Agreement also avoided establishing sovereignty of the
disputed islands. When China and Japan restored diplomatic relations in 1972, the leaders of bothcountries decided to shelve the dispute of sovereignty of the islands until a future date. Anyway, it- 74 -

山陽論叢 第 20 巻（2013）
山陽論叢 第 20 巻 （2013）

seems that the U.S. had hoped to drive a wedge between Japan and both China, for preserving its
forces stationed in Okinawa after the reversion. See 原貴美恵『サンフランシスコ平和条約の盲点』
渓水社、2005 年、276-279 頁。豊下楢彦「尖閣問題と安保条約」（『世界』岩波書店 2011 年 1 月号）、「尖閣購入問題の陥穽」（『世界』2012 年 8 月号）。
Actually, Chinese experts express similar views. A retired Chinese diplomat Chen Jian, who
served as an undersecretary general of the U.N. and as China’s ambassador to Japan for a
longtime,warned that the U. S. is using Japan as a strategic tool in its effort to mount a comeback
in Asia, and stirs the tensions between China and Japan. He said during his speech at theForeign Correspondents’ Club in Hong Kong that “the U.S. is urging Japan to play a greater rolein the region in security terms, not just in economic terms.” See “Ex-Envoy Says U.S. Stirs
China-Japan Tensions”, The New York Times, October 31, 2012.
26“CIA: Japan’s Senkaku claim the strongest”, The Japan Times, October 5, 2012.

27 “Isles covered: Campbell”, The Japan Times, September 22, 2012.
28“China Criticizes Clinton’s Remarks About Dispute With Japan Over Islands”, The New YorkTimes, January 21, 2013.
29 Security Treaty between Japan and the United States of America, Article 1, 外務省条約局 編『主要条約集』昭和 55 年、162 頁。
30 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America,

Article 5, Ibid., p.131.
31 Agreed Minute to the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, Ibid., p.147.
32 Ibid.
33 Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands andthe Daito Islands, Article II, Ibid., p.66～67.
34 “Resolve Senkaku row peacefully: Panetta”, The Japan Times, September 18, 2012.
35 “Japan Rejects China’s Claim To Air Rights Over Islands”, The New York Times, November 25,
2013.
36 “U.S. Marines, GSDF ‘retake island ’ in Guam drill”, The Japan Times, September 23, 2012.
37 “Japan-U.S. drill to retake remote island kicks off”, The Japan Times, June12, 2013.
38 “Japan, U.S. militaries plan Senkakau options”, The Japan Times, March 22, 2013.
39 For an excellent and detailed report on the strategic settings of the Senkaku Islands, see Mark J.
Valencia, “The East China Sea Dispute”, Asian Perspective, Vol.31, No.1, 2007, p.129.
http://uotsurishima.com/english/uotsurishima/biblioteca/
40 Editorial: “China’s Coercive Play”, The New York Times, November 26, 2013.
41 Obviously, Taiwan has similar desire for the America’s support too. It should be noted that underthe American management, Japan and Taiwan concluded a long-awaited fisheries agreement on
10 April 2013. The agreement sets aside the sovereignty issue over the Senkakus and allows
Taiwanese trawlers to operate in part of Japan’s exclusive economic zone near the disputed
islands. It is said that the Japanese government compromised mainly to prevent Taiwan fromforming a united front with China against Japan. See “Japan to let Taiwanese fish near the
Senkakus”, The Japan Times, April 11, 2013.

- 75 -