Japan is reportedly considering plans to calm tensions with China by acknowledging Chinese claims to the Diaoyu Islands while maintaining its own position that no official territorial dispute exists over the islands.

This seems to be a compromise from the Japanese government, but it is not a substantial change of attitude regarding the Diaoyu Islands.

China-Japan relations have soured since Japan's "purchase" of part of the islands in September, jeopardizing regional stability. The responsibility for the tension and damaged ties lies with Japan. Japan should realize that admitting an existing dispute over the Diaoyu Islands and returning to the negotiation table are preconditions for improving ties.

Japan's refusal to admit the existing dispute over the Diaoyu Islands defies historical facts.

Be it from a historical, geographical or jurisprudential perspective, the Diaoyu Islands remain an inherent part of Chinese territory. China was the first country to discover, name and administer the Diaoyu Islands.

Japan only came into the picture near the end of the 19th century when, in 1895, it defeated China's Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) government and forced the Qing Court to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki, which ceded to Japan the island of Taiwan, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the island of Taiwan.

At the conclusion of World War II, China recovered the territory that had been invaded and occupied by Japan, including Taiwan and its surrounding islands, in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. But in 1971, the United States signed the Okinawa Reversion Agreement with Japan to return the Ryukyu Islands (known to the Japanese as Okinawa), which were placed under US trusteeship by the Treaty of San Francisco.

The 1971 agreement arbitrarily expanded the jurisdiction of the Ryukyu Islands to include the Diaoyu Islands, which were part of the island of Taiwan. The Japanese government now refers to the Okinawa Reversion Agreement as evidence to justify its claim to the Diaoyu Islands. China has firmly opposed this backroom deal between Japan and the US since then.

To solve the dispute, Japan needs to face history. The Japanese government has not only denied the dispute, but also refused to acknowledge an agreement to shelve the dispute reached by the former leaders of the two countries in the 1970s.

Forty years ago, when China and Japan normalized their diplomatic relations, former Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and visiting Japanese Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka agreed that priority should be placed on the overall interests of bilateral ties, with the Diaoyu Islands dispute to be shelved until a later date.

This tacit agreement was reiterated by former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1978 during his talks with former Japanese Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda. The following year, China formally proposed setting aside the dispute and seeking joint development of resources located adjacent to the Diaoyu Islands without touching upon its territorial sovereignty.

The political wisdom shown by generations of leaders from both sides has contributed to the advancement of Sino-Japanese ties, but this hard-won progress has been undermined by Japan's unilateral moves.

Japan's refusal to admit the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands not only ignores historical facts, but may also isolate the country. Its closest ally, the United States, has taken a neutral stance on the issue, for instance.

In late September, the United States Congressional Research Service amended and republished a report titled "The Senkaku Islands Dispute: US Treaty Obligations." During Senate deliberations on whether to consent to the ratification of the Okinawa Reversion Treaty, the State Department asserted that the United States took a neutral position with regard to the competing claims of Japan and China, "despite the return of the islands to Japanese administration," the report states.

Although it's not easy for the two countries to reach a consensus on their stances over the Diaoyu Islands, it is necessary for both sides to think more of their common interests, rather than confrontation.

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)