Key evidence #3
In May 1894, the Home Ministry wrote, “The islands have not been surveyed since the police authorities of Okinawa had them surveyed back in 1885, so it is difficult to report anything definite.”
Said Shaw: “This document is crucial, because it’s the last official document regarding the Diaoyutais prior to the outbreak of the First Sino-Japanese War on August 1, 1894, which means that the Meiji government never conducted ‘numerous’ surveys of the Diaoyutais prior to that war, as they claim.”
“Japan’s annexation of the Diaoyutais in 1895 was done secretly. It was never announced. Even the Qing court didn’t know about it. It flew totally in the face of the ‘first occupant’ principle. The Japanese government has been stonewalling on these facts all these years. Even the Japanese people don’t know, which is why they donated ¥1.3 billion to purchase the islands.” Shaw further added that our side can stress this point, and absolutely must make its position clear to Japan.
Finally, there is also plenty of evidence in Chinese historical materials to prove that the Diaoyutai Islands are appurtenant to Taiwan. For example, Chen Shuoqi’s Recompiled General Gazetteer of Fujian (1871) shows that the Diaoyutais were considered part of Taiwan’s Kavalan Subprefecture (modern-day Yilan) during the Qing Dynasty.
Shaw further bolstered his argument by noting that a painting by the Qing-period artist Zhu Henian depicts the Okinawa Trough separating the Diaoyutais from Okinawa. This work is currently on display at the Okinawa Prefectural Museum & Art Museum, and he urges the Japanese people to go and see it.
But in any case, as a political matter, a peaceful resolution to the dispute is desirable. One method would be to go through diplomacy. Or it might be possible to litigate the matter at the International Court of Justice, or file a case with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).
Shaw pointed to the Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration of 1998–1999 as a good case in point. For cases involving islands with a complex history, the trend in international arbitration is to render decisions that promote regional peace. In practice, this means sharing. The PCA awarded some disputed islands to Yemen and some islands to Eritrea, but then required the two parties to make shared use of the resources in the surrounding area.
For this reason, even if the international justice system can be used to resolve the dispute over the Diaoyutai Islands, the end result need not be a zero-sum game. Instead, it might just be, as President Ma suggested, that the parties could engage in shared development of resources. And this win-win outcome is probably what the international community would like to see.