1. “In an ocean of controversy,” Time, 7 10 1996, p. 30.Google Scholar

2. Dzurek, Daniel J., “Effect of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute on maritime delimitation,” paper presented at the IBRU Conference on Borderlands Under Stress, University of Durham, 16 07 1998, pp. 1–9Google Scholar. The islands are Diaoyu (Uotsurishima), Huangwei (Kubashima or Kobishō), Chiwei (Taishōjima or Akao-Shō), Beixiao (Kitakojima) and Nanxiao (Minamikojima). The rocks are Dabeixiao (Okino Kitaiwa), Dananxiao (Okino Minamiiwa) and Feilaidai (Tobise). From 1945 to 1971, the U.S. referred to the Diaoyu Islands in several ways: Sakishima Cuntō (which represents the collective name for the Miyako and Yaeyama Islands); the Yaeyama Islands (which included Senkaku Rettō); Senkaku Rettō (which included Uotsurishima, other islands and Sentō Shōshō); and the Sentō Shōshū or Diaoyu islets. Office of the Language Aid, HCRI, A Gazetter of the Ryūkyū Islands, pp. 14–18Google Scholar, Map 5, RG 260 (USCAR), Records of the Office of HCRI, Box 6, National Archives—College Park.

3. Ma, Ying-Jeou, “The East Asian seabed controversy revisited: the relevance (or irrelevance) of the Tiao-Yu-T'ai (Senkaku) Islands territorial dispute,” in Chiu, Hungdah (ed.), Chinese Yearbook of International Law and Affairs, Vol. 2 (1982) (Taipei: Chinese Society of International Law, 1983), pp. 28–33, 43–44.Google Scholar

4. Lautenschutz, Raul, “Japan, China, and the Senkaku Islands,” Swiss Review of World Affairs, 07 1979, p. 32.Google Scholar

5. Ibid. pp. 32–33; Ma, Ying-Jeou, “The East Asian seabed controversy revisited,” pp. 2–4Google Scholar; Kristof, Nicholas D., “Would you fight for these islands?” New York Times, 20 11 1996, http://www.mtholoyoke.edu/acad/intrel/diaoyu.htmlGoogle Scholar; and Dzurek, , “Effect of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute on maritime delimitation,” p. 1Google Scholar. Ma presents a legal analysis that rejects the notion that the islands convey any continental shelf/EEZ rights. “The East Asian seabed controversy revisited,” esp. pp. 28–33, 43–44.Google Scholar

6. Suiter, Robert G., “East Asia: disputed islands and offshore claims – issues for U.S. policy,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 28 07 1992, p. CRS–7Google Scholar; and Guoxing, Ji, “Maritime jurisdiction in the three China seas: options for equitable settlement,” gopher://gopher-igcc.ucsd.edu.Google Scholar

7. Lautenschutz, , “Japan, China, and the Senkaku Islands,” p. 33Google Scholar; and Deans, Phil, “The Diaoyutai/Senkaku dispute: the unwanted controversy,” http://snipe.okc.ac.uk/international/papers.dir/deans.htmlGoogle Scholar. This also is implied by Er, Lam Peng's analysis of Japan's involvement in the South China Sea dispute, “Japan and the Spratlys dispute: aspirations and limitations,” Asian Survey, Vol. 36, No. 10 (10 1996) (online)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For background on the aforementioned disputes, see respectively Heyer, Eric, “The South China Sea disputes: implications of China's earlier territorial settlements,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Spring 1995), pp. 34–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hara, Kimie, “Hoppō, Ryōdō Mondai (The Northern Territories problem): a territorial issue between Japan and Russia,” in Grundy-Warr, Carl (ed.), Eurasia: World Boundaries, Vol. 3 (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Hereinafter I use the term Diaoyu Islands to refer to the disputed islands.

9. Quoted in Niksch, Larry A., “Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands dispute: the U.S. legal relationship and obligations,” PacNet Newsletter, No. 45 (8 11 1996), http://www.csis.org/html/pac45.htmlGoogle Scholar. This is an U.S. Congressional Research Service analysis.

10. http://www.state.gov/www/policy-remarks.

11. Niksch, , “Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands dispute.”Google Scholar Apparently, an earlier Congressional Research Service Report came to the same conclusion. This is reported in Kristof, , “Would you fight for these islands?”Google Scholar A copy of the 1960 agreement appears in Grenville, J. A. S. and Wasserstein, Bernard, The Major International Treaties Since 1945: A History and Guide with Texts (London: Methuen, 1987), pp. 124–26Google Scholar. In an agreed minute to the 1960 treaty, Japan stressed its residual sovereignty in the Okinawa chain and expectations of consultations and discussions with the U.S. in the event the islands were threatened or attacked. The U.S. stated it intended to take measures for the defence of the islands.

12. Even though an agreed minute to the 1971 reversion treaty incorporated the Diaoyu Islands as part of the Ryūkyū Islands being returned to Japan, the U.S. government took the position that “this treaty does not affect the legal status of those islands at all.” See United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Okinawa Reversion Treaty. Hearings, 92nd Congress, first session, Ex. J. 92–1, October 27–29, 1971 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1971), p. 11.Google Scholar

13. Niksch, , “Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands dispute”Google Scholar; Kristof, , “Would you fight for these islands?”Google Scholar and Deans, , “The Diaoyutai/Senkakus dispute.”Google Scholar

14. This does not imply that the Japanese do not have a valid legal claim.

15. See, for example, Suganuma, Unryū, “The Diaoyu Islands according to Chinese record of Ming times,” Chinese Historians, Vol. 9, No. 16 (1996), pp. 75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar and the works identified in nn. 1–9, 21, 22, 25, 26.

16. On China's efforts to develop a blue-water navy, see Ji, You and Xu, You, “In search of blue water power: the PLA Navy's maritime strategy in the 1990s,” The Pacific Review, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1991), pp. 137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wortzel, Larry M., “China pursues traditional great-power status,” Orbis, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Spring 1994), pp. 157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Labrousse, Henri, “Les ambitions maritimes de la Chine,” Defense Nationale, Vol. 50 (Autumn 1994), pp. 131–141Google Scholar; and Ji, You, “A blue water navy: does it matter?” in Goodman, David S.G. and Segal, Gerald (eds.), China Rising: Nationalism and Interdependence (New York: Routledge, 1997), pp. 71–89.Google Scholar

17. Ma, Ying-Jeou, “The East Asian seabed controversy revisited,” pp. 2–4Google Scholar; and Dzurek, , “Effect of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute on maritime delimitation,” p. 5.Google Scholar

18. As Ma notes, it is fallacious to claim that the dispute began at this time since Chinese and Japanese nationals visited and used the islands after U.S. administration began and both sides claimed the islands as their own. It is more accurate to assert that the discovery of energy “activated” the dispute. “The East Asian seabed controversy revisited,” pp. 25–26 n. 80.Google Scholar

19. Deans, , “The Diaoyutai/Senkaku dispute.”Google Scholar

20. In Article I of the 1971 reversion treaty, the U.S. relinquished all special rights and interests in the Ryūkyūs it acquired pursuant to Article III of the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan and returned to Japan full responsibility and authority for the exercise of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the islands. An agreed minute to the treaty provides the territorial definition of the Ryūkyūs that includes the Diaoyu Islands. The agreement is printed in U.S. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 65, No. 1672, 12 07 1971 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1971), pp. 35, 37.Google Scholar

21. Niksch, , “Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands dispute”Google Scholar; Dzurek, , “Effect of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute on maritime delimitation,” p. 6 n. 18Google Scholar; and Lautenschutz, , “Japan, China, and the Senkaku Islands,” p. 33Google Scholar. In June 1971, the ROC informed the U.S. that the Diaoyu Islands belonged to them by reason of location, geological structure, historical association and use. It asserted that it had continuously informed the U.S. and Japan that the islands belonged to it. Kao, Ting Tsz, The Chinese Frontiers (Aurora: Chinese Scholarly Publishing Co., 1980), p. 98.Google Scholar

22. United States, Department of the Army, 7th Psychological Operations Group, “Oil in troubled waters: the Senkakus,” 22 05 1972, p. SR 8–3.Google Scholar

23. Deans, , “The Diaoyu/Senkaku dispute.”Google Scholar

24. The 1978 treaty appears in Grenville and Wasserstein, , The Major International Treaties Since 1945, p. 306Google Scholar. Among other provisions, the accord called for both sides to oppose hegemony in Asia, to develop economic and cultural relations, and to maintain relations on the basis of principles such as respect for each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence.

25. Tretiak, Daniel, “The Sino-Japanese Treaty of 1978: the Senkaku incident prelude,” Asian Survey, Vol. 18, No. 12 (12 1978), pp. 1235–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lautenschutz, , “Japan, China, and the Senkaku Islands,” p. 32Google Scholar; and Deans, , “The Diaoyutai/Senkaku dispute.”Google Scholar

26. This draws extensively from Downs, Erica Strecker and Saunders, Phillip C., “Legitimacy and the limits of nationalism: China and the Diaoyu Islands,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Winter 1998/1999), pp. 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. “Law passed claiming Spratly Islands,” Agence-France Presse, 26 02 1992Google Scholar; Hong, Chang, “NPC enacts law on territorial waters,” China Daily, 26 02 1992, p. 1Google Scholar; and Xinhua Domestic, 25 02 1992Google Scholar all in Foreign Broadcast Service Daily Report – China (FBIS-CHI)-92–038, 26 02 1992, pp. 19–20Google Scholar. For an analysis of China's view of its maritime rights pursuant to the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, see Dushu, Su, “Lüe tan hanwei woguo haijiang wenti” (“Some notes on problems concerning defence of China's coastal areas and territorial seas)”, Zhongguo bianjiang shi di yanjiu (China's Borderland History and Geographic Studies) No. 1 (1992), pp. 75–81.Google Scholar

28. Dzurek, Daniel, “The Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute,” 18 10 1996Google Scholar, ([email protected]) (a revised and updated version of this paper appears at www- ibru.dur.ack.uk/senkaku.html); Dzurek, , “Effect of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute on maritime delimitation,” pp. 1–4Google Scholar; and Downs, and Saunders, , “Legitimacy and the limits of nationalism,” pp. 131–35.Google Scholar

29. The Chinese case is made in Dushu, Su, “Some notes on problems concerning defence,” p. 81Google Scholar; and Zhongguo zhoubian guanxi yu anquan huanjing (China's Relations with Its Neighbours and Its Security Environment) (Shaanxi: People's Education Press, n.d.) in Joint Publications Research Service-China (JPRS-China)-93–037, 8 06 1993, pp. 25–26Google Scholar. For official comments, see “On Diaoyu Islands issue,” and “History proves Diaoyu islands are China's territory,” both at http://www.china-embassy.org. Other important statements of the Chinese positions appear in Inoue, Kiyoshi, “Japanese militarism and Diaoyutai (Senkaku) Island – a Japanese historian's view,” http://www.interlog.com/~yuan/diaohist.htmlGoogle Scholar; and Zhong Yan, “China's claim to Diaoyu Island chain indisputable,” http://ss5.ihep.ac.cn/ins/Book/Bjreview/November/96-45-10.html. The Inoue article originally appeared in Beijing Review, Vol. 15, No. 19 (12 05 1972)Google Scholar while the Zhong piece appeared in Beijing Review, Vol. 39, No. 45 (4–10 11 1996).Google Scholar

30. A copy of the treaty is included in Israel, Fred L. (ed.), Major Peace Treaties of Modern History, 1648–1967 (New York: Chelsea House and McGraw-Hill, 1967), Vol. II, pp. 1101–10, esp. p. 1102.Google Scholar

31. These declarations appear in Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), Government Section, Political Reorientation of Japan: September 1945 to September 1948 (Grosse Pointe: Scholarly Press, 1968), pp. 411, 413.Google Scholar

32. Pursuant to Article II of the 1951 Treaty of Peace, Japan renounced all claims to Korea, Formosa, the Pescadores, the Kuriles, part of the Sakhalin peninsula, the Antarctic, the Spratlys and Paracels, and numerous mandated territories. Article III changed the administrative status of various Japanese islands. For the treaty, see Israel, , Major Peace Treaties, Vol. IV, pp. 2641–56.Google Scholar

33. On Japan's claims, see “The basic view on the sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands,” http://www.mofa.go.jp/ja/Senkaku.html. See also Ma, Ying-Jeou, “The East Asian seabed controversy revisited,” pp. 31–32Google Scholar; Prescott, J. R. V., The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World (London: Methuen, 1985), pp. 244–46Google Scholar; Dzurek, , “Effect of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute on maritime delimitation,” p. 5Google Scholar; and Guoxing, Ji, “Maritime jurisdiction in the three China seas.”Google Scholar

34. On Japan's acquisition of the Ryūkyūs, see Akagi, Roy Hidemichi, Japan's Foreign Relations, 1542–1936: A Short History (Tokyo: Hokuseido Press, 1936), pp. 58–74Google Scholar; Watanabe, Akio, The Okinawa Problem: A Chapter in Japan-U.S. Relations (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1970), pp. 4–8Google Scholar; Peattie, Mark R., “The Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945,” in Duus, Peter (ed.), The Cambridge History of Japan: Vol. 6: The Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988)Google Scholar (hereinafter CHOJ: Vol. 6), p. 224Google Scholar; Kao, Ting Tsz, The Chinese Frontiers, pp. 91–98Google Scholar; and Reischauer, Edwin O., Japan: The Story of a Nation, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1990), p. 127.Google Scholar

35. A SCAP map shows that the Ryūkyū chain is not associated with Japan proper and also that it is not part of Taiwan. At this time, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and SCAP defined “Japan” to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshū, Kyūshū and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryūkyū (Nansei) Islands south of 30° North latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island). “Memorandum for the Imperial Japanese Government from General Headquarters, SCAP,” 29 01 1946Google Scholar, in SCAP, Political Reorientation of Japan, p. 477.Google Scholar

36. Shiels, Fredrick L., America, Okinawa, and Japan: Case Studies for Foreign Policy Theory (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1980), pp. 53, 56Google Scholar; and Coox, Alvin D., “The Pacific War,” in CHOJ: Vol. 6, p. 367.Google Scholar

37. “Directive No. 2,” 3 09 1945Google Scholar, in SCAP, Political Reorientation of Japan, p. 447Google Scholar. See also “GHQ FEC Opns Instns No. 2,” 1 02 1948Google Scholar, which charged SCAP with an extensive programme of mapping and the procurement of terrain intelligence of Korea, Japan and the Ryūkyūs. Reports of General MacArthur, MacArthur in Japan: The Occupation: Military Phase, Vol. 1. Supplement (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1966), p. 84, n. 16.Google Scholar

38. “Memorandum from the Deputy Commander for Military Government to Commandant, Naval Base, Okinawa, and Chief Military Government Officer, Ryūkyūs,” 1 07 1946Google Scholar, RG 260 (U.S. Civil Administration of the Ryūkyū Islands or USCAR), Records of the Office of the High Commissioner of the Ryūkyū Islands (HCRI), Activity Reports of the U.S. Naval Military Government of the Ryūkyū Islands (April 1945-July 1946), Box 38, National Archives—College Park.

39. U.S. Department of State, Administrative Subdivisions of Japan: Atlas and Gazetteer, and Appendix, RG 59 (State Department), Records of the Geographer, Series 007 331/A/08/05, National Archives—College Park.

40. Reports of General MacArthur, MacArthur in Japan, p. 87.Google Scholar

41. “Liuchiu Islands (Ryūkyū)” (secret), 2 07 1943Google Scholar; and “Japan: territorial problems: Liuchiu (Ryūkyū) Islands” (secret), 14 12 1944Google Scholar, both in RG 59 (State Department), Reports on World War II Topics, Box 1, National Archives—College Park. The state seemed reluctant to recommend losses of territory in other island cases as well. See e.g. “Japan: territorial problems: Bonin and Volcano Islands” (secret), 23 10 1943, pp. 2–3Google Scholar; and Japan: territorial problems: Bonin and Volcano Islands” (secret), 11 10 1943, pp. 2–3Google Scholar both in RG 59 (State Department), Japan Mandated Islands and Territorial, Box 1, National Archives—College Park.

42. See Kai-Shek, Chiang, China's Destiny (New York: Roy Publishers, 1947), p. 36.Google Scholar

43. This is noted in Shiels, , America, Okinawa, and Japan, p. 57.Google Scholar

44. Dunn, Frederick S., Peace-Making and the Settlement with Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), pp. 56–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Shiels, , America, Okinawa, and Japan, pp. 56–63.Google Scholar

45. See, e.g., “Memorandum by the Political Adviser in Japan (Atcheson) to General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,” 20 03 1947Google Scholar, in U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1947: Vol. VI: The Far East (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1972)Google Scholar (hereinafter FRUS, 1947: Vol. 6), p. 452Google Scholar; “The Political Adviser in Japan (Atcheson) to the Secretary of State,” 28 07 1947, p. 476Google Scholar; and “Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Northeast Asian Affairs (Borton) to the Counselor of the Department (Bohlen),” 6 08 1947, p. 478Google Scholar, both in FRUS, 1947: Vol. 6.Google Scholar

46. “Memorandum by Rear Admiral E.T. Woolridge, Assistant Chief of Naval Operations for Politico-Military Affairs, Navy Department, to the Chief of the Division of Northeast Asian Affairs (Borton),” 18 08 1947, p. 495Google Scholar; and “General of the Army Douglas MacArthur to the Secretary of State,” 1 09 1947, p. 512Google Scholar, both in FRUS, 1947: Vol. 6.

47. “Memorandum by the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan)” (PPS 10), 14 10 1947Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1947: Vol. 6, pp. 538–540Google Scholar. The map used in PPS 10 seems to indicate that the Diaoyu Islands are part of Nansei Shotō, but is difficult to read. See p. 539.

48. “The Ambassador in China (Stuart) to the Secretary of State,” 2 06 1948Google Scholar, in U.S. Department of State, FRUS, 1948: Vol. 1: The Far East and Australasia (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1974)Google Scholar (hereinafter FRUS, 1948: Vol. I), p. 800Google Scholar; and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “The Ryūkyū Islands and their significance,” 6 08 1948Google Scholar, cited in Shiels, , America, Okinawa, and Japan, pp. 68–69.Google Scholar

49. “Recommendations with respect to the U.S. policy toward Japan,” NSC 13/1, in FRUS, 1948: Vol. I, pp. 877–78Google Scholar; and “Report by the National Security Council on recommendations with respect to United States policy toward Japan,” NSC 13/3 (6 05 1949)Google Scholar, in U.S. Department of State, FRUS, 1949: Vol. VII: The Far East and Australasia, Part 2 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1976)Google Scholar (hereinafter FRUS, 1949: Vol. 7, Part 2), p. 731.Google Scholar

50. “The Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald) to the Secretary of State,” 9 09 1949, p. 857Google Scholar; “Memorandum of conversation, by Mr. Robert A. Fearey, of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs,” 2 11 1949, p. 894Google Scholar; and “Memorandum by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense (Johnson),” 22 12 1949, p. 923Google Scholar all in FRUS, 1949: Vol. 7, Part 2.

51. Dean Acheson commented on the role of the Ryūkyūs during his famous/infamous address to the National Press Club on 12 January 1950. U.S. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 551 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1950), pp. 115–18.Google Scholar

52. Buckley, Roger, U.S.-Japan Alliance Diplomacy, 1945–1990 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 29, 37.Google Scholar

53. “Memorandum of Conversation, by the Special Assistant to the Secretary (Howard),” 24 04 1950Google Scholar, in U.S. Department of State, FRUS, 1950: Volume VI: East Asia and the Pacific (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1976)Google Scholar (hereinafter FRUS, 1950: Vol. 6), p. 1181.Google Scholar

54. Shiels, , America, Okinawa, and Japan, p. 70Google Scholar. For a masterful analysis of the Korean War, see Christensen, Thomas J., Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-American Conflict, 1947–1958 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

55. “Memorandum by the Secretary of State to the Ambassador at Large (Jessup),” 22 08 1950Google Scholar, and “Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense,” 22 08 1950, pp. 1278–82Google Scholar, both in FRUS, 1950: Vol. 6. For a copy of the relevant provisions in the draft peace treaty, see p. 1298.

56. Dunn, , Peace-Making and the Settlement with Japan, pp. 110–13.Google Scholar

57. “Memorandum approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” 4 10 1950Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1950: Vol. 6, p. 1313.Google Scholar

58. “Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs to the Deputy Director of that Office (Johnson),” 14 11 1950, pp. 1346–47Google Scholar; and “The Supreme Commander for Allied Powers (MacArthur) to the Department of the Army,” both in FRUS, 1950: Vol. 6, pp. 1344–45.Google Scholar

59. “Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs to the Deputy Director of that Office (Johnson),” p. 1347.Google Scholar

60. “The Secretary of State to the Secretary of Defense (Marshall),” 13 12 1950Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1950: Vol. 6, pp. 1364, 1367.Google Scholar

61. “The Commander in Chief, Far East (MacArthur) to the Department of the Army,” p. 1384Google Scholar; and “Report by the Joint Strategic Survey Committee to the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” 28 12 1950, pp. 1391–92Google Scholar, both in FRUS, 1950: Vol. 6.

62. “The United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald) to the Secretary of State,” 6 01 1951Google Scholar, in U.S. Department of State, FRUS, 1951: Volume VI: Asia and the Pacific, Part 1 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1977)Google Scholar (hereinafter FRUS, 1951: Vol. 6, Part 1, p. 786.Google Scholar

63. “Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs to the Consultant to the Secretary (Dulles),” 25 01 1951Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1951: Vol. 6, Part 1, p. 811.Google Scholar

64. “Undated Memorandum by the Prime Minister of Japan (Yoshida),” 1951Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1951: Vol. 6, Part 1, p. 833.Google Scholar

65. The National Archives, The End of the War in the Pacific: Surrender Documents in Facsimile (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1945)Google Scholar; and the Potsdam declaration of 26 July 1945, in SCAP, Political Reorientation of Japan: September 1945 to September 1948, p. 413.Google Scholar

66. “Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs,” 31 01 1951Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1951: Vol. 6, Part I, p. 836.Google Scholar

67. Buckley, , U.S.– Japan Alliance Diplomacy, pp. 34–37.Google Scholar

68. “Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs,” 19 03 1951Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1951: Vol. 6, Part I, p. 933.Google Scholar

69. “Provisional Draft of a Japanese Peace Treaty,” 23 03 1951Google Scholar, in FR US, 1951: Vol. 6, Part I, p. 945Google Scholar. Japanese negotiators hoped that the U.S. would not implement the trusteeship clause. Prime Minister Yoshida and others told the Japanese Diet that the peace treaty did not require Japan to renounce sovereignty over these islands. Watanabe, , The Okinawa Problem, pp. 24–25.Google Scholar

70. “Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense,” 17 04 1951, p. 991Google Scholar; and “Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense,” 26 06 1951, p. 1157Google Scholar, both in FRUS, 1951: Vol. 6, Part I. The British concurred in this separation. Dunn, , Peace-Making and the Settlement with Japan, p. 138.Google Scholar

71. “Memorandum by the Central Intelligence Agency” (NIE-19), 20 04 1951Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1951: Vol. 6, Part I, p. 999.Google Scholar

72. “The United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald) to the Secretary of State,” 4 04 1951Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1951: Vol. 6, Part 1, p. 961.Google Scholar

73. “The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic Offices,” 18 07 1951Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1951: Vol. 6. Part I, p. 1200.Google Scholar

74. Israel, , Major Peace Treaties, Vol. IV, pp. 2641–56, esp. pp. 2642–43.Google Scholar

75. United States Senate, Okinawa Reversion Treaty, pp. 90, 147.Google Scholar

76. Conference for the Conclusion and Signature of the Treaty of Peace with Japan: Record of Proceedings (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1951), pp. 88–97.Google Scholar

77. Shiels, , America, Okinawa, and Japan, p. 127.Google Scholar

78. International and Civil Affairs Directorate, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations, Department of the Army, “Okinawa Reversion: A Study of the Administrative Aspects” (secret), 1 04 1969, pp. 1–2Google Scholar, RG 260 (USCAR), Records of the HCRI, HICOM Administrative Files 1969–1972, Reversion Agreements to Pre Comm 1971–72, Box 2, National Archives—College Park.

79. “Memorandum by the Consultant to the Secretary (Dulles),” 27 06 1951Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1951: Vol. 6, Part I, pp. 1152–53.Google Scholar

80. Conference for the Conclusion and Signature of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, pp. 88–97Google Scholar. During the Okinawa reversion hearings, Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard confirmed that the U.S. had not taken sovereignty from Japan. United State Senate, , Okinawa Reversion Treaty, p. 57.Google Scholar

81. “The United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald) to the Department of State,” 17 01 1952Google Scholar, in U.S. Department of State, FRUS, 1952–1954: Volume XIV, Part 2 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1985)Google Scholar (hereinafter FRUS, 1952–1954: Vol. 14, Part 2), pp. 1089–92.Google Scholar

82. Ibid. p. 1092.

83. In 1951, Dulles told the Indian Ambassador to the U.S. that he could not accommodate Japanese demands about the Ryūkyūs for reasons of resolve and determination. “Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of India, Nepal, and Ceylon Affairs (Whitman),” 14 08 1951Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1951: Vol. 6, Part 1, pp. 1269–70.Google Scholar

84. “Memorandum by Myron M. Cowen, Consultant to the Secretary of State, to the Secretary of State,” 25 01 1952Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1952–1954: Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 1116–20Google Scholar. This plan was communicated to Sebald in February. “The Acting Director of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (McClurkin) to the United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald),” 20 02 1952Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1952–1954: Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 1184.Google Scholar

85. “The Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Rusk) to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (Nash),” 29 10 1951Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1951: Vol. 6, Part I, pp. 1388–89.Google Scholar

86. USCAR, Ryūkyū Islands: Preliminary Notes on the Use, Distribution, and Adaptability of Native and Introduced Tree Species (11 1952)Google Scholar, RG 260 (USCAR), Records of the HCRI, HICOM Administrative Files, Box 7, National Archives-College Park.

87. “Memorandum of the Substance of Discussion at a Department of State-Joint Chiefs of Staff Meeting,” 2 April 1952,” in FRUS, 1952–1954: Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 1224–27Google Scholar. Watanabe believes the importance of the Ryūkyūs as a backup in case of the loss of bases in Japan was greater than their importance as a staging area for the Korean War. The Okinawa Problem, p. 27.Google Scholar

88. “The Deputy Secretary of Defense (Foster) to the Secretary of State,” 29 08 1952Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1952–1954: Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 1318–27Google Scholar. To prevent the State Department from exploiting any divisions in the military, the JCS ordered General Mark Clark, who followed Ridgway as head of FEC, not to make any concessions regarding the political control of the islands. “The Ambassador in Japan (Murphy) to the Department of State,” 13 10 1952Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1952–1954, Vol. 14, Part 2, p. 1342.Google Scholar

89. Watanabe, , The Okinawa Problem, pp. 31–33.Google Scholar

90. “Memorandum of conversation, by the Deputy Director of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (McClurkin),” 22 09 1952, pp. 1333–35Google Scholar; and “Memorandum by the Director of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (Young) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Allison),” 12 01 1953, pp. 1376–78Google Scholar both in FRUS, 1952–1954: Vol. 14, Part 2.

91. “Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Allison) to the Secretary of State,” 18 03 1953Google Scholar, in FRUS 1952–1954: Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 1397–1400.Google Scholar

92. “The Commander in Chief, Far East (Clark) to the Department of the Army,” 20 05 1953Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1952–1954: Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 1424–26.Google Scholar

93. “Memorandum of Discussion at the 151st Meeting of the National Security Council,” 25 06 1953Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1952–1954: Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 1440–44Google Scholar. Around this period, there were rising concerns about Japan's reliability as an ally. Buckley, , U.S.—Japan Alliance Diplomacy, p. 74.Google Scholar

94. “The Ambassador in Japan (Allison) to the Embassy in Korea,” 4 08 1953Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1952–1954: Vol. 16, Part 2, pp. 1468–69.Google Scholar

95. “Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (Young),” 13 08 1953Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1952–1954: Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 1481–82.Google Scholar

96. Ibid. p. 1482.

97. “Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson) to the Under Secretary of State (Smith),” 29 10 1953Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1952–1954: Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 1543–44.Google Scholar

98. “Memorandum of Discussion at the 177th Meeting of the National Security Council,” 23 12 1953Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1952–1953: Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 1568–71.Google Scholar

99. U.S. Department of State Bulletin, 1 01 1954Google Scholar, quoted in Watanabe, , The Okinawa Problem, p. 34.Google Scholar

100. See USCAR Facts Notebook (various years), RG 260 (USCAR), Records of the HCRI, HICOM Administrative Files, Boxes 8, 16, National Archives—College Park. In my view, this was done because the Amami reversion required that the U.S. and Japan decide where the Amami Islands end and the Ryūkyūs began and ended.

101. “Draft Directive for the United States Civil Administration of the Ryūkyū Islands,” 11 01 1954Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1952–1954: Vol. 14, Part 2, p. 1586.Google Scholar

102. “U.S. Policy toward Japan” (NSC 5516/1 ), 9 04 1955Google Scholar, in U.S. Department of State, FRUS. 1955–1957: Volume XXIII, Part 1, Japan (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1991)Google Scholar (hereinafter FRUS, 1955–1957: Vol. 23, Part 1, p. 60.Google Scholar

103. Watanabe, , The Okinawa Problem, p. 35.Google Scholar

104. “A position paper on Ryūkyū and Bonin Islands,” (secret), 22 08 1955Google Scholar, RG 59 (State Department), General Records of the State Department Executive Secretariat Conference Files 1949–1963, Box 82, National Archives-College Park. Yet in a report from the State Department's Division of Research for the Far East, it was noted that Japan would drift away from the West unless it was treated equally and the Ryūkyūs and Bonins were returned. Buckley, , U.S.—Japan Alliance Diplomacy, pp. 76–77.Google Scholar

105. “Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State,” 31 08 1955Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1955–1957: Vol. 23, Part 1, pp. 115–16.Google Scholar

106. “Memorandum of a Conversation between Secretary of State Dulles and Foreign Minister Shigemitsu, Ambassador Aldrich's Residence,” 19 08 1956Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1955–1957: Vol. 23, Part 1, pp. 202–203.Google Scholar

107. Mendl, Wolf, Japan's Asia Policy (London: Routledge, 1995), pp. 30–31Google Scholar. For a discussion of U.S. economic relations (and frictions) around this time, see, Schaller, Michael, Altered States: The United States and Japan Since the Occupation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), ch. 6.Google Scholar

108. “Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson) to the Secretary of State,” 7 01 1957Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1955–1957: Vol. 28, Part I, pp. 240–43.Google Scholar

10. “Letter from the Secretary of State to the Secretary of Defense (Wilson),” 8 01 1957Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1955–1957: Vol. 23, Part I, pp. 244–45 and pp. 245 n. 2.Google Scholar

110. Memorandum from the Secretary of State to the President,” 12 06 1957Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1955–1957: Vol. 23, Part I, pp. 346–48Google Scholar. Rather than being unsympathetic to Japanese demands, Dulles feared that if anything was renegotiated there was a risk of precipitating such a rash of demands that the entire security treaty arrangement would be endangered. Buckley, , U.S.—Japan Alliance Diplomacy, pp. 81–85.Google Scholar

111. “Memorandum from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense (Wilson),” 13 06 1957Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1955–1957: Vol. 23, Part 1, pp. 349–351.Google Scholar

112. “Memorandum of a Conference with the President,” 18 06 1957Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1955–1957: Vol. 23, Part 1, p. 359.Google Scholar

113. “Memorandum of a Conversation between Secretary of State Dulles and Prime Minister Kishi,” 20 06 1957Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1955–1957: Vol. 23, Part 1, pp. 383–85.Google Scholar

114. (Emphasis added) “Memorandum of a Conversation,” 21 06 1957Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1955–1957: Vol. 23, Part 1, pp. 408–410.Google Scholar

115. “Memorandum of a Conversation,” 21 06 1957Google Scholar, in FRUS, 1955–1957: Vol. 23, Part 1, p. 411.Google Scholar

116. Watanabe, , The Okinawa Problem, p. 39Google Scholar. On the summit as a whole, see Schaller, , Altered States, pp. 132–35.Google Scholar

117. Buckley, , U.S.—Japan Alliance Diplomacy, pp. 69–99Google Scholar; and Schaller, , Altered States, ch. 6.Google Scholar

118. Maga, Timothy P., Hands Across the Sea? U.S.—Japan Relations, 1961–1981 (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1997), pp. 4–17Google Scholar; and Schaller, , Altered States, pp. 169, 171.Google Scholar

119. The U.S. confronted problems in Indo-China and was building intermediate range ballistic missile launching sites on Okinawa. Watanabe, , The Okinawa Problem, pp. 47–48Google Scholar. On USCAR General Paul Caraway's opposition to reversion or the liberalization of the U.S. administration of the Ryūkyūs, see Watanabe, , The Okinawa Problem, pp. 51–53Google Scholar; Shiels, , America, Okinawa, and Japan, p. 178Google Scholar; and Schaller, , Altered States, pp. 171–72.Google Scholar

120. Watanabe, , The Okinawa Problem, pp. 46–48.Google Scholar

121. Apparently, Ikeda and his adviser Kiichi Miyazawa did not want to press too hard because they feared it would result in damage to U.S.—Japan economic relations. Maga, , Hands Across the Sea? p. 17.Google Scholar

122. U.S. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 45, No. 1150 (10 07 1961) (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1961), pp. 57–58.Google Scholar

123. According to one source, Kennedy did this not only to improve U.S.—Japan relations, but also to get rid of the “ugly American” image that he thought was damaging U.S. relations with the Third World, a bloc whose support was vital for winning the Cold War. Maga, , Hands Across the Sea?, pp. 18–20.Google Scholar

124. “Okinawa reversion: a study of the administrative aspects,” enclosure 3.

125. Watanabe, , The Okinawa Problem, pp. 51–53.Google Scholar

126. Maga, , Hands Across the Sea?, pp. 62–65Google Scholar; and Schaller, , Altered States, ch. 11.Google Scholar

127. Watanabe, , The Okinawa Problem, p. 61Google Scholar; and Schaller, , Altered States, pp. 189–190.Google Scholar

128. Watanabe, , The Okinawa Problem, pp. 62–65Google Scholar; Buckley, , U.S.—Japan Alliance Diplomacy, p. 117Google Scholar; Maga, , Hands Across the Sea? pp. 70–72Google Scholar; and Schaller, , Altered States, p. 196.Google Scholar

129. Shiels, , America, Okinawa, and Japan, pp. 79, 178–79.Google Scholar

130. Ibid. pp. 80–81, 177–181; and Schaller, , Altered States, pp. 205–206Google Scholar. In August and September, the U.S. contemplated asking Japan for a quid pro quo in exchange for returning the islands to Japan. Buckley, , U.S.—Japan Alliance Diplomacy, p. 114Google Scholar; and Schaller, , Altered States, p. 204.Google Scholar

131. Watanabe, , The Okinawa Problem, pp. 66–68Google Scholar; Shiels, , America, Okinawa, and Japan, pp. 207–211Google Scholar; and Schaller, , Altered States, p. 207.Google Scholar

132. See Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 65, No. 1686 (17 10 1971) (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1971), pp. 431–35Google Scholar; Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 65, No. 1690 (15 11 1971) (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1971), pp. 565–68Google Scholar; Nixon, Richard M., RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon (New York: Touchstone, 1990), p. 343Google Scholar; and statements by retired U.S. State Department personnel in “The Okinawa reversion: ending the post-war period,” Foreign Service Journal, 05 1992, pp. 18–22Google Scholar. For background on Nixon administration debates over the return of the Ryūkyūs, see Shiels, , America, Okinawa, and Japan, pp. 81–83Google Scholar; Buckley, , U.S.—Japan Alliance Diplomacy, pp. 115, 118–120Google Scholar; Maga, , Hands Across the Sea? pp. 78–84Google Scholar; and Schaller, , Altered States, pp. 211–220.Google Scholar

133. See n. 20.

134. United States Senate, Okinawa Reversion Treaty, p. 11.Google Scholar

135. Ibid. p. 91.

136. On 19 June 1971, Japanese Foreign Minister Kiichi Aichi publicly stated that the 1971 reversion accord has settled the issue of the Diaoyu Islands as far as Japan and the U.S. were concerned. United States Senate, Okinawa Reversion Treaty, p. 76.Google Scholar

137. United States Institute of Peace, “The South China Sea Dispute: prospects for preventive diplomacy,” 08 1996, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

138. One only has to look at the Navy's obstinate stand with respect to the return of the strategically meaningless Bonin Islands to get a flavour for this thinking. Schaller, , Altered States, p. 204.Google Scholar

139. United States Senate, Okinawa Reversion Treaty, pp. 93, 115, 147Google Scholar. See also Schaller, , Altered States, pp. 214–15, 229–231.Google Scholar

140. This explanation is suggested inter alia by Welfield, John, An Empire in Eclipse, Japan in the Postwar American Alliance System (London: The Athlone Press, 1988), p. 310Google Scholar; Schaller, , Altered States, pp. 243–44Google Scholar; and Downs, and Saunders, , “Legitimacy and the limits of nationalism,” p. 125Google Scholar. Despite the appeal of an explanation based on realpolitik, a conclusive answer must await the declassification and publication of more archival material by the U.S. government.

141. For an attempt to conduct analyses of the interests involved in territorial disputes, see Kimura, Masato and Welch, David A., “Specifying ‘interests’: Japan's claim to the northern territories and its implications for international relations theorizing,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2 (1998), pp. 213–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Downs, and Saunders, , “Legitimacy and the limits of nationalism.”Google Scholar

142. See nn. 5–7.

143. “Trouble in paradise: maritime risks and threats in the Western Pacific,” Jane's Intelligence Review – Special Report, No. 7 (1995), p. 11Google Scholar; and Kristof, , “Would you fight for these islands?”Google Scholar

144. Mendl, , Japan's Asia Policy, pp. 51, 81.Google Scholar

145. See East Asian Diplomacy and Defence Review, No. 2 (1997), http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~syxu/kanwa/e9702.html.Google Scholar

146. Forsberg, Thomas, “Explaining territorial disputes: from power politics to normative reasons,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 33, No. 4 (1996), pp. 433–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Huth, Paul K., Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blanchard, Jean-Marc F., “Borders as institutions: a new framework for understanding border disputes,” paper presented the 94th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, 3–6 09 1998Google Scholar; and Blanchard, Jean-Marc F., “Borders and borderlands: an institutional approach to territorial disputes in the Asia Pacific,” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 12 1998.Google Scholar

147. See, for example, Goldstein, Avery, “Great expectations: interpreting China's arrival,” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Winter 1997/1998), pp. 36–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Friedberg, Aaron L., “Ripe for rivalry: prospects for peace in a multipolar Asia,” International Security, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Winter 1993/1994), pp. 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

148. The view that economic interdependence will constrain East Asian countries is noted in Segal, Gerald, “East Asia and the ‘constainment’ of China,” International Security, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Spring 1996), p. 107Google Scholar; and Goldstein, , “Great Expectations,” pp. 69–70Google Scholar. On the limitations of the commercial liberal argument, see Ripsman, Norrin M. and Blanchard, Jean-Marc F., “Commercial liberalism under fire: evidence from 1914 and 1936,” Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Winter 1996/1997), pp. 4–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The evidence is also lacking that the level of economic interdependence between China and Japan is really that great. For a conceptual treatment of the topic of measuring economic interdependence, see Blanchard, Jean-Marc F. and Ripsman, Norrin M., “Measuring economic interdependence: a geopolitical perspective,” Geopolitics and International Boundaries, Vol. I, No. 3 (Winter 1996), pp. 225–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Blanchard, Jean-Marc F. and Ripsman, Norrin M., “Rethinking sensitivity interdependence: assessing trade, investment, and monetary links between states,” paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Minneapolis, 17–21 03 1998.Google Scholar