三、美日對(duì)釣魚島私相授受非法無效

III.Backroom Deals Between the United States and Japan Concerning Diaoyu Dao are Illegal and Invalid

第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后，釣魚島回歸中國(guó)。但20世紀(jì)50年代，美國(guó)擅自將釣魚島納入其托管范圍，70年代美國(guó)將釣魚島“施政權(quán)”“歸還”日本。美日對(duì)釣魚島進(jìn)行私相授受，嚴(yán)重侵犯了中國(guó)的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)，是非法的、無效的，沒有也不能改變釣魚島屬于中國(guó)的事實(shí)。

Diaoyu Dao was returned to China after the Second World War. However, the United 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 acts of grave violation of China's territorial sovereignty. They are illegal and invalid. They have not and cannot change the fact that Diaoyu Dao belongs to China.

(一)“二戰(zhàn)”后釣魚島歸還中國(guó)

1. Diaoyu Dao was returned to China after the Second World War

1941年12月，中國(guó)政府正式對(duì)日宣戰(zhàn)，宣布廢除中日之間的一切條約。1943年12月《開羅宣言》明文規(guī)定，“日本所竊取于中國(guó)之領(lǐng)土，例如東北四省、臺(tái)灣、澎湖群島等，歸還中華民國(guó)。其他日本以武力或貪欲所攫取之土地，亦務(wù)將日本驅(qū)逐出境”。1945年7月《波茨坦公告》第八條規(guī)定：“《開羅宣言》之條件必將實(shí)施，而日本之主權(quán)必將限于本州、北海道、九州、四國(guó)及吾人所決定之其他小島。”1945年9月2日，日本政府在《日本投降書》中明確接受《波茨坦公告》，并承諾忠誠(chéng)履行《波茨坦公告》各項(xiàng)規(guī)定。1946年1月29日，《盟軍最高司令部訓(xùn)令第677號(hào)》明確規(guī)定了日本施政權(quán)所包括的范圍是“日本的四個(gè)主要島嶼(北海道、本州、九州、四國(guó))及包括對(duì)馬諸島、北緯30度以北的琉球諸島的約1000個(gè)鄰近小島”。1945年10月25日，中國(guó)戰(zhàn)區(qū)臺(tái)灣省對(duì)日受降典禮在臺(tái)北舉行，中國(guó)政府正式收復(fù)臺(tái)灣。1972年9月29日，日本政府在《中日聯(lián)合聲明》中鄭重承諾，充分理解和尊重中方關(guān)于臺(tái)灣是中國(guó)不可分割一部分的立場(chǎng)，并堅(jiān)持《波茨坦公告》第八條的立場(chǎng)。

In December 1941, the Chinese government officially declared war against Japan together with the abrogation of all treaties between China and Japan. In December 1943, the Cairo Declaration stated in explicit terms that "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa [Taiwan] 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." In July 1945, the Potsdam Proclamation stated in Article 8: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." On September 2, 1945, the Japanese government accepted the Potsdam Proclamation in explicit terms with the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and pledged to faithfully fulfill the obligations enshrined in the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation. On January 29, 1946, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction (SCAPIN) No.677 clearly defined Japan's power of administration to "include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu Islands north of the 30th parallel of North Latitude". On October 25, 1945, the ceremony for accepting Japan's surrender in Taiwan Province of the China War Theater was held in Taipei, and the Chinese government officially recovered Taiwan. On September 29, 1972, the Japanese government committed with all seriousness in the China-Japan Joint Statement that "the Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China [Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China], and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

上述事實(shí)表明，依據(jù)《開羅宣言》、《波茨坦公告》和《日本投降書》，釣魚島作為臺(tái)灣的附屬島嶼應(yīng)與臺(tái)灣一并歸還中國(guó)。

These facts show that in accordance with the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Diaoyu Dao, as affiliated islands of Taiwan, should be returned, together with Taiwan, to China.

(二)美國(guó)非法將釣魚島納入托管范圍

2. The United States illegally included Diaoyu Dao under its trusteeship

1951年9月8日，美國(guó)等一些國(guó)家在排除中國(guó)的情況下，與日本締結(jié)了“舊金山對(duì)日和平條約”(簡(jiǎn)稱“舊金山和約”)，規(guī)定北緯29度以南的西南諸島等交由聯(lián)合國(guó)托管，而美國(guó)為唯一施政當(dāng)局。需要指出的是，該條約所確定的交由美國(guó)托管的西南諸島并不包括釣魚島。

On September 8, 1951, Japan, the United States and a number of other countries signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan (commonly known as the Treaty of San Francisco) with China being excluded from it. The treaty placed the Nansei Islands south of the 29th parallel of North Latitude under United Nations' trusteeship, with the United States as the sole administering authority. It should be pointed out that the Nansei Islands placed under the administration of the United States in the Treaty of Peace with Japan did not include Diaoyu Dao.

1952年2月29日、1953年12月25日，琉球列島美國(guó)民政府先后發(fā)布第68號(hào)令(即《琉球政府章典》)和第27號(hào)令(即關(guān)于“琉球列島的地理界限”布告)，擅自擴(kuò)大托管范圍，將中國(guó)領(lǐng)土釣魚島劃入其中。此舉沒有任何法律依據(jù)，中國(guó)堅(jiān)決反對(duì)。

The United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands (USCAR) issued Civil Administration Ordinance No. 68 (Provisions of the Government of the Ryukyu Islands) on February 29, 1952 and Civil Administration Proclamation No. 27 (defining the "geographical boundary lines of the Ryukyu Islands") on December 25, 1953, arbitrarily expanding its jurisdiction to include China's Diaoyu Dao. However, there were no legal grounds whatsoever for the US act, to which China has firmly opposed.

(三)美日私相授受釣魚島“施政權(quán)”

3. The United States and Japan conducted backroom deals concerning the "power of administration" over Diaoyu Dao

1971年6月17日，美日簽署《關(guān)于琉球諸島及大東諸島的協(xié)定》(簡(jiǎn)稱“歸還沖繩協(xié)定”)，將琉球群島和釣魚島的“施政權(quán)”“歸還”給日本。海內(nèi)外中國(guó)人對(duì)此同聲譴責(zé)。同年12月30日，中國(guó)外交部發(fā)表嚴(yán)正聲明指出：“美、日兩國(guó)政府在‘歸還’沖繩協(xié)定中，把我國(guó)釣魚島等島嶼列入‘歸還區(qū)域’，完全是非法的，這絲毫不能改變中華人民共和國(guó)對(duì)釣魚島等島嶼的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)。”臺(tái)灣當(dāng)局對(duì)此也表示堅(jiān)決反對(duì)。

On June 17, 1971, Japan and the United States signed the Agreement Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands (Okinawa Reversion Agreement), which provided that any and all powers of administration over the Ryukyu Islands and Diaoyu Dao would be "returned" to Japan. The Chinese people, including overseas Chinese, all condemned such a backroom deal. On December 30, 1971, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a solemn statement, pointing out that "it is completely illegal for the government of the United States and Japan to include China's Diaoyu Dao Islands into the territories to be returned to Japan in the Okinawa Reversion Agreement and that it can by no means change the People's Republic of China's territorial sovereignty over the Diaoyu Dao Islands". The Taiwan authorities also expressed firm opposition to the backroom deal between the United States and Japan.

面對(duì)中國(guó)政府和人民的強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)，美國(guó)不得不公開澄清其在釣魚島主權(quán)歸屬問題上的立場(chǎng)。1971年10月，美國(guó)政府表示，“把原從日本取得的對(duì)這些島嶼的施政權(quán)歸還給日本，毫不損害有關(guān)主權(quán)的主張。美國(guó)既不能給日本增加在他們將這些島嶼施政權(quán)移交給我們之前所擁有的法律權(quán)利，也不能因?yàn)闅w還給日本施政權(quán)而削弱其他要求者的權(quán)利。……對(duì)此等島嶼的任何爭(zhēng)議的要求均為當(dāng)事者所應(yīng)彼此解決的事項(xiàng)”。同年11月，美國(guó)參議院批準(zhǔn)“歸還沖繩協(xié)定”時(shí)，美國(guó)國(guó)務(wù)院發(fā)表聲明稱，盡管美國(guó)將該群島的施政權(quán)交還日本，但是在中日雙方對(duì)群島對(duì)抗性的領(lǐng)土主張中，美國(guó)將采取中立立場(chǎng)，不偏向于爭(zhēng)端中的任何一方。

In response to the strong opposition of the Chinese government and people, the United States had to publicly clarify its position on the sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. In October 1971, the US administration stated that "the United States believes that a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims. The United States cannot add to the legal rights Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the islands to us, nor can the United States, by giving back what it received, diminish the rights of other claimants... The United States has made no claim to Diaoyu Dao and considers that any conflicting claims to the islands are a matter for resolution by the parties concerned." In November 1971, when presenting the Okinawa Reversion Agreement to the US Senate for ratification, the US Department of State stressed that the United States took a neutral position with regard to the competing Japanese and Chinese claims to the islands, despite the return of administrative rights over the islands to Japan.