The Government of the People's Republic of China has always regarded the administrative right which the US unilaterally proclaimed over the chain after World War II as illegal. In June 1950, the then Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai lodged a strong protest against the US action, stating that the Chinese people were determined to recover Taiwan and all other territories belonging to China.

The San Francisco Treaty was a peace agreement the United States separately negotiated with Japan in the absence of China. On September 18, 1951, 10 days after it was signed, Foreign Minister Zhou declared on behalf of the Chinese government that this so-called treaty, prepared and signed without the presence of China, was illegal and invalid, and China would never recognize it.

How can it be said that China had never raised objections?

The Japanese government repeatedly mentions that the agreement on return of Okinawa signed by the United States and Japan on June 17, 1971 contained articles about the "Senkakus", and attempts to take this as a major international document to acknowledge Japan's sovereignty over the Diaoyu Island Chain.

However, even the US government has not as yet recognized this. Furthermore, how can the US-Japanese agreement decide on territories of China? On the issue of postwar territorial ownership, Japan can do nothing but strictly abides by the Potsdam Proclamation and Cairo Declarations which it accepted in 1945.

Recently, the Japanese newspaper Sankei Shinbun published "a letter of thanks" from the then Republic of China's consul to Nagasaki dated May 20, 1920. The letter said: "In 1919, the eighth year of the Republic of China, Guo Heshun and 30 other fishermen from Huian County, Fujian Province, were caught in a storm and drifted to Wayoto of Senkaku Islands in Yaeyama County, Okinawa-Ken." The newspaper cited the letter as a historical record of "top value", "the most powerful evidence demonstrating China once recognized Senkaku Islands as Japanese territory", and "a convincing material" which can repudiate China's stand.

Simple analysis of historical facts easily leads to the conclusion that this so-called "letter of thanks" cannot prove such a point. As early as 1895, Japan occupied China's Taiwan Province through the unjust Treaty of Shimonoseki and had before that seized Diaoyu Islands, which are actually islets attached to Taiwan. Such a state of affairs lasted until Japan's defeat and surrender in 1945.

The description in the so-called "letter of thanks" can, at most, merely reflect some people's understandings at that time when Taiwan and the nearby islets were occupied by Japan. It cannot be taken as an evidence proving the Diaoyu Islands were the "inherent territory" of Japan.

According to historical documents, in 1941 Okinawa and Taiwan, both then under Japan's control, had a dispute over the chain due to fishery undertakings, and a court in Tokyo decided to place the islands under jurisdiction of "Taipei Prefecture". This demonstrates that at that time Japan did not legally recognize the jurisdiction of Okinawa over Diaoyu Islands.

It was impossible for Japan to acquire sovereignty over Diaoyu Islands through the so-called "positive prescription". The continuous disturbances on the Diaoyu Island Chain by Japanese right-wing organizations are a futile effort.

Some analysts have pointed out that one of the reasons for Japan continuously provoking disturbances on the islands is that it is trying to lay the foundations for its occupation under the "positive prescription" clause as contained in international law.

Actually, the so-called "positive prescription" principle has not yet been accepted by the majority of international jurists, and so far there has been no international case actually judged in accordance with the principle. Moreover, there is a basic prerequisite to the "positive prescription" clause, that is, "continuously exercising state sovereignty without interference".

The dispute over the territorial sovereignty of the chain between China and Japan could have been handled through consultations between the two governments in a candid, sober-minded and realistic manner. But, some Japanese, with government connivance, landed on the main island to build structures to demonstrate Japan's possession and actual control. These acts have repeatedly irritated China. Some Japanese officials described the Diaoyu Island Chain as Japan's "private land" and the Japanese government is unable to intervene in the activities carried out by the right-wing organizations. Viewed from the Chinese side, this indicates that the Japanese right-wing organizations will continue to have official green light to provoke incidents on the islands, and also implies a demand that the Chinese government give tacit consent to the claim that the territory is "private land" under the sovereignty of Japan. This is, of course, unacceptable to China.

Peaceful coexistence between China and Japan benefits both, while fighting each other is harmful to both. In the face of this unresolved case left over from history, people of vision in both countries should seek common ground, respect history and international laws and show sincerity and wisdom. Efforts should be made to prevent the issue from becoming a destabilizing factor leading to continuous deterioration of bilateral relations, but instead to try to solve the dispute peacefully and creatively.