BEIJING, Sept. 14 (Xinhua) -- Two Chinese surveillance ship fleets arrived at waters around Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets on Friday morning, kicking off patrol and law enforcement activities there in order to safeguard China's inherent territory.
The Diaoyu Islands have been China's sacred territory since ancient times -- a claim supported by historical facts and jurisprudential evidence.
When Japan cited several treaties and pacts signed between the 1950s to 1970s as evidence to justify its "sovereignty claim" over the Diaoyu Islands, it failed to answer a very essential question.
How could others decide the fate of any property without the consent of the property owner?
In 1951, the Treaty of Peace with Japan, commonly known as the Treaty of San Francisco, a treaty partial in nature, was signed between Japan, the United States and other countries, placing the Ryukyu Islands, now known as Okinawa, under the trusteeship of the United States.
It should be noted that the Ryukyu Islands do not include the Diaoyu Islands, which are, in fact, Chinese territories.
In 1953, the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands arbitrarily expanded its jurisdiction to include the Diaoyu Islands without a jurisprudential basis to justify this action.
In 1971, Japan and the United States signed the Okinawa Reversion Agreement, which arbitrarily included the Diaoyu Islands in the territories and territorial waters to be reversed to Japan.
The Chinese government has, from the very beginning, firmly opposed and never acknowledged such backroom deals struck between Japan and the United States concerning Chinese territories.
Thus, the Japanese government's claims that the Diaoyu Islands are Japan's inherent territory and that there is no outstanding territorial dispute between Japan and China show a total disregard for historical facts and jurisprudential evidence.
After the end of the Second World War, China recovered the territories invaded and occupied by Japan such as Taiwan and the Penghu Islands in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. According to international law, the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands have already been returned to China.
Current disputes about this issue largely stem from these backroom deals between Japan and the United States that were driven by the Cold War mindset.
Ted Carpenter, senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, in a recent interview with Xinhua described the U.S. government's current position on the Diaoyu Islands as "contradictory."
Although claiming that it will not take a position on the ultimate sovereignty of the islands, the U.S. State Department has stated that the islands fall under the scope of the U.S.-Japan security treaty.
The deals between Japan and the United States concerning the Diaoyu Islands severely violate China's territorial sovereignty. These illegal and invalid deals have not and will not change China's ownership of the islands.
China is and will remain determined to defend its sovereignty over the islands. Any attempt by Japan to seize the islands will end in failure.
Whatever political motives lie behind the "nationalization" of the Diaoyu Islands, tensions between China and Japan will inevitably have a negative impact on Japan's economy.
China is Japan's biggest trade partner. Statistics from Japanese customs authorities show that Japan's exports to China amounted to 73.54 billion U.S. dollars in the first half of this year, down 6.2 percent year on year.
Some Japanese companies have already felt the impact, and trade experts here expect that the dispute will be reflected in trade volume fluctuations during the next three to five months.
To stop the situation from further deteriorating, Japan's best choice would be to give up on these backroom deals and return to the common understanding reached with China.