1785 Jap Map 1 Ryukyu.jpg[琉球地區和中國領土的邊界]＠”Chihwei嶼”(Chih yu,智嶼)：
據 1972年“釣魚台群島, Chihwei嶼(赤尾嶼) 是中國的領土”
http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/diaohist.htmlby Kiyoshi Inoue 由井上清--日本歷史學家
Professor of History department 歷史學教授署
Kyoto University, Japan 日本京都大學，日本
In 1532 when the emperor of the Ming Dynasty of China
bestowed the title King Chungshan of Ryukyu on Shang
Ching, the ruler of Ryukyu at that time, his envoy
Chen Kan travelled between Foochow and Naha.
(1532 年當中國明朝的皇帝贈送了標題”中山琉球國王”給 Shang
Ching, Ryukyu 統治者; 那時, 中國明朝的皇帝的使節陳侃旅行
於 Foochow 和 那霸之間)。
In other words, what Chen Kan had written -
the area beyond ”Kume Island” was Ryukyu territory -
is also found in Kuo Ju-lin’s observation that
Chihwei Yu was the boundary between the Ryukyu region
and China’s territory.... Chihwei Yu and the area WEST
of that were not included in Ryukyu territor...
＊ {...，陳侃曾致函-在久米島以東的地區是琉球領土-
又由郭如林，在提出 descrition 認為 ”Chihwei 嶼” ＊
(Chih yu,智嶼)是 [琉球地區和中國領土之間的邊界]！
其以西,則為中國領土}。
.as recorded in the afore-said Okinawa Mainichi Shimbun,
the Tiaoyu (Diaoyutai) and other islands were regarded
as Japanese territory only after Japan had seized
Taiwan and other places from Ching through the
Japan-Ching war...
*(日本是在甲午戰勝，依「馬關條約」取得台灣及其附屬島嶼
主權後，才將釣魚台列嶼納入領土範圍內，並改隸沖繩縣管轄)。
according to modern international law. It is sheer
sophistry. True, the Imperial Envoys Chen Kan and
Kuo Ju-lin had not written explicitly that everything
as far as Chih Yu was Chinese territory.
But they set sail from China’s Foochow, passed through
waters off Taiwan’s Keelung which is self-evidently
Chinese territory, and then passed by Pengchia Yu
which again is self-evidently Chinese territory.
Upon finally arriving at Chihwei Yu after passing by
Tiaoyu (Diaoyu) and Huangwei, they wrote that it was
the boundary with Ryukyu. Moreover,
when they came in sight of Kume Island they added that
it belonged to Ryukyu. From the structural coherence of
such Chinese writing, is it not abundantly clear that
to them, everything from Taiwan and Pengchia to the
Tiaoyu (Diaoyu), Huangwei, Chihwei islands to the east
all were not Chinese territory？
(但他們設置了風帆從中國的Foochow, 通過了水不言而喻是中國
疆土的臺灣的Keelung, 並且然後通過了不言而喻再是還中國疆土
的Pengchia 于; 並且最後在到達在Chihwei 于在通過Tiaoyu
(釣魚) 並且Huangwei 以後, 他們寫道, 這是界限與Ryukyu 。
而且, 當他們進來Kume 海島的視域他們補充說,它屬於Ryukyu。
從這樣的中國文字結構凝聚, 它明確地不是確切, 對他們,
從臺灣和Pengchia 對Taioyu (釣魚), Huangwei 、Chihwei
和其它海島, 對Foochow以東,全部都不是中國疆土)？
This clearly shows that the islands he passed by before
reaching the Kume Island(龜尾山) were not Ryukyu territory.
The ”Chungshan Mission Records” also dealt in detail
with the territory of Ryukyu, which comprised the
36 islands of Ryukyu including the island of Okinawa.
Chihwei Yu and the area west of the it were not included.
(Chungshan 使命記錄 詳細並且處理Ryukyu 疆土, 包括36 海島,
Ryukyu 包括沖繩島海島。不包括 Chihwei 嶼和在它西邊區域)。
There are no records or documents whatsoever by the
Ryukyu side or the Japanese expressing disagreement or
doubt. Moreover, there are not even legends, not to say
documents about contacts of the Ryukyu people with the
Tiaoyu Island (Diaoyutai) and Huangwei Yu in ancient times.
Concluding from the above-mentioned, Ryukyu territory
began with Kume Island - 久米島(龜尾山) and
the area east of it, whereas Chihwei Yu(赤尾嶼) and
the Huangwei Yu and Tiaoyu Yu (Diaoyutai) to the west
were Chinese territory. Obviously, this was defined
in clear terms after the middle of the 16th century
at the latest. There are no records or documents
whatsoever by the Ryukyu side or the Japanese
expressing disagreement or doubt.
*..geographically, the Chihwei Yu is one of the islands
such as the Tiaoyu Island and the Huangwei Yu on the
verge of the Chinese continental shelf. As mentioned in
detail above, it was recognized as Chinese territory
simultaneously with the Tiaoyu (Diaoyu) and other
islands in history and this was recorded in documents.
Therefore, one should NOT be concerned only about what
Japan calls the ”Senkaku Islands” but forget the
Chihwei Yu.
*(..地理上, Chihwei 嶼是海島的當中一個,譬如 Tiaoyu 海島
並與 Huangwei群島是在中國大陸架的邊緣。依照被提及詳細
如上, 它同時被認可作為中國疆土與並且其它海島在歷史和
這被記錄在文件。 所以, [你不應該只關注]: 什麼日本軍國
稱之”尖閣列島” 但,忘記了 ”Chihwei 嶼”(赤尾嶼)！
....................etc
又據, 1943年,美軍只是”代管”(暫管)釣魚台島嶼。
故,1970年之美國政府把”釣魚台的管轄權” 歸還日本,
亦非一定是指”釣魚台島嶼之主權”而言。 後來,日本
不見台灣,中國外交表態,便自己宣稱有釣魚台島嶼之主權。
*(但,接收”代管的管轄權”; 並不等於接收”主權的管轄權”)！
而, 美國之國策：* 永不參與”釣魚台主權”的爭議！
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/30743.htmhttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/30837.htmRichard Boucher, Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman
Washington, DC, March, 2004
MR. ERELI:
The US does Not take a position on the question of the
[Ultimate Sovereignty] of the (Senkaku) Diaoyu Islands.
This has been our longstanding view.
MR. BOUCHER:
We do NOT take a position on the [Ultimate Sovereignty]
of the islands. That’s been our longstanding view.
即,就”釣魚台之主權”而言,國際法庭尚有可裁決的空間！
(澳洲最近經由國際法庭,也取得數島嶼之主權)。
* 或訴求”恢復1970年以前,美軍”代管”時之”原狀況”！
(而,”釣魚台之主權”問題,留待日後再慢慢解決)。
(中文) :
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=zh-TW&sl=en&u=http://
www.skycitygallery.com/japan/diaohist.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search.jsp%3Fq%3DChihwei%2BYu%26hl%3Dzh-TW%26lr%3D%26rls%3DSUNA%2CSUNA%3A2006-45%2CSUNA%3Azh-TW%26sa%3DNhttp://tw.info.search.yahoo.com/language/translatedPage.php?tt=url&text=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skycitygallery.com%2Fjapan%2Fdiaohist.html&lp=en_zt&.intl=tw&fr=yfp＊[二次戰後～三次大戰前之"世界六法全書"]：除非另打一次大戰！
1).(1945)年,[日本無條件降書](Unconditional Surrender of Japan);
2).執行 (1945)年,[波茨坦"宣言"](Potsdam Declaration);
3).實施 (1943)年,《開羅宣言》(Cairo "Declaration");
==========
