Has Japan ever respected territorial rule of law?

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's speech on Wednesday at the United Nations General Assembly, in which he emphasized respect for the international rule of law in resolving territorial issues, looks speculative, or to a larger extent, deceptive to observers, given its history of relentless invasion of neighbors.

That the Japanese government chose to play the international-law card at a moment of lingering disputes with China over the Diaoyu Islands exposed its intention to manipulate international vox populi after failing to push China back via unilateral actions such as "purchasing" and landing on the islets.

While Noda's speech stirred up strong opposition from the Chinese government, which branded the argument as "self-deceiving," it also provoked many to wonder: Japan wants to resort to the international rule of law for justification now, but did it pay due respect to the laws when seizing the Diaoyu Islands from China a century ago? Furthermore, did it observe the rule of law when invading China and the Korean Peninsula in the 20th century?

A look into the modern history of Asia would generate an objective answer of "no."

JAPAN'S MISUSE OF "THE RULE OF LAW"

China's jurisdiction over the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea had been proved by maps and a long list of books compiled by both Chinese and Japanese scholars in earlier centuries.

Japan only came into the picture near the end of the 19th century when, in 1895, it defeated the then Qing Dynasty government of China in what later became known as the First Sino-Japanese War and forced the Qing Court to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki, which ceded to Japan "the island of Formosa (Taiwan), together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa."

"If Japan had observed the international rule of law then, the Diaoyu Islands would have remained Chinese territory throughout the past century or so and the premise for Japan's current arguments wouldn't have existed," Qu Xing, director of the China Institute of International Studies, told Xinhua.

Into the 20th century, Japan notoriously invaded the Korean Peninsula and further advanced into China. On Sept. 18th, 1931, Japanese troops raided a railway station in Shenyang but accused the Chinese army of being behind it, setting off an escalation in fighting that eventually led to the Japanese occupation of northeast China.

"Japan's encroachment upon neighboring territories violated the quintessential principle of international rule of law that nations should respect each other's territories," Qu said.

The Diaoyu Islands, occupied by Japan then, were illegally exploited by the Japanese, a fact the Japanese government holds dearly as the key evidence for its territorial claims over the islets. However, it overlooked the fact that the exploitation happened during Japan's illegal occupation of the territory.

"Japan's logic doesn't make sense," Qu said. "It also occupied Taiwan and part of the Chinese mainland at that time and conducted exploitation activities; can it thereby conclude territorial claims over these places?"

However, the real seed for the current spat was not sowed until after World War II in what can be interpreted as Japan's lack of genuine understanding about the "international rule of law."

At the conclusion of the war, China recovered its territory invaded and occupied by Japan, including Formosa (Taiwan) and its surrounding Islands, in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation.

But, in 1971, the United States signed the Okinawa Reversion Agreement with Japan to return the Ryukyu Islands (aka Okinawa) that were placed under U.S. trusteeship by the Treaty of San Francisco signed by Japan, the United States and other countries.

The 1971 agreement arbitrarily expanded the jurisdiction of the Ryukyu Islands to include the Diaoyu Islands, which was in effect part of the island of Formosa. The Japanese government now refers to the Okinawa Reversion Agreement as evidence to justify its Diaoyu claim.

However, "A backroom two-party deal doesn't fall into the category of the international rule of law," according to Qu. "Multi-party agreements like the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation do."

If Japan really had respected international law, it should have observed that a defeated party in the war could not lay hands on the territories of the victors. On the contrary, Japan not only shamelessly claimed the Diaoyu Islands, but also refused to apologize for war atrocities and even worshipped war criminals in shrines for decades.

"This is close to despising the international rule of law," said Qu.

OLIVE BRANCH, NOT STALEMATE, IS NEEDED

Noda's proposition of the international rule of law indicates that the Japanese government believes this approach may offer it some room for maneuver since the islands are now nominally "owned" by a Japanese family.

But the chance of Japan actually referring the case for international justice or arbitration is slim, experts noted, and even if it did, no international authorities would be in the right position to settle it without China's consent.

"China has already made clear its stance," Qu said. "The newly issued white paper has recognized the Diaoyu Islands as an inherent part of Chinese territory."

China's cabinet, the State Council, issued a white paper on Tuesday stating that "China's will to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity is firm and its resolve to uphold the outcomes of the World Anti-Fascist War will not be shaken by any force."

Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi conveyed the message on the same day during a meeting with his Japanese counterpart on the sidelines of the 67th session of the UN General Assembly.

Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun on Thursday confirmed that Chinese naval ships have carried out patrolling and military training in waters off the Diaoyu Islands recently.

As the two countries weigh into what looks increasingly like a deadlock, it is time for Japan, which initiated the row, to reflect upon its insensibly aggressive moves. Signs of militarism and right-wing extremism regaining ground in Japan are dangerous in a world order that endorses peaceful coexistence among nations.

Therefore, the best tribute Japan can pay to the current international rule of law is to face squarely the history of its own and neighboring countries to properly settle disputes like the one that surrounds the Diaoyu Islands.