Academic circles in China are paying increasing attention to Ryukyu studies, specifically the history of the island group, often referred to as Okinawa, and the legitimacy or otherwise of Japan’s claim to sovereignty over the ancient kingdom.
On November 18, the Global Times newspaper reported that an academic conference marking the 30th anniversary of the China Ryukyu Research Institute, and advancing the development of Ryukyu studies, had been held at Fujian Normal University.
Global Times spoke with Professor Xie Bizhen, academic head of the institute, who emphasised that Japan’s annexation of Ryukyu and subsequent assimilation policies, including the forced change of surnames, place names, and even rebranding the “Ryukyu Islands” as the “Southwestern Islands,” were aimed at erasing historical memory. “As a result, many Okinawans today are unfamiliar with this part of their own past,” he said. “This is why our research matters: to restore historical truth, preserve collective memory.”
On November 23, CGTN published an opinion piece by Tang Yongliang, a researcher at the Institute of Japanese Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, outlining what he described as the “undetermined status of Ryukyu.”
Stating that “the sovereignty over the Ryukyu Islands remains disputed,” Tang added that this could be understood in both a broad and a narrow way.
“In the broad sense, the ‘undetermined status of Ryukyu’ refers to the situation since modern times, where Ryukyu was illegally occupied by Japan without widespread recognition by the international community. To this day, the sovereignty issue remains unresolved.
“In the narrow sense, it refers specifically to the end of World War II, when the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation – documents concerning the post-war disposition of fascist Japan – explicitly delimited Japan’s territorial scope, separated Ryukyu from Japan, placed it as a ‘potential trusteeship territory’ and left its sovereignty legally unsettled to this day.”
Further in the broad sense: “Historically, Ryukyu was an independent kingdom. Japan’s modern annexation of Ryukyu was a unilateral act of violent seizure: no treaty regarding state sovereignty was concluded, no consent was obtained from China, the suzerain power, and the annexation contravened international legal norms on the acquisition of territorial sovereignty in the 19th century.”
Further in the narrow sense: “From November 22 to 26, 1943, the leaders of China, the United States, and the United Kingdom convened the Cairo Conference in Egypt, during which they discussed the post-war disposition of Ryukyu. Although the issue was not ultimately written into the Cairo Declaration, the declaration’s provision that ‘Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed’ undoubtedly applied to Ryukyu.
“On July 26, 1945, the three nations issued the Potsdam Proclamation, urging Japan’s unconditional surrender. It clearly stated that ‘the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out’ and that ‘the Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine,’ thereby explicitly separating Ryukyu from Japanese territory.”
What happened later was that: “With the deepening of the Cold War, the US-Japan alliance became increasingly intertwined; the United States gradually relaxed its restrictions on Japanese influence within the Ryukyu Islands, and in 1953 and 1968 unilaterally transferred administrative rights over the Amami Islands and the Nanpo Islands to Japan.
“In 1971, under pressure from the Vietnam War and the Ryukyuan anti-US movement, the Nixon administration concluded the ‘Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands,’ again unilaterally transferring administrative rights to Japan on the condition that Japan allow continued US military presence in the islands.
Continue reading Chinese scholars question Japanese sovereignty over Ryukyu islands