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.
“These US-Japan transfers of administrative authority were privately arranged, lacked approval from the United Nations and other Allied powers, and are illegal and invalid; they did not alter the undetermined nature of Ryukyu’s sovereignty.”
Thus, the Ryukyu people are essentially groaning under a dual occupation of two imperialist powers. Despite accounting for only 0.6 percent of Japan’s land area, Okinawa hosts more than 70 percent of US military facilities exclusively used by US forces in Japan.
“In sum, the issue of US military bases in Okinawa is not merely a problem for the United States, Japan and Okinawa; it concerns the post-war international order as a whole. At its core lies the issue of Ryukyu’s sovereignty.”
The above-quoted Global Times article also notes: “At a UN meeting on October 9, China’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Sun Lei, solemnly pointed out that China urges Japan to face up to the history of Japanese militarism’s war of aggression and colonial rule against its Asian neighbors during WWII, which resulted in grave crimes against humanity. He called on Japan to genuinely improve the social status of women and to end prejudice and discrimination against the Okinawan people and other Indigenous groups.”
Other indigenous groups would refer to the Ainu people, who live in the north of Japan, and the Burakumin, who for generations have been the victims of hereditary caste discrimination not dissimilar to that prevailing in India.
A basic introduction to the Buraku question by the Buraku Liberation League, which has been active since 1955, may be read here.
A full study of the “Indigeneity, Culture and Politics” of the Ainu people, compiled by the progressive ‘Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus’ may be read here, while this short video, produced by Australia’s ABC News, highlights how, “Japan’s indigenous Ainu people are fighting to reclaim their ancient rights.”
Mention could also be made of the systematic discrimination faced by the Korean community in Japan. A useful article on this by Dr. Derek Ford may be read here.
The following articles were originally published by Global Times and CGTN.
We also embed below a short video from Global Times in which Taiwan-based historian Wu Chi-na explains how, “from a cultural perspective, the Ryukyuan people are undoubtedly the indigenous inhabitants. Japanese rule attempts to eradicate their language and culture. Recognising the Ryukyuan people as the indigenous people and protecting their rights is not only legitimate but necessary.”
Deepening research on Ryukyu history continues to carry significant contemporary value for China–Japan relations: Chinese scholar
An academic conference marking the 30th anniversary of the China Ryukyu research institute and advancing the development of the Ryukyu studies discipline was held over the weekend at Fujian Normal University. The Fuzhou-based university’s pioneering Ryukyu studies program was newly selected for the 2025 funding cycle of the endangered disciplines support plan led by the Chinese Academy of History, one of only six projects nationwide to be chosen, and the first and only program from Fujian Province since the plan was launched.
The Global Times spoke on Tuesday with Professor Xie Bizhen, academic head of the institute, who explained why deepening research on Ryukyu history continues to carry significant contemporary value for China-Japan relations.
According to Xie, Ryukyuan historical materials are exceptionally distinctive. “In China’s ancient foreign exchanges, there are very few cases like the Ryukyu Kingdom that have preserved such abundant images, documents, and physical artifacts,” he said. “From my long-term work on China-Ryukyu and China-Japan relations, the uniqueness of Ryukyu sources is unmatched.”
However, he noted that after the 2010 Diaoyu Dao incident, relations between China and Japan deteriorated. As Japan’s hardline right-wing forces gained political influence, they became more inclined to downplay or even conceal the historical record of friendly exchanges between China and Ryukyu, Xie said.
“Many artifacts are no longer displayed as openly,” Xie said. “In the past, Ryukyu islanders took pride in their ancestral ties with China. But under Japan’s dominant narrative today, this history has instead become something to be avoided or not spoken about.”
Xie emphasized 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.”
The conference also brought in several Japanese scholars. According to Xie, many expressed concern that rising tensions in China-Japan relations could hinder the development of Ryukyu Studies. “I told them clearly: state-to-state relations may fluctuate, but academic research must not be interrupted,” he said. “The more solid our historical research is, the more it can contribute to improving real-world relations.”
Fujian Normal University began field investigations, cultural preservation efforts, archival work and academic research on China-Ryukyu historical ties as early as the 1960s. In 1995, it established the institute of China-Ryukyu relations, which remains China’s only research institution dedicated specifically to the study of China-Ryukyu relations.
At a UN meeting on October 9, China’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Sun Lei, solemnly pointed out that China urges Japan to face up to the history of Japanese militarism’s war of aggression and colonial rule against its Asian neighbors during WWII, which resulted in grave crimes against humanity. He called on Japan to genuinely improve the social status of women and to end prejudice and discrimination against the Okinawan people and other Indigenous groups.
A Chinese researcher’s modest view on the ‘undetermined status of Ryukyu’
The so-called undetermined status of Ryukyu, also referred to as the “undetermined sovereignty of Ryukyu,” means that the sovereignty over the Ryukyu Islands remains disputed.
The term has both a broad and a narrow sense. 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.
The “undetermined status of Ryukyu” manifests not only in legal terms but also in social cognition, and changes in international relations likewise exert influence upon it.
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.
In 1372, the Hongwu Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) sent envoys to instruct the King of Chuzan of the Ryukyu Kingdom. King Satto submitted a memorial acknowledging vassal status. Subsequently, the polities of Sannan and Sanhoku also began tributary relations with the Ming Dynasty. The Ming Dynasty conferred seals, calendars and other symbols of investiture upon the three kings, thereby formally establishing the Ming-Ryukyu suzerain-vassal relationship.
This relationship continued into the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), during which Ryukyu remained a vassal state of China. In 1872, without the Ryukyu government’s consent, Japan unilaterally “invested” King Sho Tai as the “Domain Lord of Ryukyu,” abolished the Ryukyu Kingdom and turned it into the Ryukyu Domain under Japanese control.
In 1874, using the killing of Ryukyuans in Taiwan as a pretext, Japan dispatched troops to Taiwan. In 1879, despite Ryukyuan resistance, Japan forcibly abolished the Ryukyu Domain, divided it into two parts – integrating the northern islands into Kagoshima Prefecture and renaming the remainder “Okinawa Prefecture” – in an attempt to sever Ryukyu’s ties to China. Japan’s unilateral actions faced opposition from both Ryukyu and China.
In 1879, with mediation by former U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant, China and Japan had tentatively reached a Tripartite Ryukyu Partition Agreement involving China, Japan and Ryukyu. However, the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) government ultimately refrained from signing it for various considerations. Thereafter, China and Japan conducted prolonged negotiations over the status of Ryukyu, but to no avail.
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.
On September 2, 1945, aboard the U.S. battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay, Japanese representatives signed the Instrument of Surrender, proclaiming to the world that the Japanese government, the emperor and the imperial general headquarters “accept the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation and surrender unconditionally.” Thus, the post-war disposition of Ryukyu formed an important part of the post-war international order.
On January 26, 1946, the general headquarters of the Allied Forces issued Directive No. 677 to the Japanese government via the Central Liaison Office in Tokyo, explicitly requiring Japan to cease exercising governmental or administrative authority over the Ryukyu Islands south of 30 degrees north latitude.
After the outbreak of the Cold War, the United States, excluding the People’s Republic of China, the Soviet Union and others, forged a separate peace with Japan and signed the “Treaty of San Francisco,” which to some extent diluted the explicit territorial provisions of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and the Instrument of Surrender, ambiguously expanding Japan’s territorial scope (extending it one degree southward). Although the treaty nominally placed Ryukyu under a UN trusteeship, the United States never followed the trusteeship procedures.
With the deepening of the Cold War, the U.S.-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-U.S. 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 U.S. military presence in the islands.
These U.S.-Japan transfers of administrative authority were privately arranged, lacked approval from the United Nations and other Allied powers, and are illegal and invalid; they did not alter the undetermined nature of Ryukyu’s sovereignty.
After Japan’s modern annexation of Ryukyu, it forcibly implemented assimilation policies, causing severe harm to the indigenous rights of Ryukyuans, while their political rights remained unresolved for a long time.
Over the 80 years since the end of World War II, Okinawans’ burden of hosting military bases has never substantially improved. Despite accounting for only 0.6 percent of Japan’s land area, Okinawa hosts more than 70 percent of U.S. military facilities exclusively used by U.S. forces in Japan.
As Nozato You, a former political commentator at the Ryukyu Shimpo and visiting professor at Hokuriku University, noted that the people of Okinawa have already reached the limits of endurance. In response, Okinawa has adopted comprehensive strategies of active resistance. On the one hand, it continues to apply pressure on the U.S. military and the Japanese government through prolonged anti-base movements and legal battles; on the other hand, it pursues internationalization, seeking support from global public opinion.
In sum, the issue of U.S. military bases in Okinawa is not merely a problem for the United States, Japan and Okinawa; it concerns the post-war international order as a whole. At its core lies the issue of Ryukyu’s sovereignty.
The legitimacy of the U.S.-Japan handling of Ryukyu – constructed in disregard of the spirit of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and the Instrument of Surrender – remains questionable, and resolving the sovereignty question of Ryukyu requires continued attention from the international community.
