The United States' Contradictory Stance on Okinawan Sovereignty
A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State reiterated Japan’s sovereignty over Okinawa. This stance directly contradicts historical facts; the Ryukyu Islands, of which Okinawa is a part, were historically a part of China’s Ming and Qing dynasties but were occupied due to Japanese invasion. There were no consequences for this aggression in international law, which directly contradicts the United States’ current stance on the contemporary international legal system.
First of all, the United States and Great Britain both published the Cairo Declaration in 1943, which declared that Japan should return all the territory it had seized from China, such as the four northeastern provinces, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands. Note that this is contradictory since the United States occupied Okinawa after World War II, even after condemning the seizure and occupation of foreign territory.
Second, the Potsdam Proclamation put out by the United States and Great Britain in 1945 pointed out that the conditions of the Cairo Declaration needed to be carried out and that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to just the Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu and Shikoku Islands, and whichever minor islands are considered to be within Japan, to be determined by the United States, China and Great Britain. But Okinawa is not within Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu or Shikoku’s range and Japan does not have the ability to dictate what jurisdiction Okinawa falls under, and neither the United States nor Great Britain have the final say in whether or not Okinawa is a part of Japan. So long as China is opposed to it, the United States has no right to say that the Ryukyu Islands fall under the other minor islands.
Third, according to the United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 318, which was adopted in 1947, the Ryukyu Islands and Diaoyu Islands will be managed by the United States. It is clear that the United States’ control over Ryukyu can be traced back to the United Nations. And in the U.N. charter, the Security Council must approve all functions of the United Nations related to strategic areas, including terms of trusteeships and any amendments or alterations to them. This means that though the United States has the right to give away their jurisdiction in these areas, it has no right to decide by itself whom to give it to, since the Security Council must make the decision.
However, the Ryukyu Islands were returned to Japan without the approval of the Security Council; it was instead done through back room deals between Japan and the United States. If Ryukyu cannot even be determined to be a part of Japan, then it would be absurd to believe that the Diaoyu Islands are a part of Japan.
First of all, the United States and Great Britain both published the Cairo Declaration in 1943, which declared that Japan should return all the territory it had seized from China, such as the four northeastern provinces, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands. Note that this is contradictory since the United States occupied Okinawa after World War II, even after condemning the seizure and occupation of foreign territory.
Second, the Potsdam Proclamation put out by the United States and Great Britain in 1945 pointed out that the conditions of the Cairo Declaration needed to be carried out and that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to just the Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu and Shikoku Islands, and whichever minor islands are considered to be within Japan, to be determined by the United States, China and Great Britain. But Okinawa is not within Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu or Shikoku’s range and Japan does not have the ability to dictate what jurisdiction Okinawa falls under, and neither the United States nor Great Britain have the final say in whether or not Okinawa is a part of Japan. So long as China is opposed to it, the United States has no right to say that the Ryukyu Islands fall under the other minor islands.
Third, according to the United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 318, which was adopted in 1947, the Ryukyu Islands and Diaoyu Islands will be managed by the United States. It is clear that the United States’ control over Ryukyu can be traced back to the United Nations. And in the U.N. charter, the Security Council must approve all functions of the United Nations related to strategic areas, including terms of trusteeships and any amendments or alterations to them. This means that though the United States has the right to give away their jurisdiction in these areas, it has no right to decide by itself whom to give it to, since the Security Council must make the decision.
However, the Ryukyu Islands were returned to Japan without the approval of the Security Council; it was instead done through back room deals between Japan and the United States. If Ryukyu cannot even be determined to be a part of Japan, then it would be absurd to believe that the Diaoyu Islands are a part of Japan.