The first meeting of negotiations consisted of press photos and statements made about goals of the Treaty.
August 1, 1978
Cable No. 1488, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (8th Meeting)'
極秘
総番号 （ＴＡ） Ｒ０５５１４１ ５４４３ 主管
７８年 月０１日１９時００分 中国発
７８年０８月０１日２０時１８分 本省着 アジア局長
外務大臣殿 佐藤大使
日中平和友好条約交渉（第８回会談）
第１４８８号 極秘 大至急
（限定配布）
往電第１４６４号に関し
１日午後３時５分より５時７分まで（休けい６５分を含む）第８回会談を行なつたところ概要次のとおり。（場所及び出席者は第１回会談に同じ）
１．先ず本使より、本日は私が主さいする番であるが、韓副部長から何か先に発言ありやと質したところ、韓副部長は「日本側から先にどうぞ」と述べたので、本使より別電のとおりの発言を行なつた。
２．本使発言の後、韓副部長は休けいを提案したのでこれに同意し、６５分間休けいした。
３．休けい後韓副部長は次のとおり述べた。
（１）先ほど大使は長い発言を行なつた。われわれは大使の発言を詳細かつ真けんに聞いた。大使の提出された第３条第１文に関する新しい案文については、これは重要なものであるので本日は時間も足りないことでもあり、本日は話さないこととし、次回にわが方の意見を述べることにしたい。
（２）わが方は、昨日の会議において新しい案文を提出した。それは、つまり反は権条項の第１文を、「この条約は、は権を求めない第三国に対するものではない。」と書き換え、また、これをこの条項の末びにおくことである。この表現方法は、われわれが、日本側の意見を考慮し、日本側の立場を配慮して提出したものである。残念ながらわれわれのこの新しい案文は、日本側の理解と同意を得なかつた。
（３）大使は、わが方案文に同意できない理由をいろいろ述べた。大使がわが方案文に同意できないとする理由は、実を言うと成り立たないものである。実は、共同声明のかく度からみれば、われわれとしても、これ（中国側新提案）を決して理想的な案文であるとは思つていない。真に理想的なのは、やはりわれわれのもともと提出した案文である。
（４）私は、この前の会談で、再三、反は権条項における双方の意見の食い違いは重大で、原則的なものであると述べた。これは、文字上の表現の問題だけではないと述べた。本日の大使の発言は、私のこの考えを一層深めた。
（５）今回の新しい提案は、「特定の」を「いずれかの」にとりかえただけである。日本の新聞によれば、「特定の」の英訳は「ＳＰＥＣＩＦＩＣ」となつているが、この「いずれかの」を英語に訳すとどうなるのか知りたい。
４．これに対し、本使より「その点についてはまだ考えていない」旨述べた。
５．韓副部長は、更に、次のとおり述べた。
（１）もし「いずれかの」を中国語で「任何一個」と訳すとこれは「特定の」と区別がなくなる。これは次回に話すこととしよう。
（２）私が再三強調し、また、これまで国家指導者も強調したことであるが、私たちの条約の中の主要な条項は反は権条項であり、この問題は、単なる文字上の表現の問題ではなく大局のかく度からまた政治のかく度からみるべきものである。
（３）今ばんは、日本大使館のえん会もあるので時間の関係上、本日の会談はこれまでにしたい。
６．次回の会談について韓副部長は明日午後３時から行うことを提案し、本使よりこれに同意した。
（了）
Number: (TA) R055141 53443
Primary: Asian Affairs Bureau Director-General
Sent: China, August 1, 1978, 19:00
Received: MOFA, August 1, 1978, 20:18
To: The Foreign Minister
From: Ambassador Sato
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (8th Meeting)
No. 1488 Secret Top Urgent
(Limited Distribution)
Re: Outgoing Telegram No. 1464
On the afternoon of the 1st, the eighth meeting took place from 3:05 to 5:07 pm (including a break of 65 minutes). A summary of its main points is as follows (place and participants same as at first meeting):
1. First, I said that today was my turn to host but asked Vice Minister Han if there was anything that he would like to say first. He then stated: “The Japanese side first, please.” I then spoke per separate telegram.
2. After I spoke, Vice Minster Han proposed a break. I agreed to this. We then took a break for 65 minutes.
3. After the break, Vice Minister Han said the following:
(1) The Ambassador a little while ago made a long statement. We listened in detail and seriously to the Ambassador’s statement. There is not enough time today for the new draft concerning Sentence 1, Article 3, which the Ambassador put forth, due to its importance, so I have decided not to talk about it today and would like to state our view of it the next time.
(2) Our side in yesterday’s meeting presented a new draft. That was, in short, to re-write the first sentence of the anti-hegemony clause, “This treaty is not directed against any third country that does not seek hegemony,” and place it at the end of the clause. We presented this way of expressing it in thinking of the view of the Japanese side and in considering the position of the Japanese side. Regrettably, our new draft did not obtain the understanding and agreement of the Japanese side.
(3) The Ambassador stated various reasons for not being able to agree to our side’s new draft. The Ambassador’s reasons for not being able to agree to our side’s draft, to tell the truth, do not hold up. In fact, seen from the angle of the Joint Statement, we do not think that this (the Chinese side’s new draft) is an ideal draft. What is truly ideal, after all, is the one that we originally presented.
(4) I repeatedly said in the previous meetings that the difference of opinion between the two sides on the anti-hegemony clause was serious and fundamental. I said that this is not simply an issue of literal expression. The Ambassador’s statement today further deepened my thinking in this regard.
(5) The new proposal this time only replaced “any specific [tokutei no]” with “any [izure ka no].” According to the Japanese press, the English translation for “tokutei no” is “any specific.” I would like to know how to translate this “izure ka no.”
4. In response, I replied: “We still have not given thought to this point.”
5. Vice Minister Han further spoke as follows:
(1) If one translates “izure ka no” in China as “any [renhe yige],” then the distinction with “tokutei no” is lost. Let us talk about this next time.
(2) As I have repeatedly emphasized and, as our national leaders have emphasized to date, the main clause in our treaty is the anti-hegemony clause. This issue is not simply one of literal expression, but one that we should see from an angle of the overall situation and also from a political angle.
(3) This evening, there is a banquet at the Japanese Embassy so, given the time, I would like to conclude today’s meeting here.
6. Vice Minister Han proposed holding the next meeting tomorrow from 3:00 pm. I agreed to it.
(End)
The Chinese and Japanese delegations discuss wording of drafts of the Treaty.
Author(s):
Associated Topics
Subjects Discussed
Related Documents
Document Information
Source
2010-367, Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs. Also available at the Diplomatic Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Contributed by Yutaka Kanda and translated by Stephen Mercado.
Original Archive
Rights
The History and Public Policy Program welcomes reuse of Digital Archive materials for research and educational purposes. Some documents may be subject to copyright, which is retained by the rights holders in accordance with US and international copyright laws. When possible, rights holders have been contacted for permission to reproduce their materials.
To enquire about this document's rights status or request permission for commercial use, please contact the History and Public Policy Program at HAPP@wilsoncenter.org.