Cable No. 1513, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (10th Meeting)'

Number: (TA) R055745     5502

Primary: Asian Affairs Bureau Director-General

Sent: China, August 3, 1978, 18:50

Received: MOFA, August 3, 1978, 20:07

To: The Foreign Minister      

From: Ambassador Sato

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (10th Meeting)

No. 1513 Secret Top Urgent

(Limited Distribution)

Outgoing Telegram 1512 Separate Telegram

Today, we had our 10th meeting.  The Japanese and Chinese sides are now continuing to work seriously for the success of these negotiations. At yesterday’s 9th meeting, Vice Minister Han again presented a new proposal. We appraise such a positive attitude on the part of the Chinese side. We seriously and thoroughly examined the Chinese side’s new proposal. However, our conclusion, regrettably, is that we cannot agree to this proposal.

I would like to explain something about our thinking.

First, regarding the proposal to replace the first sentence of the anti-hegemony clause with “The solidifying and developing of relations of peace and friendship between the contracting parties on the basis of this treaty is not directed against third countries,” we have to consider this draft to be basically no different than Sentence 1, Article 2, of the Chinese side’s treaty draft of 1975.

I have repeatedly said that, more than before, it is necessary to say clearly that this treaty in toto does not regard any country with hostility and is not prejudicial to its interests. There is basically no change, even now, to this thinking of the Japanese side. However, the Chinese side’s new proposal does not reflect such thinking. The Japanese side considers it necessary to put into the treaty text reflecting such thinking.  Our understanding is that the Chinese side, too, does not consider this treaty as something that regards any country with hostility or confronts that country. Accordingly, we strongly hope to work together to devise and work out a treaty draft reflecting such thinking.

The Japanese side, on the basis of such a hope, put forth the Japanese side’s new draft at the 8th meeting. Far from retreating from the spirit of the Joint Communique, we think that it faithfully follows the Joint Communique’s intent. If the Chinese side cannot agree to the expression “any third country” in the Japanese side’s proposal, then I request once again that the Chinese side by all means devise a new draft that follows the aforementioned thinking and is acceptable to the Chinese side. We would also like to give it further thought.

Second, the Chinese side said that the Japanese side’s must remove Article 1 from its draft. Article 1 of the Japanese side’s draft stipulates the objectives of the treaty of peace and friendship reflected in Article 8 of the Japan-China Joint Communique. At the beginning of the treaty text, it is extremely natural to stipulate clearly the treaty objectives already agreed upon, it is fair and upright, and it reflects the points in common between the Japanese and Chinese sides. Accordingly, we cannot agree to the removal of this clause.

As I said yesterday, the Japanese and Chinese sides have obtained considerable results in the meetings since the 21st. The basic thinking of the Japanese and Chinese sides is in agreement on a great many points. Accordingly, regarding as well the anti-hegemony clause, which is the issue presently in focus, I think that we must find in working together a draft acceptable to the Japanese and Chinese sides. From the standpoint of moving the negotiations forward, I hope to obtain the Chinese side’s understanding for the aforementioned thinking of the Japanese side.

(End)