Cable No. 1408, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (4th Meeting)'

Number: (TA) R053412     5319

Primary: Asian Affairs Bureau Director-General

Sent: China, July 25, 1978,   18:20

Received: MOFA, July 25, 1978,   19:47

To: The Foreign Minister     

From: Ambassador Sato

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (4th Meeting)

No. 1408 Secret Top Urgent

(Limited Distribution)

Re: Outgoing Telegrams No. 1407

Concerning the Chinese side’s view regarding the Japanese side’s treaty draft, which Vice Minister Han stated in yesterday’s meeting, please allow me to state the Japanese side’s thinking.

First, regarding Sentence 1 of Article 3, of the Japanese side’s treaty draft, I will once more offer an explanation of the Japanese side’s thinking. As I said in the first meeting, this treaty is not an alliance treaty to make any country a common hypothetical enemy; nor does it regard any specific third country with hostility or is to be concluded against it. Vice Minister Han, too, at the meeting on the 22nd, said that Japan and China’s concluding a treaty of peace and friendship, solidifying and developing relations of peace and friendship, would not be prejudicial to the interests of third countries. The Japanese side’s Sentence 1 of Article 3 is an attempt above all to make this point clear.

Next, I will state our view in regard to Vice Minister Han’s statement concerning this provision.

First, Vice Minister Han said, touching on replacing the first part of Article 7 of the Joint Statement, that the phrase “this treaty” must be the phrase “solidifying and developing relations of peace and friendship.” Our thinking is that Japan and China’s solidifying and developing relations of peace and friendship, irrespective of concluding this treaty, is of course something that both countries should do and, in reality, have been making efforts to do so since the normalization of relations between Japan and China. Also, it is a self-evident truth that the development of relations of peace and friendship between Japan and China is not directed against any third country. There is no need to say this again in concluding the treaty. What we should make clear in concluding the treaty is that this treaty, the goal of which truly is the solidifying and developing of relations of peace and friendship between our two countries, is not directed against any specific third country. The Japanese side’s treaty draft stipulates this in the most concise and clear manner.

Second, Vice Minister Han said, “Would it not be self-contradictory to talk on the one hand of opposition to hegemony while on the other saying that is not directed against anyone?” Further, you said that Japan’s draft “simply weakens or renders toothless the spirit and substance of the anti-hegemony clause.” However, our thinking is that opposition to hegemony is in no way in contradiction with the phrase, “This treaty is not directed against any specific third country.” Also, the stipulation of Japan’s draft faithfully reflects the spirit of the Joint Communique. That is to say, in opposition to hegemony there is the aspect of direction against a third country, but this against any country that would seek hegemony, which means taking a position of opposition to it. Accordingly, there is absolutely no contradiction with Sentence 1 of Article 3, which makes clear that this treaty does not specify, regard with hostility or oppose any third country.

Third, the Chinese side said that there is no need to add the words “any specific.” With regard to this point, I touched on this yesterday in my statement, but opposition to hegemony, specifying a specific third country and adopting a position of opposition to that country’s hegemony, would be no trifling matter. Both Japan and China seek to make clear our adopting a position of opposition if there were a country seeking hegemony, no matter which country. The stipulation of the Japanese side’s treaty draft makes clear, with no room for doubt, the determination of our two countries.

This is our thinking regarding Sentence 1, Article 3, of the Japanese side’s treaty draft.

Next, Vice Minister Han said that, “Japan and China are both in the Asia-Pacific region, so clearly raising this region stands to reason.” We completely agree with this. The Japanese side’s treaty draft, first, in mentioning the Asia-Pacific region, emphasizes that the interests of both our countries are historically and actually in this region and, next, that it is clear that opposition to hegemony is a position that should not be limited to this region but one to which we should adhere in any region of the world. This is why I have made this point clear.

Lastly, I will speak regarding “opposition to” and “oppose.” As I said on the 22nd,  our using the expression “opposition to” in the Japanese side’s treaty draft is because we are expressing more accurately this clause’s original thinking. It is not at all an attempt to change the thinking behind the Joint Communique. Furthermore, the thinking behind anti-hegemony, first made clear in a document in the Shanghai Communique between the United States and China, became “each is opposed.” I think that this thinking has been inherited as is in the Japan-China Joint Communique. As you know,  both the English text of the Joint Communique prepared by the Japanese side and the English text of the Joint Communique prepared by the Chinese side use the expression “each is opposed.” If we shift this expression into Japanese, “is opposed” is more accurate than “oppose,” so we would like to use this accurate expression in the draft that our side is putting forth.

Vice Minister Han said that the Japanese sides hopes to produce a new proposal but, as you you understand from my explanation, we think that the Japanese side’s treaty draft is the best one. As for the Chinese side, we welcome further serious consideration and the expressing of a constructive opinion or the producing of a new proposal.

Further, Vice Minister Han said that if the anti-hegemony clause were settled, there would be no problem settling the other parts. However, from the viewpoint of promoting discussion, I propose here, on the basis of the Japanese side’s draft, that we informally hold discussions on the other clauses, including the preamble, parallel with those on Article 3.  

(End)