こんな下らないコラムニストでも外務省は相手にしてくれる
外務省、尖閣問題で「中国に分がある」コラム掲載のＮＹ紙に反論(産経)
沖縄・尖閣諸島をめぐり、米紙ニューヨーク・タイムズ（電子版）は１０日と２０日付の２回、ニコラス・クリストフ記者のコラムを掲載した。内容は、「中国に分がある」「尖閣諸島の紛争で米国が日米安全保障条約を発動する可能性はゼロ」などというものだ。駐ニューヨーク日本総領事館から反論文が寄せられたことも紹介している。
在ニューヨーク日本総領事館によると、反論文は17日付で、従来の日本政府の立場を示したものだ。同総領事館の川村泰久広報センター所長名でクリストフ記者に直接手渡した。
総領事館は「そもそも尖閣諸島をめぐる領土問題は存在しない。にもかかわらず、希薄な根拠をもとに中国に分があるような記述をしていたため、直接会って反論した」と話す。
そもそも、1コラムニストにわざわざ手渡しで反論するなんて、それだけでなめられそうなのだけれど。
で、原文、
More on the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
によると、日本の反論は、
1) Since 1885, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had thoroughly been made by the Government of Japan through the agencies of Okinawa Prefecture and by way of other methods. Through these surveys, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been uninhabited and showed no trace of having been under the control of China. Based on this confirmation, the Government of Japan made a Cabinet Decision on 14 January 1895 to erect a marker on the Islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan.
2) Since then, the Senkaku Islands have continuously remained as an integral part of the Nansei Shoto Islands, which are the territory of Japan. These islands were neither part of Taiwan nor part of the Pescadores Islands which were ceded to Japan from the Qing Dynasty of China in accordance with Article II of the Treaty of Shimonoseki which came into effect in May of 1895.
3) Accordingly, the Senkaku Islands are not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article II of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The Senkaku Islands have been placed under the administration of the United States of America as part of the Nansei Shoto Islands, in accordance with Article III of the said treaty, and are included in the area, the administrative rights over which were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands signed on 17 June 1971. The facts outlined herein clearly indicate the status of the Senkaku Islands being part of the territory of Japan.
4) The fact that China expressed no objection to the status of the Islands being under the administration of the United States under Article III of the San Francisco Peace Treaty clearly indicates that China did not consider the Senkaku Islands as part of Taiwan. It was not until the latter half of 1970, when the question of the development of petroleum resources on the continental shelf of the East China Sea came to the surface, that the Government of China and Taiwan authorities began to raise questions regarding the Senkaku Islands.
5) Your column focuses on historical manuscripts such as “Chinese navigational records” and “a 1783 Japanese map” to make the point that China has a better claim to the Senkaku Islands. However, please note that none of the points raised by the Government of China as “historic, geographic or geological” evidence provide valid grounds, in light of international law, to support China’s arguments regarding the Senkaku Islands.
その前のblogでは、
The other problem is that, technically, the U.S. would be obliged to bail Japan out if there were a fight over the Senkakus. The U.S. doesn’t take a position on who owns the islands, but the Japan-U.S. security treaty specifies that the U.S. will help defend areas that Japan administers. And in 1972, when the U.S. handed Okinawa back to Japan, it agreed that Japan should administer the Senkakus. So we’re in the absurd position of being committed to help Japan fight a war over islands, even though we don’t agree that they are necessarily Japanese.
In reality, of course, there is zero chance that the U.S. will honor its treaty obligation over a few barren rocks. We’re not going to risk a nuclear confrontation with China over some islands that may well be China’s. But if we don’t help, our security relationship with Japan will be stretched to the breaking point.
これはおかしな論理だ。1972年の沖縄返還で尖閣も日本が統治することを認めたのだから、「必ずしも日本領と認めていないのだけれど」なんて有り得ない。大体、沖縄返還後も米軍は1979年まで「中国領かもしれない」尖閣を射撃場として使っていたのだから。射撃場として使っていた時は「核戦争のリスク」を冒すと考えなかったのだろうか。なんか言っていることが素人ぽい。なんで税金使ってまで抗議書を作成せねばならぬのだろう。
Clickで救えるblogがある⇒
