Search in

Digital Archive International History Declassified

July 25, 1978


  • Citation

    get citation

    Negotiation topics include hegemony and word choice.
    "Cable No. 1408, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (4th Meeting)'," July 25, 1978, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, 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.
  • share document


English HTML

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.  




総番号 (TA) R053412  5319  主管

78年  月25日18時20分  中国発

78年07月25日19時47分  本省着  アジア局長

外務大臣殿  佐藤大使


第1408号 極秘 大至急











最後に「反対である」と「反対する」の問題について述べる。日本側条約案において「反対である」との表現を用いているのは、22日にも申し上げたとおり、これが日本語として、本項の本来の考え方をより正確に表すものだからであり、共同声明の思想を変更しようとするものではまつたくない。更につけ加えれば、反は権の思想が最初に文書に明らかにされた米中・上海コミュニケは、「EACH IS OPPOSED」となつており、この思想はそのまま日本共同声明に引き継がれているものと考える。日本側が作成した共同声明の英訳文も、中国側が作成した共同声明の英訳文も「EACH IS OPPOSED」との表現を用いていることは御承知のとおりである。この表現を日本語に移した場合、「反対する」より、「反対である」の方がより正確であることは明らかであるので、わが方提出の案文においては、この正確な表現を使用した。





It appears your Web browser is not configured to display PDF files. No worries, just click here to download the PDF file.

Click here to view the PDF file in a new window.

PDFs cannot be printed inline in the page. To print a PDF, you must first download the file and open it in a PDF viewer.