Skip to content

August 1, 1978

Cable No. 1489, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (8th Meeting)'

極秘

 

総番号 (TA) R055132  5439  主管

 

78年  月01日18時45分  中国発

 

78年08月01日20時09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1489号 極秘 大至急

 

(限定配布)

 

往電第1488号別電

 

 先ずはじめに、昨日の会談の休けい前の韓副部長の御発言について私の考えを述べる。韓副部長は、先月21日以来、今日までの交渉は相互理解の増進に役立ち有意義であつたと述べられ、また、われわれは、日中共同声明の基礎に立つて大局に着がんして共通点を拡大し、意見の相違点を縮少して問題を解決する方法を見出すべきであると述べられたが、私はこれに全く同感である。また私が28日の小人数の会議で日中間に意見の一致があると考える5つの点を指摘したのに対応して、韓副部長は、中国側で整理した双方の共通点を述べられた。一部の細かい表現においては、日本側が使用していない言いまわしも使用されている所があるという点で問題がないわけではないが、全体として日中双方の認識は、今やほぼ一致していると思う。

 

 ただ、これに関連して私が共通点の第4点として「この条約はソ連を名指すものではない」との点を挙げたのに対し、韓副部長は、「ソ連を名指すということなど話にもならない」、「これこそわれわれ双方の意見が食い違つているところではないだろうか」と論評されたが、この点についてわれわれの意見を述べる。この条約がソ連を名指していないことは、日本案においても中国案においても疑いない事実である。また実質的にも、は権を求める国があればソ連に限らずいかなる国であつてもこれに反対の立場を取るということについては、中国側もくり返し同意されているところであり、このような意味においては、まさにこの条約はソ連を名指していないのである。従つてこれは事実であり、私はそのことを述べたままである。

 

 次に、昨日の会談の休けい後に行われた第3条に関する中国側の提案について述べる。われわれは、中国側が第3条第1文について具体的な新提案をされたことをかん迎する。われわれは、中国側の提案を真けんに検討した。しかし、これは、われわれの盛り込もうとする考え方を十分に反えいしたものではないので、中国案には同意できない。

 

 第一に、くり返し申し上げたとおり、は権を求める国があれば、これに反対の立場を取るということは、この条約自体が第三国に対して向けられたものであることを意味しない。すなわち、仮えは権を求める国があつたとしても、この条約自体が全体としてその国に対して向けられたものであることにはならない。中国側の提案は、中国文で言えば「針対」と「反対」とを区別しないで用いられており、われわれの理解とは合致しない。

 

 第二に、この条約においては、反は権が一つの重要な内容であるが、それがすべてではない。従つて、「この条約は」と言うときは、単には権反対に限らず、この条約全体が決していずれかの国を敵視して、その利益を害するものではないことをはつきり言う必要がある。この点において、中国側提案は、残念ながら、物事の一部分にしか答えていないと思う。

 

 これが、われわれが中国側に同意できない所以である。

 

 くり返して言うが、われわれは、中国側がこのような具体的提案を行われたことをかん迎するものである。

 

 われわれとしても中国案に同意できないというだけではなく、審議促進の見地から、この際われわれの新しい提案をしたいと思う。われわれは、第3条第1文に、「この条約は特定の第三国に対して向けられたものではない」という提案を行つた。これに代えて、われわれは、「この条約は、いずれかの第三国(任何一個第三国)に対して向けられたものではない。」という条文を新しく提案する。

 

 もう一点は、われわれは、この新提案をこの条約のどこかに入れたいということである。場所については、第3条第1文とすることに固執しない。

 

 この新しい案は変更したところが少ない様にみえるが、この種の考え方は、日中双方ともに考えているものであるし、少数者会合で王副司長から話のあつた「特定の第三国」という言ばが特殊の意味を持つという意見に対しこの言ばを避けたという意味もある。

 

 中国側が、われわれの意のあるところを了解され、われわれの新提案に同意されるよう希望する。

 

(了)

 

Number: (TA) R055132     53439

Primary: Asian Affairs Bureau Director-General

 

Sent: China, August 1, 1978, 18:45

Received: MOFA, August 1, 1978, 20:09

 

To: The Foreign Minister     

From: Ambassador Sato

 

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (8th Meeting)

 

No. 1489 Secret Top Urgent

(Limited Distribution)

Outgoing Separate Telegram No. 1488

 

First of all, I will state my thoughts regarding Vice Minister Han’s statement of before the break in yesterday’s meeting. Vice Minister Han, you said that the negotiations from the 21st of last month to date have been useful in increasing mutual understanding. You also said that, on the basis of the Japan-China Joint Communique, we should find a way to settle the issues in focusing on the overall situation, expanding points in common, and reducing differences in opinion. I completely agree on this. Also, in response to my indicating in the restricted meeting of the 28th the five points on which I think the Japanese and Chinese sides are in agreement, Vice Minister Han stated points in common to both sides, which the Chinese side compiled. In some of the detailed expressions are places with wording that the Japanese sides does not use. It is not that there is no problem with that. On the whole, however, I think that the Japanese and Chinese sides are almost in agreement on their understanding.

 

However, in response to my presenting “This treaty does not name the Soviet Union” as the fourth point in common, Vice Minister Han commented “It is not at all a matter of naming the Soviet Union” and “Is it not that this very point is not a point of difference for our two sides.” I will state our view regarding these points. In the Japanese draft and in the Chinese draft, the fact is, without a doubt, that this treaty does not name the Soviet Union. Also, for all practical purposes, the Chinese side has repeatedly agreed in regard to the adoption of a position of opposition to any country that seeks hegemony, no matter which one, not only to the Soviet Union. In such a sense, this treaty truly does not name the Soviet Union. Accordingly, this is a fact. It is as I have said it.

 

I will speak next regarding the Chinese proposal on Article 3, given after the break in yesterday’s meeting.  We welcome that the Chinese side put together a concrete new proposal on Sentence 1, Article 3. We seriously examined the Chinese side’s proposal. However, this does not sufficiently reflect our thinking, which we are trying to incorporate, so we cannot agree to the Chinese draft. First, as I have repeatedly said, adopting a position of opposition to a country that seeks hegemony does not mean that this treaty itself is directed against any third country. That is to say, even if there were a country that seeks hegemony, this treaty itself would not be directed in toto against that country. The Chinese side’s proposal, in which, in Chinese, “zhendui” [directed against] and “fandui” [oppose] are used indistinguishably, does not agree with our understanding.

 

Second, opposition to hegemony is an important matter in this treaty, but it is not everything. Accordingly, speaking of “this treaty,” it is important to say clearly that, not limited simply to opposition to hegemony, this treaty in toto is in no way hostile to any country and is not injurious to its interests.  On this point, I think that the Chinese proposal, regrettably, is only a partial answer.  

 

This is why we cannot agree to the Chinese draft.

 

Let me say again that we welcome that the Chinese side presented this sort of concrete proposal.

 

It is not only our being unable to agree to the Chinese draft. I would also like to propose now, from the viewpoint of promoting discussion, our new proposal. We put together a proposal for Sentence 1, Article 3: “This treaty is not directed against any particular third country.” In place of this, we newly propose the text “This treaty is not directed against any third country (renhe yige disanguo).”

 

Another point is our desire to place this new proposal somewhere in this treaty. As for the place, we do not insist on making it Sentence 1, Article 3.

 

It appears as though little has changed in this new draft, but this sort of thinking is that of both the Japanese and Chinese sides. It is also significant for having avoided the term “any particular third country,” about which Deputy Department Director Wang spoke at the restricted meeting and which he views as having a particular meaning.

 

We hope that the Chinese side understands our intention and agrees with our new proposal.

 

(End)

Negotiations about the Chinese draft for the treaty.


Associated Places

Associated Topics


Related Documents

July 21, 1978

Cable No. 1371, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (1st Meeting)'

The first meeting of negotiations consisted of press photos and statements made about goals of the Treaty.

July 22, 1978

Cable No. 1384, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (2nd Meeting)'

Negotiation talks include the anti-hegemony clause and the foreign relations of China and Japan.

July 24, 1978

Cable No. 1396, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (3rd Meeting - Part 1)'

The delegations address diplomatic relations with the United States and the Soviet Union during negotiations.

July 24, 1978

Cable No. 1398, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (3rd Meeting - Part 2)'

The delegations discuss the new draft proposed by the Japanese.

July 25, 1978

Cable No. 1407, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (4th Meeting)'

The delegations discuss their feeling toward the treaty and what still needs to be discussed.

July 25, 1978

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

Negotiation topics include hegemony and word choice.

July 27, 1978

Cable No. 1433, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (5th Meeting, Part I)'

A negotiation of word usage when expressing anti-hegemony in the Treaty.

July 28, 1978

Cable No. 1434, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (5th Meeting, Part II)'

The meeting covered the work put into the Treaty over the years of its creation and diplomatic relations considerations.

July 28, 1978

Cable No. 1448, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (6th Meeting)'

The delegations debate the wording for the anti-hegemony clause.

August 1, 1978

Cable No. 1464, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (7th Meeting)'

The delegations discuss word choice and what policy sentiments should be in the treaty.

July 31, 1978

Cable No. 1465, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (7th Meeting)'

Provisions for the Treaty of Peace and Friendship are proposed.

August 1, 1978

Cable No. 1488, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (8th Meeting)'

The Chinese and Japanese delegations discuss wording of drafts of the Treaty.

August 2, 1978

Cable No. 1502, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (9th Meeting)'

Discussion of the language around the anti-hegemony clause.

August 3, 1978

Cable No. 1512, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (10th Meeting)'

Note discusses difficulties between the Japanese and the Chinese negotiating the Treaty of Peace and Friendship.

August 3, 1978

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

The Japanese delegation does not approval of the latest Chinese proposal because of the anti-hegemony clause.

August 4, 1978

Cable No. 1530, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (11th Meeting)'

The Chinese and the Japanese discuss each others draft proposals.

August 4, 1978

Cable No. 1531, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (11th Meeting)'

Statement from the Ambassador to the Foreign Minister explaining the language in the Japanese draft and how it alludes to the Soviet Union.

August 6, 1978

Cable No. 1550, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (12th Meeting)'

Both parties discuss the language used in a draft of the treaty.

August 7, 1978

Cable No. 1569, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (13th Meeting)'

The Chinese delegation feels that the Japanese are talking and leaking information about the treaty.

August 8, 1978

Cable No. 1582, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (14th Meeting)'

Discussion of the points of a Joint Communique as part of the overall Treaty negotiations.

August 10, 1978

Cable No. 1606, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (1st Ministerial Meeting) (Part 1 of 2)'

A discussion on Japanese and Chinese diplomacy as well as the issue of hegemony.

August 10, 1978

Cable No. 1606, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (1st Ministerial Meeting) (Part 2 of 2)'

Discussion of hegemony and its effect on Japan, China, and the rest of Asia. Specifically using the Soviet Union as an example of the use of this power.

August 10, 1978

Cable No. 1608, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (2nd Ministerial Meeting)'

Japanese and Chinese discuss the relationship between the two countries and express interest in a continued partnership.

August 10, 1978

Cable No. 1617, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (15th Meeting)'

A summary of the day's negotiations from Japanese Ambassador Sato to The Foreign Minister.

August 11, 1978

Cable No. 1643, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (16th Meeting)'

Japanese Ambassador Sato and Chinese Vice Minister Han negotiate point in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China. Japan also asks China about the Sino-Soviet Alliance Treaty.

August 12, 1978

Cable No. 1675, Ambassador Sato to the Foreign Minister, 'Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (3rd Ministerial Meeting)'

Friendly remarks about the continued negotiations of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China, and points of continued negotiation including the nationality of ethnic minorities.

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.

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 [email protected].

Original Uploaded Date

2020-03-11

Language

Record ID

220013