Skip to content

August 6, 1978

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

極秘

 

総番号 (TA) R056332  5550  主管

 

78年  月060058分 中国発

 

7808060237分 本省着   ア局長

 

外務大臣殿  佐藤大使

 

日中平和友好条約交渉(第12回会談)

 

1550号 極秘 大至急

 

(限定配布)

 

往電第1530号に関し、

 

5日午後3時半より520分まで1時間50分にわたり(4時から40分の休けい時間を含む。)第12回会談を行つたところ、概要次のとおり。

 

(会談の場所は、第1回会談に同じ。出席者は、ナカエ局長を除き第11回会談に同じ。)

 

1.冒頭本使より、「本日は私が会談を主さいする番であるが、韓副部長より先に御発言下さい」と述べたところ、韓副部長は、次のとおり述べた。

 

1)昨日われわれは大使の発言と日本側の提出した今1つの新しい案文を詳細にちよう取した。真けんにかつ念入りに検討した結果、われわれは、日本側の新しい案文には少なからぬ問題が含まれており、良い案文とは考えない。

 

2)日本側の新しい案文には、如何なる問題があるのか、私はいくつかの例を挙げて説明したい。

 

(イ)第1に、今までの交渉の中でわれわれは、双方とも条約の早期締結のために共通点を拡大し、意見の食い違いを縮小することに力を入れるべきであると考えてきた。われわれは、声明であれ条約であれ双方の共通点を反えいさせるべきであり、そのぎやくであつてはならないと考える。例えば、中日共同声明は、他でもなく中日双方の共通点を反えいした文書である。交渉中のこの条約も、双方の共通点を反えいすべきであることは、理の当然である。しかし、日本側の新しい案文は、何々と「解してはならない」と強調している。このような言い方が人々にどのような印象を与えるかは言うまでもないことと思う。従つて、われわれは、日本側の案文は取り上げることは出来ないものであると考える。

 

(ロ)第2に、大使は、昨日の発言の中で日中両国とも独自の外交政策を有しておりお互にそれを干渉しないことは、これまでの会談において双方で確認したところであると言われた。こうした意味のものは、双方の条約案文の平和共存5原則に関する条項の中に既に反えいされており、もし日本側の新しい案文のとおり単独のものとして条約の中に入れるとするとだ足になり、かえつて人々に中日間には何かのわだかまりがあるかのように思わせることとなるので、双方にとつて無益なことと考える。

 

(ハ)第3に大使は、昨日の発言の中で、日本側はは権反対がソ連に対するものではないというようなことは言つていないし、今後とも言う積りはないと言われた。大使の表明したこの態度に対しては、われわれは、それを留意し、標{前1文字ママ}価するものである。前にも触れたように双方ともそれぞれの外交政策を有しており、お互にそれに干渉しないこと自体は元々多言を要するものではない。日本側の新しい案文は、ソ連の思わくを気兼ねしている要素が依然として含まれていると思われても致し方ないように思う。われわれは、これは全く必要のないものと考える。

 

(ニ)第4に、われわれは日本側の新しい案文の表現は、解釈的な説明のような感じを帯びており、弁解のニュアンスさえも帯びているので、条文として条約の中に書き入れることは明らかに適切なものではないと考える。

 

われわれは、検討する過程で最近双方の提出した新しい案文をくり返して見較べてみた。われわれは、やはりわが方が82日に提出した案文こそ双方の意見を反えいしたものであり、双方共受け入れられるはずのものと考える。

 

われわれは、わが方の上述の案文は共同声明を基礎にし、政治的なかく度から事を運び、中日友好の大局に着がんし、厳しゅくかつしん重に検討を重ねた上で提出したものであることを真心を込めて再び日本の友人に申し上げたい。中国側から言えば、これは最大限に日本側の意見を考慮し、日本側の立場を十分配慮した確実に実行可能な案文である。これに比べ日本側の案文は、確かに問題が少なくない。私はここでちゆう心により82日に提出したわが方案文を日本側が再び真けんに検討し、早期妥結のために積極的に努力をつくすよう希望する。

 

2.ここで本使より休けいを提案し、約40分休けいの後、会談を再開し、本使より次の通り述べた。

 

1)われわれは、休けい前の韓念リユウ副部長の発言を注意深くうかがつた。中国側が昨日のわが方の新提案は、問題が多いと考えておられることは、まことに残念である。昨日の案は、本国政府とも十分に相談しつつ日中双方にとつて受け入れ可能な案として注意深く作り上げたものである。私としては、今後昨日のわが方の提案について中国側に再考をお願いして話し合う機会をもつことを強く希望する。

 

2)なお、韓副部長は、「ソ連の思わくを気がねしているように思われる」と言われたが、中国側がこのような考え方からぬけ出していないということは、日本側として誠に残念である。どうかその点は条約締結の目的のために日本政府の政策を正しく理解していただきたいと心からお願いする。

 

3.本使より、以上の発言を終え、本日の会談をここまでにしたいと提案したところ、韓副部長は、「日本側の案文に対するわれわれの意見については、くり返して申し上げないが、このほかにも多くの問題があり、本日引き続いて話し合うことにつき大使の意見如何」と質問越した。これに対し、本使より、「第3条以外の問題についてのことか」と質したところ、韓副部長より次の通り述べた。

 

 われわれは第3条第1文の問題以外についても相談する必要がある。先ず、反は権条項についてもわれわれは完全には問題を解決してはおらず、例えば、反は権条項の日本側案文では「両締約国は、そのいずれも、アジア・太平洋地域においても、または、他のいずれの地域においてもは権を求めるべきではなく、また、このようはな権を確立しようとする他のいかなる国または国の集団による試みにも反対であること(注:中国語;「ヤ(AFI)ゼ(ELE)反対的」)を表明する。」となつているが、この文の表現方法に対しても中国側は異つた考えを持つている。

 

 中日共同声明の第7項の表現では、「両国のいずれも、アジア・太平洋地域においては権を求めるべきではなく、このようなは権を確立しようとする他のいかなる国あるいは国の集団による試みにも反対する。」となつている。それが日本側の案文では、この最後の部分を「反対である」と書き換え、表現を大いに弱めている。中国側はこれに同意できない。

 

 もう一度述べれば、日本側の案文は、共同声明第7項に比べ2ヶ所違つている。即ち、「アジア・太平洋地域において・・・」が「アジア・太平洋地域においてもまたは他のいずれの地域においても・・・」となつている点と、「反対する。」が「反対である。」になつている点である。この2点について今日更に相談して解決したいが如何であろうか。

 

4.これに対し、本使より、「結構である」と述べ次のとおり発言した。

 

 「反対である」に書き換える問題については、私の考え方は、既に述べたとおり、日本語のこの表現の方が事実に則しており、またこの表現の方が良いということであり、他方、中国語の表現を変える積りはない。地域の問題についても何度も説明したとおり、は権反対についてはアジア・太平洋地域に特にメンションした上で、世界全体に対しても適用されるべきであるので、新しい案文のように「他のいずれの地域においても」という表現を取り入れたものである。この地域の問題については中国側はどう考えるか。

 

5.これに対し韓副部長は、次のとおり述べた。

 

 この問題については、私が既に説明したとおり、中国側案の反は権条項の第2文は中日共同声明第7項の表現を引用している。この表現をそのまま引用した理由は簡単である。それは、中日両国は共にアジア・太平洋地域に属しており、は権反対は先ずアジア・太平洋地域において強調されるべきであると考えるからだ。日本側はアジア・太平洋地域のほかに「他のいずれの地域においても」と付け加えたいという要望をもつている。これについては、私たちは考慮できる。日本側は「他のいずれの地域においても」との字くを付け加える理由を述べたし、中国側もこれに関する意見を述べた。この点については、中国側は譲歩しても構わない。即ち、「アジア・太平洋地域においても」の後に「他のいずれの地域においても」という表現を付け加えても構わない。

 

 しかし、「反対である。」という表現はダメである。「反対する。」でなければならない。この問題は単に文字上の表現問題ではなく、中国語にしても日本語しても「反対する」と「反対である」の表現はやはり違いがある。語調に強弱の違いがある。それ故「反対する」を「反対である」に書き換えることには同意できない。

 

6.これに対し、本使より、次のとおり述べた。

 

 「反対である」と書き換えることは、第1にこれが日本語の問題であること、第2に「反対する」という表現を使つた場合、日本語によれば何らかの行動を意味するようなことになるとの問題がある。既に申し上げたとおり、この表現は英語で「TO BE OPPOSED」あるいは「EACH IS OPPOSED」と訳されており、日本語の感じでは「反対である」というふうに訳せるし、日本語と英語との表現を一かんしたものにしたい。

 

 わが方の考え方は以上であるが、韓副部長がただ今述べられたことは東京に報告する。

 

7.更に本使より、「これ以外の条文で更に何かうかがうことがあれば聞きたい」と述べたところ、韓副部長は、「更に有る」と答え、次のとおり述べた。

 

これまでの会談で述べたように反は権条項以外にいくつかの問題が残つている。しかしこれらの問題の解決は困難ではないと言つている。

 

(注:ここで王ギョウウン次長が韓副部長にミミ打ちしたが、それは当方団員によれば「反は権条項の問題を先にかた付けるべきであり、この続きは次の会談ということでよいのではないか」という如きささやきであつたところ、これに対し韓副部長は「時間に限りがある。急がねばならないだろう。」と答えていた由。更に王のりん席のテイミンより紙へんが回されて韓副部長にとどいたところ、これは後述の韓副部長の発言より推察して、地域の問題と「反対する」の問題をバーゲンにすべしとのリマインドを行なつたもののように感じられた。)

 

8.本使より、「もし本日時間が十分でなければ月ように会談を開き、中国側の考えを聞きたい」と述べたところ、韓副部長は「第3条における2つの問題に関し、中国側の意見を再びくり返し述べたい」として次のとおり述べた。

 

1)もし日本側が「反対する」という言ばを使い「反対である」という言ばを使わないことに同意するなら、われわれは「アジア・太平洋地域においても、または他のいずれの地域においても」という地域範囲の問題について、日本側が提出した案文のように「アジア・太平洋地域においても」の後に「また他のいずれの地域においても」との表現を付け加えても構わない。

 

2)今までの討議は第3項の第1文についてのみ行なわれたが、第2文についても双方に食い違いがある。先ほど私が述べたように、この問題の解決についても、やはりお互いに相談する必要がある。中日共同声明にない表現、つまり「他のいずれの地域においても」という表現を付け加えることには譲歩できるが、「反対する」を「反対である」に書き換えることには同意できない。このことから見ても反は権条項の問題において、われわれ双方は未だ意見の完全な一致がない。大使が先ほど言われたように、このことを東京に報告して欲しい。

 

3)本日の会談は、これまでにし、来週月よう日3時半に会談を開きたい。

 

9.これに対し本使より、「これで本日の会談を終了することに同意するが、その前に一点だけ申し上げたい。」と述べた上、次のとおり述べた。

 

「反対する」を「反対である」に変えないことに日本側が同意するのであれば、「他のいずれの地域においても」という表現を付け加えることについて譲歩しても良いとの先ほどの中国側の発言については、地域の問題と「反対する」「反対である」という問題とは、それぞれ性質の違う別の問題であり、これはからめるべきではないから、自分としては次のように理解する。すなわち中国側は「地域」の問題では譲歩できるが、「反対する」「反対である」の問題については日本側の案に同意できないということとして自分は、東京に報告する。

 

10.これに対し韓副部長は次のとおり述べた。

 

1)反は権条項についてお互いに相談し合う必要がある。既に述べたように、日本側のいわゆる「新らしい案文」は中国側はこれは好ましい提案ではないと考えている。また私たちは82日に中国側が提出した案文は中日双方の利益と双方の意見に最も合致した良い案文と考えるので、これをけん持する。また地域の問題では、中国側は譲歩するが、「反対である」の表現には同意できない。

 

2)月よう日の会談では、反は権条項全体についての日本側の見解を聞きたい。この問題において意見の一致をみてから他の条項を討論したいと考える。

 

11.最後に本使より、「この段階においては東京とも相談せねばならないので、月よう日の午後会談を行なうか否かについては月よう日の朝に中国側に連絡したい」と述べたところ、韓副部長はこれに同意し、以上をもつて本日の会談を終了した。

 

(了)

 

Number: (TA) R056332     5550

Primary: Asian Affairs Bureau Director-General

 

Sent: China, August 6, 1978, 00:58

Received: MOFA, August 6, 1978, 02:37

 

To: The Foreign Minister     

From: Ambassador Sato

 

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China Negotiations (12th Meeting)

 

No. 1550 Secret Top Urgent

(Limited Distribution)

 

Re: Outgoing Telegram 1530

 

On the 5th, the 12th meeting took place for a period of one hour and 50 minutes, from 3:30 to 5:20 in the afternoon (including a break period of 40 minutes from 4:00). A summary of its main points is as follows:

 

(The place for the meeting was the same as for the first one. The participants, except for Director-General Nakae, were the same as for the 11th meeting.)

 

1. I said at the start, “It is my turn to host the meeting. Vice Minister Han, please speak first.” Vice Minister Han then said the following:

 

(1)  We heard in detail yesterday the Ambassador speak and the Japanese side present another new proposal. Having seriously and carefully examined it, we find that the Japanese side’s new draft includes not a few problems. We do not consider it a good draft.

 

(2) I would like to offer some examples of the kinds of problems there are in the Japanese side’s new draft.

 

(a) First, in the negotiations to date, we have thought that both sides should make efforts to expand points in common and reduce differences of opinion for the treaty’s early conclusion. We think that, whether the joint statement or the treaty, it should reflect the points in common to both sides and that the contrary will not be acceptable. For example, the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement is nothing other than a document reflecting the points in common to the Chinese and Japanese sides. It is a matter of course that the treaty now under negotiation, too, should reflect the points in common to both sides. However, the Japanese side’s new proposal emphasizes “must not be understood as” and so on. I think that it goes without saying what kind of impression such a manner of speaking gives to people. Accordingly, we consider it impossible to adopt the Japanese side’s draft.

 

(b) Second, the Ambassador said yesterday that in the meetings to date, both sides have confirmed that Japan and China each has an independent diplomatic policy and that neither will interfere in that of the other. Such a sense is already reflected in the clause concerning the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in the treaty drafts of both sides. It would be superfluous to put it into the treaty as something standing alone along the lines of the Japanese side’s new draft. Rather, because it would give people the impression of something superfluous between China and Japan, I think that it would be of no use to our two sides.

 

(c) Third, the Ambassador said yesterday that the Japanese side has not said that opposition to hegemony is not something directed against the Soviet Union, nor does it intend to say so in the future. In regard to this attitude, which the Ambassador expressed, we take note of it and appraise it. As mentioned previously, each of our two sides has its own diplomatic policy. That each will not interfere in that of the other is something that from the start does not require many words. One cannot help but think that the Japanese side’s new draft still includes elements constrained by what the Soviet Union thinks. We consider this entirely unnecessary.

 

(d) Fourth, the language of the Japanese side’s new draft gives us the impression of an interpretive explanation and even a nuance of excuse. We consider the draft clearly inappropriate for writing into the treaty.

 

In the process of examination, we compared the new drafts recently put forward by our two sides. We consider, after all, that our draft of August 2 is the one that reflects the views of both sides and that should be accepted by both sides.

 

We would like once again to say with sincerity to our Japanese friends that the aforementioned draft of our side – based on the Joint Statement, proceeding from a political angle, and focused on the overall situation of Sino-Japanese friendship – is one that we have put forward after serious and careful examination. The Chinese side sees this as having considered to the greatest extent the view of the Japanese side, a sound and practical draft that fully considers the position of the Japanese side. By comparison, there are not a few problems with the Japanese side’s draft. I sincerely hope that the Japanese side will once again give serious consideration to the draft that we put forth on August 2 and positively work for an early settlement.

 

2. At this point I proposed a break. After a break of approximately 40 minutes, we started the meeting again. I said the following:

 

(1) We listened attentively to Vice Minister Han Nianlong’s statement from before the break. It is truly regrettable that the Chinese side considers there to be many problems to our side’s new proposal from yesterday. Yesterday’s draft is one that we made in full consultation with the home government and with attention to its being acceptable to both the Japanese and Chinese sides. I request that the Chinese side reconsider henceforth yesterday’s draft of the Japanese side and strongly hope to have the opportunity to talk about it.

 

(2) In addition, Vice Minister Han spoke of it as “constrained by what the Soviet Union thinks.” The Japanese side finds it truly regrettable that the Chinese side has not freed itself from such thinking. Regarding that point, we sincerely request that you please correctly understand the Government of Japan’s policy for the purpose of concluding the treaty.

 

3. Having finished my statement, I proposed ending the day’s meeting there. Vice Minister Han then asked: “I will not repeat again our view regarding the Japanese side’s draft, but there are many other issues. What would the Ambassador think about continuing the discussion today?” I asked him: “Is this about issues other than Clause 3?” Vice Minister Han gave the following reply:

 

We think it necessary to discuss issues other than Sentence 1 of Clause 3. First, in regard to the anti-hegemony clause, we have not completely settled the issue. For example, in the Japanese side’s draft of the anti-hegemony clause is the following: “Neither of the contracting parties should seek hegemony, either in the Asia-Pacific region or in any other region. In addition, each of the contracting parties is also opposed to (note: in Chinese, ye shi fandui de) any attempt of any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony.” The Chinese side’s thinking differs in regard to these sentences and its language.

 

The language in Article 7 of the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement is, “Neither of the two countries should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and each opposes efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony.” In the Japanese side’s draft, the final part is rewritten as “is opposed to,” which greatly weakens the language. The Chinese side cannot agree to this.

 

To say it again, the Japanese side’s draft differs in two places from Article 7 of the Joint Statement. That is to say, “in the Asia-Pacific Region” becomes “either in the Asia-Pacific region or in any other region” and “opposes” becomes “is opposed to.” Today, I would like to discuss these two points further and settle them. What would you say to that?

 

4. I replied “fine,” then said the following:

 

In regard to the issue of the rewritten “is opposed to,” as I have already said, this Japanese expression is based on fact, and this expression is better. On the other hand, we have no intention to change the expression in Chinese. Regarding, too, the issue of region, as we have explained many times, having given particular mention to the Asia-Pacific region in regard to opposition to hegemony, it ought to be applied as well to the entire world, so we incorporated the language “or in any other region” as a new draft. What does the Chinese side think in regard to this issue of region?

 

5. Vice Minister Han replied as follows:

 

As I have already explained regarding this issue, Sentence 2 of the anti-hegemony clause in the Chinese draft extracts language from Article 7 of the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement. The reason that we extracted this language verbatim is simple. It is because we think that, as both China and Japan are part of the Asia-Pacific region, opposition to hegemony should be stressed in the Asia-Pacific region first. The Japanese side strongly desires to add “or in any other region” in addition to the Asia-Pacific region. We can consider this. The Japanese side stated its reason for adding the phrase “or in any other region,” and the Chinese side stated its view on it. The Chinese side is not opposed to make a concession on this point. That is, we are not opposed to adding the language “or in any other region” after “in the Asia-Pacific region.”

 

However, the expression “is opposed to” is no good. It has to be “opposes.” This issue is not simply one of literal expression. In Chinese and in Japanese, the expressions “opposes” and “is opposed to” are, after all, different. The tone differs in strength. Consequently, we cannot agree to writing “is opposed to” instead of “opposes.”

 

6. In response, I said the following:

 

Rewriting it as “is opposed to” is, first, an issue of the Japanese language. Second, if we were to use the expression “opposes,” there would be the issue of its signifying in Japanese some action. As I have already said, this expression in English is translated as “to be opposed” or “each is opposed.” In the sense of Japanese, one could translate it as “is opposed to,” and we would like to make the expression consistent in Japanese and English.

 

Such is our thinking. I will report to what Tokyo what Vice Minister Han has said just now.

 

7. Furthermore, when I said, “If there is anything else to ask on the other clauses, I would like to hear it,” Vice Minister Han said that there was and spoke as follows:

 

As I said in past meetings, there remain some issues other than the anti-hegemony clause. However, I have said that settling these issues will not be difficult.

 

(Note: At this point [Asian Affairs Department] Deputy Director Wang Xiaoyun whispered to Vice Minister Han that our side’s delegates had suggested something along the lines of “the issue of the anti-hegemony clause should be squared away first, then the following ones at the next meeting.” Vice Minister Han then replied to the effect “Time is limited. I think we have to hurry.” Furthermore, when a piece of paper passed by [Japanese Affairs Division Director] Ding Min, who was sitting next to Wang, reached Vice Minister Han, it was thought to be, inferring from what Vice Minister said afterwards, a reminder that the regional issue and that of “opposes” ought to be handled as a package.)

 

8. I said “If the time today is not sufficient, I would like to ask what the Chinese side thinks of holding a meeting on Monday.” Vice Minister Han answered, “Concerning the two issues for Clause 3, I would like once again to repeat the view of the Chinese side.” He then said the following:

 

(1)  If the Japanese side agrees to use the word “opposes” and not the words “is opposed to,” then, in regard to the issue of regional scope – “either in the Asia-Pacific region or in any other region” – we are not opposed to adding the expression, as in the draft that the Japanese side put forth, “or in any other region” after “either in the Asia-Pacific region.”

 

(2) So far discussion has only taken place regarding Sentence 1, Clause 3, but our two sides differ as well regarding Sentence 2. As I said a while ago, there is, naturally, a need for discussion on both sides regarding the settling of this issue. We can make a concession in the addition of language not in the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement, that is, “or in any other region,” but we cannot agree to rewrite “opposes” as “is opposed to.” In this regard, our two sides are not yet in total agreement on the issue of the anti-hegemony clause. As the Ambassador just said, I would like you to report this to Tokyo.

 

(3) I would like to end today’s meeting here and hold the next one at 3:30 on Monday next week.

 

9. I replied, “I agree on ending today’s meeting here but would like to raise one point before then.” I then said the following:

 

Regarding the Chinese side’s statement just now that it would be fine to make a concession on adding the language “or any other region” if the Japanese side agreed not to change “opposes” to “is opposed to,” the issue of region and that of “opposes” and “is opposed to” are different issues, each with its respective character. We should not entangle these, so this is how I understand it. That is to say, the Chinese side can make a concession on the issue of “region” but cannot agree to the Japanese side’s draft on the issue of “opposes” and “is opposed to.” I will report this to Tokyo.

 

10. In reply, Vice Minister Han said the following:

 

(1) We need to discuss with one another regarding the anti-hegemony clause. As I have already said, the Chinese side considers the Japanese side’s so-called “new draft” to be an undesirable one. In addition, we consider the draft that the Chinese side put forth on August 2 to be the best one, the one most in conformity with the interests and views of the Chinese and Japanese sides. Also, on the issue of region, the Chinese side makes a concession but cannot agree to the expression “is opposed to.”

 

(2) At Monday’s meeting, I would like to hear the Japanese side’s view regarding the anti-hegemony clause in its entirety. Once our views are in accord on this issue, I would like to discuss the other clauses.

 

11.  Lastly, I said, “At this stage, I have to consult with Tokyo, so I would like to contact the Chinese side on Monday morning as to whether or not to have a meeting on Monday afternoon. Vice Minister Han then agreed to this, and the day’s meeting thus ended.

 

(End)

 

 

Both parties discuss the language used in a draft of 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 1, 1978

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

Negotiations about the Chinese draft for 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 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

2020-03-12

Language

Record ID

220020