{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017639077340569877, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013568521031207599, 'mean_word_length': 4.830039525691699, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Treaty of Shimonoseki, the Diaoyu Islands and the Ryukyu Issue

ABSTRACT This paper refutes the view of the Japanese government that the Diaoyu Islands have nothing to do with the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and points out that “stealing” the Diaoyu Islands was one step in the Japanese strategy of the invasion of China in the Sino-Japanese War in 1894. Only because the Japanese cabinet was fully assured of winning the war did it “steal” the Diaoyu Islands before the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and the treaty was nothing but a means of legitimating this theft. Large numbers of historical documents are cited in this paper to prove that the Diaoyu Islands are affiliated islands of Chinese Taiwan. Although Japan annexed Ryukyu in 1879, these documents show that the Qing government protested immediately, and later on negotiated with Japan concerning Ryukyu. According to the Sino-Japanese negotiations over Ryukyu in 1880, the Japanese government agreed to give the Miyako and Yaeyama islands back to China. Until 1887, Zeng Jize, an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Qing Dynasty, continued to declare that the Ryukyu issue had not been resolved. It was only because China lost the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 that the Ryukyu issue fell into abeyance amid the cloud of failure. Because the Chinese government subsequently repudiated the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and under the terms of the Cairo Declaration, the Ryukyu issue should again be back on the table.