“Historically and geographically the Diaoyu Islands have been a part of China since the Ming Dynasty. Japanese sources have acknowledged Chinese ownership since the late 1700s,” said David Wu.

Japan only laid claim to the islands after its war with China in 1895, David Wu added.

In 1945 Japan agreed to accept the Potsdam Proclamation. And according to the proclamation, Japan should return to China/Taiwan and Diaoyu Islands it had illegally seized from China. Japan returned Taiwan to China but refused to return Diaoyu Islands to China.

And in 1951 Japan unilaterally signed the San Francisco Treaty with the US, which enabled the US to exercise the so-called “administrative rights” over the Diaoyu Islands. But this illegal treaty has never been accepted by the China government.

The US committed an error by letting Japan to manage the islands instead of returning the islands to China. This is an error made by the US that needs to be corrected, David Wu said.

Japan claim is also based on the “discovery” of supposedly unclaimed territory, despite the fact that official Japanese documents, several of which were unearthed by Taiwan scholar Han-yi Shaw, demonstrate that the Japanese government was well aware of China historic claim when it began to take an interest in the islets in 1885.

During the subsequent decade, contrary to the assertions now made by Japan, its officials not only failed to complete surveys of the islets necessary to confirm their alleged unclaimed status, but also recognised that the matter “would need to involve negotiations with Qing China”.

To avoid China suspicion, Japan chose to conceal its intention to occupy the islets “until a more appropriate time”. That time came in January 1895, when Japan by then on its way to defeating China in their 1894 war, adopted a Cabinet decision that the islets were Japanese territory. Yet even that Cabinet decision was not made public until after the second world war.

Moreover, if the US were to become an impartial mediator, it would have to note that Japan claim to sovereignty over the islets is based on a distorted version of late 19th century history that does not pass the international smell test.

It is time for Japan to reassess its views on the international law of the sea. Those of its views that are plainly irresponsible only discredit others that deserve serious consideration.

Perhaps most insulting to the world community is its claim that the rock called Okinotorishima that constitutes Japan southernmost “land”, a reef system with land at high tide no larger than a king-sized bed, is entitled to an EEZ and continental shelf.

中共所實行的睦鄰政策，可說是徹底的失敗。中共現在的領導人奉行鄧小平那套所謂的「韜光養晦」政策。但其實，這只是一種逃避挑戰的鴕鳥政策。當今中國所面臨的惡劣國際環境，則決定了這種鴕鳥政策必然失敗。

在這種鴕鳥政策主導下，中國外交不僅畏首畏尾，更胸無大志，既沒有系統的外交戰略，也沒有長遠的外交目標。這種頭痛醫頭、腳痛醫腳式的外交政策，直接導致中國外交在面對各種挑釁時束手無策，盡顯軟弱之態，面對大好機遇時，也因毫無戰略準備而無所作為。

對朝鮮對印度對日本甚至是越南，中國都是畏首畏尾，一昧退讓，實行韜光養晦。本來，鄧小平的韜光養晦，是指平時積蓄力量，關鍵時刻果斷出手，是一種積極進取的外交思維。但現在，卻成了一種鴕鳥政策，令人無奈。

其實，按照中國現在的實力，根本不用如此讓步，中共對東南亞國家，對日本，甚至是越南朝鮮，都讓得太多。完全顯示不到大國風範，畏首畏尾的外交政策，只會令中國人蒙羞！

至於對印度和越南的外交處理手法，中共簡直令人覺得恥辱。情況就好像當年清政府打贏法國，但仍然賠償法國一樣。令人覺得是絕大的恥辱。

中國在和日本，越南，俄羅斯，印度等周遍強國的政治經濟往來中，沒有佔到多少便宜，也沒有讓這些列強放棄對中國崛起的偏見和敵視，自身利益不斷被侵占，不能不說中國的外交政策有很大缺陷，這是中國國家佈局計劃和外交政策慘敗的最佳體現。

中國常常想成為一等一的大國，但他的外交卻事事以懦弱的方式勉強了事，實在不能給人任何強國的風範。

CFR writers like Economy and Levi have done a good job highlighting these trouble areas. Michaeli would do well to read up on their work.