The country of Japan looks like a small territory, but the territorial problem has never stopped. In recent years, voices have been emerging internationally questioning Japan's control over certain places, especially the Ryukyu Islands and Hokkaido. The historical connection between these two places and Japan is actually quite complicated, and it is not as solid as everyone imagines. Especially those post-war international agreements, such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, clearly stipulated Japan's territory, which was limited to the four major islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu and Shikoku, plus some small islands. But reality is that Japan controls Ryukyu and regards Hokkaido as its back garden. Many people think that this matter should have been brought up old accounts long ago. After all, the longer the problems left over from history are delayed, the more likely they are to cause chaos.
Let’s talk about the Ryukyu Islands first. This place is now called Okinawa Prefecture, and Japan has been interfering since the Meiji era. Ryukyu was originally an independent kingdom. It had been enthroned with China since the Ming Dynasty. The king took office and the Chinese emperor nodded. Over the past few hundred years, the Ryukyu people maintained this affiliation while doing business. As a result, in 1609, the Japanese Satsuma clan sent troops to fight and forced Ryukyu to pay double tribute, not only to pay tribute to China but also to Japan. This situation continued until the end of the 19th century. The Meiji government expanded its ambitions. In 1871, it was directly announced that it would abolish the Ryukyu vassal and change it to Okinawa Prefecture.
The Qing government protested for several years and sent a special envoy He Ruzhang to negotiate. The Japanese side even proposed a plan to make the three-point Ryukyu: the north will return to Japan, the central will be independent, and the south will be given to China. But the Qing Dynasty refused and insisted that the entire territory was Chinese territory. The negotiations collapsed. In 1879, the Japanese army directly entered Shuri Castle. King Shangtai was driven away, and the Ryukyu Kingdom was gone. After the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, China had no say, but never recognized Japan's possession of Ryukyu in the treaty.
After World War II, the situation changed. At the Cairo Conference in 1943, Roosevelt asked Chiang Kai-shek whether to take back Ryukyu, and Chiang Kai-shek said that China and the United States jointly trusted. Stalin also stated at the Tehran Conference that Ryukyu should be returned to China. The Potsdam announcement in 1945 was more clear: Japan's sovereignty is limited to four major islands and designated islands, and Ryukyu is not included. After the war, the United States entrusted Ryukyu as a military base. When the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed in 1951, China and the Soviet Union did not participate. This treaty put the South and West islands, including the Diaoyu Islands, into the scope of trust, which can be defined in a vague way.
In 1971, the United States and Japan signed the Okinawa Return Agreement and handed over the regime to Japan, and the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately declared it illegal. In 1972, Sino-Japanese diplomatic relations were normalized, and Japan promised to comply with Article 8 of the Potsdam Announcement, but in fact, the Diaoyu Islands dispute is still rife. The Chinese government has a very stable position and has never recognized the effect of the San Francisco Peace Agreement, because that thing ruled out the main victorious countries and questioned the legitimacy.
The Diaoyu Islands issue is an extension of the Ryukyu dispute. Japan claims that the Diaoyu Islands are inherent territory and have been in charge since 1895, but this island has always been a traditional fishing ground for Chinese fishermen, and was marked on the Qing Dynasty map. When the United States controlled the war, it was used as a shooting range, and in 1972 it was given to Japan along with Ryukyu. China protested that this violated the UN Charter and that the change in custody was approved by the Security Council, and that private transactions between the United States and Japan were considered a matter of. In recent years, Japan has strengthened patrols on the Diaoyu Islands, and Chinese fishing boats and coast guard ships have also frequently appeared, and friction has continued. After the Tokyo Island Buying Far from 2012, the situation became even more tense. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued information to prove sovereignty, but many people in the international community think that this matter is not that simple, especially the Cairo Declaration says that the Chinese territory stolen by Japan must be returned.
Turn to Hokkaido, the disputes in this place are different from those in Ryukyu, and they tend to be more indigenous rights. The Ainu people were the earliest residents of Hokkaido. They have been hunting and fishing there since ancient times and lived a harmonious life with nature. Hokkaido was originally named Eiyi, and the Ainu people built their own tribal society. But starting from the 15th century, the Japanese Matsumae family began to infiltrate. In 1457, Hu Shemao led the uprising and resisted the colonial. In 1669, Shakusha attacked Japanese mines due to the larger uprising, but was eventually suppressed. In 1789, at the Battle of Muri, Japanese merchants poisoned the Ainu people, triggering revenge, killing 71 Japanese, and the shogunate army rushed to arrest 42 people. After the Meiji Restoration, in 1869, Japan issued an edict to change the Hokkaido to Hokkaido and set up a pioneer envoy, and Kuroda Kiyoshi took the lead in immigration. The local population soared from more than 50,000 to 1.03 million in 1901. Ainu land was robbed and the hunting ground was turned into farmland.
In terms of policy, Japan promotes cultural extinction. The Hokkaido Old Native People Protection Act in 1899 sounded nice, but in fact, Ainu was forced to change his name, ban his native language, and banned traditional sacrifices. When a child in school speaks Ainu language, he gets beaten. The 1903 Osaka Expo also used 8 Ainu people as exhibits and performed in traditional clothes to allow tourists to watch the fun. The number of Ainu people has dropped sharply, and now there are only more than 10,000 left, and there are less than 10 elderly people who can speak their native language fluently.
The resistance never stopped. The Hokkaido Ainu Association was established in 1946. In 1992, Nomura Yoshiichi gave a speech at the United Nations, accusing the policy of assimilation depriving territory and culture. In 2008, the Japanese Congress recognized Ainu as an indigenous people, and in 2019, it passed the Ainu Shi Policy Promotion Act, recognizing them as a indigenous people of Japan and also funding communities and tourism. But there are many criticisms, saying that this method does not give land rights and autonomy rights, but only focuses on cultural preservation and ignores substantive rights. The Ainu people are still suing for fishing rights and land.
These disputes are not isolated and are linked to the post-war international order. San Francisco signed in about 1951, with 49 countries participating, but China and the Soviet Union were absent. Under the leadership of the United States, Japan retained its potential sovereignty over Ryukyu, but Hokkaido did not mention it because it was regarded as the Japanese mainland. But Potsdam announced that Japan's sovereignty is limited to four major islands and small islands. Although Hokkaido is included, the Ainu people think this does not include their traditional territory.
In 2013, Chinese media published an article titled "Ryukyu's re-discussion is right", directly questioning the uncertainty of the status of Ryukyu. Japan panicked, and scholars were worried that China wanted to retreat to the Cairo and Potsdam eras. In 2024, the Chinese Foreign Ministry reiterated the Potsdam clause, and Japanese public opinion was in a panic. A 2025 survey showed that 53% of Okinawa residents believed that they were Ryukyu, not Japanese, and that the anti-base movement was fierce. Although the number of Ainu in Hokkaido is small, international attention has increased, and the United Nations report criticizes Japan's policies towards indigenous peoples.
The Japanese government always says these are inherent territories, historical and international law support. But the reality is that the Ryukyu people have unique culture, different languages from Japanese, and have deep history and China. Hokkaido Ainu has his own myths and customs, and they were marginalized after Japanese immigrated. The emergence of the territorial crisis is not groundless, but the historical accounts have not been settled. Think about it, Japan's Meiji era expanded, annexed Ryukyu, and colonized Hokkaido, and obtained it through force.
World War II surrender promises to fulfill the Potsdam clauses, and the San Francisco peace treaty can take advantage of loopholes. The UN Charter bans force and changes the trusteeship location, and the United States and Japan return it to Okinawa and bypass the Security Council, which has a big loophole. Now that Sino-US relations are tense, these old things are easily revealed. China's position is that Ryukyu's status is uncertain, and the Diaoyu Islands are Chinese territory. The Ainu rights movement also took advantage of the situation to strive for more autonomy.
Everyone knows that Japan has a developed economy and a popular tourism industry, but there are many conflicts at the bottom. US military bases in Okinawa disturbed the people, and crimes broke out one after another, residents protested for many years. Hokkaido has been overdeveloped, and Ainu's traditional lifestyle is almost gone. The international community is watching the excitement, but this matter involves the game between major powers. The United States supports Japan and maintains the balance between Asia and the Pacific, and China emphasizes historical justice. The issue of the four northern islands of Russia is similar. Japan wants to get it back, but the San Francisco peace treaty is not specified. Territorial disputes are like time bombs, and they cannot be resolved if they are dragged and exploded sooner or later.
In the long run, Japan has to face these. Recognizing historical errors, giving Ainu more land rights, and promoting Ryukyu autonomy may be able to ease. But the government has many concerns, fearing that a chain reaction will occur once it makes a concession, and the national myth will be shattered. Polls in 2025 show that Okinawa’s independence is highly praised, but Japan does not agree. The balance of international law is tilted, the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation are the basis, and the San Francisco peace treaty is weak. China never signed, and the Soviet Union refused to sign. Can the United Nations intervene? It is hard to say, but Ainu has filed a lawsuit with the United Nations, and there are many international media reports on the anti-base march of Ryukyu.
The Japanese territorial crisis is not a future, but a current situation. Ryukyu and Hokkaido belong to it, and its roots are fuzzy in historical conquests and post-war fuzzy treatment. Ignore these, the surface is peaceful, the volcanoes below. I hope it will be resolved through diplomatic dialogue and not make a big deal. After all, peaceful development is good for everyone, and Japan should reflect on the history of expansion and not always avoid it.
