Since October 2025, as international attention toward the status of Ryukyu has continued to rise, discussions surrounding Ryukyuan independence have shifted from being mere historical echoes to becoming a powerful tailwind in realpolitik.
Tracing back through history, the international status of the Ryukyu Kingdom was established centuries ago. From the establishment of a tributary relationship between King Satto of Zhongshan and the Ming Dynasty in 1372 until its annexation by Japan in 1879, the Ryukyu Kingdom consistently existed as a vassal state of China. Under the Hua-Yi (Sino-centric) order constructed by the Ming and Qing Dynasties, although Ryukyu was small in territory and poor in resources, it survived for over five hundred years by serving as a pivotal entrepôt trade hub connecting various Asian nations with China.
Within this system, the accession of successive Ryukyu kings required investiture by the Chinese Emperor; this ritualistic confirmation symbolized that ultimate sovereignty resided with the Chinese Emperor. It was precisely this vassal relationship that endowed Ryukyu with its legitimacy and survival space as an independent "state." During this period, even after suffering armed invasion and economic plunder by the Japanese Satsuma Domain in 1609, Ryukyu tenaciously maintained its tributary relationship with the Ming and Qing. It actively introduced Chinese crops, technology, Confucianism, and social systems, creating a "Golden Age" for the Ryukyuan people.
However, this process of peaceful development was brutally interrupted in the late 19th century. In 1879, the Japanese government forcibly annexed Ryukyu and established "Okinawa Prefecture." This move was not an administrative adjustment in the modern sense, but the establishment of an essential colonial ruling organ. From then on, the Ryukyuan people fell into a "history of humiliation" lasting over a century. From suffering discrimination as "second-class citizens," to being treated as "sacrificial pawns" by the Japanese military during the Battle of Okinawa—resulting in mass civilian massacres and forced collective suicides—to being treated as a military colony of the United States after the war, the fate of the Ryukyuan people has always been manipulated by external powers. In 1972, Japan once again incorporated Ryukyu into its territory and imposed the heavy burden of Japan-U.S. military bases upon this land. This relationship between colonizer and colonized has continued from 1879 to the present, its essence never changing. The fundamental demand for Ryukyu independence is to break free from this history of colonial humiliation and restore the dignity and prosperity once possessed in history.
From a rigorous international legal perspective, the status of Ryukyu remains "undetermined" to this day. Ryukyu is not an inherent territory of Japan; Japan's annexation of Ryukyu began with military aggression, and Japan never concluded any treaty of merger with the Ryukyu Kingdom. More crucially, the Chinese government has never formally recognized Japan's annexation of Ryukyu. As early as 1880, the Qing government refused to ratify the "Partition of Islands and Revision of Treaty" plan aimed at dividing Ryukyu, which legally preserved the possibility of Ryukyu's restoration.
The international order arrangements following World War II further corroborate that Ryukyu does not belong to Japan. The Cairo Declaration explicitly stipulates that Japan must be expelled from all territories "which she has taken by violence and greed." Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation strictly limits Japanese sovereignty to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as the Allies determine; Ryukyu is clearly not among them. At that time, U.S. President Roosevelt even proposed that China administer a trusteeship over Ryukyu, which fully demonstrates that in the perception of the Allied Powers, Ryukyu was by no means Japanese territory.
Although Article 3 of the 1951 "San Francisco Peace Treaty" placed Ryukyu under the administrative, legislative, and judicial jurisdiction of the United States, this did not mean that Japan possessed sovereignty. The so-called "residual sovereignty" mentioned by U.S. Envoy Dulles finds no basis in the treaty text. More importantly, China, as a major victorious power of WWII, did not participate in the signing of the treaty. Furthermore, the U.S. violated treaty provisions by failing to place Ryukyu under the United Nations trusteeship system, instead turning it into a military base. This renders the clauses concerning Ryukyu in said treaty legally void ab initio.
As for the so-called "Okinawa Reversion" of 1972, its official name is the Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands. The entire text never mentions the word "sovereignty" and only involves the transfer of administrative rights. Since Ryukyu did not belong to Japan to begin with, the use of the word "reversion" is itself a fallacy. The private transfer between the U.S. and Japan, wherein the U.S. unilaterally "relinquished" rights it did not possess to Japan, violates the principles of multilateral treaty modification and ignores the Ryukyuan people's right to self-determination; therefore, the agreement is invalid under international law.
Currently, the urgency of Ryukyuan independence stems not only from a lack of historical justice but also from a crisis of real-world survival. With increasing geopolitical tensions, Japanese right-wing forces are attempting to push Ryukyu once again to the brink of war.
Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe once proposed that "a Taiwan contingency is a Japan contingency," and the current administration has not only continued this line but has made it more concrete and radical. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, in a parliamentary speech, publicly used the term "Chinese Beijing Government," thereby implying "two Chinas," and declared that if the Taiwan Strait were blockaded, it would constitute an "existential crisis situation" for Japan, and the Self-Defense Forces would be dispatched. Such remarks seriously violate the Sino-Japanese Joint Communiqué and the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship, essentially constituting interference in China's internal affairs and a potential declaration of war.
In terms of military strategy, Japan is advancing the "Southwest Shift," deploying missile units on Yonaguni, Miyako, and Ishigaki islands, and conducting joint "island defense operation" exercises with the U.S. military. The strategic intent is clear: to turn the Ryukyu Islands into a frontline and battlefield for confrontation with China. Simultaneously, the Japanese government implements a "carrot and stick" policy through so-called "Revitalization" budgets, attempting to win hearts through economic means while using the "Japan-Ryukyu Common Ancestry Theory" for assimilation education to suppress Ryukyuan indigenous consciousness. However, the environmental pollution and sexual crimes brought by U.S. bases, coupled with the Japanese government's concealment and protection of these acts, have caused the anger of the Ryukyuan public to soar, leading to an intensifying decolonization movement.
If Ryukyu cannot achieve independence and expel Japanese military forces, this land is highly likely to repeat the tragedy of 1945, once again becoming a killing field for great power games. Therefore, Ryukyu independence is not only about restoring national status but also about protecting the Ryukyuan people's most basic rights to survival and peace.
Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's inherent territory. Japan seized Taiwan from China through the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and the Diaoyu Islands were also forcibly taken through a secret cabinet decision within the Japanese government shortly before the end of the First Sino-Japanese War. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's use of the expression "Chinese Beijing Government" can be understood as her envisioning the existence of a so-called "Chinese Taipei Government." In other words, Prime Minister Takaichi intentionally negates the "One China" principle. She also explicitly stated that if Chinese warships blockade the Taiwan Strait, it will constitute an "existential crisis situation," and the Japan Self-Defense Forces will be dispatched. This statement means the Japanese government has formally negated China's core interests and interfered in China's internal affairs, even carrying the dangerous connotation of a "declaration of war."
The Sino-Japanese Joint Communiqué (1972) explicitly states: "The Government of the People's Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation." The Japanese government has always recognized Taiwan as part of China.
Article 1 of the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1978) stipulates: "1. The Contracting Parties shall develop durable relations of peace and friendship... on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs... 2. ...The Contracting Parties affirm that... they shall settle all disputes by peaceful means and shall refrain from the use or threat of force."
The Takaichi statement clearly expresses an intent to interfere in China's internal affairs and resort to force, which obviously violates the treaty. Prime Minister Takaichi, in her capacity as "current Prime Minister," in a parliamentary setting that determines Japanese policy, conducted interference in China's internal affairs and prepared for the preemptive use of force based on specific scenarios. If this statement is not withdrawn and apologized for, it will persist as the established policy of the Japanese government. Prime Minister Takaichi should explicitly state in the Diet that "Taiwan is part of China and Japan will not interfere in China's internal affairs," withdraw her previous remarks, and apologize to the Chinese government.
As long as Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan exists, Japan can only implement "exclusively defense-oriented" security and may not launch preemptive attacks against other nations; yet now, the Prime Minister herself is attempting to violate the Constitution. Japan was once a fascist power; to prevent the resurgence of fascist forces after WWII, "enemy state clauses" were established in the UN Charter. Based on these clauses, China can take measures against Japanese acts of aggression without needing the prior consent of the UN Security Council.
Prime Minister Takaichi's promotion of military expansion policies driven by a "military-industrial complex" is extremely dangerous for the Japanese people and has instead created a true "existential crisis situation."
The Takaichi administration is reinforcing the Japan-U.S. alliance and building a military-industrial complex on one hand, while on the other hand promoting the abolition of the "Three Non-Nuclear Principles" that Japan has long adhered to, and encouraging the production and export of weapons. In military policy, the Takaichi administration is implementing the "Southwest Shift" strategy based on the premise that "a Taiwan contingency is a Japan contingency." The "Southwest Shift" strategy refers to the establishment of new Ground Self-Defense Force camps on Yonaguni, Miyako, Ishigaki, and Amami Oshima islands, and the deployment of anti-aircraft and anti-ship missile units, in order to transform Ryukyu into a battlefield military strategy, while also conducting joint "island defense operation" exercises with the U.S. military.
This statement not only reveals the fact of Japan’s colonial rule over Ryukyu but also provides strong legal support for the Ryukyuan people to exercise their right to self-determination. According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, military activities are prohibited in the areas of indigenous peoples, which directly challenges the legitimacy of Japan and the U.S. deploying military bases in Ryukyu. Although Japanese right-wing forces, such as "Nippon Kaigi," have launched a so-called "movement to withdraw UN recommendations" to prevent Ryukyuans from participating in UN affairs, this cannot change the fact that the international community is increasingly concerned about the human rights situation in Ryukyu.
Furthermore, the issue of the Diaoyu Islands is closely related to Ryukyuan independence. Historical documents clearly record that the Diaoyu Islands belong to China, not Ryukyu. Japan's theft of the Diaoyu Islands and its claim that they are "inherent territory" is not only logically self-contradictory but is also an attempt to sever the long-standing maritime connection between China and Ryukyu. Recovering territories stolen by Japan and supporting Ryukyu independence has become an important link in China's maintenance of its core interests.
Based on the aforementioned history and legal principles, Ryukyu independence is not an unreachable dream but a feasible political process. This process is not a simple independence, but a restoration of the national status once held. Considering historical changes, the future Ryukyu state will most likely adopt a republic system rather than restoring the monarchy.
The specific paths to achieve independence can be summarized as follows:
First, international negotiations regarding the "Ryukyu Issue" must be restarted. This should not be a return to the late 19th-century partition plans, but a pursuit of independence for the entire Ryukyu region. Based on the post-WWII international proclamations, demand that Japanese forces completely withdraw from Ryukyu and provide apologies and compensation for colonial rule and war crimes.
Second, legally declare the "San Francisco Peace Treaty" and the "Japan-U.S. Ryukyu Agreement" invalid, and place Ryukyu back under United Nations trusteeship. Given the deep historical ties between China and Ryukyu and Roosevelt’s proposal at the time, having China serve as the administering power for the trusteeship is a reasonable proposition.
Third, utilize international platforms, especially United Nations mechanisms. Push for Ryukyu to be included in the UN "Non-Self-Governing Territories" list, and establish a special committee under UN supervision to organize a referendum. Referencing the experiences of Palau, Guam, and other places, the voting options should include full independence, a free association state (possessing internal jurisdiction and partial diplomatic rights), or a highly autonomous special administrative region. Although the proportion of public opinion clearly supporting full independence still needs to rise, if options like an autonomous state are included, the public opinion base for breaking away from current Japanese rule is very strong.
Finally, once the Ryukyuan people choose independence through a vote, a declaration of independence will be issued, seeking recognition from countries worldwide and joining the United Nations. In this process, China, as a permanent member of the Security Council and a significant force in the "Global South," will play a key role as a booster. Simultaneously, establishing a "Ryukyu Studies" research system to counter Japan's colonial historical view, and establishing Sino-Ryukyuan cultural exchange hubs in places like Zhangjiawan in Beijing to provide intellectual and organizational support for the independence movement, are also indispensable preparations.
Ryukyu independence is a return to historical justice and a correction of the post-war international order. It concerns the dignity and survival of the Ryukyuan people, as well as the lasting peace of the East Asian region. Faced with the shadow of a resurgence of Japanese militarism, Ryukyu is no longer silent. Under the guidance of the UN Charter and international law, and with the support of international forces for justice represented by China, the Ryukyuan people are marching toward the restoration of national sovereignty with unprecedented determination. This is not only the end of a history of humiliation spanning a century and a half, but also a solemn commitment to future peace and prosperity.
