Nicholas Kristof, the renowned columnist, spoke the truth when he wrote last September: "Tensions have erupted over some barren rocks in the Pacific that you may never have heard of, but stay tuned — this is a boundary dispute that could get ugly and some day have far-reaching consequences for China, Japan, Taiwan and the United States."

The longstanding territorial dispute over the Diauyutai Islands flared when the Japanese government bought three of the islets on Sept. 11, 2012, from their private owner in an attempt to reinforce its sovereignty claim over the Diaoyutais, known as "Senkaku" to the Japanese. In response, Chinese patrol ships, utility aircraft and even jet fighters have patrolled the disputed island cluster on many occasions.

"The security treaty between the United States and Japan applies to any provocative set of circumstances," said Kurt Campbell, U.S. assistant secretary of state, in Malaysia last December.

Is this a new flashpoint in Asia? How far will these tensions drag America into the brewing Sino-Japan sovereignty dispute? Given the huge concentration of Asian-American residents in Hawaii, and as the Taiwan government’s representative in Hawaii, it’s no wonder that I have been asked by numerous community leaders, political dignitaries and academicians about Taiwan’s position concerning this quarrel.

The Diaoyutai Islands are part of Taiwan. Whether looked at from a historical, geographical, geological, practical or legal perspective, the Diaoyutais are an inherent part of the territory of the Republic of China. According to the 1945 Cairo Declaration, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, and the 1952 Peace Treaty between the ROC and Japan, the Diaoyutai Islands are a part of the ROC and should be restored as such.

When the United States reverted the Diaoyutai Islands to Japan along with the Ryukyu Islands in 1972, it sent an official note to the Republic of China dated May 26, 1971, stating that "Washington’s transferring of administrative rights over these islands did not affect the ROC’s claim of sovereignty." On Nov. 9, 1971, then-U.S. Secretary of State William P. Rogers stated that "the United States action in transferring its rights of administration to Japan does not constitute a transfer of underlying sovereignty nor can it affect the underlying claims of the disputants."

Washington has maintained this neutral position in all its relevant diplomatic documents ever since. Furthermore, the Obama administration stated, "We welcome any collaborative and diplomatic solution that resolves this issue without coercion, without intimidation, without threats and without the use of force." It appears, therefore, that a peace initiative is the only viable answer to this problem.

As one of the key economic and political players in the region, Taiwan values peace, prosperity and stability above all else. In an effort to foster regional peace and stability, to facilitate economic prosperity and the sustainable develop- ment of marine resources, and to seek out a path to coexistence and mutual prosperity, President Ma Ying-jeou unveiled an East China Sea peace initiative last August.

The initiative is based on the concept that "sovereignty cannot be shared but resources can be divided" and calls all parties to refrain from provocation, shelve their differences, maintain dialogue, observe international law and resolve the dispute by peaceful means. The initiative also calls for all sides to seek consensus on a code of conduct for the East China Sea and to establish a mechanism for cooperation on exploring and developing resources in the region.

After proposing the initiative, we received praise and support from friends on Capitol Hill and in the European Parliament, and from the presidents of Nauru, the Marshall Islands, the Solomon Islands and Palau.

We strongly believe that President Ma’s peace initiative offers a constructive approach to reducing tensions and resolving disputes in the region. This undoubtedly serves the best interests of all concerned parties, including the United States and its rebalancing Asia policy.