I am both deeply appalled and bothered by Chen Ching-chih's (陳清池) editorial ("Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese," July 7, page 8). It is not the basic argument that I contest but the presentation itself. I find it absolutely hypocritical of Chen to denounce an anonymous US professor for "Having strived to teach his Chinese students how to think rather than what to think," when I would dare say that the improper manner with which he editorializes fails to do justice to himself, the reader and the anecdote.
Furthermore, while I quite agree with his interpretation of temporal events, as all history is interpretive, I would contest his analysis of the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty.
Signed in September 1951 by 46 nations, its stipulations went into effect on April 28, 1951. The purpose of the treaty was to resolve World War II, not Taiwanese independence issues. The document itself relies heavily upon the official UN Charter of 1945 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The document officially states that Japan was to withdraw from Korea, Taiwan, the Kuril islands, the Pescadores, the Spratly islands, Antarctica and portions of Sakhalin and other islands adjacent to it.
Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China signed the treaty, as neither was invited to the conference. There was a second treaty between Taiwan and Japan in 1952, the Treaty of Peace with Japan that details the withdrawal of Japanese forces. Both documents set guidelines for repatriation of prisoners of war and renounce future military aggression.
The treaty does not explicitly clarify in any way, shape or form Taiwan's sovereignty, but merely makes clear Japan's withdrawal.
While I would highly espouse Taiwanese autonomy, you cannot point to documents such as the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Treaty of Peace with Japan nor Article 77b of the UN Charter for a resolution of the matter. When you misinterpret a legal document, you set a dangerous precedent for further abuse and misinterpretation of Taiwan's legal documents.
A.M. Cambronne
United States
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers