On Nov. 19, the Liberty Times ran an editorial saying that James Crawford, a professor of international law at the University of Cambridge, had stated in the new edition of his book The Creation of States in International Law that since Taiwan's government had never claimed that Taiwan was an independent state that was different from the People's Republic of China (PRC), Taiwan was therefore not a country.
But President Chen Shui-bian (
However, because the US opposes this assertion of sovereignty, many other nations do not recognize the nation's independent status.
Both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have relied on the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration to deprive Taiwan of its independence.
Although Japan did not sign either the Cairo Declaration or the Potsdam Declaration, its surrender to allied powers at the end of World War II meant that it too accepted the Cairo Declaration.
If the Cairo Declaration actually returned Manchuria, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands to the Republic of China (ROC), it would have been a treaty. The fact that this document and the Potsdam Declaration were only declarations and that Japan did not sign them does not diminish their legal validity, and this is the crux of the problem.
On Nov. 9, 2003, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) bluffed US President George W. Bush by saying that US president Theodore Roosevelt supported the Cairo Declaration, causing Bush to blame Chen for planning a referendum.
China thus hoodwinked Bush into believing that even if he has no political obligations toward the Chinese government, he does have moral responsibilities. If Taiwan does not clarify this issue, it could well face difficulties.
Fortunately, after over a decade of protests, the latest history texts for high school freshmen in Taiwan have been rectified and now stress that the Cairo Declaration was not legally binding under international law since it was released unsigned.
In February this year, MOFA publicly announced that "China [neither the ROC national government nor the CCP] was not invited and did not participate in the San Francisco Peace Conference. China thus cannot claim sovereignty over Taiwan."
On Nov. 17, the Liberty Times' opinion page ran an editorial piece by Hsueh Hua-yuan (
This is simply not true. A look at the original Potsdam Declaration reveals that it was only signed by the US. Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) confirmed it "by wire," while Winston Churchill had to rush back to the UK following an electoral defeat, so US president Harry Truman signed the document on his behalf.
Churchill did not authorize Truman to sign on his behalf, and the declaration was modified by the US after receiving Chiang's confirmation. The US released it without informing Chiang of the changes.
There is no Potsdam Proclamation signed by the US, China and Great Britain, and China's claim to sovereignty over Taiwan is a mirage. Taiwan thus has a strong and solid case for changing its national title and writing a Constitution for the ROC.
Sim Kiantek is a former associate professor in the Department of Business Administration at Chung Hsing University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath