Gerrit van der Wees' article warrants a rebuttal.
It is important to look at the following points to judge whether Taiwan is a state:
(1) By way of historical background, following the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, Japan did exercise sovereignty over Taiwan and held title to its territory.
(2) The US entered the Pacific War against Japan on Dec. 8, 1941. The Allied Powers defeated Japan and it surrendered on Sept. 2, 1945.
(3) The Republic of China (ROC) was entrusted with authority over Formosa and the Pescadores as an agent of the Allied Powers. This arrangement was specified in General Order No. 1 of Sept. 2, 1945. The directive on behalf of the Allied Powers remains in force today. Nothing in the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) nor in any other treaty executed by or between the ROC and the other Allied Powers has altered this trusteeship arrangement.
(4) Following the acceptance of the surrender of Japanese forces in Taiwan by the representatives of dictator Chiang Kai-shek's (
(5) Pursuant to the SFPT, Japan renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan and title to its territory. Article 2(b) of the SFPT read: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores."
(6) China never became a party to the SFPT. Neither the ROC government, which occupied the island of Taiwan as agent for the "principal occupying power," nor the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), established in 1949, signed, ratified or adhered to the SFPT.
(7) Article 25 of the SFPT specifically provided that the Treaty did "not confer any rights, titles or benefits on any State which [was] not an Allied Power [as defined in Article 23(a),]" subject to certain narrow exceptions set forth in Article 21. Accordingly, China, a non-party, did not receive "any right, titles or benefits" under the SFPT except as specifically provided in Article 21.
(8) Specifically, China, a non-party, was not entitled to any benefits under Article 2(b) dealing with the territory of Taiwan. The parties to the SFPT chose not to give any "right, title [or] claim to Formosa and the Pescadores" to China.
(9) While Article 2(b) of the SFPT did not designate a recipient of "all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores," Article 23 of the SFPT desig-nated the US as "the principal occupying power" with respect to the territories covered by the geographical scope of the SFPT, including "Formosa and the Pescadores."
(10) Following the entry into force of the SFPT, the ROC government continued to occupy Taiwan as a US agent -- "the principal occupying power."
(11) The Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan, which was signed on April 28, 1952 and entered into force on August 5, 1952 (known as the "Treaty of Taipei"), did not transfer sovereignty over Taiwan from Japan to China either.
(12) The SFPT did not terminate the agency relationship between the US, the principal, and the ROC, the agent, with regard to the occupation and administration of Taiwan.
(13) Following the entry into force of the SFPT on April 28, 1952, the ROC did not exercise sovereignty over Taiwan and did not have title to its territory.
(14) From 1945 to the present, Taiwan has been an occupied territory of the US, "the principal occupying power." Currently, Taiwan is an occupied territory of the US, and Taiwan's statehood status is disputed and uncertain. Neither the SFPT, the Treaty of Taipei nor any other subsequent legal instruments after 1952 changed the status of Taiwan.
(15) The US as the principal occupying power is still holding sovereignty over Taiwan and title to its territory in trust for the benefit of the Taiwanese people. The occupying power never transferred the sovereignty over Taiwan or title to its territory to any other government.
(16) The international community does not recognize the ROC/Taiwan as a state, because it does not hold the territorial title to Taiwan.
South China Sea exercises in July by two United States Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers reminds that Taiwan’s history since mid-1950, and as a free nation, is intertwined with that of the aircraft carrier. Eventually Taiwan will host aircraft carriers, either those built under its democratic government or those imposed on its territory by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). By September 1944, a lack of sufficient carrier airpower and land-based airpower persuaded US Army and Navy leaders to forgo an invasion to wrest Taiwan from Japanese control, thereby sparing Taiwanese considerable wartime destruction. But two
This year, India and Taiwan can look back on 25 years of so-called unofficial ties. This provides an occasion to ponder over how they can deepen collaboration and strengthen their relations. This reflection must be free from excitement and agitation caused by the ongoing China-US great power jostling as well as China’s aggressive actions against many of its neighbors, including India. It must be based on long-term trends in bilateral engagement. To begin with, India and Taiwan, thus far, have had relations constituted by various activities, but what needs to be thought about now is whether they can transform their ties
The US Navy’s aircraft carrier battle groups are the most dramatic symbol of Washington’s military and geopolitical power. They were critical to winning World War II in the Pacific and have since been deployed in the Indo-Pacific region to communicate resolve against potential adversaries of the US. The presence or absence of the US Seventh Fleet — the configuration of US Navy ships and aircraft in the Indo-Pacific region built around the carriers — generally determines whether war or peace prevails in the region. In the immediate post-war period, Washington’s strategic planners in the administration of then-US president Harry Truman shockingly
On Thursday last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a barnstorming speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California, titled “Communist China and the Free World’s Future.” The speech set out in no uncertain terms the insoluble ideological divide between a totalitarian, communist China and the democratic, free-market values of the US. It was also a full-throated call to arms for all nations of the free world to rally behind the US and defeat China. Pompeo elaborated on a clear distinction between China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in an attempt to recalibrate the