The San Francisco Peace Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Peace with Japan, which came into effect on April 28, 1952, is the most important legal document concerning Taiwan’s sovereign status. Article 2(b) of the treaty states: “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores [Penghu].”
The treaty did not transfer sovereignty over these territories to any country. Article 23 of the treaty clearly identifies “the United States of America as the principal occupying power.”
Occupation does not transfer sovereignty. It should be pointed out that the peace treaty was based on the UN Charter, and the Treaty of Taipei — the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan — was based on the San Francisco Peace Treaty. A subsidiary law may not exceed or contravene the scope and content of the parent law. The right of the people of Taiwan to establish an independent state according to the right to self-determination given in Article 1 Part 2 of the UN Charter is not only in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the UN Charter, it also complies with the aims of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the obligations of the occupying power.
General Order No. 1 issued by General Douglas MacArthur and approved by then US president Harry Truman on Aug. 17, 1945, assigned the ROC under Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) to accept the surrender of Japanese forces on Taiwan on behalf of the Allied Forces. When ROC forces took control of Taiwan on Oct. 25, 1945, Chiang unilaterally declared the “retrocession” of Taiwan to China.
Then, in 1946, Chiang’s government incorporated the people of Taiwan collectively and without their consent as nationals of the ROC. From 1947 onwards, Chiang’s forces launched a massacre on Taiwan in which many of the island’s elite were killed and imposed martial law and a regime of White Terror. In so doing, Chiang was guilty of war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity. In effectively annexing Taiwan, he was also guilty of the crime of aggression.
The US, as the legally defined principal occupying power, failed to carry out necessary measures of humanitarian intervention and to send the perpetrators to trial in an international court. On the contrary, it recognized Chiang’s exile government on Taiwan and, in 1954, signed the Mutual Defense Treaty with the ROC. The terms of this treaty stated that it applied to Taiwan and the Pescadores, thus giving tacit approval to the ROC’s illegal occupation and rule over Taiwan.
The US established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China on Jan. 1, 1979, and terminated the Mutual Defense Treaty exactly one year later. In place of the treaty, the US Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). Article 2 B (5) of the TRA obliges the US to “to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character,” providing for mutual defense beyond the occupied territories.
Section 4 B (1) of the TRA places Taiwan under the category of “foreign countries, nations, states, governments or similar entities” instead of defining it as an unincorporated territory, which would be defined as domestic territory under the US Constitution. Section 15 (2) of the TRA defines “Taiwan” as including not only “the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores [and] the people on those islands,” but also “the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities” — a definition different from the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. By these means, the US apparently condoned the exiled Chinese government’s illegal rule over Taiwan while negating its own legal status as the principal occupying power.
The concept of “occupation” in the laws of war is based on actual authority exercised by external military forces over a particular territory. In reality, the US never actually exercised its right of occupation over Taiwan, nor did it end its occupation and hand Taiwan back to its people according to its obligations under treaties and international law. This resulted in massive violations of human rights.
Because the land and people of Taiwan and Penghu do not legally belong to the ROC, Taiwan lacks essential conditions for statehood and its status remains undetermined. It is necessary, therefore, to clarify through a proper process the legal relations between the entities concerned.
Huang Chi-yao is a visiting researcher at the Max Planck Institute and a consultant in international law.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Local media reported earlier this month that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) criticized President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for referring to China as a “neighboring country,” saying that this is no different from a “two-state” model and that it amounts to changing the cross-strait “status quo.” I find it quite impossible to understand why civilized Taiwan continues to tolerate the existence of such a deceitful group that believes its own lies. The relationship between Taiwan and China is the relationship between two countries, and neither has any jurisdiction over the other — this is the undeniable “status quo.” Those who believe in the
On Thursday, China applied to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) — a regional economic organization whose 11 member countries have a combined GDP of US$11 trillion. That is less than China’s 2019 GDP of US$14.34 trillion, so why is China so eager to join? China says there are two main reasons: To consolidate its foreign trade and foreign investment base, and to fast-track economic and trade relations between China and member countries of the CPTPP free-trade area. China’s bilateral trade with these countries grew from US$78 billion in 2003 to US$685.1 billion last year, mostly because of China’s 2005
With the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, China has remarketed its East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) concerns. Beijing urged the Taliban to make a clean break with the movement and asked the US to blacklist it again. While some are still debating whether the movement exists, it is not the core of the matter because its existence neither justifies China’s Uighur policy nor sheds light on its concerns after the withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan. Is China really worried, and if so, is it because of the movement? This question needs to be answered. When Chinese officials first acknowledged
US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) talked on the telephone on Thursday last week, the first time the two leaders have done so since Biden assumed the presidency. While each side sought to put their own gloss on the content of the conversation, some common ground did emerge. Biden reportedly said that both sides have a joint responsibility to ensure that competition between the US and China does not spiral into conflict and that there is no reason that the two nations are destined to fall into this trap. The day after the phone call, the Financial Times reported