All were clear on treaty
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) seems to be laboring in a bit of confusion as he ponders the 1952 Treaty of Taipei and its implications for who has ultimate sovereignty on Taiwan (“Treaty confirmed sovereignty: Ma” April 29, page 3).
There was no such confusion among the signatories of the San Francisco Treaty (“China” had been excluded from the negotiations because of the disagreement among the participants as to who actually represented the government of that country). Nor was the Republic of China’s (ROC) foreign minister George Kung-chao Yeh (葉公超) confused.
At the San Francisco Treaty, US delegate John Foster Dulles admitted it “would have been neater” if the treaty specified precisely “the ultimate disposition of each of the ex-Japanese territories” but cautioned that to do so “would have raised questions as to which there are now no agreed answers.” The British delegate stated: “The treaty provides for Japan to renounce its sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores Islands. The treaty itself does not determine the future of these islands.”
The Soviet delegate was indignant that “this draft grossly violates the indisputable rights of China to the return of integral parts of Chinese territory: Taiwan, the Pescadores, the Paracel and other islands … The draft contains only a reference to the renunciation by Japan of its rights to these territories but intentionally omits any mention of the further fate of these territories.”
The US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which recommended the treaty for ratification, also took this view. Its report on the treaty dated Feb. 14, 1952, asserted: “It is important to remember that article 2 is a renunciatory article and makes no provision for the power or powers which are to succeed Japan in the possession of and sovereignty over the ceded territory.”
Although the ROC was not a party to the San Francisco Treaty, the ROC signed a separate “Treaty of Peace” with Japan in Taipei on April 28, 1952, which simply “recognized” that “Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).” ROC foreign minister Yeh explained this provision in Legislative Yuan interpellations, noting that the Taipei treaty made “no provision ... for the return [of Taiwan and the Penghus] to China.” He asserted, instead, that the ROC had “de facto” control of the islands, and therefore, “Inasmuch as these territories were originally owned by us and as they are now under our control … they are, therefore, in fact restored to us.” Still, he had to admit that “no provision has been made either in the San Francisco Treaty of Peace as to the future of Taiwan and Penghu.”
This raised anxieties among the legislators during the Legislative Yuan interpellations on the Taipei Treaty who bluntly demanded to know: “What is the status of Formosa and the Pescadores?” He replied: “The delicate international situation makes it that they do not belong to us. Under present circumstances, Japan has no right to transfer Formosa and the Pescadores to us; nor can we accept such a transfer from Japan even if she so wishes.”
JOHN J. TKACIK, JR.
Alexandria, Virginia
Congratulations on first step
We should all celebrate Wednesday’s announcement that Taiwan will finally be permitted to participate in the WHO, albeit only as an “observer.” President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the dedicated staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be commended for achieving this important first step — as should Mr Ma’s predecessors, Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), whose tireless efforts over the years helped make this week’s diplomatic coup possible. But we must temper our enthusiasm by remembering that Wednesday’s victory was just that: A first step.
Tragically, Taiwan continues to be treated as a global pariah by much of the world, thanks in no small part to a relentless and decades-long international campaign of intimidation by the People’s Republic of China — a campaign that essentially remains in high gear, notwithstanding this week’s incremental progress.
The good news is that by gaining observer status at the World Health Assembly (even under the patronizing and geographically inaccurate title of “Chinese Taipei”), Taiwan now has its foot in the door and will be in a better position to fight for its rightful place among the family of nations as a full and equal member of the international community.
I sincerely hope it is a battle President Ma and his administration will continue to wage on behalf of Taiwan’s 23 million citizens, and I wish him the best of luck in that noble endeavor.
TOM TANCREDO
Former US congressman
Littleton, Colorado
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou Province, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS