China has been making endless claims that Taiwan has been a part of Chinese territory since ancient times and Taiwanese have been using ancient and vaguely worded Chinese documents to try and prove that the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) belong to Taiwan.
While these documents may be interesting, they are devoid of meaning in terms of international law.
The sovereignty issues surrounding the Diaoyutais have nothing to do with researching ancient documents; they involve international treaties.
Before the Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed in 1895, Japan had already incorporated the Diaoyutais into its territory. In terms of the territories handed over to Japan in this treaty, the latitude and longitude of the Pescadores Group were clearly stated, while, as far as Taiwan goes, it only specified “the island of Formosa, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa.”
Article 2, (b) of the Treaty of San Francisco states: “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.” It did not, however, list any other appertaining islands or any latitude and longitude and therefore this cannot be used to say that Japan gave up the Diaoyutai Islands.
Instead, for the Diaoyutais, the treaty stated that, “Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 degrees north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island.”
In 1953, the US civil administration of the Ryukyu Islands announced that the territory of the Ryukyus would include all islands, atolls and rocks between 28 degrees north latitude, 124 degrees 40 minutes east longitude and 240 degrees north latitude, 122 degrees east longitude.
In negotiations with the US in 1970, the then-Republic of China ambassador to the US, Chow Shu-kai (周書楷) admitted that this clearly defined latitude and longitude placed the Diaoyutais within the area under US trusteeship.
According to the Treaty of San Francisco, Japan did not renounce the Nansei Shoto and therefore the US admitted that Japan still has residual sovereignty over these areas.
In 1972 at the end of their entrustment, they were returned to Japan and the US merely stated that it did not hold any position on sovereignty disputes over the region before the Treaty of San Francisco was in existence.
However, before the Treaty of San Francisco, there were no disputes over the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands.
To now rely on archaic Chinese documents to proclaim sovereignty over the Diaoyutais is as ludicrous as claiming that because Taiwan has temples devoted to the God of War, Guangong (關公), Guangong once ruled Taiwan.
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS