President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said last Monday that the sovereignty of Taiwan was returned to the Republic of China (ROC) based on the Cairo Communique (1943), the Potsdam Declaration (1945), the surrender instrument of Japan (1945) and then-US president Harry Truman’s statement on Jan. 5, 1950.
It is nothing new that Ma and his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) tend to ignore the existence of the Treaty of Peace with Japan of 1951, of which Article 2(b) stipulated that “Japan renounces the right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.”
The question is: why did Japan and the allies agree to use the term “renounce” instead of “cede.” Why was the text not that “Japan cedes the right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores to China.” Why did the treaty leave out the question of “to whom.”
Is there another explanation based on international law rather than the fact of anti-communist Cold War confrontation, in which China was an enemy, that the allies should not give Taiwan to?
To get the whole picture, we need to go back to 1895, when Japan defeated the Qing empire in the First Sino-Japanese War.
In the Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed on April 17, 1895, the Qing ceded to Japan in perpetuity the full sovereignty of the souther part of Fengtien Province as well as Formosa and the Pescadores (known collectively today as Taiwan). The transfer immediately triggered a diplomatic crisis, known as the Triple Intervention. Russia, Germany and France submitted a “three-point note” to Japan on May 30, which strongly opposed the transfer. They were deeply concerned over the impact of the transfer of the southern portion of Fengtien; the re-cession of Taiwan, and free navigation through the Taiwan Strait.
After months of repeated diplomatic efforts, Japan accepted and recognized the following:
Japan, under international pressure, concluded a separate treaty with the Qing government on Nov. 8, 1895. The Qing agreed to give Japan 30 million kuping taels of silver in exchange for the southern portion of Fengtien that was ceded to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
As far as the other two points, the “free navigation of the Taiwan Strait” and the “re-cession of Taiwan” were concerned, the Japanese Cabinet finalized the text of a declaration which can be translated as “Third. The Imperial Government examined the requests of the three governments and considered the interests of international commerce and hereby declare as follows: the Imperial Government recognizes that all portions of the Taiwan Strait should be a public channel, which does not pertain to Japan and does not fall under the jurisdiction of Japan. The Japanese Imperial Government also agrees that Japan should seek no -cession of Taiwan and the Pescadores to other countries.”
Japan formally sent -notification of the declaration to the envoys of nine countries, namely Russia, Britain, Germany, France, the US, Italy, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands and Korea.
The “no cession of Taiwan” and “free navigation of the Taiwan Strait” were the Japanese commitments to the international community and have become a part of international law. A diplomatic commitment remains in effect unless it is otherwise revised by another legal document. Any new document needs the consent of the associated states to make it legitimate under international law. No government is allowed to void it without the due process mentioned above.
In fact, we can find that Japan’s adoption of the phrase “renounce Taiwan” instead of “cede Taiwan” in the Treaty of Peace with Japan of 1951 was in fact meant to honor the “no--cession commitment” of 1895 in a round about way. Of course, the allies concurred.
A review of the history of the Triple Intervention of 1895, makes clear that anychange in the status change of Taiwan is not merely an issue of territorial sovereignty, it also relates to the nationality of those who live on Taiwan. It may also affect the free navigation of merchant ships and war vessels sailing through the Taiwan Strait.
Freedom of navigation on the high seas is a principle that was established in the 17th century by Hugo Grotius. It has now become a core element of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Now let’s look back at The Associated Press (AP) interview with Ma on Oct. 19. AP reported that, “Taiwan’s Ma moves ahead with China” in which “Ma said his government is prepared to discuss political agreements, including security issues, as soon as the priority economic issues are dealt with” and he “suggested that those political talks could start as early as a second four-year term if he wins re-election in 2012.”
However, international law does not allow the Taiwan issue to become a bargaining chip in secret talks by the so-called “two sides across the Taiwan Strait.”
Any dialogue must be held under the supervision of the international community and the people of Taiwan, particularly the parties to the Treaty of Peace with Japan of 1951. The results of such dialogue need the concurrence of those other countries as well as the consent of the Taiwanese. Academics and political leaders, including the leaders of the American Institute in Taiwan and even US State Department, officials should explore the Japanese commitments in 1895 before they comment any further on the political dialogue between Taipei and Beijing.
HoonTing is an independent Taiwanese researcher focusing on the issue of Taiwan’s status.
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