The Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed on April 17, 1895, in the Japanese city that lends the treaty its name. It came into effect on May 8 that same year. According to the treaty, Taiwan belonged to Japan, but people living in Taiwan were given the opportunity to choose their nationality by either leaving or staying within two years of the treaty being signed. This ability to choose one’s own nationality is a basic human right.
In the book On Taiwan’s Status and Relations, edited by National Chengchi University history professor Hsueh Hua-yuan (薛化元), it says that the Republic of China (ROC) government announced in January 1946 that the people living in Taiwan had “regained” their status as ROC nationals, which gave rise to diplomatic protests from the UK and the US.
Wang Shih-Chieh (王世杰), who was then minister of foreign affairs, also mentioned this event in a letter to Huang Kuo-shu (黃國書), a Taiwanese legislator at the time.
In the same book, it is stated that the Taiwan Provincial Administrative Executive Office said on Jan. 20, 1946, that the people of Taiwan Province had their Chinese nationality restored as of Oct. 25, 1945, according to an order by the Executive Yuan on Jan. 12, 1946.
The UK foreign ministry sent a communique to the ROC embassy in London on Aug. 31, 1946, saying that although it conceded that Taiwan was under the control of the ROC government, London regretted that it could not accept that Taiwanese had already had their Chinese nationality restored, according to A New Discourse on Taiwan’s Status by former Academia Historica president Lin Man-houng (林滿紅).
In a thesis about the peace treaty, Lin said that the US State Department in a November 1946 memorandum to the ROC government said that it was in full agreement with the UK’s position on this matter.
Official documents from April 19, 1952, that the Japanese government made public said that Taiwanese were to lose their Japanese nationality as soon as the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty — commonly known as the Treaty of Taipei, which did not enter into force until Aug. 5, 1952 — took effect. Clearly, then, the Taiwanese were forced to accept ROC nationality before the peace treaty had even come into effect. This was not only absurd and unreasonable, it was also in violation of international law.
Former foreign minister George Yeh (葉公超) made an additional remark to the legislature in July 1952 on the Treaty of Taipei: He said that Article 10 of the treaty — on the legal status of the people in Taiwan and Penghu — was not mentioned in the Treaty of San Francisco, but that is was of great importance to the people of Taiwan.
Imposing ROC nationality on Taiwanese without asking their prior consent and without giving them a choice in the matter is clearly in contravention of international legal principles and was done seven years before the Treaty of Taipei was ratified.
Chen Yi-nan is vice convener of Taiwan Society North’s science and technology subcommittee.
TRANSLATED BY TAIJING WU
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