Declaration lacks legal power
I was intrigued by the article about a conference on Sunday to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Cairo Declaration (“Declaration ‘intended to return Taiwan to ROC,’” Dec. 2, page 1).
“It is a ‘very big mistake’ to think that the Cairo Declaration was only a press communique. Both the US and Japan have included the Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Declaration and the 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender in their official collection of treaties,” President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said at the conference in Taipei, adding that all three documents are legally binding.
I do not know about Japan, but the US has definitely not included the Cairo Declaration in its official collection of treaties. How do I know that? Because an assistant archivist for records services at the US National Archives, where the declaration is held, wrote to me: “The National Archives and Records Administration has not filed this declaration under treaties... The declaration was a communique and it does not have [a] treaty series (TS) or executive agreement series (EAS) number.”
It is true that the declaration was more than a press communique, but it was not a treaty.
So what was it?
It was a “Declaration of Intent.” Nothing more, nothing less.
This “Cairo Declaration of Intent” was created in Cairo at a meeting on Dec. 1, 1943 between Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), and has been used for the past 70 years by China and Taiwan as a wafer-thin legal foundation for their claims that Taiwan is part of China.
The reality is that although it was important at that time, the declaration does not have any legally binding power allowing Taiwan or China to derive to any territorial claims.
Coen Blaauw
Washington
ADIZ reveals Ma’s intent
To protest and challenge China’s new air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea, the US and Japan sent their bomber and fighter planes through the zone the day after it was announced. In contrast, President Ma Ying-jeou issued a statement instructing his administration to submit Taiwan’s flight schedules to China as requested.
Many in Taiwan were dismayed and angry, and condemned Ma for his cowardly action.
Ma is Chinese, not Taiwanese. His goal is to unify Taiwan and China. His strategy is to use the so-called “warm water cooks fogs,” a catchphrase meaning do it slowly and gradually. His tactics are as follows, step-by-step:
First, kill Taiwanese leaders. Ma believes Chinese are the rulers and Taiwanese are the followers. The day Ma was elected, he jailed former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Now, he wants to take out Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平). Soon, he will try to destroy the next leader of Taiwan — the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) nominee in the 2016 presidential election. He is following the old Chinese saying: “Don’t kill the soldiers, kill the general.” The “soldiers” will be fighting among themselves for survival.
Second, he aims to control the stomachs of people.
He eliminated all regulations and restrictions set by previous presidents on trade relations between Taiwan and China. He allowed unlimited capital to flow to China. In Taiwan, he allowed factories to close, unemployment to increase, wages to decrease and made the public’s life miserable.
He aims to make Taiwanese increasingly poorer so rulers can control the the public’s life and activity.
Third, Ma froze foreign relations. His administration stopped supporting the campaign for Taiwan’s independence, deferring to the UN. He blocked Taiwan’s opportunity to strengthen relations with other nations in order to promote his goal of “one China with two regions” and his stance that “the relationship between Taiwan and China are not an international relations issue.”
Fourth, he wants to weaken defense. He objected to an increase in the defense budget and weapons development as a signal to China that Taiwan is preparing to surrender.
Fifth, he allows Chinese capital to flow into Taiwan. He is allowing Chinese to do business and be employed in Taiwan. The result is that Chinese companies can employ Taiwanese. In the future, the Chinese boss will be able to tell Taiwanese what to do and when.
Sixth, Ma’s administration has been revising the time required for Chinese people to become Taiwanese citizens.
He is copying the so-called “human waves tactic” in Tibet.
There are other tactics, including the cross-strait service trade agreement and the peace treaty.
If Ma’s candidate wins the 2016 presidential election, Taiwan will become like either Hong Kong or Tibet.
Ken Huang
Murrieta, California
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath