Responses to MOFA letter
In response to Perry Shen’s (申佩璜) letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs providing “corrections” concerning the Cairo and Potsdam declarations (Letter, Feb. 12, page 8), I would suggest that if the ministry genuinely wants to “prevent similar arguments from causing confusion in the international community over Taiwan’s status” it might start by not transparently revising and obfuscating the historical and legal record to reify ad hoc claims of Republic of China (ROC) legitimacy, sovereignty and authority on Taiwan. Instead, Shen’s letter contained a number of convenient interpretations and outright errors that will likely serve to confuse, so they need some clarification in turn.
First, the provisions of the Cairo Declaration cannot be found in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, nor did Japan “accept them.” The declaration was a World War II edict designed to unify the Allied forces and bring China firmly on board in the fight against Japan. The promise of Taiwan being “returned” to the ROC was intended as an inducement — one that Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) later capitalized on and was ultimately saved by between the end of the war and the collapse of the ROC in China.
The Cairo Declaration was a communique and not a treaty because it was not intended as a binding agreement. The US asked Chiang to administer Taiwan, but at no point did it signal such an administration should be permanent or a legally binding transfer of Taiwan’s territory to the ROC. In international law, the Qing Dynasty’s Taiwanese colonies were transferred in perpetuity to Japan in 1895, and in 1945 Japan ceded those territories without stating who they ceded them to.
Second, Chen asked why the UK and US did not take over Taiwan at the Japanese surrender. The answer is that at the end of World War II, the UK and US were more concerned with rebuilding Europe and Japan. As the closest allied nation to Taiwan, the ROC was best placed geographically to temporarily administer the former Japanese colony — a contingent outcome of events that suited the US and UK as they engaged in a Cold War with the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). That former US president Harry Truman, in the immediate post-war period, accepted the exercise of ROC authority over Taiwan does not equate to him recognizing its legitimacy or authority to do so permanently.
Third, according to the US Congressional Report R41952 of Nov. 19 last year, Taiwan’s legal status has not been confirmed and, rather than failing to gain traction, this tenet remains core US policy: “The United States has its own ‘one China’ policy [different from the PRC’s ‘one China’ principle] and position on Taiwan’s status. Not recognizing the PRC’s claim over Taiwan nor Taiwan as a sovereign state, US policy has considered Taiwan’s status as unsettled.”
Until there is a statement to the contrary, US policy remains consistent on this point. For Shen to falsely claim otherwise owes itself either to his lack of awareness of the US’ Taiwan policy and international law or to a hidden agenda that the falsehood serves to support.
Ben Goren
Taipei
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has offered a detailed rebuttal of a commentary regarding the legal significance of the Cairo Declaration by columnist James Wang (王景弘).
After reading the article, a friend of mine from the US e-mailed me a collection of research notes relevant to this topic. Printing them out filled 18 pages.
To Taiwanese, the importance of obtaining a full clarification of the development of the legal status of Taiwan since 1895 cannot be understated. However, due to space constraints, the editorial pages of the Taipei Times are clearly inadequate for a full presentation and organization of all competing views.
What is the solution? Perhaps the Taipei Times could work with a local Internet company to establish a wiki where all sides of each argument could be presented in an organized fashion? It would be desirable for this wiki provider to have blanket copyright permission to quote all relevant news items, letters and other pieces directly from the Taipei Times, as required.
While the recent history of Taiwan would be the major focus, all relevant topics could have their own page on which they could be debated. With reference to the ministry’s letter, there is clearly a need to discuss various issues.
Among the issues are: Does the Cairo Declaration provide the full legal basis for the transfer of Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty to the Republic of China (ROC)? Is the Constitution a valid document for Taiwan? Did the post-war treaties award Taiwan to the ROC? Do “Taiwan” and “the ROC” refer to the same entity? Are Aboriginal people correctly classified as ROC citizens? There are many questions that would be relevant.
The editorial pages of the Taipei Times could indicate, when appropriate: “Further discussions on the legal status of Taiwan and the ROC should be directed to the wiki” with a URL given.
This would free up space in the editorial pages for the discussion of other important topics.
Such a wiki debate Web site could prove to be a valuable resource for all people interested in Taiwan’s legal status and the proper development of its relationships with other countries.
Richard Hartzell
Taipei
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers