Toward historical accuracy
The beginning of your recent editorial states: “As the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II approaches...” (Editorial, June 25th, page 8).
I must point out that according to the conventions of war studies, this is a mistake.
The year of 1945 marked the end of hostilities, not the end of the war.
The end of the war is only achieved when some sort of formal peace settlement comes into effect. Please refer to the following:
San Francisco Peace Treaty, Article 1 (April 28, 1952):
“(a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23.”
Treaty of Taipei, Article 1 (Aug. 5, 1952):
“The state of war between the Republic of China and Japan is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty enters into force.”
This “end of war vs. end of hostilities” distinction is often misunderstood by civilians, who then fail to understand the concept of military occupation. For Taiwan, Oct. 25, 1945, marked the beginning of the military occupation. International law says that military occupation does not transfer sovereignty. In order to transfer the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan to any other “government” the specifications must be included in a formal peace treaty. From this it can be concluded that there was no Taiwan Retrocession Day.
By way of confirmation, on May 4, 1951, as reported by the New York Times the following day, US General Douglas MacArthur had occasion to articulate for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the exact status of Taiwan.
He stated that legally speaking Taiwan was still a part of Japan and that the Allies had only “turned over what you might call the administration and the trusteeship of Formosa to China.”
Additionally, the Starr Memorandum of the US State Dept. (July 13, 1971) further clarified: “Technical sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores has never been settled. That is because the Japanese Peace Treaty merely involves a renunciation by Japan of its right and title to these islands. But the future title is not determined by the Japanese Peace Treaty nor is it determined by the Peace Treaty which was concluded between the Republic of China and Japan.”
I hope that the Taipei Times editors can keep these details in mind as they edit historical and legal information in the future.
Name withheld
Taipei
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with