Is World War II really over?
On Aug. 6, 1945, the US detonated an atomic bomb over Hiroshima. It dropped a second one on Nagasaki on Aug. 9. Japanese emperor Hirohito announced through a recorded address over radio the unconditional surrender of Japan to the Allies on Aug. 15. 1945. Then-Japanese minister of foreign affairs Mamoru Shigmitsu signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on board the USS Missouri, witnessed by General Richard Sutherland, on Sept. 2, 1945, and the Pacific War, the theatre of World War II that was fought in the Pacific and East Asia, accordingly came to an end.
On the same day, General Douglas MacArthur gave his first general order to the forces of the Empire of Japan to surrender to designated Allied commanders.
Article 1a reads: “The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16 north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正).”
After that, Taiwan was militarily occupied by Chiang, even though the war had ended. Today, Taiwan is still occupied by the exiled government of the Republic of China (ROC).
The ROC was defeated by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the Chinese Civil War and escaped to Taiwan in 1949. According to the Treaty of San Francisco, Japan renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores on Sept. 8, 1951, effective on April 28, 1952. No recipient was named as the sovereign of Taiwan, however the treaty clearly specified the US military government (USMG) as the principal occupying power.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrote a letter to the Washington Times that was published on Aug. 23 claiming: “When the Pacific War broke out in 1941, the Republic of China declared war against Japan and abrogated the Treaty of Shimonoseki,” and Japan and the US are legally bound under the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.
What a shame that a Harvard University law graduate does not know that the Cairo Declaration was only a declaration of intent of the Allies for their future strategy to end the war, which was not a legal treaty with binding power. By the way, it was only a news communique for radio broadcast in Cairo.
The reason for the Potsdam Proclamation quoted in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was for the limitation of Japan’s territory in Article 8: “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.”
There was no mention of Formosa and the Pescadores. As a matter of fact, Chiang did not even attend this important meeting to regulate the terms of Japanese surrender.
Ma’s letter went on, even more outrageously, claiming: “Prior to the signing of the Okinawa Reversion Agreement in June 1971 between the US and Japan, the US notified the ROC that only administrative rights over the Diaoyutai Islands were being transferred to Japan — not sovereignty — and that the agreement had no effect on the ROC’s sovereignty claim.”
Ma appears not to have read the Treaty of San Francisco at all, because Article 10, “Japan renounces all special rights and interests in China, including all benefits and privileges resulting from the provisions of the final Protocol signed at Peking on 7 September 1901,” does not touch on the Shimonoseki Treaty of 1895.
Under Article 3, “Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands),” the US administered the Ryukyu Islands until June 11, 1971, and returned them, including the Senkaku Islands, to Japan under the “1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement,” which means Japan has sovereignty over the Senkakus, not the ROC.
The ROC does not have sovereign rights over any territory in the world today — not over Taiwan, and not over China. It is only an exiled government with effective control of Taiwan and Pengfu under the umbrella of the USMG holding “overall effective control,” so how can the ROC claim sovereignty over the Diaoyutais?
Yes, this year marks the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. Both the ROC and PRC are bragging about their part in ending the war without giving credit to US forces. They also twisted the truth about the war’s history — that the military occupation on Taiwan has not officially ended. Yes, it is time to officially end the military occupation on Taiwan. It is time for the ROC to return to China, take its hands off Taiwan and let Taiwan be free.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
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