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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US