The truth of Oct. 25, 1945
After the outbreak of the Korean War on June 25, 1950, then-US president Harry Truman declared that the “neutralization of the Straits of Formosa” was in the best interest of the US. He sent the US Navy’s Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent any conflict between the Republic of China and Red China.
President Truman’s actions must be understood vis-a-vis Taiwan’s legal status in 1950. Put simply, if Taiwan had already been recognized as Chinese national territory, the Taiwan Strait would constitute an “internal sea” of China. There would be no legal basis for the president to direct the Seventh Fleet into the Strait.
On Aug. 25, 1950, the US replied to the UN Security Council, saying: “The action of the United States was expressly stated to be without prejudice to the future political settlement of the status of the island... The Chinese Government was asked by the Allies to take the surrender of the Japanese forces on the island. That is the reason the Chinese are there now.”
This historical excerpt is just one example that shows the Allies did not recognize any transfer of Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty to China upon the Oct. 25, 1945, Japanese surrender ceremonies.
Nevertheless, the historical analysis in my Dec. 28 letter (Letters, page 8) did not please Wen Lam Chang of Hong Kong (Letters, Jan. 4, page 8). He argued that “1945 marks the date when China resumed sovereignty over Taiwan, not the beginning of military occupation as Mr Chang contends.”
In support of his “resumed sovereignty” contention, he asserts that Taiwan “was returned to China in 1945 in accordance with international law provided under the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, which forms Japan’s instrument of unconditional surrender.”
However, my associates and I have never been able to find such examples — which could serve as “precedent” — in the writings of law scholars.
Might I challenge W.L. Chang to provide us with two, three, or more examples in the post-Napoleonic period where the international community has recognized “surrender ceremonies” as resulting in an immediate transfer of territorial sovereignty?
There is simply no international precedent for saying that an international declaration (or “press release”) can create any such legal power upon the date of surrender. The overwhelming international precedent is that a transfer of territorial sovereignty must be specified in a treaty.
I also want to stress that Taiwanese territory is not a “special case.” The correct guidelines for handling Taiwan’s territory can easily be found by researching the disposition of conquered territory after the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War.
The Web site of www.twclarify.com/taiwan/ provides abundant data on these topics, including the “Truth of Oct. 25, 1945” and an “Overview of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.” Links to YouTube videos are also given. This information may be of interest to Taipei Times readers.
Tom Chang
Alhambra, California
War — what is it good for?
You might have published something stupider than the Paul Lin (林保華) column you published Saturday, but I did not see it (“US could go to war to fix China,” Jan. 5, page 8).
War is good for absolutely nothing. Encouraging Trump to start a war with China and claiming it would have many benefits — including some to Taiwan — is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time.
Jim Walsh
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