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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations