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
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and