Re-debating Cairo
Regarding the legal effect of the Oct. 25, 1945, Japanese surrender ceremonies, Wen Lam Chang points out that the Cairo Declaration clearly states: “Formosa and the Pescadores shall be restored to the Republic of China [ROC]” thus mandating a resumption of sovereignty (Letters, Jan. 23, page 8).
Moreover, as part and parcel of the instruments of Japan’s unconditional surrender, the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Declaration have been imparted the status of treaties. Functioning together with the surrender ceremonies, they have the force of awarding the ROC sovereignty over Taiwan beginning on Oct. 25, 1945.
Chang has offered this interesting argument, but I have found no record that the leading Allies interpreted the Japanese surrender ceremonies, and these accompanying declarations, in such a manner.
In its aide-memoire of Dec. 27, 1950, the US interpreted the Cairo Declaration in these words:
The Cairo Declaration of 1943 stated the purpose to restore “Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores to the Republic of China.”
That declaration, like other wartime declarations, such as those of Yalta and Potsdam, was in the opinion of the US government subject to any final peace settlement where all relevant factors should be considered.
The Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) has frequently pointed out that the US National Archives and Records Administration does not consider the Cairo Declaration a treaty.
FAPA obtained a letter from the assistant archivist for records services who wrote: “The National Archives and Records Administration has not filed this [Cairo] Declaration under treaties. […] The declaration was a communique and it does not have [a] treaty series (TS) or executive agreement series (EAS) number.”
FAPA’s president has clarified that: “The Cairo Declaration was merely intended as a ‘declaration of intent’ about the world’s affairs among the three leaders — a mere statement of war aims, the territorial reassignments of which had to be solemnized in a formal peace treaty after Japan’s surrender. It has negligible status in international law as a treaty or convention.”
Let us not forget that General Douglas MacArthur at a US congressional hearing in May 1951 said: “Legalistically Formosa is still a part of the Empire of Japan.”
If indeed there had been a transfer of Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty to China in late October 1945, such a statement would have been impossible.
Specifications regarding transfers of territorial sovereignty after World War II in the Pacific are found in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952. Unfortunately, in those interim years, the ROC failed to maintain its “original legal position” as the de facto and de jure government of China. By mid-December 1949, the ROC government had already fled into exile on occupied Taiwan, outside of China’s national territory. Hence, it did not become a party to the treaty.
Detailed references and additional authoritative sources can be found here: https://www.civil-taiwan.org/cairo.htm.
That the ROC government “recovered” Taiwan’s sovereignty based on the Cairo Declaration is commonly heard in Taiwan. As we enter the 40th year of the Taiwan Relations Act, I certainly hope that officials at the US Department of State and American Institute in Taiwan can take time out from patting themselves on the back, and formulate the necessary strategies to vigorously combat the continuing Chinese disinformation on this subject.
Tom Chang
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