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
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