Members of the US Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees have begun to forcefully point out the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) decades-long misuse, misinterpretation and misleading analysis regarding UN Resolution 2758.
According to the view of PRC officialdom, beginning 50 years ago, on Oct. 25, 1971, the resolution clearly recognized that Taiwan is a part of China, and China is in charge of representing Taiwan before the UN, in accordance with the PRC’s “one China” principle.
In fact, Resolution 2758 has no such content. Indeed, the word Taiwan is not even mentioned therein.
Here in late October 2021, other members of the US House of Representatives have also made similar charges against PRC officials’ incorrect interpretation of this important resolution.
While US Congress members’ long-overdue attention to this matter is certainly praiseworthy, it is unfortunately true that the Chinese have a history of misuse, misinterpretation and misleading analysis regarding other important documents and events that go back even further than 50 years. The Japanese surrender ceremonies in Taiwan, held 75 years ago on Oct. 25, 1945, are one prominent example.
In the view of the PRC, along with many blue-camp supporters in Taiwan, an immediate transfer of Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty to China took place based on the Cairo Declaration of Dec. 1, 1943, the Potsdam Proclamation of July 26, 1945, and the ceremonies themselves.
Granted, during the pre-Napoleonic period, such territory was commonly considered to be “annexed” as soon as an overwhelming number of foreign military forces arrived on the scene. However, international law changed in the late 1700s to the early to mid-1800s.
In the 20th century, such an annexation interpretation directly contradicts the 1907 Hague Conventions and accompanying Hague Regulations. HR 42 specifically states that territory under the authority of foreign (i.e. hostile) military forces is considered to be under military occupation.
Scholars in laws of war confirm that “military occupation does not transfer sovereignty.”
Importantly, the validity of the Hague Conventions in dealing with laws of war was recognized by the Republic of China in May 1917.
Such evidence strongly suggests that there was no “Taiwan Retrocession Day.” Oct. 25, 1945, was merely the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan.
Notably, in the Foreign Relations of the US series, the US Department of State has many entries confirming that there was no transfer of Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty to China in Oct. 1945.
An entry from January 1951 regarding Formosa states: “As one of the victor powers we have residual rights there until a Japanese peace treaty has been made. The Cairo declaration manifested our intention. It did not itself constitute a cession of territory.”
If this knowledge could be more widely disseminated in the global community, perhaps the question of whether Taiwan is truly a part of China could be resolved once and for all.
Tom Chang is secretary-general of the Taiwan Autonomy Foundation.
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
RSS