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.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS