Beijing’s “one China” principle is a legalized political propaganda attempt aimed to facilitate the annexation of Taiwan, by suggesting that the issue of Taiwan is a “domestic matter,” thereby preventing the US and Japan from interventing in the event of a cross-strait conflict. This begs the question: Is it true that Taiwan belongs to China as claimed by the “one China” principle?
Since the principle of sovereignty, which is the supreme authority within a territory, is pivotal in modern international law, one first needs to establish which international law the “one China” principle is based on.
Last year’s white paper “The Taiwan Question and China’s Unification in the New Era” published by the Chinese government states that in September 1945, Japan signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and vowed “to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith,” which is to return Taiwan and the Penghu islands to China as outlined in the Cairo Declaration.
On Oct. 25, 1945, the Republic of China (ROC) government announced that it had “resumed its jurisdiction over Taiwan.” According to this logic, China had recovered Taiwan de jure and de facto through a host of international legal documents. As a result, the interpretation that “Japan returned Taiwan and the Penghu islands to China in 1945” is the legal foundation for Beijing’s “one China” principle.
However, as the ROC government had not signed any documents of formal cession, it is void for it to unilaterally proclaim jurisdiction over Taiwan. Japan did not cede Taiwan and the Penghu islands to the ROC or the People’s Republic of China, it renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan and the Penghu islands, which was dictated in the Treaty of San Francisco signed on April 28, 1952.
Due to this, the “one China” principle does not have any legal basis and therefore the contention that “Taiwan is part of China” is entirely false.
However, to obstruct Japan’s intervention in cross-strait issues, Beijing has consistently attempted to brainwash Japan with its “one China” principle. Consequently, the “Taiwan issue is a domestic problem” is deeply rooted in the Japanese mind, as part of China’s cognitive warfare against Japan.
Japan’s Asahi Shimbun, with its pro-China stance, published a report on Thursday last week analyzing relations between Taiwan and China. In the report, there was a sentence: “After Japan surrendered, China recovered Taiwan.”
I wrote to the Asahi Shimbun asking for a correction, but have yet to receive a reply.
I suspect that there are pro-China elements within the Asahi Shimbun. Unfortunately, many Japanese are under the long-term influence of Chinese propaganda, which makes them prone to accepting these false reports.
I hope the Taiwanese government and its people can understand how influential and dominant Chinese propaganda is within the international community. Taiwanese should also stiffen their sinews and condemn China for continuing its one-sided claim to Taiwan through the “one China” principle, so that other nations know that China and Taiwan are not the same country in accordance with international law.
Above all, Taiwanese should not vote for a presidential candidate who is in favor of the “one China” principle in next month’s election.
Hideki Nagayama is chairman of the Taiwan Research Forum.
Translated by Rita Wang
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS