An American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) spokesperson on Saturday rebuked a Chinese official for mischaracterizing World War II-era agreements as proving that Taiwan was ceded to China.
The US Department of State later affirmed that the AIT remarks reflect Washington’s long-standing position: Taiwan’s political status remains undetermined and should only be resolved peacefully. The US would continue supporting Taiwan against military, economic, legal and diplomatic pressure from China, and opposes any unilateral attempt to alter the “status quo,” particularly through coercion or force, the United Daily News cited the department as saying.
The remarks followed Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi’s (王毅) Aug. 15 claim that the 1943 Cairo Declaration and 1945 Potsdam Proclamation established Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Wang argued that the statements required Japan to return territories it had “stolen,” including Taiwan.
The Cairo Declaration does mention Taiwan, but it called for the Republic of China (ROC) — then represented by Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) — to administer the territory. As such, Wang inadvertently bolstered the ROC’s sovereignty claims rather than the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC).
Moreover, the declaration was never a legally binding treaty. It was a joint statement of intent issued by the US, the UK and the ROC, not a ratified document.
The Cairo Declaration said: “Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the First World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa [Taiwan], and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.”
Wang might argue that the PRC is the ROC’s successor and that the ROC ceased to exist after 1949. However, Taiwan is today a functioning state, home to 23 million people with its own government, armed forces, currency and elections. Declaring that the ROC “no longer exists” does not make it so.
In any case, the legal record after World War II does not support Wang’s reading. Neither of the binding treaties Japan signed following its surrender explicitly assigned Taiwan to any government. When Chiang accepted Japan’s surrender in Taiwan on Oct. 25, 1945, the ROC assumed administrative control, but sovereignty was left unresolved.
The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 required Japan to renounce “all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.” However, neither the ROC nor the PRC were invited to sign the treaty, and neither is mentioned in the document.
The Treaty of Taipei, signed between the ROC and Japan in 1952, reiterated these renunciations, but again did not specify a recipient of sovereignty.
Despite the absence of a formal cession, international law provides grounds to recognize the ROC’s authority over Taiwan. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States of 1933 requires that a state have a defined territory, a permanent population, a government and the capacity to engage in foreign relations. The ROC fulfills all these criteria, while also maintaining a standing military, issuing passports and conducting democratic elections.
By contrast, the PRC has never governed Taiwan. Its claim is based solely on succession, a claim undermined by the lack of any treaty transferring Taiwan to Beijing’s control.
The historical record is clear: No postwar document grants sovereignty over Taiwan to the PRC, while the ROC has exercised effective governance on Taiwan proper and outlying islands since 1945.
Taiwanese leaders must continue to remind the world that Beijing’s assertions are historically inaccurate and legally unsound. Allowing such distortions to go unchallenged risks eroding Taiwan’s international space and the principles of self-determination that underpin the global order.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS