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.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS