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.
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
“Can you tell me where the time and motivation will come from to get students to improve their English proficiency in four years of university?” The teacher’s question — not accusatory, just slightly exasperated — was directed at the panelists at the end of a recent conference on English language learning at Taiwanese universities. Perhaps thankfully for the professors on stage, her question was too big for the five minutes remaining. However, it hung over the venue like an ominous cloud on an otherwise sunny-skies day of research into English as a medium of instruction and the government’s Bilingual Nation 2030
RSS