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.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
Yesterday, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), once the dominant political party in Taiwan and the historic bearer of Chinese republicanism, officially crowned Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) as its chairwoman. A former advocate for Taiwanese independence turned Beijing-leaning firebrand, Cheng represents the KMT’s latest metamorphosis — not toward modernity, moderation or vision, but toward denial, distortion and decline. In an interview with Deutsche Welle that has now gone viral, Cheng declared with an unsettling confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “not a dictator,” but rather a “democratically elected leader.” She went on to lecture the German journalist that Russia had been “democratized
RSS