This year marks the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) has made repeated claims that the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration affirm that Taiwan was to be “returned to China.” However, as the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) said on Friday last week, such statements are groundless — these documents are far from determining Taiwan’s political status.
International law speaks for itself. The 1943 Cairo Declaration was issued by the Republic of China (ROC), the US and the UK as a wartime communique without the binding power of a treaty. The Potsdam Declaration was the ultimatum subsequently delivered to Japan on July 26, 1945, based on the Cairo blueprint, which Japan accepted on Sept. 2 of the same year with its signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. None of these documents address Taiwanese sovereignty.
The only legally binding document is the Treaty of San Francisco, signed on Sept. 8, 1951, by Japan and 48 Allied nations. It sets out that Japan “renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores” without specifying where those rights were transferred to, forming a basis for the theory of Taiwan’s undetermined status.
By that point, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had already existed for two years since its establishment in 1949, so neither the PRC nor the ROC were invited to sign the treaty over legitimacy disputes. To fill this diplomatic and legal vacuum, the Treaty of Taipei was signed by the ROC and Japan on April 28, 1952, further marking an end to the war and Japanese renunciation of Taiwan, Penghu, and the Spratly (Nansha, 南沙) and Paracel (Xisha, 西沙) islands. Once again, to whom power was transferred was not explicitly stated. In other words, there is no clear consensus that Taiwanese sovereignty was to be “returned to China” after the end of WWII.
The US position has remained consistent. US Department of State records show that after the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, then-US president Harry Truman sent the Seventh Fleet to protect Taiwan, saying that “the determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.” The question at hand, therefore, is left unresolved.
Faced with this distortion of history from Beijing, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) seems to be making extraordinary allowances. The same KMT that once asserted how the ROC army led the war of resistance against Japan and championed the Cairo Declaration as a diplomatic success now seems to be shrinking. Today, the KMT hardly dares to stake a claim to an argument, even echoing Beijing in cross-strait discussions.
The ROC is the signatory to the Cairo Declaration, not the PRC. In 2021, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office smeared the Treaty of San Francisco as an “illegal and invalid waste of paper.” Yet the KMT, for the sake of newfound political interests, allows the PRC to rewrite its own history of resistance.
Revisiting history 80 years on, we are reminded that Taiwan’s status under international law is undetermined, and the AIT has reiterated that Beijing’s line on the matter is factually baseless. If the KMT remains silent, it exposes only its own internal contradictions and cowardice. On this, the Taiwanese must be absolutely clear.
Liou Je-wei is a teacher.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader.
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