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.
When 17,000 troops from the US, the Philippines, Australia, Japan, Canada, France and New Zealand spread across the Philippine archipelago for the Balikatan military exercise, running from tomorrow through May 8, the official language would be about interoperability, readiness and regional peace. However, the strategic subtext is becoming harder to ignore: The exercises are increasingly about the military geography around Taiwan. Balikatan has always carried political weight. This year, however, the exercise looks different in ways that matter not only to Manila and Washington, but also to Taipei. What began in 2023 as a shift toward a more serious deterrence posture
Reports about Elon Musk planning his own semiconductor fab have sparked anxiety, with some warning that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) could lose key customers to vertical integration. A closer reading suggests a more measured conclusion: Musk is advancing a strategic vision of in-house chip manufacturing, but remains far from replacing the existing foundry ecosystem. For TSMC, the short-term impact is limited; the medium-term challenge lies in supply diversification and pricing pressure, only in the long term could it evolve into a structural threat. The clearest signal is Musk’s announcement that Tesla and SpaceX plan to develop a fab project dubbed “Terafab”
China’s AI ecosystem has one defining difference from Silicon Valley: It is embrace of open source. While the US’ biggest companies race to build ever more powerful systems and insist only they can control them, Chinese labs have been giving the technology away for free. Open source — making a model available for anyone to use, download and build on — once seemed a niche, nerdy topic that no one besides developers cared about. However, when a new technology is driving trillions of dollars of investments and leading to immense concentrations of power, it offered an antidote. That is part of
In late January, Taiwan’s first indigenous submarine, the Hai Kun (海鯤, or Narwhal), completed its first submerged dive, reaching a depth of roughly 50m during trials in the waters off Kaohsiung. By March, it had managed a fifth dive, still well short of the deep-water and endurance tests required before the navy could accept the vessel. The original delivery deadline of November last year passed months ago. CSBC Corp, Taiwan, the lead contractor, now targets June and the Ministry of National Defense is levying daily penalties for every day the submarine remains unfinished. The Hai Kun was supposed to be
RSS