Expectations that the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty and the 1952 Treaty of Taipei may be incorporated into high-school textbooks -- alongside the Cairo and Potsdam declarations -- have sparked a debate on the claim that Taiwan's status remains unsettled. I would like to give some background on this theory.
On Feb. 14, 1950, China and the Soviet Union signed a "Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance," which proved that Beijing was leaning toward the Soviets. On June 25 that year, North Korea invaded South Korea. In succession, the US and China entered the war. The military clash between the US and China on the Korean Peninsula made the US understand Taiwan's strategic value in containing the expansion of Chinese and Soviet communists in East Asia.
Then US president Harry Truman announced that the US Seventh Fleet would prevent any attack on Taiwan. To legalize such an action and to avoid criticism of interference in China's internal affairs, Truman stated that Taiwan's future status would not be determined until peace was restored in the Pacific region, a peace treaty was signed with Japan and the matter was reviewed by the UN. This was the origin of the theory that Taiwan's status remains unsettled.
As for the question of where Taiwan's sovereignty belongs, Article 2 (b) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and Article 2 of the Treaty of Taipei only stated that Japan renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. There was no mention whatsoever of these areas being returned to China. Then Japanese prime minister Shigeru Yoshida also said that Japan merely renounced its territorial rights over Taiwan and that the sovereignty issue remained undecided.
On Sept. 29, 1972, then Jap-anese prime minister Kakuei Tanaka and then Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (
The Chinese demanded during the negotiations that Japan recognize Taiwan as PRC territory. However, in the communique establishing diplomatic ties, Japan only used ambiguous language, using the words "understand and respect" instead of "recognize."
Japan said that because it had renounced sovereignty rights over Taiwan, the Pescadores and other affiliated islands in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, it no longer had any legal ground on which to "recognize" that the sovereignty of areas that were no longer its territory belonged to the PRC. Based on this principle of international law, territorial rights can only be determined by the countries involved. They cannot be recognized or determined by any irrelevant third country.
The day after China and Japan established diplomatic ties, the Japanese government said -- in a statement by then foreign minister Masayoshi Ohira at the Liberal Democratic Party's bicameral congressional meeting -- that Japan understood and respected Beijing's claim that Taiwan was an inseparable part of the PRC, but had not taken any stance recognizing such claim. Japan made it clear that the two countries' positions on the issue could never be unanimous.
At best, Japan could only equivocate politically and handle the issue with words like "understand and respect." At the same time, it also left room for maneuver in the development of Taiwan-Japan relations after the severing of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
Ho Szu-shen is an associate professor in the department of Japanese at Fu Jen Catholic University.
Translated by Francis Huang
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS