During the recent 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), pro-independence political commentators raised some important questions and opinions. However, at a reenactment of the signing of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty or the Treaty of Taipei at the Taipei Guest House in 1952, Academia Historica President Lin Man-houng (林滿紅) said the Treaty of Taipei could be used to benefit Taiwan and as a basis to establish that the sovereignty of Taiwan and Penghu belongs to the Republic of China (ROC).
The difference between Lin’s comments and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) traditional stance is that she admits that the status of Taiwan and Penghu remained undetermined at the end of World War II and that a new era began in 1952 when the ROC gained sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu.
Her comments strongly imply that the ROC on Taiwan is independent. There are, however, several things her comments cannot explain. The first is that the background to the Treaty of Taipei was that no Chinese representative had been invited to the San Francisco Peace Treaty talks and that the US after the Korean War purposely avoided clearly stating to whom sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu belonged, so that the Treaty of Taipei could only be based on, but not surpass, the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
Secondly, a question-and-answer session between Japanese legislators and foreign ministry officials in 1951 agreed that Japan was basing bilateral relations on the fact that the ROC government was the de facto ruler of Taiwan and Penghu and that sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu should be determined by the Allied Powers.
Lastly, when China and Japan established diplomatic relations in 1972, the Treaty of Taipei lost its significance.
We should realize that until the ROC was forced out of the UN in 1971, it relied on US support to be able to represent China at the UN. The US then severed diplomatic relations with the ROC, annulled treaties and withdrew armed forces from Taiwan in 1978. Since 1979 relations between the two have been regulated by the TRA, the only document that is still crucial today.
If this were not the case, why wouldn’t we emphasize the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty of 1954, which gave much more power to the ROC? The major goal of the TRA is to maintain Taiwan’s security and keep it free of threats from China. This is why the TRA states that US policy should “consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.”
In addition, the TRA was promulgated at the height of the Martial Law era and this is why it states that it is the US’ goal to uphold and improve the human rights of all Taiwanese. Times have already changed and mainstream official opinion in the US is that China’s rise has created an increasing number of common interests between China and the US. We should also remember that “moves toward Taiwanese independence” were not an issue back in 1979 and that such moves were later gradually viewed by the US as a threat to peace and security.
In conclusion, while the TRA cannot be expanded on to serve as evidence of Taiwan’s independence, it does stipulate that Taiwan’s future must be decided via peaceful means, which in reality is an extension of the idea that Taiwan should receive protection as its status is yet to be determined, the basis of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
Chen Yi-shen is chairman of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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