China has been making endless claims that Taiwan has been a part of Chinese territory since ancient times and Taiwanese have been using ancient and vaguely worded Chinese documents to try and prove that the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) belong to Taiwan.
While these documents may be interesting, they are devoid of meaning in terms of international law.
The sovereignty issues surrounding the Diaoyutais have nothing to do with researching ancient documents; they involve international treaties.
Before the Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed in 1895, Japan had already incorporated the Diaoyutais into its territory. In terms of the territories handed over to Japan in this treaty, the latitude and longitude of the Pescadores Group were clearly stated, while, as far as Taiwan goes, it only specified “the island of Formosa, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa.”
Article 2, (b) of the Treaty of San Francisco states: “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.” It did not, however, list any other appertaining islands or any latitude and longitude and therefore this cannot be used to say that Japan gave up the Diaoyutai Islands.
Instead, for the Diaoyutais, the treaty stated that, “Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 degrees north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island.”
In 1953, the US civil administration of the Ryukyu Islands announced that the territory of the Ryukyus would include all islands, atolls and rocks between 28 degrees north latitude, 124 degrees 40 minutes east longitude and 240 degrees north latitude, 122 degrees east longitude.
In negotiations with the US in 1970, the then-Republic of China ambassador to the US, Chow Shu-kai (周書楷) admitted that this clearly defined latitude and longitude placed the Diaoyutais within the area under US trusteeship.
According to the Treaty of San Francisco, Japan did not renounce the Nansei Shoto and therefore the US admitted that Japan still has residual sovereignty over these areas.
In 1972 at the end of their entrustment, they were returned to Japan and the US merely stated that it did not hold any position on sovereignty disputes over the region before the Treaty of San Francisco was in existence.
However, before the Treaty of San Francisco, there were no disputes over the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands.
To now rely on archaic Chinese documents to proclaim sovereignty over the Diaoyutais is as ludicrous as claiming that because Taiwan has temples devoted to the God of War, Guangong (關公), Guangong once ruled Taiwan.
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent