Declaration lacks legal power
I was intrigued by the article about a conference on Sunday to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Cairo Declaration (“Declaration ‘intended to return Taiwan to ROC,’” Dec. 2, page 1).
“It is a ‘very big mistake’ to think that the Cairo Declaration was only a press communique. Both the US and Japan have included the Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Declaration and the 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender in their official collection of treaties,” President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said at the conference in Taipei, adding that all three documents are legally binding.
I do not know about Japan, but the US has definitely not included the Cairo Declaration in its official collection of treaties. How do I know that? Because an assistant archivist for records services at the US National Archives, where the declaration is held, wrote to me: “The National Archives and Records Administration has not filed this declaration under treaties... The declaration was a communique and it does not have [a] treaty series (TS) or executive agreement series (EAS) number.”
It is true that the declaration was more than a press communique, but it was not a treaty.
So what was it?
It was a “Declaration of Intent.” Nothing more, nothing less.
This “Cairo Declaration of Intent” was created in Cairo at a meeting on Dec. 1, 1943 between Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), and has been used for the past 70 years by China and Taiwan as a wafer-thin legal foundation for their claims that Taiwan is part of China.
The reality is that although it was important at that time, the declaration does not have any legally binding power allowing Taiwan or China to derive to any territorial claims.
Coen Blaauw
Washington
ADIZ reveals Ma’s intent
To protest and challenge China’s new air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea, the US and Japan sent their bomber and fighter planes through the zone the day after it was announced. In contrast, President Ma Ying-jeou issued a statement instructing his administration to submit Taiwan’s flight schedules to China as requested.
Many in Taiwan were dismayed and angry, and condemned Ma for his cowardly action.
Ma is Chinese, not Taiwanese. His goal is to unify Taiwan and China. His strategy is to use the so-called “warm water cooks fogs,” a catchphrase meaning do it slowly and gradually. His tactics are as follows, step-by-step:
First, kill Taiwanese leaders. Ma believes Chinese are the rulers and Taiwanese are the followers. The day Ma was elected, he jailed former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Now, he wants to take out Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平). Soon, he will try to destroy the next leader of Taiwan — the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) nominee in the 2016 presidential election. He is following the old Chinese saying: “Don’t kill the soldiers, kill the general.” The “soldiers” will be fighting among themselves for survival.
Second, he aims to control the stomachs of people.
He eliminated all regulations and restrictions set by previous presidents on trade relations between Taiwan and China. He allowed unlimited capital to flow to China. In Taiwan, he allowed factories to close, unemployment to increase, wages to decrease and made the public’s life miserable.
He aims to make Taiwanese increasingly poorer so rulers can control the the public’s life and activity.
Third, Ma froze foreign relations. His administration stopped supporting the campaign for Taiwan’s independence, deferring to the UN. He blocked Taiwan’s opportunity to strengthen relations with other nations in order to promote his goal of “one China with two regions” and his stance that “the relationship between Taiwan and China are not an international relations issue.”
Fourth, he wants to weaken defense. He objected to an increase in the defense budget and weapons development as a signal to China that Taiwan is preparing to surrender.
Fifth, he allows Chinese capital to flow into Taiwan. He is allowing Chinese to do business and be employed in Taiwan. The result is that Chinese companies can employ Taiwanese. In the future, the Chinese boss will be able to tell Taiwanese what to do and when.
Sixth, Ma’s administration has been revising the time required for Chinese people to become Taiwanese citizens.
He is copying the so-called “human waves tactic” in Tibet.
There are other tactics, including the cross-strait service trade agreement and the peace treaty.
If Ma’s candidate wins the 2016 presidential election, Taiwan will become like either Hong Kong or Tibet.
Ken Huang
Murrieta, California
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS