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
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