Members of the US Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees have begun to forcefully point out the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) decades-long misuse, misinterpretation and misleading analysis regarding UN Resolution 2758.
According to the view of PRC officialdom, beginning 50 years ago, on Oct. 25, 1971, the resolution clearly recognized that Taiwan is a part of China, and China is in charge of representing Taiwan before the UN, in accordance with the PRC’s “one China” principle.
In fact, Resolution 2758 has no such content. Indeed, the word Taiwan is not even mentioned therein.
Here in late October 2021, other members of the US House of Representatives have also made similar charges against PRC officials’ incorrect interpretation of this important resolution.
While US Congress members’ long-overdue attention to this matter is certainly praiseworthy, it is unfortunately true that the Chinese have a history of misuse, misinterpretation and misleading analysis regarding other important documents and events that go back even further than 50 years. The Japanese surrender ceremonies in Taiwan, held 75 years ago on Oct. 25, 1945, are one prominent example.
In the view of the PRC, along with many blue-camp supporters in Taiwan, an immediate transfer of Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty to China took place based on the Cairo Declaration of Dec. 1, 1943, the Potsdam Proclamation of July 26, 1945, and the ceremonies themselves.
Granted, during the pre-Napoleonic period, such territory was commonly considered to be “annexed” as soon as an overwhelming number of foreign military forces arrived on the scene. However, international law changed in the late 1700s to the early to mid-1800s.
In the 20th century, such an annexation interpretation directly contradicts the 1907 Hague Conventions and accompanying Hague Regulations. HR 42 specifically states that territory under the authority of foreign (i.e. hostile) military forces is considered to be under military occupation.
Scholars in laws of war confirm that “military occupation does not transfer sovereignty.”
Importantly, the validity of the Hague Conventions in dealing with laws of war was recognized by the Republic of China in May 1917.
Such evidence strongly suggests that there was no “Taiwan Retrocession Day.” Oct. 25, 1945, was merely the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan.
Notably, in the Foreign Relations of the US series, the US Department of State has many entries confirming that there was no transfer of Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty to China in Oct. 1945.
An entry from January 1951 regarding Formosa states: “As one of the victor powers we have residual rights there until a Japanese peace treaty has been made. The Cairo declaration manifested our intention. It did not itself constitute a cession of territory.”
If this knowledge could be more widely disseminated in the global community, perhaps the question of whether Taiwan is truly a part of China could be resolved once and for all.
Tom Chang is secretary-general of the Taiwan Autonomy Foundation.
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