Beijing’s “one China” principle is a legalized political propaganda attempt aimed to facilitate the annexation of Taiwan, by suggesting that the issue of Taiwan is a “domestic matter,” thereby preventing the US and Japan from interventing in the event of a cross-strait conflict. This begs the question: Is it true that Taiwan belongs to China as claimed by the “one China” principle?
Since the principle of sovereignty, which is the supreme authority within a territory, is pivotal in modern international law, one first needs to establish which international law the “one China” principle is based on.
Last year’s white paper “The Taiwan Question and China’s Unification in the New Era” published by the Chinese government states that in September 1945, Japan signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and vowed “to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith,” which is to return Taiwan and the Penghu islands to China as outlined in the Cairo Declaration.
On Oct. 25, 1945, the Republic of China (ROC) government announced that it had “resumed its jurisdiction over Taiwan.” According to this logic, China had recovered Taiwan de jure and de facto through a host of international legal documents. As a result, the interpretation that “Japan returned Taiwan and the Penghu islands to China in 1945” is the legal foundation for Beijing’s “one China” principle.
However, as the ROC government had not signed any documents of formal cession, it is void for it to unilaterally proclaim jurisdiction over Taiwan. Japan did not cede Taiwan and the Penghu islands to the ROC or the People’s Republic of China, it renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan and the Penghu islands, which was dictated in the Treaty of San Francisco signed on April 28, 1952.
Due to this, the “one China” principle does not have any legal basis and therefore the contention that “Taiwan is part of China” is entirely false.
However, to obstruct Japan’s intervention in cross-strait issues, Beijing has consistently attempted to brainwash Japan with its “one China” principle. Consequently, the “Taiwan issue is a domestic problem” is deeply rooted in the Japanese mind, as part of China’s cognitive warfare against Japan.
Japan’s Asahi Shimbun, with its pro-China stance, published a report on Thursday last week analyzing relations between Taiwan and China. In the report, there was a sentence: “After Japan surrendered, China recovered Taiwan.”
I wrote to the Asahi Shimbun asking for a correction, but have yet to receive a reply.
I suspect that there are pro-China elements within the Asahi Shimbun. Unfortunately, many Japanese are under the long-term influence of Chinese propaganda, which makes them prone to accepting these false reports.
I hope the Taiwanese government and its people can understand how influential and dominant Chinese propaganda is within the international community. Taiwanese should also stiffen their sinews and condemn China for continuing its one-sided claim to Taiwan through the “one China” principle, so that other nations know that China and Taiwan are not the same country in accordance with international law.
Above all, Taiwanese should not vote for a presidential candidate who is in favor of the “one China” principle in next month’s election.
Hideki Nagayama is chairman of the Taiwan Research Forum.
Translated by Rita Wang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS