Supporters of Taiwan in Taipei assert that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has no authority to represent Taiwan. Some say the Cairo Declaration is not a treaty and lacks legal standing — in other words, it should be ignored. Others say that Japan gave up control over Taiwan and Penghu in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but never stipulated to whom Taiwan’s sovereignty would be transferred, meaning Taiwan’s status is undetermined.
However, both arguments are outdated and should be revised based on new information.
First, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has previously ruled that all international agreements are legally binding — this means that the Cairo Declaration has legal effect. However, the Cairo Declaration does not involve Taiwan. This was clearly explained by the declaration’s drafter, then-UK prime minister Winston Churchill, on Feb. 1, 1955. The Academia Historica’s archives about the Cairo communique also state as much.
Second, the San Francisco Peace Treaty did stipulate that Japan would give up its power over Taiwan and Penghu islands — referred to in the treaty as “Formosa and the Pescadores” — but it did not indicate to whom sovereignty over Taiwan would be transferred. This was pointed out by its drafter, former US secretary of state John Foster Dulles, when he explained the treaty article by article on Sept. 5, 1951.
However, Dulles proposed a solution: the UN Charter of 1945. According to Article 77 of the charter, “territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War” would be placed under the UN trusteeship. As stated in Article 76, the objective of the trusteeship system is “to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence” — therefore, Taiwan’s status is not “undetermined.”
The preamble of the San Francisco Peace Treaty states that Japan must “in all circumstances conform to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
When discussing the treaty in his speech at the San Francisco Peace Conference, Dulles said: “The preamble is an important part of the treaty.”
So, Taiwan’s status — according to the UN Charter — is independence, not undetermined.
Sim Kiantek is a former associate professor of business administration at National Chung Hsing University.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
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
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
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