After the Chinese Communist Party’s military parade on September 3rd, there have been subtle changes in the United States’ policy towards Taiwan. The previous ambiguous and vague statements about Taiwan’s status have now turned into openly advocating for the “undetermined status of Taiwan”.
What kind of changes will this policy bring to cross-strait relations and US-China relations? Is Taiwan’s status truly undetermined, or has it already been determined? What is the historical truth behind it?
On September 15th, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) released a statement to Reuters via email, stating, “China (CCP) deliberately distorts documents from the World War II era, including the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation, and San Francisco Treaty, in an attempt to support its coercion of Taiwan. However, Beijing’s narrative is completely wrong because these documents did not determine Taiwan’s final political status.”
The statement from the American Institute in Taiwan, equivalent to the US embassy in Taiwan, signifies the first public assertion by the US government in 50 years that the “status of Taiwan is undetermined”.
Since the Chinese Communist Party overthrew the mainland government of the Republic of China in 1949, the sovereignty of Taiwan has become an international focal point. With the CCP’s growing global influence, major countries around the world have continuously changed their positions on the Taiwan issue over the past 80 years, further complicating the international dynamics surrounding the matter.
Regarding views on Taiwan’s status among the global Chinese community, there are mainly three perspectives:
1. The viewpoint of the Republic of China supporters:
They believe that Taiwan’s sovereignty is very clear. As early as October 25, 1945, Taiwan was already under the internationally recognized sovereignty of the Republic of China. Moreover, Taiwan’s elected representatives participated in drafting the ROC Constitution in 1946, and legally, Taiwan has long completed deep integration with the ROC.
2. The viewpoint of Taiwan independence advocates:
They believe that after World War II, Taiwan’s sovereignty did not undergo a formal transfer of sovereignty between nations under international law as no sovereignty transfer treaty was signed by relevant countries. Therefore, Taiwan’s status remains undetermined and should be decided by the people of Taiwan themselves.
3. The view of the Chinese Communist Party:
They believe that after World War II, Taiwan’s sovereignty transferred from Japan to China, and the People’s Republic of China later became the sole legitimate representative of China. Therefore, they argue that Taiwan’s sovereignty should belong to the PRC.
So, which of these viewpoints is correct or incorrect? Let’s delve into the historical facts starting from World War II.
In November 1943, the leaders of the Republic of China, the United States, and the United Kingdom convened in Cairo, the capital of Egypt, to discuss strategies for combating Japan and post-war policies towards Japan. On December 1st, the three nations signed the Cairo Declaration explicitly stating, “All territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Taiwan, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.”
On July 26, 1945, China, the United States, and the United Kingdom signed the Potsdam Proclamation, reconfirming the implementation of the policies outlined in the Cairo Declaration after the war.
Subsequently, the Soviet Union also signed the Potsdam Proclamation. Consequently, the four founding members of the United Nations, also the four most powerful anti-fascist nations at the time, jointly announced through the Proclamation that Taiwan would return to the Republic of China after the war.
On September 2, 1945, Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam Proclamation and signed the Instrument of Surrender unconditionally with the United States, China, the UK, and the Soviet Union.
On October 25, 1945, based on the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Japanese surrender document, the Republic of China declared sovereignty over Taiwan.
It’s worth noting that official announcements and declarations made by a country are considered part of international law. International courts and scholars generally recognize official statements in international relations as binding, especially concerning issues like territorial matters, treaty compliance, or terms of war conclusion.
Therefore, Japan’s acceptance of the Potsdam Proclamation and the formal signing of the Instrument of Surrender post-World War II established the internationally accepted basis for the transfer of Taiwan’s sovereignty.
In essence, according to international law, Taiwan should have been returned to the Republic of China after World War II, and this transfer of sovereignty had already been completed in practice. Only the final step of signing a new international treaty to formalize this sovereignty transfer process remains outstanding, akin to executing a property transfer deed at a real estate bureau.
However, while both sides were preparing for this transfer at the real estate bureau, a significant dispute erupted within the family.
So, was this transfer process eventually carried out? The answer lies within the examination of the following two treaties:
1. San Francisco Peace Treaty:
In 1949, with support from the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communist Party overthrew the mainland government of the Republic of China, leading to the ROC’s retreat to Taiwan and its outlying islands, turning into a “Rump State” under international law.
At that time, the post-World War II international agreements had not been signed, and the transfer process for Taiwan between Japan and the Republic of China had not been formalized.
In 1951, the allied nations deliberated on signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty to provide a final confirmation of the post-World War II territorial arrangements in a treaty format.
However, there was a dispute among the allies regarding China’s representation. The United States believed that the Republic of China should sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty, while the UK disagreed, asserting that there had been a change in China’s government, and the newly-formed People’s Republic of China controlled the vast majority of Chinese territory, thus implying that the PRC should sign the treaty.
Ultimately, neither the ROC nor the PRC signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty. On September 8, 1951, 49 countries, including Japan, signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty. While Japan renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan, the Pescadores, and other territories in the treaty, it didn’t specify to whom the sovereignty of Taiwan and the Pescadores should be transferred. This omission left the issue unresolved within the treaty.
This was due to the historical context of that time; since neither of the governments from both sides of the Taiwan Strait participated in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan could only renounce its sovereignty over Taiwan and the Pescadores without transferring it to any signatory of the treaty.
Therefore, the San Francisco Peace Treaty did not complete this transfer process.
2. Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty:
On April 28, 1952, the Republic of China and Japan signed the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan, known as the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, officially ending the state of war between the two countries.
Article 4 of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty stipulated that all treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded between China and Japan prior to December 9, 1941, were considered null and void due to the war’s outcome.
This effectively annulled the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Since the Treaty of Shimonoseki was nullified, the legal basis suggested that Taiwan’s sovereignty would revert back to its original owners – China.
Of course, due to the presence of the PRC’s government, Japan did not explicitly mention in the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty that Taiwan and the Pescadores should be transferred to the Republic of China. However, since it was the Republic of China that signed the treaty on behalf of China, legally it implied Japan’s acknowledgment that Taiwan and the Pescadores belonged to the Republic of China.
Hence, it can be argued that the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty implicitly completed the substantial transfer process amidst the intervention by the PRC.
Before the 1970s, most Western countries led by the United States didn’t recognize the CCP regime but acknowledged the ROC. Thus, the ROC held sovereignty over Taiwan without question, and there was minimal mention of the “undetermined status of Taiwan” internationally.
Countries faced the dilemma of recognizing either the ROC or the CCP as the legitimate representative of China during the period. However, the majority accepted the ROC as the legitimate government of China.
This dichotomy began to change in the 1970s.
On October 25, 1971, the United Nations adopted Resolution 2758, displacing the ROC from its seat for the PRC, causing the ROC to leave the UN.
In February 1972, US President Nixon’s visit to mainland China marked the beginning of the US’s recognition of the PRC and the abandonment of the ROC.
This shift in the US attitude triggered a broader change in the international landscape.
On September 29, 1972, Japan announced the establishment of diplomatic relations with the PRC while unilaterally nullifying the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty signed with the ROC in 1952. On the same day, the ROC, invoking the principle of “one China,” severed diplomatic ties with Japan. The ROC’s stand in the 1970s truly reflected the resolute spirit of the Chinese nation.
On August 12, 1978, Japan signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the PRC, recognizing the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China.
On December 16, 1978, the US and the PRC issued a joint communique establishing diplomatic relations, confirming the PRC as the only legitimate government of China. Subsequently, on January 1, 1979, the US formally established diplomatic relations with the PRC while severing ties with the ROC.
From that point onwards, international recognition shifted towards acknowledging the CCP and disregarding the ROC, evolving into a regime where the PRC was universally acknowledged as the only legitimate Chinese authority.
Thus, the so-called “Taiwan issue” emerged in the international arena.
Countries like the US and Japan, while recognizing the CCP as the lawful government of China, encountered challenges in accepting CCP’s sovereignty over Taiwan. This scenario led to a significant diplomatic dilemma for these nations.
If one were to acknowledge under the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation that Taiwan belonged to China, it would be necessary to specify which Chinese government Taiwan should belong to. If one didn’t recognize the international legitimacy of the ROC and affirmed the CCP as the sole lawful government of China, then, based on these historical World War II documents, Taiwan might be considered part of the PRC.
This created a logical contradiction for Western nations led by the US, leading to the widespread adoption of the narrative of the “undetermined status of Taiwan” based on the San Francisco Peace Treaty, a convenient diplomatic stance used by countries like the US to address the Taiwan issue.
Since the 1970s, after the US abandoned the ROC and began recognizing the PRC, it has maintained a vague stance on Taiwan’s status within its strategic interactions with the PRC, using ambiguous language. The US only generically acknowledges the PRC’s position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.
Although the US hasn’t stated outright that Taiwan is part of the PRC, the act of recognizing the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China and no longer recognizing the ROC as another legitimate representative of China implicitly strengthens the PRC’s claim to Taiwan’s sovereignty in the international arena.
Confronted with this self-imposed diplomatic dilemma, the US has adhered to the uncertain narrative of the “undetermined status of Taiwan” for more than 50 years, maintaining a strategic defensive position without seeking breakthroughs on the Taiwan issue in their interactions with the PRC.
The recent statement by the American Institute in Taiwan merely shifts from the long-held ambiguous stance of the “undetermined status of Taiwan” into a more explicit assertion. However, in terms of their strategic dealings with the PRC, the US has not taken a significant step forward as some analysts suggest but continues to adopt a defensive strategic posture.
The US has been consistent in signaling a “no regime change” message towards the PRC, as its public articulation hasn’t reached the firmness of the Cold War era’s tough approach towards the Soviet Union. During President Reagan’s tenure, he openly encouraged “internal evolution within the Soviet Union,” releasing overt messages suggesting the potential disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Presently, the US is in the process of adjusting its strategies concerning the PRC, aware of the threats posed by the CCP and preparing strategically for potential armed conflicts in the Taiwan Strait. However, the US hasn’t propelled its strategic goals towards the dissolution of the CCP.
The US’s strategic approach towards the PRC is still in a phase of adjustment, with the US realizing the threat posed by the PRC and preparing strategically for potential armed conflicts in the Taiwan Strait. However, the US hasn’t established strategic objectives such as the dissolution of the CCP.
As a consequence, the US faces a diplomatic impasse where it neither recognizes the PRC’s claim to Taiwan’s sovereignty nor openly supports the ROC’s international legitimacy as they did before the 1970s. Thus, they are compelled to navigate cautiously between the fuzzy assertion and the clear assertion of the “undetermined status of Taiwan”.
From the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation of World War II to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty of the Cold War era, and the current US-China power struggle, Taiwan has remained at the forefront of historical turbulence.
While the US has put forth the notion of the “undetermined status of Taiwan”, it has retained a position of restraint in its strategic dealings. So, will Taiwan potentially become the core battleground of conflict between the US and China? Can the Republic of China reattain international legal status? These questions will only be answered with time.
– Produced by the Epoch Focus Production Team