KMT Reaffirms: Legal Status of Taiwan Beyond Question

News Release

KMT Cultural and Communications Committee

September 5, 2011

KMT Reaffirms: Legal Status of Taiwan Beyond Question

Pro-independence groups argue that the legal status of Taiwan was undetermined by claiming that the San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed between Japan and the Allied Powers on September 8, 1951, did not clearly indicate who had sovereignty over Taiwan after Japan renounced all rights, title, and claims to the island of Taiwan and the Pescadores. In addition, Yu Shy-kun, the superintendent of Tsai Ing-wen’s Campaign Office, even went so far as to say that “the Republic of China (ROC) is fictitious.”

In response, KMT spokesman Charles I-Hsin Chen said that one could not interpret a historical document selectively and unilaterally. Chen said that the ROC had not been invited to the 1951 San Francisco Peace Conference, adding that although the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty did not indicate which country had sovereignty over Taiwan and the Pescadores after Japan renounced their rights, title, and claims over them, that did not mean that Taiwan did not belong to the ROC according to other treaties and historical documents.    

Chen said that the argument that the legal status of Taiwan was undetermined was fallacious as pro-independence groups selectively interpreted historical documents. In fact, during World War II, the 1943 Cairo Declaration stated that “all territories stolen from China, including the four northeastern provinces, Taiwan, and the Pescadores, must be returned to the ROC.” In addition, Clause 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (signed on July, 1945) stated: The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine. Moreover, Articles 1 and 2 of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender dated September 1945 stated that Japan surrendered unconditionally and would carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith.    

Chen stated that the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender have been compiled into the “Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949” by the US government. In other words, both the ROC and the US governments regarded the three above-mentioned documents as treaties. Furthermore, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender has been incorporated into the “United States Statutes at Large” and the “United Nations Treaty Series.” Therefore, these documents are treaties with binding force.  

Chen stated that on September 9, 1945, in Nanjing, Japan surrendered to General Ho Ying-chin, representing Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the China Theater. Rikichi Andō, the last Japanese Governor-General of Taiwan, formally surrendered Taiwan to ROC General Chen Yi, and the ROC government thus began to exercise its sovereignty over Taiwan. On January 12, 1946, the ROC government, in formal declaration, reinstated the ROC nationality to the people in Taiwan and Penghu, retroactive from October 25, 1945. On April 28, 1952, the ROC signed a separate Peace Treaty with Japan, which stipulated that “all treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war” (Article 4), including the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki ceding Taiwan and the Pescadores to Japan. Article 10 of the Peace Treaty also stipulates: “For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendents who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores); and juridical persons of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all those registered under the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).”   

Chen called on the DPP not to try to have it both ways on the issue of sovereignty. On the one hand, DPP chairwoman and Presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen is running for the ROC Presidency. On the other, former Premier Yu Shy-kun, who is Tsai’s campaign superintendant, said that “The ROC is fictitious.”

Chen asked, “If the ROC is fictitious, does this mean that Yu’s premiership was also fictitious? If this is not the case, Yu should apologize for his misstatement.”

Chen said that since the DPP believed that Taiwan’s sovereignty did not belong to the ROC and that the ROC was "a government in exile," how could they convince the public that Tsai, who never recognized or mentioned the ROC, was running for ROC Presidency and that, if elected, she would safeguard the ROC earnestly?  

Attachment : none