Japan did not "retrocede" Taiwan after World War II
Apr 17 '04
The Bottom Line ---
Japan did not "retrocede" Taiwan to China or to any Chinese government. The relevant stipulation in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco of 1951 between Japan and the Allies to whom Japan had unconditionally surrendered in 1945 is 2.b, which reads "Japan renounces all right, title, and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores."
That this provision was 2.b stimulates curiosity about what 2.a was. Provision 2.a is parallel in renouncing territory long occupied by Japan, Korea, and in not stipulating to what government it was surrendering "all right, title, and claim."
During the discussions in San Francisco's War Memorial Opera House (earlier the place where the wording of the United Nations charter with its proclamation of the universal right of self-determination had been worked out) in September of 1951 that preceded the signing the treaty, representatives of two Soviet bloc governments complained of US aggression in Korea and asserted that Taiwan was an "integral part of China" (the Czech representative, Gertrud Sevaninova) and that there was a "legal right of the Chinese people to Manchuria, Formosa, and adjacent islands" (Polish representative Stefan Wierblowski).
The Japanese representative, Prime Minister Shigern Yoshida, did not comment on those claims. He confined himself to expressing regret "that disunity prevents China from being here." At no time did he suggest that the Japanese occupation of Formosa/Taiwan or of Korea had been wrong or illegal. Neither did US representatives (Secretary of State) Dean Acheson and (future Secretary of State) John Foster Dulles. (The representative from El Salvador, Héctor Raúl Castro lauded the renunciation of Korea as "eminently just and legitimate for it puts an end to the unjustified occupation which Japan had exercised over the Korean Nation and restores it to the independent life to which it is fully entitled" before denouncing "the dual aggression of forces from the north [of the Republic of Korea] and forces coming from the so-called 'People's Republic of China.'" He did not find any fault with Japan's occupation of Formosa/Taiwan.)
A "People's Republic of China" had been proclaimed two years earlier, and the Kuomintang "Republic of China" government had fled to Taiwan earlier. Japan could have transferred its claim to sovereignty to either the PRC or the ROC, but did not. Japan did not "retrocede" Taiwan (and the Pescadores.)
Whether Japan could have "retroceded" sovereignty is not entirely obvious. It was the Q'ing dynasty government that transferred its claims to Taiwan (an island only partly under its effective rule in 1895) to Japan. The last Q'ing emperor, Pu Yi, was alive in 1951, and if Japan had transferred its claim to Taiwan back to someone in the Q'ing dynastic line, it might be proper to speak of "retrocession." Even this completely unlikely scenario might not constitute "retrocession to China," however, within the view that the Q'ing were a "foreign" dynasty ruling China and parts of Taiwan (although, before it was overthrown, the previous dynasty, the Ming, controlled even less of Taiwan than the Q'ing did in 1895).
In 1951, the government that transferred its claim to Taiwan was long gone, and, if the Manchurian Q'ing dynasty is not regarded as "Chinese," no part of Taiwan had been ruled by a "Chinese government" from China since the mid-seventeenth century. Japan could not return Taiwan to either the ROC or the PRC, since neither had existed in 1895, nor to the long-gone Ming dynasty. (Also, the resistance of Taiwanese to Japanese occupation in 1895, alluded to by the Czech representative to the San Francisco peace conference) was not an attempt to remain under Q'ing rule but to be independent
The Treaty of San Francisco did not stipulate what was the legitimate government of Korea or Taiwan or China, even though United Nations forces were defending the Republic of Korea at the time against PRC "volunteers." It also did not make any specific references to Manchuria, even though the Japanese had set up a puppet state of Manchukuo with Pu Yi as its figurehead. Japan's sovereignty in regard to Taiwan was addressed in a specific provision, whereas Manchuria was treated as part of China.
Japan recognized the "independence of Korea," but not the independence of China or of Taiwan. Had Taiwan been considered a part of China, it would have been covered by provision 4.d—"Japan renounces all special rights and interests in China." At the time Japan surrendered, it occupied a large amount of territory that is now governed by the PRC as well as all of the territory that is now governed by the ROC. If Taiwan were simply a part of China, there would not have needed to be provision 2.b, only the provision 4.d concerning China.
---
All quotations are from the English-language text of the treaty and from the verbatim "Record of Proceedings / Conference for the Conclusion and Signature of the Treaty of Peace with Japan" published in 1951 by the US State Department.
On an attempted whitewash of the KMT misrule and 1947 massacre(s) see
http://www.epinions.com/content_91399097988
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.