U.S. Reveals Position After Half a Century

The United States has publicly clarified its position on Taiwan's legal status for the first time in 50 years. On September 15, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) stated in a statement to Reuters that "China is distorting World War II-related documents including the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Declaration, and San Francisco Treaty," adding that "none of these documents determined Taiwan's final political status."

AIT effectively serves as the U.S. embassy in Taipei. This statement is interpreted as the U.S. officially abandoning the 'strategic ambiguity' maintained since the 1970s and declaring the 'undetermined status of Taiwan' as its official position.

Three Perspectives on Taiwan's Sovereignty

The international community's stance on Taiwan's sovereignty is broadly divided into three camps.

The Republic of China (ROC) perspective holds that Taiwan has belonged to the ROC under international law since October 25, 1945. They cite as evidence that Taiwanese representatives participated in drafting the ROC constitution in 1946.

Taiwan's pro-independence camp argues that Taiwan's sovereignty was never formally transferred through proper international legal procedures after World War II, claiming Taiwan's status remains undetermined and should be decided by Taiwanese people themselves.

The Chinese Communist Party maintains that Taiwan's sovereignty was transferred from Japan to China after World War II, and when the People's Republic of China became China's sole legitimate government, Taiwan naturally became part of China.

Legal Basis for Taiwan's Attribution After WWII

The 1943 Cairo Declaration was issued by the leaders of the ROC, United States, and United Kingdom, explicitly stating that "Manchuria, Taiwan, and the Penghu Islands shall be returned to the Republic of China."

The 1945 Potsdam Declaration reaffirmed the Cairo Declaration's provisions, with the Soviet Union also signing. Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration by signing the surrender documents on September 2 of the same year.

International law scholars recognize official declarations and proclamations by states as part of international law. Provisions related to territory, treaty implementation, and war termination are particularly binding. Therefore, Japan's signing of the Potsdam Declaration and surrender documents is interpreted as a legal commitment to return Taiwan to the ROC.

On October 25, 1945, the ROC declared sovereignty over Taiwan based on the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Declaration, and Japan's surrender documents. Under international law, Taiwan could be considered to have belonged to the ROC from this point. What remained was the 'official confirmation' through a final treaty.

Legal Vacuum Left by the San Francisco Treaty

However, the situation became complicated when the Chinese Communist Party took control of mainland China in 1949. The ROC retreated to Taiwan, and the international community became divided over the question of "who represents China."

When concluding the 1951 San Francisco Treaty, the Allied powers failed to reach consensus on Chinese representation. The United States supported the ROC, while Britain supported the PRC. In the treaty signed by 49 nations, Japan only stated it would "renounce" sovereignty over Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, without specifying to whom it would be transferred.

The following year, in the 1952 Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan, the ROC and Japan declared all treaties prior to 1941 null and void. This meant the abolition of the Treaty of Shimonoseki (Treaty of Maguan), which had ceded Taiwan to Japan. Legally, when a treaty is abolished, sovereignty should revert to the original owner, China.

Although Japan did not explicitly specify Taiwan's attribution in the treaty text, the fact that the ROC was the signatory representing China can be interpreted as implicit recognition of ROC sovereignty over Taiwan.

International Order Transformation in the 1970s

Before the 1970s, most Western countries recognized the ROC as China's legitimate government. Taiwan's sovereignty was not a controversial issue. The international community's dilemma was "whether to recognize the ROC or the PRC."

However, the landscape changed when UN Resolution 2758 in 1971 gave the PRC China's UN seat. President Nixon's 1972 visit to China and Japan's establishment of diplomatic relations with China that same year signaled the international community abandoning the ROC in favor of the Chinese Communist Party.

In 1978, Japan signed a peace and friendship treaty with China, recognizing the PRC as "the sole legitimate government of China." The United States also established diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979, breaking ties with the ROC.

This eliminated the pre-1970s "either-or" structure, solidifying a unilateral trend of recognizing only the Chinese Communist Party. From this point, the so-called 'Taiwan issue' emerged in earnest on the international stage.

Logical Contradiction Created by the U.S. Itself

Western countries including the United States and Japan fell into a dilemma: while recognizing the Chinese Communist Party as "China's sole legitimate government," they could not acknowledge that Taiwan belongs to the CCP.

According to the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations, Taiwan should belong to China. However, if they refuse to recognize the ROC and only recognize the CCP, logic dictates that Taiwan should belong to the CCP.

This was an unsolvable logical contradiction the U.S. created for itself. To avoid this contradiction, the U.S. adopted 'strategic ambiguity' as its diplomatic strategy. In U.S.-China joint communiqués, the U.S. only said it "acknowledges" China's position that "there is only one China in the world and Taiwan is part of China."

The U.S. never said Taiwan is "part of the People's Republic of China," but by no longer recognizing the ROC as a legitimate government, it left room for the CCP to claim sovereignty over Taiwan.

Future Prospects [AI Analysis]

This public U.S. position clarifies 50 years of ambiguous language, but strategically remains largely defensive. It is a defensive measure countering China's sovereignty claims based on historical documents.

However, the impact of this statement on U.S.-China relations and cross-strait relations warrants attention. The CCP will likely protest that the U.S. has undermined the "One China" principle. Within Taiwan, the pro-independence camp may use this as grounds for independence discussions.

Whether the U.S. will move toward re-recognizing the ROC's international status or officially supporting Taiwan's self-determination depends on the direction of U.S.-China hegemonic competition. Currently, the U.S. has merely 'clarified' its existing position, but the possibility that this could be a prelude to future policy changes cannot be ruled out.