How was the transfer of Formosa (Taiwan) to The Republic of China (ROC) at the end of WWII legally establish?

by sammaverick

As title, how was this legally determined, and more importantly why is there still a controversy regarding this issue in Taiwan, and is there merit to these claims?

davepx

Technically, it hasn't been: the 1943 US-British Chinese Cairo Declaration stated rather inelegantly that "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China."

In 1945 the island was placed under Chinese military occupation, and in the 1951 San Francisco peace treaty Japan renounced all title to it, but transfer to Chinese sovereignty was never explicitly stated. The separate Japan-ROC peace treaty of 1952 used the same formulation, but was terminated by Japan in 1972 on its transfer of recognition to the PRC.

The joint statement at the end of Japanese prime minister Tanaka's visit to Beijing in 1972 (the occasion of Japan's shift of recognition) included the declaration that:

  1. The Government of the People's Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.

(Article 8 had specified that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.")

The 1978 Japan-PRC peace treaty didn't even mention the island, instead declaring that "the above-mentioned Joint Communique constitutes the basis of the relations of peace and friendship between the two countries and that the principles enunciated in the Joint Communique should be strictly observed."

So there's a kind of legal limbo, seemingly reflecting not so much the principle of transfer to China but rather by 1951 which China (Britain and Indonesia among the San Francisco signatories having recognised the PRC the year before, and others possibly contemplating such a move).

Is there merit? Many Taiwanese considered the ROC an imposition from the start, even rebelling in 1947. Legally, it's a muddle. But on the other hand, retrocession was clearly an Allied intention before two de facto Chinas complicated matters. The rights and wrrongs are likely to matter less than Beijing's attitude, which decisively rejects independence to the extent of threatening a military response.