The Recent Sino-US Dispute Over Taiwan’s Post-WWII Status Is A Sign Of The Times
As the New Cold War shifts from the US prioritizing Russia’s containment in Europe to China’s containment in Asia, so too is the trend of the US gradually revising the results of WWII in order to give it an edge on that front too.
The US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan emailed Reuters a statement in mid-September criticizing China’s reliance on WWII-era agreements in support of its claim to the island. They declared that “China intentionally mischaracterises World War Two-era documents, including the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Treaty of San Francisco, to try to support its coercive campaign to subjugate Taiwan.” The latest twist in this dispute coincides with the 80th anniversary of Japan’s defeat.
For background, the 1943 Cairo Declaration states that Formosa (Taiwan’s colonial-era name) will be returned to the Republic of China (ROC); the 1945 Potsdam Declaration references Cairo and limits the geographic scope of Japanese sovereignty without mentioning Formosa; and the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco resulted in Japan officially renouncing its claim to Formosa while leaving its status unresolved. The ROC’s and People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) interpretations thereof will now be briefly summarized.
The Taiwan-based ROC considers itself to be China’s only legitimate government since it represents the League of Nations-recognized ROC despite that erstwhile organization’s UN successor expelling them in 1971 and replacing their permanent Security Council seat with the PRC. It thus interprets the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations as confirming its control over Taiwan while the PRC relies on the aforesaid decision, which recognized it as the only legitimate representative of China, to legally claim Taiwan.
The significance of the US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan criticizing China’s (formally the PRC’s) reliance on these WWII-era agreements (Reuters reminded readers that it considers the Treaty of San Francisco “illegal and invalid” since it wasn’t party to it) is that it’s a sign of the times. As the New Cold War shifts from the US prioritizing Russia’s containment in Europe to China’s containment in Asia, so too is the trend of the US gradually revising the results of WWII in order to give it an edge on that front too.
Russia believes that Germany’s remilitarization, Finland’s membership in NATO, and the push for neutral Austria to follow, all of which are backed by the US, prove that the US is gradually revising the results of WWII. Likewise, so too does it believe that Japan’s US-backed remilitarization is proof of the same, the view of which China shares as well. It was therefore predictable that the US would one day start to more assertively challenge China’s reliance on WWII-era agreements in support of its claim to Taiwan.
The world order always changes as history attests, but in these instances, associated processes are being weaponized by the US for containment purposes vis-à-vis what can nowadays be described as the Sino-Russo Entente in order to justify more aggressive policies against them on false legal bases. Permanent UNSC members Russia and China obviously wouldn’t agree to the abovementioned revisions, hence why the US is backing them unilaterally, which further accelerates the collapse of the post-WWII order.
The ideal scenario as envisaged in the UN Charter is for the UNSC to jointly pioneer a controlled transition to a new order that preserves the balance of power between them so as to reduce the risk of conflict during this period. That became impossible after the US’ unilateral withdrawal from arms control pacts with Russia dismantled the global security architecture, however, which inevitably led to it gradually revising the results of WWII and dangerously raising tensions with the Sino-Russo Entente.
It is a bit more complicated than "Taiwan is China" or "Taiwan belongs to China" as one has to ask "which China" and "what kind of China". If you cannot read Chinese, I would recommend my own "A Brief History of Taiwan's History, 1624-2023" on substack https://nakayama1.substack.com/p/brief-introduction-to-taiwans-history.
No, you cannot completely trust Google on this kind of subject because of CIA's involvement in this trouble and troubled spot. To simplify the problem a bit too much, I would say people in Taiwan want free trade and travel relationship with China, protection from the US nuclear umbrella, European-style social welfare, Japanese style education, and no tax. But when one cannot get all the goals, then the vast majority will accept the fate of Hong-Kong - although they would not get it. A key for national independence is the willingness to fight and die for it. That is what people in Taiwan do not have. People in Taiwan will surely try to fight for what are good for them individually, but not necessarily for the good of whole Taiwan. The remaining Chinese nationalism in Taiwan is a dying species, and few of them are true believers of China. More of them simply want to avoid military conflict.
My mid-to-long term guess: The US will have a brief conflict with China, then either sell Taiwan to China, or sell Taiwan to Japan and plod Japan to fight against China. The former will be a short conflict fought over ocean. The latter will be much more brutal if it does happen due to the arousal of Chinese nationalism in China's military and the Taiwan Independence movement (with Japanese descendants at its core). However, Japan is not ready to take on this hot potato. The US is not ready to fight China. The US may have problems giving Israel more bombs due to the recent TNT factory explosion. Taiwan is not ready to fight (significant amount of weapons but not enough morale).
China is not ready to fight -- power vacuum will start to disappear AFTER the fourth Central Committee meeting (to decide the power transition after Xi) and will not settle until the new power circle has consolidated power (can be fast, as Xi faction is already being washed out) and the coming regime will be more concerned about domestic affairs (for CCP survival) rather than outward expansion during the Xi era (because China was NOT ready to challenge the US hegemony). Had the US not pressured Ukraine to move East, the US might have successfully bluffed China into a better trade deal. But the outcome of the Ukraine War essentially says the Empire is made of paper, and the events in Palestine say the Empire has neither shame nor sovereignty. Both China and the US are crumbling from the inside, but who will reach bottom first? Note that the depths of shock needed to wreck a nation differ between the two due to their respective social, economic, and financial structures.
Of course, few, if any, war occurs when at least one side is ready. More often than not, conflicts being negotiated about over and over without resolution will burst out of control. If all the involved parties have something to be afraid of, people in Taiwan will have peace. If one of the parties believes "we can win this" like one of the world-class leader recently said, then Taiwan will see war, sooner or later.
Andrew, excuse me for this off-topic but it's to delicious and just made this morning.
It's about AMC.
Today, in an article, Simplicius is glad because he says that Russians have such new drone tactics and growth of building that it can overwhelm ukrainian AD.
And where that become funny is when he said that last year, Ukrainian AD was able to destroy most of russian drones and cruise missiles ...
But, if I remember well, last year, all pro-Russian-non-Russian AMC, and Simplicius among it, mocked Ukrainian AD in laughing that it was unable to repel russian attacks and 95% of russian strikes was effective.
Surprising, no?
😂