The Recent Sino-US Dispute Over Taiwan’s Post-WWII Status-Sign Of The Times
Andrew Korybko writes on Substack…
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.
_________
Header featured image (edited) credit: Vioce Of East article tease open card. Emphasis added by (TLB)
••••
••••
Stay tuned…
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply