Re: DPP & DPP Regime不敢/ 不願/ 不便接招, 但台灣獨立運動各宗派與台灣建州運動應該準備接招

[Luby Liao]

The Taipei Times reported on Sep 14:

“Beijing’s narrative [that Taiwan is a part of China] is totally wrong,” the AIT spokesperson said, adding that none of those documents determined Taiwan’s ultimate political status.

David is right.  Taiwanese must rally behind AIT.   

Cheers, Luby

On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 9:02 AM david chou <davidch...@yahoo.com> wrote:

DPP & DPP Regime不敢/ 不願/ 不便接招, 但台灣獨立運動各宗派與台灣建州運動應該準備接招 (II)

DPP組建的 "在台灣的治理當局" ("The Governing Authorities on Taiwan") 因為戴著所謂的 "中華民國政府" 的帽子或魈鬼殼, 所以, 我估算它應該

不敢/ 不願/ 不便接AIT的招, 它的外交部應該還是會在官網繼續張貼開羅公報, 以繼續合理化 & 合法化ROC & ROC Government的存在. 它也會繼續說ROC就是台灣,台灣就是ROC, 台灣屬於ROC, 它不這麼說, 你能叫它說什麼？[它現在敢說 "ROC與PRC互不隸屬, 就已經很了不起了] 現在台灣的立法院已被赤藍黨 & 赤黨 & 柯痞黨那些 "共匪立委" 搞成 "支那台灣立法局, 你叫William當局能不繼續戴著所謂的  "中華民國政府" 的帽子或魈鬼殼？

從AIT的發言人這次的發言來看, AIT & State Department在工具箱裡的確有很多可以用來跟老共打法律戰與認知戰與輿論戰的好工具, 問題只是他們到底想使用或願意使用而已. 這次拋出的工具或武器, 美國政府過去常使用, 特別是在艾森豪與John Foster Dulles的年代, 這就是為什麼我要喊出 "回到[舊金山和會與和約那個]歷史原點, 來解決台灣主權歸屬" 的原因.

AIT的發言人現在這麼解讀Cairo Communique, Potsdam Proclamation, and San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), 或許是它的第一次 [我不記得AIT的人過去是否說過], 但這當然不是美國政府 "破天荒的第一次", 它過去常說, 而且這些觀點與立論還是 SFPT關於 "台灣處分"---"Cession in Limbo"---的基礎, 只是PRC政府 & ROC政府拒絕接受而已.

如今AIT的發言人把John Foster Dulles那時代的美國人對Cairo Communique, Potsdam Proclamation, and SFPT的解讀與立場搬出來, 這對我台灣族人 & 獨派 & 建州派都十分有利, 我們當然要欣然接招, 在AIT把它的發言人這次的談話全文張貼在官網之後.

David Chou

Founder

Formosa Statehood Movement

=======================

Appendix I

China distorting WWII history to support coercion

 

LEGAL WARFARE: An AIT spokesperson said Beijing is twisting WWII-era documents to advance false narratives and isolate Taiwan diplomatically

 

By Fan Wei-li / Staff reporter

Taipei Times

Sept. 14, 2025

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2025/09/14/2003843755

 

China is misrepresenting the Cairo Declaration and other World War II-era documents to support its coercive actions toward Taiwan, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) said on Friday.

On Sept. 3, Beijing staged a military parade to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, promoting a narrative that it had “won the war” and citing the Cairo Declaration and other wartime documents to claim that Japan had returned Taiwan’s sovereignty to China.

In response to media inquiries, an AIT spokesperson said Beijing was deliberately twisting the meaning of the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Declaration and the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco in an effort to support its coercive actions toward Taiwan.

“Beijing’s narrative is totally wrong,” the AIT spokesperson said, adding that none of those documents determined Taiwan’s ultimate political status.

Employing such false legal narratives is part of a broader campaign to isolate Taiwan internationally and restrict other countries’ sovereign choices in how they engage with Taipei, the spokesperson added.

The remarks echoed Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung’s (林佳龍) comments in a July 7 speech at a forum in Taipei, where he said that the Cairo and Potsdam declarations were political statements expressing the Allies’ wartime intentions, not binding treaties.

Lin also said that the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco — a formal agreement signed between Japan and the Allied Powers after the war — supersedes wartime declarations in legal authority, as it formally addressed the disposition of territories occupied by Japan.

The AIT’s remarks are not the first time Washington has raised such concerns. The US government has previously said that, just as Beijing has distorted UN Resolution 2758, it is again attempting to twist the meaning of WWII-era documents to justify coercion against Taiwan.

On Wednesday, US Representative Chris Smith, cochair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, introduced a resolution condemning the Chinese Communist Party’s historical revisionism and its attempt to claim credit for the Allied victory in Asia.

In Taipei, a source familiar with foreign affairs said yesterday that three points stand out in Washington’s stance on Taiwan’s unresolved international status.

First, Beijing is promoting this year as a milestone of three “80th anniversaries” — the victory of the “War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression,” the establishment of the UN and what it calls “Taiwan Restoration.”

By pairing such narratives with legal warfare and military displays, China is seeking to distort the international order established by the democratic world and replace it with one defined by Beijing and other authoritarian regimes, the source said.

Second, the presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian at its Sept. 3 military parade showed Beijing’s intention to position itself in opposition to the democratic camp, they said.

Third, Beijing is again attempting to distort UN Resolution 2758, particularly during the UN General Assembly session, to advance the false narrative that Taiwan is part of China, the source added.

Such actions openly challenge the international order that has existed since the UN’s founding 80 years ago, making it unsurprising that Washington has chosen this moment to make clear its stance, they said.

Separately, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomed and thanked the AIT for clearly stating the US’ position on Taiwan and for denying China’s claims, calling it further evidence of Washington’s firm support for Taiwan’s international participation.

“The Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China [PRC] are not subordinate to one another,” the ministry said, adding that it is an objective fact and the PRC has no right to represent Taiwan in the international community.

The Chinese government has recently launched a massive campaign of “legal warfare,” seeking to alter the regional “status quo,” legitimize its aggression, and undermine peace and stability, it said.

As a responsible member of the international community, Taiwan would continue to uphold the “status quo,” while encouraging more countries to speak out against China’s false narratives, it said.

Taiwan would also deepen cooperation with the US and other like-minded partners to safeguard peace, stability and prosperity in the region, it added.

Additional reporting by Su Yong-yao and Lee I-chia

Sent with Mixmax

[Luby Liao]

AIT批中國扭曲開羅宣言 台灣基進籲政府要積極接球

台灣基進黨主席王興煥。（資料照）

2025/09/15 05:30

〔記者林哲遠、黃靖媗／台北報導〕二次大戰終戰八十週年，中國以「開羅宣言」等文件指日本已將台灣主權歸還中國，美國在台協會（AIT）批評中國是不實法律論述，意圖將台灣孤立於國際社會外。台灣基進黨主席王興煥昨呼籲，AIT正在做球，台灣政府要積極接球，以「台灣」為名申請加入聯合國。

美國聖湯瑪斯大學國際研究講座教授葉耀元受訪指出，從一九七九年至今，美方都沒有特別去談論台灣的主權。美方本次會有較大反應，由AIT做出回應，主要是本屆太平洋島國論壇因為中國散播的假消息及施壓，讓太平洋島國將台灣、中國、美國全都排除在外；美英軍艦會在十二日同時通過台海，也是覺得中國「撈過界」，因為一旦影響到美國的權益，美方反彈就會很大。

請繼續往下閱讀...

葉耀元指出，中國從二○一六年起便一直以開羅宣言為由宣稱對台主權，但開羅宣言僅是美英台三方當年的共識，並非合約，且宣言中載明將滿州、台灣、澎湖歸還予中華民國，而非中國；中國喜歡篡改國際文件，對國際組織訴說「台灣本來就不是一個國家」。

王興煥指出，這是美國政府對戰後台灣地位爭議首度明確表態，不只否認中華人民共和國對台灣的主權宣稱，也否認了中華民國「接收台灣」的國際法正當性；此外，美國無法替台灣「決定台灣最終政治地位」，台灣必須自行表述政治地位。

「美國政府正在做球給台灣！」王興煥建議，外交部應以《舊金山和約》為基礎，著重論述台灣的獨立主權政治地位；賴清德總統也應以國家元首的身分，代表台灣所有人民，根據《聯合國憲章》以「台灣」的國家身分申請加入聯合國。

時代力量黨主席王婉諭受訪說，「台灣」與「中華人民共和國」互不隸屬，這不只是現在的客觀事實，更是歷史事實，呼籲朝野政黨，讓支持台灣的國際友人也能聽見我們的聲音。

台灣北社則表示，AIT的立場，正與台灣社會長久以來的共識相符。台灣的主權來自人民的選擇與實踐，而非外國宣言或政權片面主張，台灣的未來，不由戰時政治文件決定，而由二三○○萬人民共同選擇。

Sent with Mixmax

[Luby Liao]

蕭旭岑 never criticizes China for endangering Taiwan.  Why?

AIT’s comments criticized

• By Shih Hsiao-kuang and Jonathan Chin / Staff reporter, with staff writer
• • 
   
  • 
   
  • 

The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) put Taiwan in danger, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation director Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑) said yesterday, hours after the de facto US embassy said that Beijing had misinterpreted World War II-era documents to isolate Taiwan.

The AIT’s comments harmed the Republic of China’s (ROC) national interests and contradicted a part of the “six assurances” stipulating that the US would not change its official position on Taiwan’s sovereignty, Hsiao said.

The “six assurances,” which were given by then-US president Ronald Reagan to Taiwan in 1982, say that Washington would not set a date for ending arm sales to Taiwan, consult with China on arms sales to Taiwan, mediate between either side, revise the Taiwan Relations Act, change its official position on Taiwan’s sovereignty or pressure Taiwan to negotiate the issues with China.

Ma Ying-jeou Foundation director Hsiao Hsu-tsen speaks at an event in Taipei in an undated photograph.

Photo: Taipei Times

AIT officials appointed by the administration of former US president Joe Biden are inappropriately continuing the “cliches” of the previous administration and “manipulating” UN Resolution 2758, Hsiao said, asking AIT Director Raymond Greene whether he solicited US President Donald Trump’s opinion before making the remarks, or what Trump would think about his “reckless actions” that increase cross-strait tensions.

It does not seem to be Trump’s intention for Biden-appointed officials to continue the previous administration’s policies of manipulating Taiwan’s legal status, or acting in ways contrary to the interests and security of Taiwanese, he said.

If the AIT continues to backslide into the stance that Taiwan has an indeterminate legal status, the US would be changing the “six assurances” in a way that could undermine the already fraught cross-strait relationship, he said.

Reliance on the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco by those who advocate Taiwanese independence to justify claims that Taiwan has an indeterminate legal status is contrary to the Constitution and the historical fact that Japan returned Taiwan proper, as well as the Kinmen and Penghu archipelagos to the Republic of China, he said.

The 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Declaration and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender are legally binding documents in the eyes of international law, Hsiao said, adding that the legal effect of the documents have never been questioned by the parties named in them.

Sent with Mixmax

[Luby Liao]

Michael Turton:

An additional though minor problem with the claim that Japan “returned” Taiwan to “China” is the lack of a signed document confirming the transfer of sovereignty. While the April 17, 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki mandated that Taiwan be transferred to Japanese rule, the document formally confirming the transfer of sovereignty was signed by representatives of the Manchu (Qing) and Japanese empires on June 2, 1895. No such document exists for the “return” of Taiwan, because it has never been “returned.”
It’s a rare joy to see the US push back forcefully against Chinese expansionist propaganda, something I’ve been advocating for years. Sustained, repeated pushback by US officials against PRC narratives would have a powerful effect on the local and international discourse on the status of Taiwan.
More importantly, the US needs to take on the entire framework of faux history that the PRC has created to justify its imperialism. The US needs to talk about how the PRC is “annexing” Taiwan illegally under international law. Whenever the PRC says annexation is inevitable, the US should ask why that never happened in history, emphasizing that Taiwan has never been part of a Chinese empire. The US should also center the people of Taiwan in its discussions of Taiwan’s status: when were they ever given the choice mandated in the UN documents on decolonization, agreements that the PRC has signed? Not only would this help the people of Taiwan, it would provide a clear, easily-grasped moral and political framework for US intervention when the PRC finally moves on Taiwan.

Hurray! The AIT finally pushes back on Chinese expansionist fictions

The KMT (and CCP) knows perfectly well that Taiwan has never been part of Chinese territory, and wasn’t ‘returned’ to the ROC after World War II

• By Michael Turton / Contributing reporter
• • 
   
  • 
   
  • 

Well, it turns out I finally did live long enough to see everything. Last week Reuters reported on a statement from the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), America’s officially unofficial representative office in Taipei, that “China intentionally mischaracterises World War II-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.”

Not only did Reuters forward this crushing rejection of the claims of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), it even correctly represented US policy on Taiwan’s status.

The director of the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation, Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), then attacked AIT for its clear statement of US policy. Hsiao simply read out the KMT expansionist catechism on Taiwan, arguing that using the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco to claim that Taiwan’s status is unresolved is contrary to the constitution. He also said that Japan returned Taiwan to the Republic of China (ROC). He then went on to contend that the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Declaration and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender are legally binding documents in the eyes of international law. The legal effect of the documents have never been questioned by the parties named in them, he said.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, center, with Winston Churchill, left, and Joseph Stalin during the Yalta Conference.

Photo courtesy of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum

Every claim in there is wrong, of course. The torching of KMT imperialist claims to Taiwan was completed on Sept. 16, when the pro-KMT United Daily News (UDN) reported that the US State Department had confirmed AIT’s characterization of the US position. As the State Department’s comments showed, many of the parties named in Cairo, Potsdam and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender do not take the position that they are legally binding determinations of the status of Taiwan under international law.

Contrary to Hsiao’s assertions, standard claims made by Chinese expansionists on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation are simply declarations of policy by the allies and have no binding effect on Taiwan’s status under international law. Cairo and Potsdam were subject to change as conditions change, as President Harry Truman observed in his statement of June 27, 1950. Truman observed that “the determination of the future status of Formosa [Taiwan] must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan or consideration by the United Nations.”

This position was reiterated in Truman’s statement of Dec. 27, 1950.

Moreover, the KMT government of the ROC knows this perfectly well. For example, after the Treaty of Taipei was signed, Foreign Minister Yeh Kung-chao (葉公超), questioned in the legislature, averred that “no provision has been made either in the San Francisco Treaty of Peace as to the future of Taiwan and Penghu.”

Internal documents of Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (for example, see the May 13, 1952, “Report on the Signing of the Peace Treaty between ROC and Japan,” Vol. 54, page 11) and Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) letters also confirm this. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether PRC and KMT spokespersons are ignorant of this history, or simply lying.

Recall too that in 1950, when Truman was discussing the disposition of Taiwan, it was owned by Japan, and that the Taiwanese themselves were not consulted about their future. Even if one accepts Cairo as legally binding, by the internationally-agreed rules of the 1940s, Taiwan could not change hands without the consent of its people, as Chen Lung-chu (陳隆志) and W. M. Reisman note in their classic 1972 Yale Law Review piece, “Who Owns Taiwan?”: “Jure gentium, the Cairo Declaration could mean only that the participants agreed to recognize a Chinese acquisition of Formosa if the inhabitants of Formosa indicated that they desired to be part of or to be governed by China.”

Similarly, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender only lays out the terms of surrender to Japan. It binds the Allied powers to nothing. Again, it must be noted that the ROC occupied Taiwan on behalf of the Allies, not because Taiwan was “returned.” Instead, Japan retained sovereignty over Taiwan until April 28, 1952, when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect.

Hsiao’s statement that the ROC Constitution makes Taiwan part of the ROC is an especially beloved claim of KMT apologists for Chinese imperialism. It too is false. In 1993, a group from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) led by Chen Wan-chen (陳婉真) asked the Council of Grand Justices (now the Constitutional Court) to determine whether Mongolia and “mainland China” were territories under the ROC Constitution. In ruling #328 issued Nov. 26, 1993, the justices stated that the scope of the nation’s territory is a matter for political determination, and should not be left to the judiciary to define. As one longtime Taiwan observer put it in a private communication, the ruling made it impossible to legally violate Article 4.

Moreover, Article 4 was superseded in 2005 by an amendment to Additional Article 1, stating that “The provisions of Article 4 and Article 174 of the Constitution shall not apply.” That amendment also subjects changes in the national territory to a referendum of the population. This means that the hoary idea of “fixed national territory” (固有之疆域) is now just another lump of twisted metal on the scrapheap of history. The territory of the ROC is thus not defined in its constitution.

An additional though minor problem with the claim that Japan “returned” Taiwan to “China” is the lack of a signed document confirming the transfer of sovereignty. While the April 17, 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki mandated that Taiwan be transferred to Japanese rule, the document formally confirming the transfer of sovereignty was signed by representatives of the Manchu (Qing) and Japanese empires on June 2, 1895. No such document exists for the “return” of Taiwan, because it has never been “returned.”

It’s a rare joy to see the US push back forcefully against Chinese expansionist propaganda, something I’ve been advocating for years. Sustained, repeated pushback by US officials against PRC narratives would have a powerful effect on the local and international discourse on the status of Taiwan.

More importantly, the US needs to take on the entire framework of faux history that the PRC has created to justify its imperialism. The US needs to talk about how the PRC is “annexing” Taiwan illegally under international law. Whenever the PRC says annexation is inevitable, the US should ask why that never happened in history, emphasizing that Taiwan has never been part of a Chinese empire. The US should also center the people of Taiwan in its discussions of Taiwan’s status: when were they ever given the choice mandated in the UN documents on decolonization, agreements that the PRC has signed? Not only would this help the people of Taiwan, it would provide a clear, easily-grasped moral and political framework for US intervention when the PRC finally moves on Taiwan.

Sent with Mixmax