Jump to content

Retrocession Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Retrocession Day
Observed by Republic of China
TypeHistorical, cultural, nationalist
Date25 October 1945
Frequencyannual
Retrocession Day
Traditional Chinese臺灣光復節
Simplified Chinese台湾光复节
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu PinyinTáiwān guāngfùjié
Hakka
RomanizationThòi-vân kông fu̍k chiet
Southern Min
Tâi-lôTâi-uân kong-ho̍k tseh

Retrocession Day is the annual observance and former public holiday in Taiwan commemorating the end of Japanese rule of Taiwan and Penghu and the claimed retrocession ("return") of Taiwan to the Republic of China on 25 October 1945.[1][2] However, the idea of "Taiwan retrocession" remains in dispute.

Historical background

[edit]
Chief Executive of Taiwan Province Chen Yi (right) accepting the receipt of MacArthur's Order No. 1 signed by Rikichi Andō (left), the last Japanese Governor-General of Taiwan, on behalf of the Republic of China Armed Forces at Taipei City Hall

Taiwan, then more commonly known to the Western world as "Formosa", became a colony of the Empire of Japan after the Qing dynasty lost the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894 and ceded the island with the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki. Japanese rule in Taiwan lasted until the end of World War II.

In November 1943, Chiang Kai-shek took part in the Cairo Conference with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, who firmly advocated that Japan be required to return all of the territory it had annexed into its empire, including Taiwan and the Penghu (Pescadores) Islands. Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration, drafted by the United States, United Kingdom, and China in July 1945, reiterated that the provisions of the Cairo Declaration be thoroughly carried out, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender stated Japan's agreement to the terms of the Potsdam Proclamation.

Under the authorization of American General Douglas MacArthur's General Order No. 1, Chen Yi (Chief Executive of Taiwan Province) was escorted by George H. Kerr to Taiwan to accept the Japanese government's surrender as the Chinese delegate. When the Japanese surrendered at the end of World War II, General Rikichi Andō, governor-general of Taiwan and commander-in-chief of all Japanese forces on the island, signed a receipt of Order No. 1 and handed it over to Governor-General of Taiwan Chen Yi, representing the Republic of China Armed Forces to complete the official turnover in Taipei (known during occupation as Taihoku) on 25 October 1945, at Taipei City Public Auditorium (now Zhongshan Hall). Chen Yi proclaimed that day to be "Retrocession Day" and organized the island into the Taiwan Province of the Republic of China. Chen Yi's unilateral act, however, did not gain agreement from the US and the UK, for both considered Taiwan still under military occupation pending a peace treaty,[3][4] though the US accepted Chinese authority over Taiwan at the time and viewed the Republic of China as the legal government of China.[5][6] Taiwan has since been governed by the Government of the Republic of China.

Interpretations and disputes

[edit]

Governmental positions

[edit]

The official position of both the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) is that Taiwan and Penghu were returned to the Republic of China according to the terms of the 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender, which stipulated Japan's compliance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The Potsdam Declaration in turn included the terms of the Cairo Declaration, which required Japan to return all conquered territories to China, including Taiwan and the Pescadores.[7]

The ROC clarified its understanding of the Cairo Declaration in 2014 as a legally binding instrument.[8] Among other things, the clarification listed later treaties and documents that "reaffirmed" aspects of the Cairo Declaration as legally binding, including the Potsdam Proclamation, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the Treaty of San Francisco, and the Treaty of Taipei:

The post-war status and jurisdiction over Taiwan and its appertaining islands, including Penghu, was resolved through a series of legal instruments—the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan of 1952. The implementation of the legal obligation to return Taiwan and its appertaining islands (including the Diaoyutai Islands) to the ROC was first stipulated in the Cairo Declaration, and later reaffirmed in the Potsdam Proclamation, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan. The Cairo Declaration is therefore a legally binding instrument with treaty status.

In November 1950, the United States Department of State announced that no formal act restoring sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores to China had yet occurred;[9] British officials reiterated this viewpoint in 1955, saying that "The Chinese Nationalists began a military occupation of Formosa and the Pescadores in 1945. However, these areas were under Japanese sovereignty until 1952" and that

[Cairo Declaration] was couched in the form of a statement of intention, and as it was merely a statement of intention, it is merely binding in so far as it states the intent at that time, and therefore it cannot by itself transfer sovereignty.[10]

In March 1961, in a meeting of the House of Councillors of Japan, a councillor of the Japanese Communist Party brought up the notion that Taiwan had been returned to China according to the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation, and Japanese Instrument of Surrender. The then-Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs responded that:

It was specified in Potsdam Proclamation that the articles in Cairo Declaration shall be carried out, and in accordance with Japanese Instrument of Surrender we announced that we would comply with Potsdam Proclamation. However, the so-called Japanese Instrument of Surrender possesses the nature of armistice and does not possess the nature of territorial disposition.[11]

In April 1971, the U.S. Department of State spokesman stated in a press release that the US government regarded the status of Taiwan as unsettled, and that Cairo Declaration was a statement of purpose of the Allies and was never formally implemented or executed.[12]

As late as December 2014, the US government still considered Taiwan's status an unsettled issue.[13]

Other positions

[edit]
  • Supporters of the Taiwan independence movement have argued that Taiwanese retrocession was invalid since there is no precedent in international law in which an instrument of surrender effected a transfer of sovereignty, and they base their belief in part on both a declassified CIA report from March 1949 confirming that Taiwan was not a part of the Republic of China[14] and President Truman's 27 June 1950 statement regarding Taiwan's "undetermined status", which they hold as proof of the leading Allies' views. In a lengthy legal essay published in Tokyo in 1972, Chairman Ng Chiau-tong, World United Formosans for Independence, analyzed the British Parliamentary records and other documents before concluding that the political status of Taiwan was undetermined.[15]
  • Taiwanese historian Jim Lee [zh] claims the following: After World War II ended, officials of the Republic of China traveled to Taiwan to accept the surrender of Japanese forces on behalf of the Allies. Although they claimed that it was "Taiwan Retrocession", it was actually a provisional military occupation and was not a transfer of territories of Taiwan and Penghu. A transfer of territory requires a conclusion of an international treaty in order to be valid. But before the government of the Republic of China was able to conclude a treaty with Japan, it was overthrown by the Chinese Communist Party and fled its territory. Consequently, that contributed to the controversy of the "Undetermined Status of Taiwan" and the controversy over "Taiwan Retrocession".[16]
  • The Democratic Progressive Party, which rejects the idea of Taiwan being taken back by China, downplayed the event during its two presidencies.[17][18]
  • Because the Republic of China officials who accepted the surrenders of Japanese Forces in 1945 were all representatives of the Allies of World War II,[19] there are opinions that Japanese forces on Taiwan actually surrendered to the Allies, not to the Republic of China, and therefore the so-called "Taiwan Retrocession Day" is merely "Surrenders of Japanese Forces to the Allies Day", which marked the beginning of military occupation and was not a retrocession. The opinions further believe that "Taiwan Retrocession" is a misleading term.[20][21][22][23]
  • Writing in the American Journal of International Law in July 2000, Jonathan I. Charney and J. R. V. Prescott maintained that the Chinese Nationalists (ROC) began a military occupation of Taiwan in 1945 as a result of Japan's surrender,[24] and that none of the post–World War II peace treaties explicitly ceded sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores to any specific state or government.[25]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Taiwan's retrocession procedurally clear: Ma". The China Post. CNA. 26 October 2010. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 28 May 2014.
  2. ^ Huang, Tai-lin (22 May 2014). "Lien's campaign TV ads to stress love for Taiwan". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 28 May 2014.
  3. ^ "Far East (Formosa and the Pescadores)". Hansard. 540 (cc1870–4). UK Parliament. 4 May 1955. Retrieved 1 September 2010. The sovereignty was Japanese until 1952. The Japanese Treaty came into force, and at that time Formosa was being administered by the Chinese Nationalists, to whom it was entrusted in 1945, as a military occupation.
  4. ^ CIA (1949-03-14). "Probable Developments in Taiwan" (PDF). pp. 1–3. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 September 2015. Retrieved 8 March 2015. From the legal standpoint, Taiwan is not part of the Republic of China. Pending a Japanese peace treaty, the island remains occupied territory......neither the US, or any other power, has formally recognized the annexation by China of Taiwan
  5. ^ "William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States, Appellant v. Cheng Fu Sheng and Lin Fu Mei, Appellees, 280 F.2d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1960)". 1960. But in the view of our State Department, no agreement has 'purported to transfer the sovereignty of Formosa to (the Republic of) China.' At the present time, we accept the exercise of Chinese authority over Formosa, and recognize the Government of the Republic of China (the Nationalist Government) as the legal Government of China.
  6. ^ Maurer, Ely. "Legal Problems Regarding Formosa and the Offshore Islands", Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 39, pp. 1005–1011 (December 22, 1958)(transcript of speech on November 20, 1958)("Neither this agreement [of April 28, 1952] nor any other agreement thereafter has purported to transfer the sovereignty of Formosa to [the Republic of] China....The situation is, then, one where the Allied Powers still have to come to some agreement or treaty with respect to the status of Formosa. Any action, therefore, of the Chinese Communist regime to seize Formosa constitutes an attempt to seize by force territory which does not belong to it.").
  7. ^ Hung, Joe (7 December 2009). "Chen's shadow is getting eclipsed". The China Post. Archived from the original on 13 April 2014. Retrieved 8 December 2009.
  8. ^ ”Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarifies legally binding status of Cairo Declaration” (January 21, 2014).
  9. ^ United States Department of State (11 November 1950). "Sec. of State (Acheson) to Sec. of Defense (Marshall)". Foreign relations of the United States. Washington, DC: US GPO: 554–555. Archived from the original on 10 January 2015. Retrieved 9 January 2015.
  10. ^ "Far East (Formosa and the Pescadores)", Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 4 May 1955, archived from the original on 2017-10-18, retrieved 2015-12-09
  11. ^ 参議院会議録情報 第038回国会 予算委員会 第15号. 昭和36年3月15日. p. 19. . 小坂善太郎：「ポツダム宣言には、カイロ宣言の条項は履行せらるべしということが書いてある。そうしてわれわれは降伏文書によって、ポツダム宣言の受諾を宣言したのであります。しかし、これは降伏文書というものは、休戦協定の性格を有するものでありまして、領土的処理を行ない得ない性質のものであるということを申し上げたのであります。」
  12. ^ Bullard, Monte R. (2008). Strait Talk: Avoiding a Nuclear War Between the US and China over Taiwan (PDF). Monterey, CA: James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS). p. 294. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-04-13.
  13. ^ Shirley A. Kan; Wayne M. Morrison (2014-12-11). "U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues" (PDF). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. p. 4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-06-28. The United States has its own "one China" policy (vs. the PRC's "one China" principle) and position on Taiwan's status. Not recognizing the PRC's claim over Taiwan nor Taiwan as a sovereign state, U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. ^ Lowther, William (9 June 2013). "CIA report shows Taiwan concerns". Taipei Times. p. 1. Archived from the original on 13 July 2013. Retrieved 10 June 2013. [Quoting from a declassified CIA report on Taiwan written in March 1949] From the legal standpoint, Taiwan is not part of the Republic of China. Pending a Japanese peace treaty, the island remains occupied territory in which the US has proprietary interests.
  15. ^ Ng, Yuzin Chiautong (1972). Historical and Legal Aspects of the International Status of Taiwan (Formosa) (2nd ed.). Tokyo: World United Formosans for Independence. LCCN 74165355. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2010-02-25.
  16. ^ 邱燕玲 (26 October 2005). "李筱峰︰台灣光復 中國無權慶祝". Liberty Times (in Chinese). Taipei. Archived from the original on 9 March 2021. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  17. ^ Chung, Lawrence (26 October 2000). "Taipei govt downplays Retrocession Day". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 29 August 2008. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
  18. ^ Hirsch, Max (26 October 2006). "Activists call for Retrocession Day national vacation". Taipei Times. p. 2. Archived from the original on 30 November 2006. Retrieved 4 November 2007.
  19. ^ Joint Chiefs of Staff (1945). General Order No. 1  – via Wikisource. The above indicated commanders are the only representatives of the Allied Powers empowered to accept surrenders and all surrenders of Japanese Forces shall be made only to them or to their representatives.
  20. ^ 陳逸南 (28 July 2011). "受降非光復". Liberty Times (in Chinese). Taipei. Archived from the original on 9 March 2021. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
  21. ^ 黃聖峰 (9 September 2015). "台灣光復從未發生". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Taipei. Archived from the original on 11 September 2015. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
  22. ^ "釐清歷史脈絡方知「光復節」的荒謬". Liberty Times (in Chinese). Taipei. 26 October 2011. Archived from the original on 9 March 2021. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  23. ^ 王伯仁 (26 October 2015). "「台灣光復節」從張燈結綵到廢除爭議". Taiwan People News [zh] (in Chinese). Taipei. Archived from the original on 9 March 2021. Retrieved 13 May 2016.
  24. ^ Charney, Jonathan I.; Prescott, J.R.V. (July 2000). "Resolving Cross-Strait Relations between China and Taiwan". The American Journal of International Law. 94 (3): 453. doi:10.2307/2555319. JSTOR 2555319. S2CID 144402230. Archived from the original on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 1 March 2010. After occupying Taiwan in 1945 as a result of Japan's surrender, the Nationalists were defeated on the mainland in 1949, abandoning it to retreat to Taiwan. In that year the PRC was established.
  25. ^ Charney & Prescott (2000).
[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Surrender of Japan in Taiwan.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retrocession_Day&oldid=1254611270"