Yao Says Taiwan's Future Decided by Its 23 Million on Treaty Anniversary

In the ongoing debate over Taiwan’s future and international standing, the interpretation of historical documents often forms a cornerstone of competing arguments. As the 75th anniversary of the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty approaches, political circles and academia in Taiwan have once again turned their attention to this pivotal post‑World‑War II treaty that profoundly shaped the island’s status. On the 5th, senior presidential adviser Yao Jia‑wen publicly asserted that an examination of the treaty’s historical context makes clear that, while it confirms Japan’s renunciation of sovereignty over Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, the text does not transfer sovereignty over Taiwan to any other state. Based on this reality of international law, Yao emphasized, “Taiwan has no master; we are the masters,” reaffirming that Taiwan’s destiny and sovereignty belong unequivocally to its 23 million people. His remarks have reignited discussion about Taiwan’s sovereign claim and its standing under international law.

The historical backdrop of the San Francisco Peace Treaty dates to the aftermath of World War II, when the Allied Powers and Japan convened a peace conference in San Francisco on 5 September 1951 to establish the post‑war international order. The treaty was formally signed on 8 September and entered into force on 28 April 1952. Article 2 of the treaty explicitly requires Japan to relinquish all rights, titles, and claims to Taiwan and the Penghu archipelago. However, for decades scholars of Taiwanese law, historians, and political commentators have debated the legal effect of that provision. Pro‑independence advocates and those emphasizing Taiwan’s undetermined status argue that because the treaty records only Japan’s abandonment and does not specify a successor—neither the Republic of China nor the People’s Republic of China—it leaves an international‑law basis for the Taiwanese people to determine their own future. Conversely, other political perspectives maintain that the Republic of China’s post‑war administration constituted effective sovereign control.

Yao, a longtime participant in Taiwan’s democratic movement and a researcher of constitutional and legal affairs, has long been concerned with Taiwan’s historical position and its quest for normalisation as a state. By choosing the 75th anniversary of the San Francisco Peace Treaty to articulate his view, he not only reiterates his longstanding political and legal stance but also seeks to remind Taiwanese society of the objective fact that Taiwan’s sovereignty is independent of any external regime. In an era of rapid shifts in international geopolitics, with China continuing diplomatic pressure and legal challenges against Taiwan, clarifying and reinforcing Taiwan’s historical and legal legitimacy is, in Yao’s view, essential for building domestic consensus and strengthening defence resolve. The “sovereignty belongs to the people” concept he stresses reflects a societal consensus that has emerged over decades of democratisation, direct presidential elections and peaceful transfers of power.

From a broad international‑law and geopolitical perspective, the wording of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and its historical context continue to play a pivotal role in Indo‑Pacific security dialogues and legal debates. In recent years, Taiwan’s strategic importance in democratic supply chains, the semiconductor industry, and regional stability has drawn unprecedented international attention. Countries with aligned democratic values, such as the United States and Japan, have repeatedly used diplomatic and legislative channels to underscore the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and to question Beijing’s distorted interpretation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758. Within this global environment, Taiwan’s internal re‑examination of post‑war documents like the San Francisco Peace Treaty helps convey a clear legal position to the international community and offers an effective rebuttal to China’s unilateral narratives that seek to legitimize its territorial‑sovereignty claims over Taiwan.

Overall, Yao Jia‑wen’s remarks on the eve of the treaty’s 75th anniversary constitute both a thorough re‑assessment of a historic document and a firm declaration of Taiwan’s current sovereign reality. As Taiwan navigates a complex and volatile competition among great powers, revisiting history and clarifying legal foundations can provide its citizens with robust psychological support and argumentative tools. As Yao put it, Taiwan’s sovereign status cannot be dictated by external forces; the Taiwanese people are the true masters of the island. This cross‑temporal reflection carries significant and far‑reaching implications at a critical juncture in the evolving Taiwan Strait situation.

(Source: Central News Agency)