What exactly do you think recognizing Korea’s independence means? Maybe you want to ask gemeni about the definition to a independent nation.
Japan also recognizes China as an independent nation. I’m trying to understand your point of view in why you think Taiwan was / is not Chinese (ROC) territory, yet the same does not apply to the Korean Peninsula despite the same wording in the Treaty of San Francisco (which is not fully recognized by Korea nor China) and both having transferred sovereignty over to Japan in earlier wars.
The wording in Article 2 (a) of the treaty clearly recognized Korea as independent from Japan, therefore returning sovereignty to the legitimate government of Korea, which at the time Japan only recognized South Korea. However, the terms of the treaty left room to interpret that the sovereignty could go to which ever government/s the people of Korea chose.
In Article 2 (b), since Japan didn’t specify the recipient, Taiwan is still left under the administration of Allied Powers, and the sovereignty is pending self-determination.
Korea ceased to exist as a sovereign nation after their 1910 annexation and became part of Japan. So yes they needed something formal to declare independence specifically from Japan since they were part of Japan. China was never fully annexed so there was no need to declare independence from Japan - they were already recognized as independent.
Article 2 (b) in the San Francisco Peace treaty says:
Japan renounces all rights, title, and claims to Korea (… and Quelpart, Port Hamilton, etc)
Japan renounces all rights, title, and claims to Taiwan (… and the Pescadores, etc)
There’s no mention I see of transfer of sovereignty in there to any particular nation. I don’t think you can assume that there was a transfer of sovereignty to Korea yet no transfer of sovereignty to China (ROC).
The treaty also left the same room for Taiwan to choose, and the people/government of Taiwan at the time was China (ROC).
The UN wanted to hold a national election in Korea, which the Soviet bloc refused, and Soviet forces were in control of North Korea because they were ordered to do so in Douglas MacArthur’s General Order No. 1. So the UN passed a resolution that a election should be held where ever possible, and that was the 1948 South Korean Constitutional Assembly election.
Constitutional Assembly then drafted a constitution, and elected Syngman Rhee as the first president, and declared the formation of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) in 1948.
In the Treaty of San Francisco, Japan simply recognized that Korea is now independent from Japan.
Fixed it for you.
I didn’t use quotes, I was paraphrasing. The independence clause is there because Korea ceased to exist after 1910 after being completely annexed by Japan and became part of Japan and Japan needed to officially recognize Korea’s independence. The Korean Peninsula (geographical concept that many nations claim) is different than Korea (which is a national concept).
I think your opinion that Taiwan does not belong to the ROC is an opinion and let’s just leave it at that. I don’t take a strong opinion on either side but trying to have an open debate. Korea and ROC were not signatories to the San Francisco treaty and neither fully recognize that treaty.
Japan signed separate treaties with nations not part of the San Francisco treaty. There’s the Treaty of Taipei signed on the same day as the San Francisco treaty between the ROC and Japan (which the US pushed for) which has some more regional clarity.
I’ll leave this article here which has some reading on controversial questions around transfer of sovereignty of Taiwan, why the treaty of Taipei resolved them, and why some disagree (and some may even claim the Taipei treaty to be invalid):
Over the past few years, some people have called into question the meaning of Japan’s “renouncing” its claim to Taiwan and Penghu without stating that these were being “returned” to the Republic of China. As a consequence, they have argued that the future of Taiwan was left unsettled. But is there any legal grounding for this argument? It’s worth discussing.
https://www.taiwan-panorama.com/en/Articles/Details?Guid=9487f6a2-1fa6-4d62-9838-8321cb7c8acc
You either recognize the treaty, or you don’t. To those who view the treaty as an illegitimate one, they also have to accept the fact that without the Treaty of San Francisco, the sovereignty of both Korea and Taiwan would still belong to Japan.
Not accurate. The Treaty of Taipei was signed on Apr 28 1952, and didn’t went into effect until Aug 5. The Treaty of San Francisco was signed back on Sep 8, 1951, and went into effect on April 28, 1952. This means by the signing of the Treaty of Taipei, the Treaty of San Francisco already went into effect. The timing is quite likely deliberate on the part of Japan under the instruction of the US, as it implies Japan already renounced all its rights, title, and claims to Taiwan at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Taipei.
Even if we ignore the timing, there is no part in the Treaty of Taipei where Japan designates the ROC government in exile as the recipient of Taiwan’s sovereignty. The relevant article is Article 10:
Article X
For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendants who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores); and juridical persons of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all those registered under the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).
Japan specifically said for the purpose of the treaty, Japan only recognizes the Republic of China to only be the exiled government in Taiwan, and does not include people living in actual China.
The next article also promptly said:
Article XI
Unless otherwise provided for in the present Treaty and the documents supplementary thereto, any problem arising between the Republic of China and Japan as a result of the existence of a state of war shall be settled in accordance with-the relevant provisions of the San Francisco Treaty.
I didn’t say they were signed on the same day (but I guess that’s one way to interpret what I said). The Taipei treaty was signed on the same day as the San Francisco treaty, actually a few hours before the San Francisco treaty went into effect for a reason.
The regional treaties were between Japan and regional nations who were not part of the San Francisco treaty and this was encouraged by the US. The article I linked talks more about the wording of the Taipei treaty. Korea signed similar regional treaties. The treaties have similar wording with additional clauses.
Not true - there were regional treaties. The treaty of Taipei being one where Japan relinquishes rights to Taiwan.
Well that’s your opinion, but not the opinion of the article I linked.
I’m curious what the majority of local Taiwanese think, since it’s their land.
Those who reject treaties seem to often be the same folks who think whatever China is up to is magically not imperialism. It’s just like magic!
Guy
Korea and ROC rejecting parts of the San Francisco treaty makes them like China imperialism? I don’t follow.
Of course ROC nationalists are Chinese nationalists. They are in my experience the last people on earth who would acknowledge the workings of the Chinese empire!
With Korean rejection, I have not read those sources. If you have specific links or articles, I’d be interested in knowing why Koreans would object to Japan surrendering sovereignty over Korea.
Guy
Please refer to Article 11 of the Treaty of Taipei, where it clearly states the Treaty of Taipei and any issue in the future shall be settled in accordance with-the relevant provisions of the San Francisco Treaty.
In fact, the Treaty of Taipei only happened because it is demanded by Article 26 of the SFPT.
https://www.spf.org/islandstudies/info_library/takeshima--index-1-26.html
They reject specific parts of the treaty that relates to Dokdo (Takeshima) and Tsushima and did not sign the treaty. They are now disputed islands.
There’s an important part missing - the full text is below
Article 11
Unless otherwise provided for in the present Treaty and the documents supplementary thereto, any problem arising between the Republic of China and Japan as a result of the existence of a state of war shall be settled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the San Francisco Treaty.
It says “Unless otherwise provided for in the present Treaty”.
Now look at article 2 and 10
Article 2
It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands.
Article 10
For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendents who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores); and juridical persons of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all those registered under the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).
Article 2 says Japan renounces all rights to Taiwan. Article 10 says ROC nationals include all present and former inhabitants of Taiwan and Penghu.
“For the purpose of the treaty”, which is to renounce Japanese claims to the islands, and specifying those former Japanese citizens are no longer Japanese citizens.
The status of Dokdo and Tsushima were deliberately left ambiguous because both countries had occupied those territories throughout history, and the US didn’t want to make that determination.
Dokdo (Takeshima) was proposed to be given to Korea in earlier drafts and then removed later. Korea wasn’t invited to the negotiations so all they could do was object
The drafts of the peace treaty with Japan, which the U.S. Department of State had been preparing since 1947, proposed to take Takeshima away from Japan and to include it in a part of “Korea” that Japan should renounce.
You can put anything in the draft. If it is not in the final treaty, it is not a part of the treaty.
Korea wasn’t invited because it was a colony of Japan mainly because of two things. The US and other major Allied Powers felt only a enemy state, in this case Japan, or founding members of the United Nations could be signatories, and Korea as a former colony of Japan was neither.
In 1946, the US military banned ships from either side from getting near the island, and in SCAPIN 677, Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan, the Supreme Command of Allied Powers’ directive was that:
- For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30° North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island); and excluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island…
In practice, Dokto was not treated as a part of Japan. However, much like why the US deliberately refused to designate a recipient of Taiwan’s sovereignty in the SFPT, the main reason for leaving Dokto out is probably because the Korean War was going on, and the US didn’t want to leave the possibility of it falling into Soviet influence open.
So just prior and after the treaty, Dokto was essentially ran by the US military, first SCAP from 1945, then USAMGIK from 1946, which used it as a bombing range until 1953. It’s only after the Korean War was pretty much concluded that the US ceased military claim of the island, and South Korean didn’t exercise actual control of the island until 1954.
That’s an interesting angle. We should present it to China so we can watch yet another superpower get a whipping from the Vietnamese!