The Chinese side declares the US-Japan peace treaty null and void and brooks no challengeOne in the middlePrinciple.
The Taiwan issue has always been a sensitive point in Sino-US relations. Although over the past year or so, the United States has constantly tried to force China to make concessions by playing the "Taiwan card," including constantly stepping on the line on the Taiwan issue, providing assistance to the Taiwan authorities, and sending congressmen to visit each other, but in the end it has not shaken the overall situation of the inevitable reunification of the two sides of the strait.
On the contrary, China's growing power has dashed America's expectations for the "Taiwan card" effect. Although the United States is still supporting the Taiwan authorities in provoking the mainland, now that the means available to it have been exhausted, it can only force the mainland to reunify by force ahead of schedule, and this is undoubtedly an unacceptable outcome for the United States.
They are constantly trying to come up with new means to play the "Taiwan card" to the fullest. Recently, an American scholar claimed that according to the "San Francisco Peace Treaty" signed by the United States and Japan, Japan only gave up its sovereignty over Taiwan Island and the Penghu Islands, but did not hand over sovereignty to China, so the current Taiwan Island does not belong to China.
This point of view is obviously nonsense, and the Americans have always liked to use force, insist on hegemony, and are unwilling to be reasonable. Now that they can't beat China, they have begun to move out of the so-called "San Francisco Peace Treaty" and use it as a reason to support "**", which is simply ridiculous.
According to our spokesman Zhao Lijian, the San Francisco Peace Treaty has proved to be illegal and invalid, and China resolutely refuses to recognize this agreement. International documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation clearly affirm China's sovereignty over the island of Taiwan, which belongs to the same country as the mainland.
Any attempt to challenge the "one China" principle will fail. So, let's take a rational look at this so-called San Francisco Peace Treaty. It was a separate treaty signed between the United States and Japan in 1951, when the Korean War was raging, in order to turn Japan into a bridgehead for its support of the Korean War.
At the end of World War II, Japan, as a defeated country, had no sovereignty and could not be considered a normal country. In order to seek Japan's support, the United States pushed the Japanese nation back to basic normalcy, and the "San Francisco Peace Treaty" was born.
However, China was unable to sign the treaty because it was at war with the United States in Korea at the time. Therefore, the "San Francisco Peace Treaty" was in fact only the result of a unilateral peace between the capitalist camp and Japan.
From the perspective of international law, Japan caused great harm to China, the Soviet Union, Southeast Asian countries and other countries during World War II, and the United States was only one of the victorious countries and had no right to make peace with Japan, so the "San Francisco Peace Treaty" was illegal in nature.
China considers the San Francisco Peace Treaty to involve territorial and territorial issues such as the island of Taiwan, Xisha and Nansha, but does not have China's participation, so the treaty has no meaning for China.
If the United States insists on arguing with the San Francisco Peace Treaty, then it should also discuss the issue of sovereignty over the Ryukyu Islands, and it should not arbitrarily turn the sovereign Ryukyu Islands into Japanese territory just because of the peace treaty signed privately by the United States and Japan.
In addition, even if, according to the American scholar, Japan gave up its sovereignty over the island of Taiwan but did not return it to China, it does not deny the fact that the island is an inalienable part of China.
According to the provisions of history and international law, land seized by a country in a treaty must be returned to its original owner after the treaty expires. Japan seized Taiwan from China after the First Sino-Japanese War, and now Japan has renounced this right and should have been taken over by the legitimate ** represented by China, the People's Republic of China.
If, according to some people's opinions, as long as the treaty does not explicitly state that it will be returned to its original owner, it can be carried out, then the United States should also return the land to the Indians when it invaded North America and robbed them, and not because there is no treaty, it can carry out illegal acts.
International law clearly stipulates whether an island is part of the territory of a country, and as long as the people of a country have lived on the island for more than 100 years, the island can be regarded as its own territory.
This is also reflected in the international law that islands may not be leased for a maximum period of 99 years.
Since ancient times, the island of Taiwan has been an inseparable part of China, and this is a fact that cannot be changed by any sophistry or tampering. Regardless of how relations between the mainland and Taiwan are resolved, it is only an internal affair of us Chinese, and has nothing to do with the United States, which is far away on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.
The United States attempts to support "** by means of "reasoning", and this kind of behavior will only bring shame on itself.
If, on the other hand, a country, accustomed to solving problems by force, begins to try to respond to another country with sophistries and fallacies, then it can only be said that the strength of this country is weakening and the strength of another country is increasing.
The general trend of history cannot be changed, and even Americans know this. Although they pay lip service to the force, they have actually realized that China's rise can no longer be threatened with force, and can only find other means to weaken China and limit its development.