In the final draft of the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan, in the second chapter dealing with territorial issues, except for the explicit provision that Japan recognizes the independence of the Korean Peninsula, all other territories are "renounced all rights, titles, and claims". This blurring process laid the foundation for the subsequent territorial disputes in the East Asian region.


The San Francisco Peace Treaty laid the groundwork for future disputes in the South China Sea, with Chinese coast guard ships and Philippine fishing boats constantly clashing in the South China Sea. (Agence France Presse)

The tension in Sino Japanese relations continues due to Japanese Prime Minister Hayao Takashi's Taiwan related remarks on November 7th. On November 26th, during a congressional inquiry, Takashi also cited the September 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, claiming that since the signing of the treaty, Japan has relinquished all rights over Taiwan and "has no position on recognizing Taiwan's legal status".   Although Takashi expressed his "reflection" on the Taiwan related remarks made on November 7th on December 18th, stating that the remarks exceeded the Japanese government's "standard answer", Japan's basic attitude towards the San Francisco Peace Treaty should not change.

Not to mention Gao Shi's use of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which is seriously inconsistent with the joint statement issued by China and Japan when they restored diplomatic relations in September 1972 (in which Japan "understood and respected" the Chinese government's position on Taiwan's ownership and "insisted on following the position of Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration," which reiterated the Cairo Declaration's military purpose of returning Taiwan and other places to China after Japan's defeat), the San Francisco Peace Treaty itself was resisted by victorious countries such as China and the Soviet Union due to its violation of the relevant provisions of the post-war territorial arrangements in the September 2, 1945 Japanese Surrender Agreement. From the perspective of the development of post-war territorial disputes in East Asia, the territorial provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty were actually one of the important sources of chaos in the region after the war.

The Instrument of Surrender of Japan is an authoritative legal document that directly ended the Allied forces' military operations against Japan, and is functionally equivalent to a ceasefire agreement under the laws of war. However, due to the fact that the ceasefire conditions stipulated in the surrender document were first and foremost Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, which involved the disposal of post-war Japanese territory and colonies, the surrender document also had the attributes of a preliminary peace treaty or peace treaty. Because in traditional practice of the laws of war, territorial issues are generally handled by formal peace treaties. If there is a preliminary peace treaty before the signing of the peace treaty, then the formal peace treaty should first follow the provisions of the preliminary peace treaty. Even if there are changes, the consent of all parties who signed the initial peace treaty, at least the major stakeholders, must be obtained.

The San Francisco Peace Conference between the Allied Powers and Japan was postponed until September 1951 due to factors such as the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union and the Chinese Civil War. If it weren't for the outbreak of the Korean War, it might have dragged on even longer. During the preparation period of this peace conference led by the United States and assisted by the United Kingdom, there was a dispute over which side of the Taiwan Strait to invite to represent China. The United States originally planned to invite Taiwan, while countries such as the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and India advocated inviting the mainland.   This decision was met with unanimous opposition from both sides of the Taiwan Strait at the time.

When discussing the text of the formal treaty, the territorial clause once again became the focus of controversy. The term "territory" refers not only to Penghu, Taiwan, but also to the Xisha and the Nansha Islands, the south of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands, and even to the Ryukyu Islands. According to the Potsdam Declaration, post-war Japanese territory was limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and other small islands determined by the Allied powers. That is to say, except for the four islands mentioned above, the disposal and ownership of other islands and land must be jointly decided by the Allied powers.

In the draft treaty submitted by the United States, it was explicitly stipulated that the southern part of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands would be transferred to the Soviet Union, and the Korean Peninsula would gain independence. But when it comes to China's territorial interests such as Taiwan, Penghu, Xisha and Nansha, the United States only mentions that Japan must give up, without mentioning returning them to China. At that time, the Truman administration made this arrangement to continue intervening in Taiwan Strait affairs without using the pretext of interfering in China's internal affairs. Because if it is explicitly stipulated to return these territories to China, the United States will lose the reason to continue to station troops in the Taiwan Strait.  

Gu Weijun gave up and sought a second best option for gelatinization treatment

The United States blurred the handling of China's territory in the draft treaty and ultimately obtained the understanding of Britain.   When Taiwan discovered that the draft peace treaty only did not specify the ownership of Taiwan's Penghu and Xisha and Nansha Islands, but allowed other lands to have their own sovereignty, then Ambassador to the United States Gu Weijun was tasked with negotiating with the US side. In the face of the US insistence on blurring the treatment, Gu Weijun took a secondary approach and proposed to blur all territorial issues in order to demonstrate "equality" with other victorious countries, that is, only stipulating Japan's abandonment of these territories without specifying who should inherit them. The US ultimately adopted this suggestion.

Therefore, the finalized San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan, in the second chapter dealing with territorial issues, except for the explicit stipulation that Japan recognizes the independence of the Korean Peninsula, all the other territories are "waiving all rights, right names and claims", including Jeju Island, Juwen Island, Yuling Island, Taiwan and Penghu Islands, the Nansha Islands and the Xisha Islands, southern Sakhalin Island and Kuril Islands. This blurring process laid the foundation for the subsequent territorial disputes in the East Asian region.

For the Soviet Union, as one of its major allies in World War II, its territorial claims were not reflected in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, so although it participated in the San Francisco Peace Conference, it refused to sign the treaty. But due to its actual control over the southern part of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands, both the United States and Japan are helpless. But this move also directly triggered the dispute over the Northern Territories (Southern Kuril Islands) between Japan and the Soviet Union (Russia) in the future. In addition, due to the omission of Dokdo (known as Takeshima in Japan) in the territorial provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it also led to the island dispute between South Korea and Japan later on.

For China, as the ally that fought against Japan for the longest time and sacrificed the most, but failed to confirm its territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu, which was declared in the Cairo Declaration, reaffirmed in the Potsdam Declaration, and confirmed in Japan's surrender document, from the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it should be condemned as illegal, invalid, and not bound by it. Therefore, the San Francisco Peace Treaty also added chaos to the Taiwan Strait issue and laid hidden dangers for the later South China Sea disputes. In addition, the San Francisco Peace Treaty and subsequent US Japan Security Treaty, which were strongly dominated by the United States, completely excluded all other allied countries from intervening in the Ryukyu issue, laying hidden dangers for the later Ryukyu and Diaoyu Islands (known as Senkaku Islands in Japan) issues.

In short, the territorial provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty violated the principle of non separate peace established between the major Allied powers during World War II, and went against the initial territorial arrangements made in the Japanese Surrender Agreement, leading to multiple territorial disputes in the East Asian region thereafter, which was one of the important sources of chaos in the post-war region. At this time, Takashi Hayao's use of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as a shield is not only futile, but may also trigger new controversies.

In the final draft of the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan, in the second chapter dealing with territorial issues, except for the explicit provision that Japan recognizes the independence of the Korean Peninsula, all other territories are "renounced all rights, titles, and claims". This blurring process laid the foundation for the subsequent territorial disputes in the East Asian region.


The San Francisco Peace Treaty laid the groundwork for future disputes in the South China Sea, with Chinese coast guard ships and Philippine fishing boats constantly clashing in the South China Sea. (Agence France Presse)

The tension in Sino Japanese relations continues due to Japanese Prime Minister Hayao Takashi's Taiwan related remarks on November 7th. On November 26th, during a congressional inquiry, Takashi also cited the September 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, claiming that since the signing of the treaty, Japan has relinquished all rights over Taiwan and "has no position on recognizing Taiwan's legal status".   Although Takashi expressed his "reflection" on the Taiwan related remarks made on November 7th on December 18th, stating that the remarks exceeded the Japanese government's "standard answer", Japan's basic attitude towards the San Francisco Peace Treaty should not change.

Not to mention Gao Shi's use of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which is seriously inconsistent with the joint statement issued by China and Japan when they restored diplomatic relations in September 1972 (in which Japan "understood and respected" the Chinese government's position on Taiwan's ownership and "insisted on following the position of Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration," which reiterated the Cairo Declaration's military purpose of returning Taiwan and other places to China after Japan's defeat), the San Francisco Peace Treaty itself was resisted by victorious countries such as China and the Soviet Union due to its violation of the relevant provisions of the post-war territorial arrangements in the September 2, 1945 Japanese Surrender Agreement. From the perspective of the development of post-war territorial disputes in East Asia, the territorial provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty were actually one of the important sources of chaos in the region after the war.

The Instrument of Surrender of Japan is an authoritative legal document that directly ended the Allied forces' military operations against Japan, and is functionally equivalent to a ceasefire agreement under the laws of war. However, due to the fact that the ceasefire conditions stipulated in the surrender document were first and foremost Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, which involved the disposal of post-war Japanese territory and colonies, the surrender document also had the attributes of a preliminary peace treaty or peace treaty. Because in traditional practice of the laws of war, territorial issues are generally handled by formal peace treaties. If there is a preliminary peace treaty before the signing of the peace treaty, then the formal peace treaty should first follow the provisions of the preliminary peace treaty. Even if there are changes, the consent of all parties who signed the initial peace treaty, at least the major stakeholders, must be obtained.

The San Francisco Peace Conference between the Allied Powers and Japan was postponed until September 1951 due to factors such as the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union and the Chinese Civil War. If it weren't for the outbreak of the Korean War, it might have dragged on even longer. During the preparation period of this peace conference led by the United States and assisted by the United Kingdom, there was a dispute over which side of the Taiwan Strait to invite to represent China. The United States originally planned to invite Taiwan, while countries such as the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and India advocated inviting the mainland.   This decision was met with unanimous opposition from both sides of the Taiwan Strait at the time.

When discussing the text of the formal treaty, the territorial clause once again became the focus of controversy. The term "territory" refers not only to Penghu, Taiwan, but also to the Xisha and the Nansha Islands, the south of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands, and even to the Ryukyu Islands. According to the Potsdam Declaration, post-war Japanese territory was limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and other small islands determined by the Allied powers. That is to say, except for the four islands mentioned above, the disposal and ownership of other islands and land must be jointly decided by the Allied powers.

In the draft treaty submitted by the United States, it was explicitly stipulated that the southern part of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands would be transferred to the Soviet Union, and the Korean Peninsula would gain independence. But when it comes to China's territorial interests such as Taiwan, Penghu, Xisha and Nansha, the United States only mentions that Japan must give up, without mentioning returning them to China. At that time, the Truman administration made this arrangement to continue intervening in Taiwan Strait affairs without using the pretext of interfering in China's internal affairs. Because if it is explicitly stipulated to return these territories to China, the United States will lose the reason to continue to station troops in the Taiwan Strait.  

Gu Weijun gave up and sought a second best option for gelatinization treatment

The United States blurred the handling of China's territory in the draft treaty and ultimately obtained the understanding of Britain.   When Taiwan discovered that the draft peace treaty only did not specify the ownership of Taiwan's Penghu and Xisha and Nansha Islands, but allowed other lands to have their own sovereignty, then Ambassador to the United States Gu Weijun was tasked with negotiating with the US side. In the face of the US insistence on blurring the treatment, Gu Weijun took a secondary approach and proposed to blur all territorial issues in order to demonstrate "equality" with other victorious countries, that is, only stipulating Japan's abandonment of these territories without specifying who should inherit them. The US ultimately adopted this suggestion.

Therefore, the finalized San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan, in the second chapter dealing with territorial issues, except for the explicit stipulation that Japan recognizes the independence of the Korean Peninsula, all the other territories are "waiving all rights, right names and claims", including Jeju Island, Juwen Island, Yuling Island, Taiwan and Penghu Islands, the Nansha Islands and the Xisha Islands, southern Sakhalin Island and Kuril Islands. This blurring process laid the foundation for the subsequent territorial disputes in the East Asian region.

For the Soviet Union, as one of its major allies in World War II, its territorial claims were not reflected in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, so although it participated in the San Francisco Peace Conference, it refused to sign the treaty. But due to its actual control over the southern part of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands, both the United States and Japan are helpless. But this move also directly triggered the dispute over the Northern Territories (Southern Kuril Islands) between Japan and the Soviet Union (Russia) in the future. In addition, due to the omission of Dokdo (known as Takeshima in Japan) in the territorial provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it also led to the island dispute between South Korea and Japan later on.

For China, as the ally that fought against Japan for the longest time and sacrificed the most, but failed to confirm its territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu, which was declared in the Cairo Declaration, reaffirmed in the Potsdam Declaration, and confirmed in Japan's surrender document, from the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it should be condemned as illegal, invalid, and not bound by it. Therefore, the San Francisco Peace Treaty also added chaos to the Taiwan Strait issue and laid hidden dangers for the later South China Sea disputes. In addition, the San Francisco Peace Treaty and subsequent US Japan Security Treaty, which were strongly dominated by the United States, completely excluded all other allied countries from intervening in the Ryukyu issue, laying hidden dangers for the later Ryukyu and Diaoyu Islands (known as Senkaku Islands in Japan) issues.

In short, the territorial provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty violated the principle of non separate peace established between the major Allied powers during World War II, and went against the initial territorial arrangements made in the Japanese Surrender Agreement, leading to multiple territorial disputes in the East Asian region thereafter, which was one of the important sources of chaos in the post-war region. At this time, Takashi Hayao's use of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as a shield is not only futile, but may also trigger new controversies.