Editing 1943 Cairo Declaration (section)

== Controversy as to Taiwan ==
The Cairo Declaration is cited in Clause Eight (8) of the [[Potsdam Declaration]], which is referred to by the [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender]].

Both the [[China|People's Republic of China]] and the [[Republic of China]] have cited the Cairo Declaration as one of the bases for the [[One-China Principle]] that Taiwan and Penghu are part of [[Republic of China]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Zhao |first=Suisheng |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781503634152 |title=The Dragon Roars Back: Transformational Leaders and Dynamics of Chinese Foreign Policy |date=2022 |publisher=[[Stanford University Press]] |isbn=978-1-5036-3415-2 |pages=34 |doi=10.1515/9781503634152 |author-link=Suisheng Zhao}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=2&post=1976 | title=MOFA reaffirms ROC sovereignty over Taiwan, Penghu | date=5 September 2011 }}</ref> However, the major political parties in Taiwan have not taken the same position on this matter,<ref>Hsiao-kuang, Shih and Chin, Jonathan.  [https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2017/10/26/2003681072 "KMT pans DPP for disputing retrocession legitimacy"], [[Taipei Times]] (October 26, 2017): "The 1943 Cairo Declaration should be considered legally binding, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) said at a rally held by the KMT in Taipei to mark the 72nd Retrocession Day …. Those who dispute the validity of the Cairo Declaration should be dismissed as amateurs, Ma said, naming former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) of the DPP and former minister of education Tu Cheng-sheng (杜正勝), an Academia Sinica historian."</ref> and various historians in Taiwan have said that the Cairo Declaration was not binding.<ref>Wang, Chris. [https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/12/02/2003578133 "Cairo Declaration as legal basis incorrect: advocates"], [[Taipei Times]] (December 2, 2013): "Since [President] Ma took the same position on the declaration as Beijing, which cited it as the legal basis for Taiwan's return to China, he is risking two important issues, said Vincent Chen (陳文賢), a professor at National Chengchi University's Graduate Institute of Taiwan History…. '[Ma's] adherence to the one-China framework could, in the long run, create a false perception among the international community that Taipei and Beijing would follow the post-World War II unification models of Vietnam and Germany and unify in the future,' he said."</ref>

The government of the United States considers the declaration a statement of intention and never formally implemented.<ref name="mercury">{{Cite book | author = Monte R. Bullard | url = http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/145370/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/e7a70ac7-41c6-4367-9382-7cfd1fd3affb/en/Strait+Talk+-+Avoiding+a+Nuclear+War+Between+the+US+and+China+over+Taiwan.pdf | title = Strait Talk: Avoiding a Nuclear War Between the US and China over Taiwan | publisher = [[Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey#James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies|James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS)]] | location = [[Monterey, CA]] | date = 2008 | page = 294 | url-status = dead | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20160413051403/http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/145370/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/e7a70ac7-41c6-4367-9382-7cfd1fd3affb/en/Strait+Talk+-+Avoiding+a+Nuclear+War+Between+the+US+and+China+over+Taiwan.pdf | archivedate = 2016-04-13 }}</ref> In November 1950, the [[United States Department of State]] said that no formal act restoring sovereignty over Formosa and the [[Penghu|Pescadores]] to China had yet occurred;<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Sec. of State (Acheson) to Sec. of Defense (Marshall) |journal=[[Foreign Relations Series|Foreign relations of the United States]] |author=United States Dept of State |publisher=US GPO |place=Washington DC |date=11 Nov 1950 |pages=554–5 |url=http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1950v06.p0568&id=FRUS.FRUS1950v06&isize=M |access-date=9 January 2015 |archive-date=10 January 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150110052801/http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1950v06.p0568&id=FRUS.FRUS1950v06&isize=M |url-status=live }}</ref>

In February 1955, Winston Churchill stated that the Cairo Declaration "contained merely a statement of common purpose" and the question of Taiwan's future sovereignty was left undetermined by the [[Treaty of San Francisco|Japanese peace treaty]].<ref name="NY">{{Cite web | author = Drew Middleton | title = Cairo Formosa Declaration Out of Date, Says Churchill | url = http://www.nytimes.com/1955/02/02/archives/cairo-formosa-declaration-out-of-date-says-churchill-churchill.html | work = [[New York Times]] | location = [[United States]] | date = February 2, 1955 | access-date = 2017-07-31 | archive-date = 2022-03-17 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220317183841/https://www.nytimes.com/1955/02/02/archives/cairo-formosa-declaration-out-of-date-says-churchill-churchill.html }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=FORMOSA (SITUATION) |url=http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1955/feb/01/formosa-situation |publisher=hansard.millbanksystems.com (© UK Parliament) |language=en |date=1955-02-01 |accessdate=2015-08-15 |archive-date=2021-01-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210107035147/http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1955/feb/01/formosa-situation | url-status=live }}</ref> British officials reiterated this viewpoint in May 1955.<ref name="Hansard">{{Citation |url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1955/may/04/far-east-formosa-and-the-pescadores |title=Far East (Formosa and the Pescadores) |work=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]] |date=4 May 1955 |access-date=2015-12-09 |archive-date=2017-10-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018112311/http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1955/may/04/far-east-formosa-and-the-pescadores |url-status=live }}</ref>

In March 1961, then-[[Minister for Foreign Affairs (Japan)|Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs]] responded that: <blockquote>It was specified in Potsdam Proclamation that articles in Cairo Declaration should 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.<ref>{{lang|ja|[http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/sangiin/038/0514/03803150514015a.html 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.}} {{Japanese}}. {{lang|ja|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。」}}</ref></blockquote>

On the other hand, then-ROC president [[Ma Ying-jeou]] cited a series of instruments beginning with the Cairo Declaration and stated in 2014:<ref>{{cite web |url=https://en.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1329&s=32322 |title=Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarifies legally binding status of Cairo Declaration |date=January 21, 2014 |website=Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231226073526/https://en.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1329&s=32322 |archive-date= Dec 26, 2023 }}</ref>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>