Editing 1943 Cairo Declaration

{{Short description|Outcome of the 1943 Cairo Conference}}
[[Image:Cairo conference.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Generalissimo [[Chiang Kai-shek]], President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and Prime Minister [[Winston Churchill]] met at the Cairo Conference in Cairo, 25 November 1943.]]

The '''Cairo Declaration''' (Traditional Chinese: 《開羅宣言》) was the outcome of the [[Cairo Conference]] in [[Cairo]], [[Egypt]], on 27 November 1943.  [[President of the United States|President]] [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]] of the United States, [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] [[Winston Churchill]] of the United Kingdom, and [[President of the Republic of China|Generalissimo]] [[Chiang Kai-shek]] of the [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|Republic of China]] were present. The declaration developed ideas from the 1941 [[Atlantic Charter]], which was issued by the [[Allies of World War II]] to set goals for the post-war order. The ''Cairo Communiqué'' was broadcast through radio on 1 December 1943.<ref name="cairo_communique">{{cite news |url=http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo/01/002_46shoshi.html| publisher = Japan National Diet Library| title = Cairo Communiquè, December 1, 1943| date = December 1, 1943}}</ref>

==Text==
<blockquote>
"The several military missions have agreed upon future military operations against Japan. The Three Great Allies expressed their resolve to bring unrelenting pressure against their brutal enemies by sea, land, and air. This pressure is already rising."

"The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as [[Manchukuo|Manchuria]], [[Japanese Taiwan|Formosa]], and [[Penghu|The Pescadores]], shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the [[Korea under Japanese rule|enslavement of the people of Korea]], are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent."

"With these objects in view the three Allies, in harmony with those of the United Nations at war with Japan, will continue to persevere in the serious and prolonged operations necessary to procure the unconditional surrender of Japan."<ref>[http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo/01/002_46/002_46tx.html Text of Cairo Declaration, Government of Japan website]</ref>
</blockquote>

== 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>

== Controversy as to Korea ==
Many prominent [[Koreans]] in the [[Korean independence movement]], including [[Kim Ku]] and [[Syngman Rhee]], were initially delighted by the declaration, but later noticed and became infuriated by the phrase "in due course". They took it to be an affirmation of Allied intent to place Korea into a trusteeship, rather than granting it immediate independence. There was significant concern that the trusteeship could be indefinite or last decades, making Korea functionally again a colony under a great power.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Caprio |first=Mark E. |title=(Mis)-Interpretations of the 1943 Cairo Conference: The Cairo Communiqué and Its Legacy among Koreans During and After World War II |url=https://ijkh.khistory.org/journal/view.php?number=559 |journal=International Journal of Korean History |year=2022 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=137–176|doi=10.22372/ijkh.2022.27.1.137 |s2cid=247312286 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2007-10-07 |title=孫世一의 비교 評傳 (67) 한국 민족주의의 두 類型 - 李承晩과 金九 |url=http://monthly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?ctcd=&nNewsNumb=200710100084 |access-date=2023-03-20 |website=monthly.chosun.com |language=ko}}</ref>

The phrase "in due course" was not present in the first draft; it originally read "at the earliest possible moment after the downfall of Japan". The US suggested "at the proper moment", and finally the British "in due time". Exact motivations for these changes are unclear.<ref name=":0" />

==See also==
* [[Cairo Conference (1943)|Cairo Conference 1943]]
* [[Second Sino-Japanese War]] (1937–1945)
* [[Potsdam Declaration]] (July 1945)
* [[General Order No. 1]] (August 1945)
* [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender]] (September 1945)
* [[National Liberation Day of Korea|Korea Retrocession]] (August 1945)
* [[Retrocession Day|Taiwan Retrocession]] (October 1945)
* [[Treaty of San Francisco]] (1951)
*[[Cairo Declaration (film)]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo/01/002_46/002_46tx.html Text of the Cairo Communiqué] in the Japanese National Diet Library
* [http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS.FRUS1943CairoTehran FRUS1943 Cairo Conference] University of Wisconsin Digital Collection
* [http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/107184.htm Cairo Declaration] Department of State 
* [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/cairo.asp Cairo Declaration] Yale University
* [https://www.nytimes.com/1955/02/02/archives/cairo-formosa-declaration-out-of-date-says-churchill-churchill.html Cairo Formosa Declaration Out of Date, Says Churchill; CHURCHILL CALLS PLEDGE OUTDATED] By Drew Middleton special To the New York Times. Feb. 2, 1955
* [https://www.pinterest.com/pin/309763280597474670/ Cairo Formosa Declaration Out of Date, Says Churchill; CHURCHILL CALLS PLEDGE OUTDATED] By Drew Middleton special To the New York Times. Feb. 2, 1955 (This source has a picture of the full newspaper article, including the continuation on page 4 of the original paper, which the nytimes.com source wouldn't show without membership)

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Aftermath of World War II in Africa]]
[[Category:1943 in Egypt|Cairo Declaration]]
[[Category:November 1943|Cairo Declaration]]
[[Category:November 1943 in Africa|Cairo Declaration]]
[[Category:1943 documents|Cairo Declaration]]
[[Category:Proclamations]]