China’s Rejection of San Francisco Treaty: A Diplomatic Earthquake?

Recent reports indicate that China’s government has declared the San Francisco Treaty as invalid. This move, if fully enacted, could have profound implications on international relations, particularly concerning territorial claims and the established post-World War II order in East Asia. Experts are now analyzing the potential fallout of this decision.

Historical Context: The San Francisco Treaty

The San Francisco Treaty, officially known as the Treaty of Peace with Japan, was signed in 1951 and aimed to formally end World War II hostilities with Japan. Forty-nine nations signed the treaty, establishing the post-war status of Japan and its territorial boundaries.

Signed on September 8, 1951, in San Francisco, California.
Involved 49 nations, with 46 eventually ratifying the treaty.
Addressed Japan’s sovereignty and territorial claims post-WWII.

A black and white photograph of the signing of the San Francisco Treaty in 1951.

China’s Stance: Then and Now

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) was not a signatory to the San Francisco Treaty, due to its recent establishment in 1949 and lack of international recognition at the time. The Republic of China (ROC), based in Taiwan, signed a separate peace treaty with Japan in 1952, recognizing the San Francisco Treaty’s principles.

For decades, the PRC, under leaders like Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping, tacitly acknowledged the San Francisco Treaty’s impact on the region. However, the recent declaration of its invalidity marks a significant departure from this historical position.

Implications of the Rejection

China’s rejection of the San Francisco Treaty could be interpreted as a challenge to the existing international order and a re-opening of historical territorial disputes. Some analysts believe this could potentially affect claims to territories such as Taiwan, the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, and parts of the South China Sea.

A map highlighting the disputed territories in the South China Sea, including the Spratly and Paracel Islands.

The Ma Guan Treaty Parallel

Some commentators have drawn a parallel between the rejection of the San Francisco Treaty and a potential reversion to the terms of the Treaty of Shimonoseki (also known as the Treaty of Maguan), signed in 1895 after the First Sino-Japanese War. This treaty ceded territories, including Taiwan, to Japan. By rejecting the San Francisco Treaty, some argue that China may inadvertently be undermining the legal basis for its claims to these territories.

According to the transcript, by rejecting the San Francisco Treaty without rejecting the Ma Guan Treaty, China is essentially relinquishing control of Taiwan, Penghu, and other territories.

Contradictions and Inconsistencies

Critics point to inconsistencies in China’s current stance, particularly concerning the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Communiqué. In this document, Japan recognized the PRC as the sole legal government of China, and the PRC reiterated that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. This communiqué is seen as implicitly accepting the post-San Francisco Treaty status quo.

A split image showing Mao Zedong shaking hands with Kakuei Tanaka during the normalization of relations between China and Japan in 1972.

Expert Analysis

The implications of China’s decision are complex and open to interpretation. Some argue that this move is a strategic maneuver aimed at asserting greater control in the region. Others view it as a potentially destabilizing action that could escalate tensions and undermine international law.

Further developments are needed to fully understand the long-term consequences of this significant shift in China’s foreign policy.