No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2025
In September 1951 Japan signed a peace treaty with 48 countries in San Francisco. This postwar peace treaty fell far short of settling outstanding issues at the end of the Pacific War or facilitating a clean start for the “postwar” period. Rather, various aspects of the settlement were left equivocal, and continue to have significant and worrisome implications for regional international relations. The treaty's handling of territorial disposition is a case in point. Close examination of treaty drafts reveals key links between the regional Cold War that was unfolding in 1951 and equivocal language about the designation of territory, which can be related to several contentious frontier problems in the contemporary Asia-Pacific. More than half a century later, the so-called Acheson Line and Containment Line still divide countries of the region, part of a legacy of unresolved problems. The global shift to the postCold War era does not negate the significance of the Cold War origins of these problems. In fact, it is appropriate to pinpoint their common origin and consider solutions in a multilateral context.
[1] The term “Asia-Pacific” in this article refers to the region on the Pacific side of the Eurasian Continent, i.e., the Western Pacific and/or East Asian side of the Pacific Rim, in contrast to the EuroAtlantic region on the Atlantic side.
[2] The peace treaty left the status of Taiwan undecided, with options for its future including possession by the People's Republic of China (PRC), possession by the Republic of China (ROC), or even independence. The treaty did stipulate Japanese recognition of Korean independence, but it did not specify to which government or state “Korea” was renounced. There was then, and is still, no state or country called Korea. Rather, there are two states, the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the south and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the north. “Korea” was not a country name but a geographical area.
[3] Linkages among the various disputes appear to have been ignored for reasons such as limitations on access to materials—in many countries, official documents are generally closed to public scrutiny for at least thirty years—and the different ways in which the Cold War and certain disputes developed in the region. Furthermore, some of the problems (such as those involving the Senkakus and the Spratlys) received little attention until the disputes escalated, over issues such as natural resources or introduction of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In the meantime, the common foundation of the disputes was forgotten. These frontier problems have never been examined in the larger context of the Cold War.
[4] The UN resolution formula concerning Japanese recognition of Korean independence was adopted in the August and September 1950 drafts. Because the Korean War was fought under UN auspices, to equate Korea's future with a UN decision was undoubtedly advantageous to the US and its allies. Thus, “Korea” in this text meant the Republic of Korea. A similar approach was adopted to decide the future of Taiwan, the Kuriles and Southern Sakhalin in the same drafts.
[5] Britain soon recognized the People's Republic of China, whereas the US continued to support Chiang Kai-shek's Republic of China.
You have
Access
Open access