Taipei: Two former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) officials have asserted that the recent comments made by AIT regarding Taiwan's political status are in line with the United States' longstanding stance on the matter.

According to Focus Taiwan, Richard Bush, former AIT chair, and Robert Wang, ex-AIT deputy director, conveyed in separate emails that the U.S. position remains that Taiwan's political status was not conclusively settled by any post-World War II documents. The expectation from Washington is for the issue to be resolved peacefully. Wang highlighted the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), a U.S. law from 1979 that governs exchanges with Taiwan after the U.S. shifted diplomatic recognition to Beijing. He emphasized that the TRA clarifies the expectation of a peaceful resolution concerning Taiwan's future, without reliance on past documents, including World War II-era declarations or treaties.

Bush echoed this sentiment, underscoring the U.S. stance that any cross-strait differences should be addressed peacefully with the consent of the Taiwanese people. Both former envoys were responding to a Saturday statement from AIT, which criticized China's use of World War II-era documents, such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, to justify its claims over Taiwan. AIT, which represents U.S. interests in Taiwan without formal diplomatic ties, countered China's assertions.

The comments from AIT came after Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's remarks following the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Anning, Yunnan. Wang Yi cited historical documents to assert that they mandated Japan to return territories, including Taiwan, to China post-World War II. However, an unnamed AIT spokesperson contended that China misinterprets these documents as part of its broader strategy to undermine Taiwan's international standing and challenge the sovereign decisions of other nations regarding Taiwan.

AIT's stance aligns with Taiwan's Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung, who criticized Wang Yi's interpretation. Lin argued that the San Francisco Peace Treaty, legally binding under international law, superseded earlier statements like the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation. The treaty did not assign Taiwan to the PRC, which has never governed Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China (ROC). Lin emphasized that the ROC remains the legitimate government of Taiwan, maintaining a status quo in which neither the ROC nor the PRC is subordinate to the other.

While Chinese officials frequently cite the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations as evidence of China's claim over Taiwan, these documents primarily set conditions for Japan's surrender, including relinquishing control over Taiwan to the ROC. The PRC, established in 1949 after the Chinese civil war, saw the ROC government relocate to Taiwan. The 1951 Treaty of San Francisco formalized Japan's renunciation of sovereignty over Taiwan but left the recipient unspecified.