Talk:Cairo Conference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Stub-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Other Cairo Conferences...[edit]

The various "Alternative Meanings" should be at the TOP of the page, as a disambiguation option, not waaaaaay at the bottom. I'm looking at my kid's homework and thinking he's crazy. Someone, please, disambiguate this page. I'm not capable. Nirigihimu 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There was also the 1994 UN Cairo Conference on Population and Development. Maybe this page should link to that topic, too ...

Link was added 21:32, 26 Oct 2004 by User:Choster

See:

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Taiwan[edit]

This statement was removed:

However, in 1955 after the World War II, being asked the question whether Formosa should be handed to the Communist China according to the Cairo Declaration, Churchill told the House of Commons, "The Cairo Declaration contained merely a statement of common purpose." And since it was made "A lot of things have happened" he added. His Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, also said that the Declaration was merely a statement of intention that Formosa should be retroceded to China after the war, that never materialized.

I removed it because it is out of context and needs to be tied in with the overall political status of Taiwan. Britain, unlike the US, had at the time already switched recognition to the PRC, but it was a member of the western block and was interested in stopping the spread of communism. Therefore, "China" here likely means "the People's Republic of China" and not the Republic of China. The fact that sovereignty over these islands were ultimately given to the ROC is not presented and the British did not express oppositon to this act in the interests of containment. --Jiang 02:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But I do think the political status of Taiwan needs some coverage here, but we should jump to a particular detail without first mentioning the general situation. --Jiang 03:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will have to think about it. I do think that since Cairo declaration is so pertainent to the political status of Taiwan. With some kind of introduction of the impact of Cairo declaration on Taiwan issue, I think it sould be okay to address Taiwan issue here a bit. I believe we should at least add a "See also: " link to " Political status of Taiwan". As for the original photocopy, I believe this is an important historical document and deserves to stay on the article. You may not like the webite hosts it, and I actually thought about extracting the image and save onto Wikipeisa but I do not know how to put it on, perhaps you can help us to save the original document and dislodge the photo from the website host it. Otherwise, I would prefer put the link of the photo back. Again, I do not believe having the original photocopy image would be a POV. Thanks.

I notice that "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese shall be restored to the Republic of China." what about the Ryūkyū Islands of Japan? In late 19th century Ryūkyū Islands was also "a stolen territory" in the viewpoint of Qing empire. If PRC still believe this is effective, they should made a claim to Ryūkyū Islands in previous century.surely we know it never happened. Let alone it was merely an UNSIGNED PRESS COMMUNIQUE. PRC knows it doesn't have any treaty to justify its claim and therefore tries to deceive the public with its so called "Cairo Declaration", which is sadly in vain.--anon

Cairo Declaration was issued on 1 December 1943, i.e. after the end of the Cairo Conference. When this Declaration was issued, Chiang-Kai-Shek was in China and Truman and Churchill were in Tehran, Iran.

User:Siyac12:02, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

  • The Declaration was actually signed on 27 November 1943. They were not there because the issuing of declaration was delayed by an order of the allies. The declearation was released in Communique on 1 December 1943. Please see the external link for more information. [[1]] Enlarge the picture, which is a telegram to inform the radio operators to broadcast the declaration. There is a strict time and date that for that. Well... I guess there were either censorships or some strategic considerations at war time.

Xplorer 23:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ryukyu Kingdom was a tributary state of Ming & Qing China, but never a controlled/occupied territory. Therefore, to whatever extent you want to claim that it was "stolen", it was not stolen from China. Secondly, the Ryukyus were invaded by the forces of Satsuma domain in 1609, and formally annexed in the 1870s. So none of the major Ryukyu islands were "occupied territories" as a result of WWII. LordAmeth 12:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to recent events, the UN should verify that the so-called "Cairo Declaration" IS A FAKE before it's too late.[edit]

The closest thing that actually existed was a "PRESS COMMUNIQUE"-- and it's not signed, because none of the three participants where present. In other words, the press communique was entirely made up.

This non-existant “Cairo Declaration” resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese on 2/28/1947 (see 228 Incident). Thanks to this "declaration" and EXTENSIVE bullying on PRC's part, Taiwan's international recognition has never been realized. What's worse, Taiwan is now only three votes away from being officially voted off as "part of PRC" in the UN!

What is the truth: See http://www.taiwannation.com.tw/ecairo.htm

Again, mister, your statement was misleading; due to KMT’s corrupt rule in Taiwan, the 228 incident was suppressed by KMT/ROC, although CCP did arm local forces to revolt KMT's rule in Taiwan. By the time 228 incident happened PRC had not even established.--Jerrychen0067 06:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the above statement is some political groups’ propaganda from Taiwan, according to the UN General Assembly Resolution no.2758, Taiwan status issue is no longer a controversial topic in the UN. Since Taiwan is included in the PRC which is recognized by the UN. You can always argue about the fundamental elements of an independent state or modify internal constitution/laws of Taiwan, however nominally Taiwan cannot jump out of this one China structure, unless a formal declaration of independence. To be politically neutral if you are a supporter of Taiwan independence movement you need to face the international fact first and stop lying to Taiwanese people.--Jerrychen0067 06:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Communiqué could not be signed but the Declaration was signed and formally accepted. Please stop saying the Declaration was unsigned[edit]

I got links from the Japanese National Library stating the document is signed. http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c03.html & http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo/01/002_46shoshi.html

The Cairo Communiqué was a press release forward to all the radio operators to annouce the actual declaration resulting from the conference through air. At the time, it was in a form of a telegram. It is like our email today. Can one physically sign an email? Therefore it is real no point to state that the Communiqué is unsigned, which the Declaration itself was signed. The external link to the Japanese National Library clearly states the was signed. Please take a look.

For people who has question on if the Cairo Declaration is valid. I think the following will mean something. Japanese Instrument of Surrender, which is surely signed, clearly states the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration which referred to this Cairo Declaration. So even if it was unsigned, it was accepted by all the countries signed on the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.

Please control your emotions. We only discuss facts and it is not a place merely to express your opinion. Please note that your personal website does not have any accreditation to serve as an evidence.

--Xplore

The following papragraph is removed until someone allocates the reference[edit]

Hi please find a reference to the following paragraph. It is essential to fine the reference especially when a quotation is used in the text. The section should be removed until someone allocate it, since we are not writing fictions here.

When asked in 1955 as to whether Formosa should be handed to Communist China as according to the Cairo Declaration, however, Churchill told the House of Commons, "The Cairo Declaration contained merely a statement of common purpose." And since it was made "A lot of things have happened" he added. His Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, also said that the Declaration was merely a statement of intention that Formosa should be retroceded to China after the war, that never materialized.

--Xplore

codenamed "SEXTANT"[edit]

Can someone please tell me where did they fine the codename? Kind of interesting Xplorer 04:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

new cairo conference![edit]

since some years - every year there is a big meeting of the global anti-war movement in cairo which is called cairo conference. this is why i found this article - eventually it would be good to make a second page?

See:

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Signed or unsigned?[edit]

Hello! I read there "The Cairo Declaration was signed on 27 November 1943" but in Cairo Declaration there is "Cairo Declaration is unsigned.". Which one is right?--OsamaK 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)