Taiwan merits US protection
Jim Doran wrote a patriotic eulogy of the late senator Gerald Solomon ("US Congressman Gerald Solomon: A Taiwan patriot," Nov. 16, page 13). Both of them espoused the only truly American policy toward a place like Taiwan was to defend it as though it were a part of our own country. They were not the first American patriots in the federal service to identify so similarly with Taiwan in such deeply passionate terms.
Under the terms of the Japanese surrender of Taiwan in 1951, the San Francisco Peace Treaty officially placed Taiwan under the joint occupational authority of the allied powers. If one should have suffered from historical amnesia on the legitimate duality of this authority, I should point out that the earlier taking of the Japanese surrender of Formosa on Oct. 25, 1945 by the ROC was officially done in conjunction with the US.
George Kerr, author of Formosa Betrayed, was present at that Japanese surrender in his official capacity as a civil affairs officer of the US Navy Attache's Office to the ROC in Chongqing. He ensured that the English version of the Japanese instrument of surrender did not exclude the official role of the US, unlike the misleading Chinese translation.
Article 4 of the San Francisco treaty reaffirms the occupational role of the US when it excluded the ROC from the 1951 peace treaty. While the ROC is also recognized in the San Francisco treaty as an administering authority of Formosa, this alone did not constitute any treaty transfer of sovereignty to it or anyone else. Taiwan is foreign territory still under the administrative authority of the treaty. If one disputes this fact, then understand that English is the more definitive translation, and thus the most legally-binding version of these documents.
The Taiwan Relations Act upholds the validity of treaties relating to Taiwan, and the occupational status of Taiwan has certain inalienable human rights attached to it. While these treaty rights of the Formosan cession are under the jurisdiction of military law, the US Supreme Court has held such basic rights of friendly aliens, regardless of the form of a US military jurisdiction, to be constitutionally valid.
Interestingly, the legal facts of this past "alien rights" case arising under the allied powers stemmed out of war crimes which occurred in China in 1945. The US Supreme Court repeatedly stated that our alien friends coming under our military jurisdiction should continue to enjoy their human rights.
Without such constitutional guarantees for aliens, Taiwan nationals filing US lawsuits under the Taiwan Relations Act's jurisdiction would be diplomatically impaired by Taiwan's status. While the San Francisco treaty does not create a political union between the US and Taiwan, under the laws of military occupation, past and future war crimes committed against Taiwan by its enemies are as though it were part of the US.
I hope that Doran will remind those serving in Congress that Taiwan is not a far away place not subject to any rules or constitutional protections. It seems that too many believe that they can betray Taiwan's loyalty without any contraventions of the US Constitution. The human rights of the Taiwan Relations Act are self-evident under the San Francisco treaty and Taiwan deserves to be treated fairly and defended as though it were apart of the US until a peaceful resolution occurs.
Jeff Geer
Las Vegas, Nevada
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS