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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US