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
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
RSS