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
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS