For over fifty years large numbers of people have complained about the inadequacy of "international law" to clearly define the international legal status of Taiwan. Here on our beautiful island, this has had the unfortunate effect of discouraging people to study "international law," because it is felt to be useless. At present, this mindset is quite widespread among the Taiwanese populace, and in fact even among foreigners. For example, in "Letters to the Editor," or in online discussion forums, blogs, etc we often see remarks such as "all those laws, agreements, communiques, etc don't mean anything anymore," or "those old treaties no longer have any validity," and "all those legal details are nonsense," and so forth.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Most importantly, the continuous stream of pronouncements to the effect that "Taiwan is already independent" are not going to win wide acceptance in the world community simply because the legal record shows otherwise. In a nutshell, the "sovereignty" of the former Formosa and the Pescadores was not transferred to the Republic of China in the post-World War II treaty.
Additionally, since the correct legal interpretation of Oct. 25, 1945 is merely the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan, and "occupation does not transfer sovereignty," the "Republic of China" (ROC) is on very shaky legal ground when it claims to have its own "territory" (as one of the components necessary for statehood). To the casual observer it may appear that the ROC has its own territory, but in fact there has never been an internationally recognized "transfer of title," and without that the ROC (or "Taiwan" for that matter) will never be able to gain wide international recognition.
From the end of the Napoleonic era to the present, all valid territorial cessions have had a clear and unambiguous transfer of title. Taiwan is a territorial cession, and without such a definitive transfer of title, the ROC government cannot legally claim to have ownership (ie, sovereignty) over Formosa and the Pescadores.
Such arguments as "twenty years of democratic development have already made Taiwan into a fully sovereign democratic nation" are of no value, because there is no existing precedent of that nature.
However, as stated above, there is much existing legal precedent to say that a territorial cession, in order to be considered valid, must have a clear and unambiguous transfer of title. I mentioned this crucial fact in a previous letter entitled "A question of sovereignty" (Letters, page 8, Nov. 8, 2004) but unfortunately this was ignored because most readers prefer to think that "all those legal details are nonsense."
But, if the results of the lobbying, parading, speech-making and so on of the past thirty or more years are any indication, I believe that the only possible way out of Taiwan's current "identity crisis" is to find a workable solution under international law.
Such a legal solution will undoubtedly not be full "Taiwan independence," but it may be something very close, such as a self-governing territorial status. If such a self-governing territorial status could be firmly established, then the prospect of full "Taiwan independence" might be attainable thirty years or more down the road.
What options are available? If the people of Taiwan are uncomfortable in joining up with the People's Republic of China, and afraid of having their hard-won freedom and democracy snuffed out, why not join the US? As I pointed out in my Harvard Asia Quarterly article (Fall 2004), it is necessary to read the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) with a "military mindset" in order to fully understand it. After considering such fundamental aspects as military government, occupation, flag, allegiance, territorial cession and others, it is easy to make a case under both international law and US constitutional law that the US' administrative authority over Taiwan is still active.
Who liberated Iwo Jima? What flag went up there? I think the readers of this newspaper know the answer. Who liberated Taiwan in the 1941 to 1945 period? It was the US. Why didn't the US flag go up on Oct. 25, 1945? When General Douglas MacArthur directed the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) to come to Taiwan to accept the surrender of the Japanese troops, is that equivalent to authorizing the transfer of sovereignty? Certainly not. Under existing military law and military precedent, the correct procedure would have been to have the US flag flying highest, and the ROC flag flying a bit lower, thus clearly distinguishing their different statuses. One represents the "principal occupying power" and the other the "subordinate occupying power."
In Article 2b of the post-war SFPT, Japan renounced the sovereignty of Formosa and the Pescadores, but no receiving country was specified.
That clause has puzzled civilian legal researchers for over fifty years but it is easily explained if you have a military mindset. By examining the handling of territorial cessions in the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War we quickly see that "The military government of the principal occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty."
So what flag should have been flying over Taiwan on April 28, 1952 when the SFPT came into force? It is the US flag. Why didn't it happen? That would be a good question to ask at the regular US State Department press briefings in Washington.
When the Shanghai Communique was drafted in 1972, and it was decided that Taiwan should be recognized as a part of China, were the Taiwanese people consulted? Today, concerned individuals could make a very strong case in the US Federal Court system that over the last thirty or more years the State Department and the Oval Office have conspired to systematically deny the Taiwanese people their "fundamental rights" under the US Constitution.
In summary, in order for Taiwan to have a brighter tomorrow, what is needed is solid legal arguments and swift legal action.
Richard W. Hartzell
Taipei
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS