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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry