In response to Roger Lin's letter to the editor (Letters, Nov. 10, page 8), I must say that as an attorney, I find it fascinating to read "legal" analyses by lay people. Lin's letter attempts to provide a "legal" analysis of why Taiwan is not an independent nation. However, his legal reasoning is just plain comical. Lin, without regard to the clear and unambiguous terms of the Montevideo Convention, argues that it does not apply. Like an amateur lawyer, Lin chooses to ignore clear and plain language not favorable to his argument, so that he can arrive at his predetermined conclusion.
Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention states that, "[t]he state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."
In the case of Taiwan, each of these four elements are met. First, Taiwan has a permanent population. Second, Taiwan is situated in a defined territory. Indeed, Taiwan is an island, so the boundaries of its territory could not be clearer. Third, it clearly has a government. Fourth, Taiwan has the capacity to and does enter into relations with other states.
Lin apparently concedes that Taiwan meets three of the four elements and only argues that Taiwan does not meet the element for defined territory. What Lin fails to understand is that the term "defined territory" only relates to geographical boundaries.
All the arguments Lin and like-minded people make about who gave what to whom and on what day are meaningless. This is because their arguments presuppose that Taiwan had to have a certain level of sovereignty prior to becoming an independent nation. This is false based upon their own use of the Montevideo Convention. Indeed, the first sentence of Article 3 of the Montevideo Contentions explicitly states that "[t]he political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." Accordingly, all Taiwan needs to have and does have is a geographically defined territory. Therefore, using their own legal premises and applying the true facts to the elements contained therein, Taiwan is an independent nation.
It appears that Lin has skewed his argument the way he has because he wants to be considered a de facto US citizen. Indeed, the title of his letter is "Taiwan is US territory." While this form of immigration is quite unique, the only sure way to determine if he is indeed correct is to have Lin put his money where his mouth is. If Lin is so sure that he is correct, he should file a complaint in any US District Court asserting his rights to protection under the US Constitution. Failing to do that, Lin and all like-minded people should keep their ludicrous theories to themselves as they clearly have no place in the reality Taiwan currently exists in.
Walter Chung
Taipei
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