Print

Mail

wiki links

Letter: History books unchanged

I am surprised and amused by Marvin Bolton's harsh accusation. ("US history doesn't change," March 27, page 8). He said my letter ("Taiwan is not US territory," March 23, page 8) is without merit simply because I live in Hong Kong. While he suggests that I am trying to change history, he fails to cite a single example from my letter.

What is more puzzling is that Bolton does not malign Roger Lin, although he and his associate Richard Hartzell seem to say that Taiwan should become a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China under the "one country, two systems" model. Hartzell and Lin wrote an 88-page paper detailing their explanation for the future development of Taiwan. Buried on page 85 under Section 10 (b) entitled "Final Status" they wrote: "According to the provisions of the three USA-PRC joint communiques, the final status of Taiwan will be as a Self Autonomous [sic] Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China, in accordance with the one-country two systems model." This can be found on their Web site at www.taiwanbasic.com/notes/rwh.htm.

If my living in Hong Kong were such a cause of concern, one would think that advocating China's one country two system model for Taiwan would have resulted in serious condemnation by Bolton!

My letter pointed out that in issuing General Order No. 1, General Douglas MacArthur was not acting as a US general, but as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. In fact, even the Instrument of Surrender Japan proclaimed was to the Allied Powers, not just to the US. Although this is an historical event, Bolton thinks pointing it out is an attempt to change the history books.

Bolton suggests that I read Article 42 of the Rules of War. I did.

It says: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

Under Article 42 then, occupancy requires the presence of a "hostile army" in Taiwan. The last time I checked, during World War II, while Taiwan was bombed, the Allies had not landed on or invaded the island at any point during the entire war. Japan controlled Taiwan for the entire duration of the war. But following Japan's surrender, the US military did not establish its military authority in Taiwan, nor exercise governing authority on the island. And since General Order No. 1 was issued by the Allied Powers, even if Lin is correct, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) was acting as a subordinate power of the Allied Powers, not the US. Thus, Chiang was not acting on behalf of the US government.

Bolton should also read Article 43 of the Rules of War that explains the purpose of occupancy. In occupation of hostile territory, the military authority's objective is to "take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." In Japan's case, the US military occupation began following its surrender and remained in place long enough to restore a civilian government elected by the Japanese under a new Constitution. Once a functioning government was established, US military occupation of Japan terminated. So by 1952, when the San Francisco Peace Treaty became effective, the US military occupation of Japan was already over! This is also in the history books and remains unchanged.

Article 42 also required the establishment of military authority on occupied territory that can be exercised. But the history books do not mention a functioning US military government effectively controlling Taiwan following the war.

Bolton cited Article 23 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that referred to the US as "principal occupying power." But Article 23 had nothing to do with Taiwan. Article 23 dealt with the procedure needed to make the peace treaty effective. It required that a majority of the party states to the treaty, including Japan, must deposit the ratified treaty. In proper context, the term "principal occupying power" could only have referred to the US as the "principal occupying power" of Japan. Just because this term was used in the treaty did not mean that it referred to the US as the principal occupying power of Taiwan.

To assert this conclusion is a fantastic attempt to change history. It is not in the history books and that has not changed.

Kenneth Choy
Hong Kong
This story has been viewed 1569 times.