In Frank Chiang's (江永芳) article ("Taiwan is in no way a US territory," June 15, page 8), he makes a number of important points: First, a victorious state which occupies the territory of a defeated state does not acquire a claim to the occupied land by means of occupation. Second, the US, as a major allied power during World War II, delegated its power to occupy and administer Taiwan to Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) government, the ROC. And third, a victorious state is merely considered an administrator of occupied territory.
In the American Insurance Co case which Chiang cited, Chief Justice John Marshall, stated: "The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty."
All allied military attacks against Taiwan during World War II were conducted by US military forces. Hence the US acquired Taiwan under the principle of conquest. The US was the principal occupying power.
ROC military forces accepted the surrender of Japanese troops on Oct. 25, 1945. No special legal relationships arises from that event, except that it marks the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. In international customary law, legal relationships arise from a consideration of "Who is the occupying power?"
In General Order No.1, General Douglas MacArthur gave instructions for the handling of the surrender ceremonies and military occupation of over twenty areas. He directed Chiang Kai-shek to come to Taiwan, and the generalissimo followed these instructions. A principal-agent relationship was created.
The US was the "occupying power" or more specifically it was the "principal occupying power" (because the law of agency was invoked.)
According to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced its claims to the islands of Taiwan and Penghu without designating a transferee. Importantly, examination of the Spanish American War cessions of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines and Cuba clearly shows that the military government of the (principal) occupying power does not end with the enactment of a peace treaty. United States Military Government (USMG) authority over Taiwan has continued up to the present day.
The Shanghai Communique offers definitive proof that the above analysis is correct. That communique made arrangements for the disposition of "occupied Taiwanese territory."
Where does the US president get the authority to make such arrangements? It is because the US was the "conqueror" and the "principal occupying power" of Taiwan.
Since the peace treaty failed to name a transferee, the USMG has disposition rights over "occupied Taiwanese territory." Article 23 specifies the US as the "principal occupying power." Obviously, the president is the head of the US military.
Additionally, from 1952 to the present, there has been no announcement of the end of USMG in Taiwan. By contrast, the end of USMG jurisdiction in Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines and Cuba was made by US presidential proclamation. Hence, Taiwan is still under the jurisdiction of the USMG.
Yes, the people of Taiwan are entitled to decide their own future which has been delayed since the end of World War II, though at present the people of Taiwan de facto collectively own the island. Does it mean Taiwanese people legally own their territorial sovereignty now? If so, then, why is Taiwan not a member of the UN?
If Taiwan is in no way a US territory now, then USMG as the principal occupying power should voluntarily help Taiwan's people to have a fair referendum, and hand territorial sovereignty over to the people of Taiwan.
Former US secretary of state Colin Powell said "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy the sovereignty of a nation." Does he not mean that the sovereignty of Taiwan is still held by the USMG? Otherwise, who legally possesses sovereignty of Taiwan today?
John Hsieh
President
Love of Taiwan Association
Hayward, California
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations