Wrong track to sovereignty
Many Taiwan supporters like Michelle Wang (“Lesson 1: Which one is our country?” Oct. 24, page 8) continue to believe that drafting a new constitution will help Taiwan on the road to normalization and boost international recognition for the Taiwanese republic. However, the burning issue of non-recognition of Taiwan is the diplomatic centerpiece of the Shanghai Communique and “one China” policy, which remains the political bane of Taiwan supporters.
The general consensus is the Republic of China (ROC) is nothing more than a Chinese government-in-exile and the ROC on Taiwan has been a putative state of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Taiwan since 1949. If we treat the ROC in this manner, then we can see how international non-recognition factors into the Taiwan dilemma.
But how can anyone support the ROC on Taiwan as a proxy for the Taiwanese republic? That is a political conflict of interest and does not allow for the impartial prosecution of the KMT for war crimes under the San Francisco Peace Treaty. This co-opts the pan-greens and cannot be supported in the interest of bringing justice to the people of Taiwan.
We must hold the KMT accountable for 1947’s atrocities and its stolen assets must be brought under the treaty’s judicial process of redress. The pursuit of justice under the San Francisco treaty can lead to the legal extinction of the exiled ROC on Taiwan without disrupting the current “one China” status quo.
Popular sovereignty is an overextension of the ROC putative state and entirely ignores the treaty. The ROC constitutes a secret codeword for the Taiwan republic in the pan-green camp, but Retrocession Day is a fraudulent conveyance of Taiwan’s territory.
Territorial sovereignty for Taiwan is only derived from a treaty. The organic law of Taiwan’s cession should be rewritten in accordance with US military government regulations that can legally transform the “governing authorities” from the ROC martial law era into a true “civil government” in the post-1952 period.
By closely following the treaty’s regulations and supporting the rule of law, we could ultimately see the KMT held fully accountable for its actions. Japanese decolonialization is an ongoing process and it remains incomplete, but removing the ROC governing apparatus is a perk of the treaty’s redress. This is just the beginning of the end.
Jeff Geer
Olympia, Washington
Pro-Nationalistic?
Don’t you think that the pro-Taiwanese effort should be termed “pro-Nationalistic?” (This should not be confused with “pro-Nationalists” or “pro-KMT” sentiment). The term “pro-localization” seems to lower the status of Taiwan to a “local” entity rather than a “national” one.
E. Gene Deune,
Baltimore, Maryland
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
Since leaving office last year, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has been journeying across continents. Her ability to connect with international audiences and foster goodwill toward her country continues to enhance understanding of Taiwan. It is possible because she can now walk through doors in Europe that are closed to President William Lai (賴清德). Tsai last week gave a speech at the Berlin Freedom Conference, where, standing in front of civil society leaders, human rights advocates and political and business figures, she highlighted Taiwan’s indispensable global role and shared its experience as a model for democratic resilience against cognitive warfare and
The diplomatic dispute between China and Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments in the Japanese Diet continues to escalate. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong (傅聰) wrote that, “if Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression.” There was no indication that Fu was aware of the irony implicit in the complaint. Until this point, Beijing had limited its remonstrations to diplomatic summonses and weaponization of economic levers, such as banning Japanese seafood imports, discouraging Chinese from traveling to Japan or issuing
The diplomatic spat between China and Japan over comments Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi made on Nov. 7 continues to worsen. Beijing is angry about Takaichi’s remarks that military force used against Taiwan by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” necessitating the involvement of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Rather than trying to reduce tensions, Beijing is looking to leverage the situation to its advantage in action and rhetoric. On Saturday last week, four armed China Coast Guard vessels sailed around the Japanese-controlled Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), known to Japan as the Senkakus. On Friday, in what
RSS