Tue, Oct 28, 2008 - Page 8 News List

[LETTERS]

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

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top