Determining Taiwan’s status
The rationale behind the case of Roger Lin (林志昇) et al v the US (“Taiwanese in US flock to sovereignty trial,” Feb. 7, page 3) has been discussed in your letters column over the past several years, always resulting in a vigorous round of rebuttals and denials from readers.
Many readers have argued that Taiwan was never invaded by the US and that Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who was a representative of the Allies. They also said the specification of a “principal occupying Power” in Article 23(a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) has nothing to do with Taiwan.
The concept of “invasion” is not limited to ground troops — bombardment by airplanes and ships also qualifies.
The US’ status as the “principal occupying Power” over Taiwan is expected since all attacks against (Japanese) Taiwan during World War II were conducted by US forces.
Rights and obligations for the occupied territory fall to “the (principal) occupying Power” — the “conqueror.”
By contrast, neither The Hague nor the Geneva Conventions accord any status to the “troops that accept the surrender.”
Four facts are key: One, none of the Allies recognized any transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to China at the time of the Oct. 25, 1945, Japanese surrender ceremonies.
Two, the mass naturalization of native Taiwanese people as Republic of China (ROC) nationals/citizens in January 1946, during a period of belligerent occupation, is illegal under international law.
Three, the 1952 post-war peace treaties did not award the sovereignty of Taiwan to China. As a result, native Taiwanese people are today without an internationally recognized nationality.
Four, military government is “the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.”
SFPT Article 4(b) asserts the validity of the US Military Government (USMG) directives pertaining to Article 2 and Article 3 territories — including Taiwan. Such a specification confirms that USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan is active.
My lawsuit seeks declarations that native Taiwanese people have “rights under the US Constitution” resulting from the treaty specifications.
In Saturday’s story it was suggested that some Taiwanese groups feel this lawsuit conflicts with the goal of Taiwanese independence. I don’t believe this is a valid criticism.
The nation’s various “pro-independence groups” have never produced a unanimous statement on Taiwan’s current international legal status.
As a result, their efforts mainly consist of trying to enable Taiwan to become “independent” from China (the ROC or the People’s Republic of China). However, such efforts are doomed to failure. My lawsuit clarifies the facts for all the world to see — Taiwan is an overseas territory under the jurisdiction of the USMG.
As an occupied territory, Taiwan has not yet reached a “final political status” — it is “undetermined.” The logic is straightforward.
Native Taiwanese people are entitled to hold passports of the SFPT’s principal occupying Power — the US. The Taiwanese public’s desire for self-government can only be achieved by first recognizing their current situation.
ROGER LIN
Taipei
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS