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.
Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), still smarting from his Jan. 11 presidential election pummeling, is careening toward another test: his possible recall. The residents of Kaohsiung have previously impressed the rest of the nation — for example, they completely transformed the Love River (愛河) from a pitch-black, fetid stench of a waterway to a beautiful, romantic attraction. Han’s fortunes have changed, from his shock victory in the Nov. 24, 2018, mayoral election — where he defeated his opponent, Democratic Progressive Party candidate Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁), by 150,000 votes — to the presidential election, in which President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) defeated him by
Desperate times call for desperate measures, and now is the time to urge President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to issue emergency decrees to combat the COVID-19 situation. With the coronavirus, which originated in China, reaching pandemic status, Taiwan has thus far implemented effective strategies to handle it, taking for example the ban on the export of masks. The successful “Taiwanese model,” as New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has described it, is now being studied by other nations. Owing to the immediate passage of the Special Act on COVID-19 Prevention, Relief and Recovery (嚴重特殊傳染性肺炎防治及紓困振興特別條例), government agencies have a clear legal mandate to respond swiftly
Everyone knows that COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan, but Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Zhao Lijian (趙立堅) said the virus might have come from US military personnel who took part in the Military World Games in the city in October last year. The US government has sternly refuted this accusation, and it is easy to see who is right and who is wrong. Interestingly, this has brought the Military World Games to the attention of many Taiwanese for the first time. The Games, which are organized by the International Military Sports Council, have been called the “Olympics for the military.” They were first