FAPA on the TRA
US Congressman Eni Faleomavaega (Letters, March 31, page 8) gives the false impression that the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) takes issue with language quoted directly from the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).
We wish to state emphatically that FAPA does not object to any text in the TRA — least of all the portions advocating the provision of defense articles and the preservation of US ties with Taiwan, which were cited by Mr Faleomavaega in truncated form.
FAPA, along with many other Taiwanese-American organizations, is very grateful to the US for safeguarding Taiwan and maintaining peace and stability in the Western Pacific for decades with this piece of legislation.
Our primary concern was the deletion of the word “cornerstone” in describing the importance of the TRA. Mr Faleomavaega, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment, chose to use the word “vital” instead. This single but substantive difference was not mentioned in Mr. Faleomavaega’s March 31 letter.
We believe the TRA is the legal basis for all interaction between the US and Taiwan. The TRA carries the full force of a US public law (“the law of the land”), while the three joint US-China Communiques do not.
We are therefore gratified that the House of Representatives saw fit to restore the word “cornerstone” to House Concurrent Resolution 55 on March 24.
We also wish to make clear that FAPA and the Taipei Times are separate entities. We offered no information to the newspaper, which published an editorial on March 23 relating to Mr Faleomavaega, nor did we know that the editorial was in the offing.
In both letters, Mr Faleomavaega invokes US military forces to make his point.
It is a fact that a free and democratic Taiwan is not threatening China in any way. The root cause of the problem is authoritarian, communist China: A recent Pentagon report to Congress warns that “Beijing continues to threaten the use of military force to compel settlement of the Taiwan dispute.”
History shows that if threats by larger countries against smaller neighbors go unchallenged, it leads to a wider conflict. Nazi Germany’s threats against Poland and Czechoslovakia in 1938, China’s threat against Korea in 1951 and Iraq’s threat against Kuwait in 1991 are all cases in point.
We believe that such a conflict can be avoided if the US takes a firm position and impresses upon China to accept Taiwan as a friendly neighbor. FAPA clearly seeks to prevent conflict in the Taiwan Strait, not provoke it.
PROFESSOR BOB YANG
President, Formosan Association for Public Affairs
Washington
Independence from the ROC
The US Court of Appeals in Washington was right in its decision on Wednesday to rule in favor of the US Government, arguing that the court does not deal with political matters (“US Court sidesteps Taiwan’s sovereignty,” April 10, page 1).
The US’ policy toward Taiwan has historically been deliberately vague. In a country where separation of the judicial and executive branches of government is paramount, it is not for a court to voice an opinion on foreign affairs. Pronouncing upon the claims of Roger Lin et al would do precisely that.
When the Republic of China (ROC) was founded, Taiwan — a Japanese colony — was not part of its inheritance as a result of the terms of the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki.
Subsequent repudiations of this treaty and allied wartime declarations such as the Cairo Declaration have no legal standing and can be ignored, as the US and the UK have done and continue to do.
After 1945, the US gave its tacit approval, encouragement even, of the annexation of Taiwan by the ROC. The US never occupied Taiwan; the analogy drawn with Guam and Puerto Rico is flawed. Rather, the ROC effectively gained Taiwan through the spoils of war. That the San Francisco Peace Treaty named the US as the “principal occupier” does not actually mean it was the named occupier of Taiwan. The treaty is unclear: That is precisely the point.
Rather than attempt to solve Taiwan’s international status in the US courts, the only option for Taiwan is to declare independence from the ROC. The only issue that should be decided by referendum is whether a new Republic of Taiwan wants to join the People’s Republic of China or any successor government — but hopefully only once China has attained a similar or higher level of democracy than Taiwan enjoys.
PAUL DEACON
Kuishan, Taoyuan County
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
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
RSS