Transfer of sovereignty
I am glad that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) finally, on behalf of all Chinese, admitted implicitly that the 1943 Cairo Declaration had no legal binding effect on the status of Taiwan and Penghu (“Treaty confirmed sovereignty: Ma,” April 29, page 3.) He now has to resort to twisting and bending the words in the 1951 San Francisco Treaty and the 1952 Treaty of Taipei (or the Peace Treaty between Japan and the Republic of China (ROC) government-in-exile) to justify his denial of Taiwanese’s right to their own land.
Everyone, including the Chinese, now agrees that the Cairo Declaration is meaningless and that the only legal document that can affect the international legal status of Taiwan and Penghu is the San Francisco Treaty.
I’d like to note that those whose fate is decided by the land they live in are slaves, and that those who get to decide the fate of the land they live in are free men.
The question regarding the status of Taiwan and Penghu ultimately rests with whether Taiwanese are slaves of the land they live in or whether they are free men who own the land.
We will see how real are the claims by self-proclaimed liberal and enlightened societies that say they are committed to liberty, progress and humanity.
My question is: Does the “progressive” administration of US President Barack Obama see Taiwanese as slaves of the land, who should be transferred between parties? (“US may launch Taiwan Policy Review,” April 24, page 1.)
SING YOUNG
Taoyuan
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) reportedly claims that the 1952 Treaty of Taipei asserted “de jure transfer of Taiwan’s sovereignty to the ROC.” But that is not true.
Article 2 of the Treaty of Taipei states: “It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands.”
The article means that as of Sept. 8, 1951, Taiwan’s sovereignty was not Japan’s to transfer.
Therefore, the Treaty of Taipei, which was signed on April 28, 1952, could not, did not, cannot and does not transfer Taiwan’s sovereignty.
ROBERT PENNINGTON
Ilan County
Stuck with ‘Chinese Taipei’
The pace of using “Chinese Taipei” for Taiwan has accelerated since Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) became president.
First, Ma expressed his appreciation for Chinese permission to allow Taiwan to participate in the Beijing Olympics as “Chinese Taipei.”
Recently, somebody moved Yushan (玉山) from Taiwan to “Chinese Taipei” in the competition for the world’s seven new wonders.
Now the WHO has invited “Chinese Taipei” to the World Heath Assembly (WHA) as an observer — subject to an annual renewal.
Ma has stated that the name “Chinese Taipei” does not belittle Taiwan or damage national dignity. Is this statement true or false?
Taiwan is an island nation — not a city nation. What if city states like Singapore or the Vatican were called “Malaysian Singapore” or “Italian Vatican”? The use of “Taipei” for Taiwan marginalizes the rest of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. This is unacceptable at home.
The adjective “Chinese” indicates that Taipei is under China’s control. If “Chinese Taipei” wants to join the WHA, the WHO, the UN or any other world organizations, it will have to be first approved by China. The rest of the world cannot say anything. A name like “Chinese Taipei” makes Taiwan even worse than Hong Kong and Macau. This is unacceptable internationally.
RSS