The case of Roger C. S. Lin et al v. United States of America was filed by Roger Lin (林志昇) in the US District Court in Washington on Oct. 24, 2006. On Sept. 23, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) filed a case with the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, via the Formosa Nation Legal Strategy Association, of which Lin is the founder, demanding that the US intervene in his detention case as the “principal occupying power of Taiwan” to seek his release and the restoration of his civil and human rights.
Both these cases were based on the same reasoning — both Lin and Richard Hartzell, who was also involved in the Roger C. S. Lin et al v. United States of America case, are attempting to get the US government to admit that Taiwan’s international status has been that of an “unincorporated territory under the US Military Government (USMG)” after World War II.
My main contention with this idea is as follows: If the Republic of China (ROC) government was only ever a subordinate occupying power in Taiwan commissioned by the US, why then did the US never correct the situation when Japan surrendered Taiwan to former dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) in October 1945 and when Chiang announced that all the people of Taiwan were ROC citizens?
While those involved in the Lin case have pointed to the cases of Puerto Rico and Cuba at the end of the 19th century when they were “unincorporated territories under the US Military Government (USMG)” to help strengthen their argument that Taiwan currently shares the same status, Puerto Rico and Cuba were in fact USMGs for short periods of time and both places went through the process of having a local government being established by local civilians.
These things never happened in Taiwan.
We cannot go back and change history to establish a USMG and claim that Taiwan’s current status is an unincorporated territory under USMG.
While the US recognized and supported the ROC government in exile on Taiwan, at major times such as 1954, 1971, 2004 and 2007, US officials reiterated that the status of Taiwan and the Pescadores (Penghu) was yet to be determined.
Why would they have made these comments if Taiwan really was an unincorporated territory under USMG?
Also, why has the US not dared to refer to our government as the ROC “government” and simply addressing it as the ROC ever since the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) took effect in 1979?
We have to understand the issue of Taiwan’s status in light of the abovementioned background. The Resolution on Taiwan’s Future ratified by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in 1999 posed new directions for Taiwan’s future and this was closely linked with democratization and localization actions taken by former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in the 1990s. However, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) current line is in complete contradiction with Lee-era policies and there really is now a definite need for things to be clearly reviewed and new “resolutions” to be made.
The complicated issues of Taiwan’s status can only be explained clearly by adopting a multi-disciplinary approach that includes topics such as international law, constitutional law, history and political science. To discover the truth and find an answer to the question of Taiwan’s status, we cannot afford to rely on the legal binding power of a certain declaration or the explanation of a certain legal clause.
Chen Yi-shen is chairman of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS