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
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS