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 Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS