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
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS