No ROC ‘national property’
In his excellent essay, Tunkan Tansikian notes that “When the [Republic of China] ROC government took over control of Taiwan after Japan was defeated in World War II, it basically continued with Japan’s policies … The ROC government did not return the hunting grounds and land … but instead listed it as national property” (“Time to right historical wrongs,” Sept. 25, page 8).
This “national property” appellation is curious. We must remember that all military attacks against Taiwan in the 1941-1945 period were conducted by US military forces. No troops from the UK, France, the Soviet Union, New Zealand, Australia or the then ROC participated. The US was the conqueror of Taiwan, hence beginning in the autumn of 1945, the rights and responsibilities regarding the disposition of Taiwan’s territory would fall to the US in the role of (principal) occupying power. As we know, General Douglas MacArthur delegated this responsibility to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), whose military forces came to Taiwan to accept the Japanese surrender and deal with the ensuing military occupation issues.
Chiang’s military forces were transported to Taiwan on US ships and aircraft. In the Foreign Relations of the United States series, compiled by the US Department of State, many documents make it clear that the US government recognized the surrender of Japanese troops in Taiwan as the beginning of the military occupation of the island. Since international law specifies that “military occupation does not transfer sovereignty,” it is clear that there was no “Taiwan Retrocession Day.”
Additional 1971 Department of State documents confirm that neither of the post-war peace treaties awarded the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC. Moreover, sovereignty over occupied territory cannot be changed by invoking the doctrine of “prescription.”
Even after the UN adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on Sept. 13, 2007, the ROC regime has continued to claim that large areas of traditional Aboriginal grounds are “national property,” because of the Japanese surrender ceremonies which marked “Taiwan Retrocession Day.”
However, just as Iraq could not legally annex Kuwait in August 1990, the ROC could not legally annex Taiwan in Oct. 1945. Hence, there was no “Taiwan Retrocession Day.” Accordingly, no property in Taiwan whatsoever can be listed as “national property” of the ROC regime, which today remains as merely an occupying power and government in exile.
It is only by clarifying this important legal point that Aboriginal groups in Taiwan can move forward with a true human rights agenda.
Would the Taipei Times assist in conveying the above historical and legal analysis to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his Cabinet? Unless they can provide authoritative documentation from the principal victor in the war against Japan, (ie, the US) I would ask that all references to “Taiwan Retrocession Day” on all government Web sites, in all textbooks and in official displays in museums and so forth, be removed at the earliest possible date.
Lin Yung-cheng
New Taipei City
The most troubling message coming out of Washington for Taipei is not any single statement but the cumulative effect of a series of signals suggesting that US President Donald Trump is rethinking Taiwan’s strategic value while viewing the US-China relationship through the lens of a transactional great-power bargain. The danger behind Trump’s new softness toward Beijing is a potential US-China bargain that undermines Taiwan’s core interests. During Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) recent state visit to Washington, Trump and Xi appeared to rewrite the history of World War II. In a Sept. 25 fact sheet on Xi’s visit, the White House said,
The official English name for Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen’s (沈伯洋) campaign is “the Taipei Current.” It comes from the Chinese term yangliu (洋流), a direct translation of which would be “ocean current,” using the last character of Shen’s name, yang (洋, “ocean”). The Chinese term is a reference to the 2018 campaign for Kaohsiung mayor that swept a hitherto marginal player within the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), who is now legislative speaker, whose successful campaign then was termed the “Han Wave” (韓流). Shen’s usage of the Chinese term is intentional.
Early this month, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) held two large election campaign rallies in Taichung and New Taipei City on the same day. However, KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) was marginalized at the rallies. Cheng shouted herself hoarse campaigning onstage for the mayoral candidates, but neither candidate was onstage at the time. In the morning of that day, the KMT’s Taichung mayoral candidate, Deputy Legislative Speaker Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), entered the venue accompanied by Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) and New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜). That afternoon, the party’s New Taipei City
China’s revised National Defense Mobilization Law took effect on Oct. 1, allowing the government to mobilize civilians and redirect resources for military purposes, and ensures a rapid transition from peacetime to wartime. It has a wide scope of “national interests” pretexts, which would likely be used against Taiwan. The amendment incorporates Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) “Military-Civil Fusion” principle into law, and stipulates that once the state initiates national defense mobilization, “the people’s governments at or above the county level may expropriate and requisition civilian resources,” and “all organizations and individuals shall have the obligation to accept the lawful expropriation and
RSS