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
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS