Taiwan is occupied territory
In “Focus on national name a distraction,” (May 30, page 8), law professor Chiang Huang-chih (姜皇池) does a good overview of the recent 60-plus years of Taiwanese history, and says that before the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) on April 28, 1952, Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty remained with Japan.
He correctly states that the Republic of China (ROC), a “foreign regime,” ruled Taiwan between 1945 and 1949, while waiting for the signing of a peace treaty. When the ROC moved its central government to Taiwan in late 1949, it was moving outside of China’s national territory, and hence became a government-in-exile.
However, Chiang’s analysis fails when he states that since the early 1970s, the cross-operations of international and domestic law have meant that the ROC and Taiwan have been gradually fused into one entity. Under international law in the post-Napoleonic period, no such “fusion” is possible.
In this regard, two important legal tenets must be mentioned. First, “military occupation does not transfer sovereignty.” Second, there are no actions, procedures, or other methodology whereby a “government-in-exile” can become established as the legal government of its current locality of residence.
With the surrender of Japanese troops on Oct. 25, 1945, Taiwan came under the rule of the “foreign” ROC regime, and that was a condition of military occupation. There was no transfer of Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty to China in the late 1940s or early 1950s, as Chiang stated. When Japan renounced all rights to Taiwan in the SFPT without specifying a receiving country, the military occupation of Taiwan continued, and the status of the ROC as a government-in-exile remained unaffected.
Although Taiwan has democratized over the past few decades, it remains in a legal condition of military occupation, which means that its “final political status” is undetermined. Hence, Taiwan is not a country, it is merely an occupied territory. The ROC cannot obtain further international legitimacy, because it is, at the most basic level, a government-in-exile. (The status of the “Chinese government-in-exile in Taipei” is frequently abbreviated to “Chinese Taipei” for participation in international organizations.)
A chart which outlines these considerations in detail is available at www.taiwanadvice.com/examlegalit.htm.
It is to be hoped that Chiang can produce a similar chart to present his views and analysis in more detail.
Based on the legal tenets above, the assertion that “the ROC is Taiwan, and Taiwan is the ROC” is not tenable. Realistically, it is not the “focus on national name” that is a distraction, but rather the focus on national sovereignty.
The world community only recognizes one China, and that is the People’s Republic of China (PRC). According to UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, the PRC is the successor government to the ROC. If the Taiwanese people continue to stress that the “ROC in Taiwan” is a sovereign entity, this amounts to handing Taiwan to the PRC on a silver platter.
Hence, such sloganeering should be avoided.
Lin Yung-cheng
New Taipei City
With the fall of Kabul not yet six months past, Washington faces a fresh test of its ability to sustain Pax Americana, as more than 100,000 Russian troops, heavy artillery and tanks mass on Russia’s border with Ukraine. The mounting crisis looks set to become the greatest test of US President Joe Biden’s administration to date — the outcome of which could have far-reaching implications and send ripples through the Taiwan Strait. Moscow’s Ukraine gambit appears designed to probe the Biden administration — to ferret out its red lines and ascertain whether Washington is willing to commit troops to defend its
The start of any new year is always a good time for introspection, reflection and resolutions. This advice is appropriate for all. In Taiwan, it should clearly be heeded by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which continues to have its share of troubles. The KMT has had so many difficulties in the past decade that it almost seems to revel in them with the celebration of each new year. What then could be done? The KMT can begin by examining the present and slowly tracing backward to see how the dots are connected. Whether the party admits it or not, it
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is floundering. Over its past two years of politicking, it has racked up a staggering number of losses on votes that it initiated. Two of its four recall drives failed, and each of the two that succeeded only served to add another Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) seat to the legislature. This is not to mention the slap in the face that was last month’s referendum, with all four of its proposals soundly defeated, despite the money and effort that the party put into them. For all of its talk about upholding the duties of the opposition
Last year, China entered into a spat with Lithuania over Vilnius allowing Taipei to open a de facto embassy using the name “Taiwan.” Beijing recalled its ambassadors from Lithuania and downgraded its diplomatic ties with the Baltic state to the “charge d’affaires” level. In hindsight, China should realize that this move handed Lithuania on a plate to Taiwan. China used its economic leverage as punishment. First, it tried to pressure German industry giant Continental AG to stop using Lithuanian-made components. When an EU trade commissioner said that Chinese customs were refusing to clear goods containing Lithuanian parts, China denied it was at
RSS