Sunflowers uphold dignity
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) president and chief executive John Hamre chaired a video conference with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) at the Presidential Office on Wednesday last week, one day before the 35th anniversary of the Taiwan Relation Act. Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law program director Kharis Templeman hosted a panel discussion with Thomas Fingar and Larry Diamond later that day at Stanford University.
Similar meetings were also held by other think tanks. All these meetings were cosponsored by local Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices. Of course, Taiwanese taxpayers paid for them, but the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Republic of China (ROC) got credit.
The Stanford conference invitation came amid the occupation of the Legislative Yuan by students opposed to the cross-strait service trade agreement. Many Bay Area Taiwanese-Americans participated. The meeting started with a video of Ma’s presentation to CSIS followed by Thomas, Larry and Kharis’ comments, then opened to the floor for questions.
“On Dec. 1, 1943, the United States, United Kingdom and Republic of China issued the historic Cairo Declaration, in which they demanded that Japan restore all territories stolen from the Chinese such as Manchuria, Taiwan, and the Pescadores to the Republic of China. This position was reconfirmed in the Potsdam Proclamation on July 26, 1945, and realized 38 days later with the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on Sept. 2. We truly appreciate America’s vital military and diplomatic role during this period in helping the Republic of China recover sovereignty over Taiwan,” Ma said.
Ma’s remarks were odd. We have to question his knowledge of history, international law and the treaties. Yes, there was a Cairo Conference at which then-US president Roosevelt, then-British prime minister Winston Churchill and Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) met on Nov. 27, 1943, but none of them were sill in Cairo on Dec. 1, nor did anyone sign the so-called Cairo Declaration.
Only Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration limited Japan’s territory and it was merely a proposal in a series of discussions on the future surrender of Japan. The final settlement was the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
Under Article 10 of the treaty, “Japan renounces all special rights and interests in China, including all benefits and privileges resulting from the provisions of the final Protocol signed at Peking on 7 September 1901.”
However, Japan did not steal Taiwan; it was ceded by the Qing emperor in the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895.
The US Taiwan Relation Act Section 15, Article 2 refers to “the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the ROC prior to January 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities [including political subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities thereof].”
On Aug. 30, 2007, former White House National Security Council senior director Dennis Wilder said: “Taiwan, or the ROC, is not at this point a state in the international community.”
On April 7, 2009, US Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown said: “During this time, people on Taiwan have lived without any uniformly recognized government.”
So US official policy does not recognize the ROC. Ma’s administration is only one of the Taiwan governing authorities. It is very interesting that Stanford professor Larry Diamond ignored the TRA and recognized the ROC. He did not blame the government for the bloody crackdown at the Executive Yuan, but instead he said the Sunflower movement had broken the law by occupying the Legislative Yuan. The audience asked him who violated the law first and whether the US Congress could pass a bill in 30 seconds without any debate or review? Where are the checks and balances?
On June 28, 1776, former US president Thomas Jefferson, writing before the US declared independence, said that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of people pursuing Life, Liberty and Happiness, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”
The Sunflower activists risk their lives and youth to fight for justice and liberty, to defend the basic human and civil rights of Taiwanese. They fight for their future. They are just looking to uphold the basic national dignity of Taiwan.
We do not know whether the US government has endorsed Ma pushing Taiwan toward China.
However, we did hear US House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi publicly praise the Sunflower movement as a democratic revolution. Or maybe Diamond is right, and he can ask the US government to revise the TRA and recognize Taiwan’s governing authority as the ROC-in-exile.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
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