Legal argument flawed
HoonTing (雲程) has broken new ground in the search for a collective security mechanism for Taiwan.
In contrast, Hofstra University law professor Julian Ku has argued that Taiwan should be left to fend for itself against a Chinese invasion. He has incorrectly stated that it is illegal to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. Professor Ku has made the argument that defending Taiwan is illegal under UN Charter Article 51 — the right to collective self-defense.
The geopolitical problem in northeast Asia is that there has not been a multilateral treaty signed for collective self-defense against Chinese interference. Since Japan signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, there has been only the bilateral mutual defense treaty signed with the US. Japan signed the bilateral defense treaty on the same day that it signed the peace treaty.
The US and South Korea signed a bilateral defense treaty in 1955. The US-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty was also signed in 1955, but then former US president Jimmy Carter’s administration terminated this bilateral treaty in 1980. The Taiwan Relations Act is a substitute for this termination, but the treaty-making powers were examined in Goldwater versus Carter (1983).
There is an argument that the executive branch can exercise their monopoly over foreign affairs, but the court states they had not examined the issue of the termination in terms of actions by the commander-in-chief. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has attempted to drive a wedge between the bilateral security arrangements in Northeast Asia with the conflicts over the Diaoyu Islands (釣魚).
The solution for collective self-defense lies in the trilateral relationship between the US and Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
While Professor Ku argues that collectively defending the island of Taiwan is illegal, the “San Francisco System” fosters the continuation of the 1950s’ geopolitical problems of the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan.
Hoon Ting, however, explores historical concepts of derecognized exiled governments and their roles in the geopolitical situation of Northeast Asia. Some exiled governments are sponsored by their recognizing states, and this bilateral military relationship between the US and its co-belligerent exiled government (eg, Free French on Continental France) demonstrates they were the instruments of both foreign policy and military strategy.
The San Francisco System underwrites the security of the ROC and casts a shadow whenever creating collective security arrangements for Northeast Asia.
US policy makers must become cognizant that the geopolitical history of the Korean War Armistice is rooted in the San Francisco System. US Foreign policy has military ramifications for the protection of both South Korea and Taiwan, but then termination of mutual defense treaties was never examined by the US Supreme Court in Goldwater versus Carter.
Perhaps it is time to reexamine treaty-making powers in US jurisprudence before the PLA lawyers adopt the international law advice of Professor Ku.
US leadership in our collective security arrangement must be reformulated before blue-helmeted PLA troops start invading Taiwan under the legal auspices of Article 51 of the UN Charter.
I look forward to further research on the topic.
Seung Mi Hong
Seoul, South Korea
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