ROC not legitimate
James Wang (王景弘) asserts that the exiled Republic of China (ROC) has developed into a “representative, legitimate constitutional government” and therefore should be diplomatically recognized by the US (“US should reconsider the status of Taiwan,” Dec. 23, page 6).
Wang no doubt consulted the San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 28, 1952, whereby Japan renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan. Before that date, Taiwan was still part of Japan’s sovereign territory, although under belligerent occupation, as confirmed in a March 1949 CIA report (“CIA report shows Taiwan concerns,“ June 9, 2013, page 1).
The description of the “ROC government in exile” necessarily follows from the fact that when the ROC moved its central government to occupied Taiwan in early December 1949, it was moving outside of China’s national territory.
However, I find Wang’s analysis somewhat confusing. Please allow me to clarify some relevant points that Wang appears to have missed.
A government in exile does not have sovereignty. By clarifying the status of the ROC in Taiwan under the treaty, we can clearly see that there was no Taiwan Retrocession Day, and Taiwan remained a sovereign Japanese territory during the mid to late 1940s and early 1950s. The date of Oct. 25, 1945, only marked the beginning of the military occupation.
Given these facts, we are forced to conclude that Taiwan has never been incorporated into China’s national territory. Importantly, this means that there is no legal basis for the promulgation of the ROC Constitution in Taiwan, nor for the establishment of an ROC government structure in Taiwan.
Moreover, international law does not recognize any actions, methods or procedures whereby a government in exile can become the legally recognized government of its current locality of residence. There is no scheme or routine that could enable the exiled ROC government to be transformed into a “representative, legitimate constitutional government” in Taiwan. The solution lies elsewhere. To speak more plainly, for the ROC government to reobtain full legitimacy, it would have to return to Nanjing, China, and resume governance there.
When talking to US officials, it is helpful to keep these points in mind. Additionally, it must be stressed that the treaty has a higher legal weight than the Three Joint Communiques, the Taiwan Relations Act and the “one China” policy. Neither the treaty, nor the Aug. 5, 1952, Treaty of Taipei awarded Taiwan to China. This was confirmed many years ago by official US Department of State memoranda on the “Legal Status of Taiwan,” issued in 1961 and 1971.
Unfortunately, current department and American Institute in Taiwan officials seem unaware of these previous legal conclusions, as they still require Taiwanese to hold a “Republic of China” passport to complete US Customs procedures. Such a requirement causes US Customs and Border Protection officials to accept both “People’s Republic of China” and “Republic of China” passports as valid travel documents, in direct contravention of the US’ often-touted “one China” policy.
Tom Chang
Alhambra, California
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95