US Secretary of State Colin Powell is correct when he states that "Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation." Let me review the historical facts, state the issues, analyze and conclude.
After Japan surrendered on Sept. 2, 1945, General MacArthur, in his capacity as Supreme Commander Allied Powers, issued Directive No. 1, where he required the Japanese commanders in Formosa to surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (
In the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Allied Powers, which came into force in 1952, of which neither the Republic of China (ROC) nor the People's Republic of China (PRC) is a party, Japan gives up all claims to Taiwan. But it did not cede Taiwan because among legal experts, there is a consensus that cession requires the stipulation of both donor and recipient. The court case says "neither this agreement nor any other agreement thereafter has purported to transfer the sovereignty of Formosa to China."
The same case goes on to say that "The situation is, then, one where the Allied Powers still have to come to some agreement or treaty with respect to the status of Formosa."
In diplomacy, there is a long-standing tradition that occupation does not transfer sovereignty. If a renter occupies a house for many years, he still does not get title. The house still belongs to the owner. Transfers of title or sovereignty must be done through written paper or treaty. Therefore, we must determine the status of the ROC and determine whether it has sovereignty.
The ROC acted under the orders of Supreme Commander Allied Powers and were acting on behalf of the Allied Powers when it came to Taiwan to effect the surrender of Japanese forces. In the Taiwan Relations Act, the ROC ceased to exist, the US began to call Taiwan Taiwan and began using the term "governing authority on Taiwan." The ROC came to Taiwan as an occupation force, and remains an occupational force today, regardless of whether it is called the ROC or the governing authority on Taiwan. To those who say that there has been a regime change in Taiwan, I urge them to read the ROC Constitution, and take a walk to Chiang Kai-shek Memorial and look at the flag that flies over it.
Even though the ROC might have come to Taiwan to claim it for itself, this fact is not recognized in the international arena and, to this day, there is no document granting sovereignty to the ROC. It has been said that sovereignty rests in the people of Taiwan. However, I feel that the people of Taiwan are comparable to renters who occupy a house, and sovereignty was never granted to them by Japan or the Allied Powers.
I am confident that Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty. But maybe it is not so bad. Taking into account that US courts consider foreign countries to be territory completely within the sovereignty of another state, maybe they will rule that for the purposes of import duties, Taiwan is not a foreign country and thus, imports to the US from Taiwan can enter duty free.
Alfred Tsai
Taipei
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS