Determining Taiwan’s status
The rationale behind the case of Roger Lin (林志昇) et al v the US (“Taiwanese in US flock to sovereignty trial,” Feb. 7, page 3) has been discussed in your letters column over the past several years, always resulting in a vigorous round of rebuttals and denials from readers.
Many readers have argued that Taiwan was never invaded by the US and that Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who was a representative of the Allies. They also said the specification of a “principal occupying Power” in Article 23(a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) has nothing to do with Taiwan.
The concept of “invasion” is not limited to ground troops — bombardment by airplanes and ships also qualifies.
The US’ status as the “principal occupying Power” over Taiwan is expected since all attacks against (Japanese) Taiwan during World War II were conducted by US forces.
Rights and obligations for the occupied territory fall to “the (principal) occupying Power” — the “conqueror.”
By contrast, neither The Hague nor the Geneva Conventions accord any status to the “troops that accept the surrender.”
Four facts are key: One, none of the Allies recognized any transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to China at the time of the Oct. 25, 1945, Japanese surrender ceremonies.
Two, the mass naturalization of native Taiwanese people as Republic of China (ROC) nationals/citizens in January 1946, during a period of belligerent occupation, is illegal under international law.
Three, the 1952 post-war peace treaties did not award the sovereignty of Taiwan to China. As a result, native Taiwanese people are today without an internationally recognized nationality.
Four, military government is “the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.”
SFPT Article 4(b) asserts the validity of the US Military Government (USMG) directives pertaining to Article 2 and Article 3 territories — including Taiwan. Such a specification confirms that USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan is active.
My lawsuit seeks declarations that native Taiwanese people have “rights under the US Constitution” resulting from the treaty specifications.
In Saturday’s story it was suggested that some Taiwanese groups feel this lawsuit conflicts with the goal of Taiwanese independence. I don’t believe this is a valid criticism.
The nation’s various “pro-independence groups” have never produced a unanimous statement on Taiwan’s current international legal status.
As a result, their efforts mainly consist of trying to enable Taiwan to become “independent” from China (the ROC or the People’s Republic of China). However, such efforts are doomed to failure. My lawsuit clarifies the facts for all the world to see — Taiwan is an overseas territory under the jurisdiction of the USMG.
As an occupied territory, Taiwan has not yet reached a “final political status” — it is “undetermined.” The logic is straightforward.
Native Taiwanese people are entitled to hold passports of the SFPT’s principal occupying Power — the US. The Taiwanese public’s desire for self-government can only be achieved by first recognizing their current situation.
ROGER LIN
Taipei
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS