All were clear on treaty
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) seems to be laboring in a bit of confusion as he ponders the 1952 Treaty of Taipei and its implications for who has ultimate sovereignty on Taiwan (“Treaty confirmed sovereignty: Ma” April 29, page 3).
There was no such confusion among the signatories of the San Francisco Treaty (“China” had been excluded from the negotiations because of the disagreement among the participants as to who actually represented the government of that country). Nor was the Republic of China’s (ROC) foreign minister George Kung-chao Yeh (葉公超) confused.
At the San Francisco Treaty, US delegate John Foster Dulles admitted it “would have been neater” if the treaty specified precisely “the ultimate disposition of each of the ex-Japanese territories” but cautioned that to do so “would have raised questions as to which there are now no agreed answers.” The British delegate stated: “The treaty provides for Japan to renounce its sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores Islands. The treaty itself does not determine the future of these islands.”
The Soviet delegate was indignant that “this draft grossly violates the indisputable rights of China to the return of integral parts of Chinese territory: Taiwan, the Pescadores, the Paracel and other islands … The draft contains only a reference to the renunciation by Japan of its rights to these territories but intentionally omits any mention of the further fate of these territories.”
The US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which recommended the treaty for ratification, also took this view. Its report on the treaty dated Feb. 14, 1952, asserted: “It is important to remember that article 2 is a renunciatory article and makes no provision for the power or powers which are to succeed Japan in the possession of and sovereignty over the ceded territory.”
Although the ROC was not a party to the San Francisco Treaty, the ROC signed a separate “Treaty of Peace” with Japan in Taipei on April 28, 1952, which simply “recognized” that “Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).” ROC foreign minister Yeh explained this provision in Legislative Yuan interpellations, noting that the Taipei treaty made “no provision ... for the return [of Taiwan and the Penghus] to China.” He asserted, instead, that the ROC had “de facto” control of the islands, and therefore, “Inasmuch as these territories were originally owned by us and as they are now under our control … they are, therefore, in fact restored to us.” Still, he had to admit that “no provision has been made either in the San Francisco Treaty of Peace as to the future of Taiwan and Penghu.”
This raised anxieties among the legislators during the Legislative Yuan interpellations on the Taipei Treaty who bluntly demanded to know: “What is the status of Formosa and the Pescadores?” He replied: “The delicate international situation makes it that they do not belong to us. Under present circumstances, Japan has no right to transfer Formosa and the Pescadores to us; nor can we accept such a transfer from Japan even if she so wishes.”
JOHN J. TKACIK, JR.
Alexandria, Virginia
Congratulations on first step
We should all celebrate Wednesday’s announcement that Taiwan will finally be permitted to participate in the WHO, albeit only as an “observer.” President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the dedicated staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be commended for achieving this important first step — as should Mr Ma’s predecessors, Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), whose tireless efforts over the years helped make this week’s diplomatic coup possible. But we must temper our enthusiasm by remembering that Wednesday’s victory was just that: A first step.
Tragically, Taiwan continues to be treated as a global pariah by much of the world, thanks in no small part to a relentless and decades-long international campaign of intimidation by the People’s Republic of China — a campaign that essentially remains in high gear, notwithstanding this week’s incremental progress.
The good news is that by gaining observer status at the World Health Assembly (even under the patronizing and geographically inaccurate title of “Chinese Taipei”), Taiwan now has its foot in the door and will be in a better position to fight for its rightful place among the family of nations as a full and equal member of the international community.
I sincerely hope it is a battle President Ma and his administration will continue to wage on behalf of Taiwan’s 23 million citizens, and I wish him the best of luck in that noble endeavor.
TOM TANCREDO
Former US congressman
Littleton, Colorado
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS