The case of Roger C. S. Lin et al v. United States of America was filed by Roger Lin (林志昇) in the US District Court in Washington on Oct. 24, 2006. On Sept. 23, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) filed a case with the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, via the Formosa Nation Legal Strategy Association, of which Lin is the founder, demanding that the US intervene in his detention case as the “principal occupying power of Taiwan” to seek his release and the restoration of his civil and human rights.
Both these cases were based on the same reasoning — both Lin and Richard Hartzell, who was also involved in the Roger C. S. Lin et al v. United States of America case, are attempting to get the US government to admit that Taiwan’s international status has been that of an “unincorporated territory under the US Military Government (USMG)” after World War II.
My main contention with this idea is as follows: If the Republic of China (ROC) government was only ever a subordinate occupying power in Taiwan commissioned by the US, why then did the US never correct the situation when Japan surrendered Taiwan to former dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) in October 1945 and when Chiang announced that all the people of Taiwan were ROC citizens?
While those involved in the Lin case have pointed to the cases of Puerto Rico and Cuba at the end of the 19th century when they were “unincorporated territories under the US Military Government (USMG)” to help strengthen their argument that Taiwan currently shares the same status, Puerto Rico and Cuba were in fact USMGs for short periods of time and both places went through the process of having a local government being established by local civilians.
These things never happened in Taiwan.
We cannot go back and change history to establish a USMG and claim that Taiwan’s current status is an unincorporated territory under USMG.
While the US recognized and supported the ROC government in exile on Taiwan, at major times such as 1954, 1971, 2004 and 2007, US officials reiterated that the status of Taiwan and the Pescadores (Penghu) was yet to be determined.
Why would they have made these comments if Taiwan really was an unincorporated territory under USMG?
Also, why has the US not dared to refer to our government as the ROC “government” and simply addressing it as the ROC ever since the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) took effect in 1979?
We have to understand the issue of Taiwan’s status in light of the abovementioned background. The Resolution on Taiwan’s Future ratified by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in 1999 posed new directions for Taiwan’s future and this was closely linked with democratization and localization actions taken by former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in the 1990s. However, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) current line is in complete contradiction with Lee-era policies and there really is now a definite need for things to be clearly reviewed and new “resolutions” to be made.
The complicated issues of Taiwan’s status can only be explained clearly by adopting a multi-disciplinary approach that includes topics such as international law, constitutional law, history and political science. To discover the truth and find an answer to the question of Taiwan’s status, we cannot afford to rely on the legal binding power of a certain declaration or the explanation of a certain legal clause.
Chen Yi-shen is chairman of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
RSS