Annexe Taiwan, protesters plead with U.S

updated 1:15 a.m. ET Dec. 7, 2007

Font size:

TAIPEI - Pro-U.S. demonstrators flew red, white and blue flags superimposed with maps of Taiwan outside the U.S. mission in Taipei on Friday in a campaign to see their island annexed to the United States.

They handed over a annexation petition to the American Institute in Taipei, the de facto U.S. embassy, after what participants said was the largest protest of its kind this year.

"Our goal is to let the United States govern Taiwan and not let China run it," said Lin Hsian-shuang, 80, one of about 300 demonstrators. "Self-rule for Taiwan would be also fine, but the U.S. government won't allow it."

China has claimed sovereignty over democratic Taiwan, formally known as the Republic of China, since the Chinese civil war ended in 1949 and threatened to use force if the island formally declares statehood.

The United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, recognizing "one China," but is obliged by the Taiwan Relations Act to help the island defend itself.

It has also pressured Taiwan to drop its plan for a referendum on UN membership which would be tantamount to a step towards formal independence.

Some protesters carried petitions for U.S. statehood. One held up a placard calling the Taiwan Relations Act "domestic," implying the United States could adopt the island.

"Because the United States has said Taiwan is not a country," said Lin Li-tsai, 65, on the sidewalk outside the institute.

"I came out here to ask, 'What are we?"'

(c) Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

 

 

Annexe Taiwan, protesters plead with U.S. | World | Reuters

TAIPEI (Reuters) - Pro-US demonstrators flew red, white and blue flags ... not let China run it," said Lin Hsian-shuang, 80, one of about 300 demonstrators. ...
in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-30871020071207 - 63k - Cached - Similar pages

Annexe Taiwan, protesters plead with U.S - News Wires - CNBC.com

... China run it," said Lin Hsian-shuang, 80, one of about 300 demonstrators. ... Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, ...
 www.cnbc.com/id/22141109/for/cnbc - 69k - Cached - Similar pages

Print Story: Annexe Taiwan, protesters plead with U.S on Yahoo! News

... not let China run it," said Lin Hsian-shuang, 80, one of about 300 demonstrators. ... Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly ...
 news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071207/pl_nm/taiwan_usa_dc&printer=1 - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

Annexe Taiwan, protesters plead with U.S - Yahoo! News

TAIPEI (Reuters) - Pro-U.S. demonstrators flew red, white and blue flags ... let China run it," said Lin Hsian-shuang, 80, one of about 300 demonstrators. ...
fe35.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071207/pl_nm/taiwan_usa_dc - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

中国政治与媒体 - ASIAONE--Annex Taiwan, protesters plead with U.S.

TAIPEI, Dec 7 (Reuters) - Pro-U.S. demonstrators flew red, white and blue ... let China run it," said Lin Hsian-shuang, 80, one of about 300 demonstrators. ...
karakhoja.multiply.com/journal/item/4832/ASIAONE--Annex_Taiwan_protesters_plead_with_U.S._ - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

Silobreaker: Annexe Taiwan, protesters plead with U.S

TAIPEI (Reuters) - Pro-U.S. demonstrators flew red, white and blue flags ... United States govern Taiwan and not let China run it" said Lin Hsian-shuang. ...
 www.silobreaker.com/DocumentReader.aspx?Item=5_798574338 - 115k - Cached - Similar pages

 

Annexe Taiwan, protesters plead with U.S.

Fri Dec 7, 2007 11:46am IST

 

Email | Print |

Share

| Single Page

[-] Text [ +]

TAIPEI (Reuters) - Pro-U.S. demonstrators flew red, white and blue flags superimposed with maps of Taiwan outside the U.S. mission in Taipei on Friday in a campaign to see their island annexed to the United States.

They handed over a annexation petition to the American Institute in Taipei, the de facto U.S. embassy, after what participants said was the largest protest of its kind this year.

"Our goal is to let the United States govern Taiwan and not let China run it," said Lin Hsian- shuang, 80, one of about 300 demonstrators. "Self-rule for Taiwan would be also fine, but the U.S. government won't allow it."

China has claimed sovereignty over democratic Taiwan, formally known as the Republic of China, since the Chinese civil war ended in 1949 and threatened to use force if the island formally declares statehood.

The United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, recognising "one China", but is obliged by the Taiwan Relations Act to help the island defend itself.

It has also pressured Taiwan to drop its plan for a referendum on UN membership which would be tantamount to a step towards formal independence.

Some protesters carried petitions for U.S. statehood. One held up a placard calling the Taiwan Relations Act "domestic", implying the United States could adopt the island.

"Because the United States has said Taiwan is not a country," said Lin Li-tsai, 65, on the sidewalk outside the institute.

"I came out here to ask, 'What are we?'"

 

__._,_.___

T

The Territorial Cessions of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Cuba, & Taiwan by Richard W. Hartzell   on 11/02/07



 PUERTO RICO

In the Spanish American War period, United States Military Government (USMG) in Puerto Rico began on August 12, 1898, with the surrender of Spanish troops.

The Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain (Treaty of Paris) was signed on December 10, 1898, and came into force: April 11, 1899. Article 2 specified: "Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones."

In the peace treaty, Spain ceded Puerto Rico, and the United States was designated as the receiving country. In reality, the transfer of the sovereignty of Puerto Rico from Spain to the United States was conducted through USMG. This can be explained as follows:

Diagram 1

 

Action

Result

1.

Spain has ceded Puerto Rico in the peace treaty.

In effect, upon the date of cession, Spain has ceded Puerto Rico to the USMG, and this is an interim status condition.

2.

With Spain's consent, the peace treaty has specified the United States as the "receiving country" for the cession.

Importantly, upon the date of cession, under international law, an authorized civil government for Puerto Rico, to whom the (principal) occupying power can relinquish the territory, does not yet exist. However, Puerto Rico has been ceded to the USA in the treaty, hence the United States Congress is authorized to pass relevant legislation to establish a civil government for Puerto Rico.


Comments:

Under USMG, the United States flag flew over Puerto Rico from August 12, 1898, until May 1, 1900. During this period, the allegiance of the local populace was to the United States. Since Puerto Rico was ceded to the USA in the post-war peace treaty, the United States flag continued to fly after the establishment of civil government operations in the territory. The populace continued to give allegiance to the United States.

It is important to recognize that under the military government of the (principal) occupying power, Puerto Rico had not yet reached a final political status. During this period, Puerto Rico was in "interim status" under the law of occupation. This "interim status" condition continued until the military government of the (principal) occupying power was legally supplanted.



THE PHILIPPINES

In the Spanish American War period, United States Military Government (USMG) in the Philippines began on August 14, 1898, with the surrender of Spanish troops.

The Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain (Treaty of Paris) was signed on December 10, 1898, and came into force: April 11, 1899. Article 3 specified: "Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands . . . . ."

In the peace treaty, Spain ceded the Philippines, and the United States was designated as the receiving country. In reality, the transfer of the sovereignty of the Philippines from Spain to the United States was conducted through USMG. This can be explained as follows:

Diagram 2

 

Action

Result

1.

Spain has ceded the Philippines in the peace treaty.

In effect, upon the date of cession, Spain has ceded the Philippines to the USMG, and this is an interim status condition.

2.

With Spain's consent, the peace treaty has specified the United States as the "receiving country" for the cession.

Importantly, upon the date of cession, under international law, an authorized civil government for the Philippines, to whom the (principal) occupying power can relinquish the territory, does not yet exist. However, the Philippines has been ceded to the USA in the treaty, hence the United States Congress is authorized to pass relevant legislation to establish a civil government for the Philippines.


Comments:

Under USMG, the United States flag flew over the Philippines from August 14, 1898, until July 4, 1901. During this period, the allegiance of the local populace was to the United States. Since The Philippines was ceded to the USA in the post-war peace treaty, the United States flag continued to fly after the establishment of civil government operations in the territory. The populace continued to give allegiance to the United States.

It is important to recognize that under the military government of the (principal) occupying power, the Philippines had not yet reached a final political status. During this period, the Philippines was in "interim status" under the law of occupation. This "interim status" condition continued until the military government of the (principal) occupying power was legally supplanted.



GUAM

In the Spanish American War period, United States Military Government (USMG) in Guam began on June 21, 1898, with the surrender of Spanish troops.

The Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain (Treaty of Paris) was signed on December 10, 1898, and came into force: April 11, 1899. Article 2 specified: "Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones."

In the peace treaty, Spain ceded Guam, and the United States was designated as the receiving country. In reality, the transfer of the sovereignty of Guam from Spain to the United States was conducted through USMG. This can be explained as follows:

Diagram 3

 

Action

Result

1.

Spain has ceded Guam in the peace treaty.

In effect, upon the date of cession, Spain has ceded Guam to the USMG, and this is an interim status condition.

2.

With Spain's consent, the peace treaty has specified the United States as the "receiving country" for the cession.

Importantly, upon the date of cession, under international law, an authorized civil government for Guam, to whom the (principal) occupying power can relinquish the territory, does not yet exist. However, Guam has been ceded to the USA in the treaty, hence the United States Congress is authorized to pass relevant legislation to establish a civil government for Guam.


Comments:

Under USMG, the United States flag flew over Guam from June 21, 1898, until July 1, 1950. During this period, the allegiance of the local populace was to the United States. Since Guam was ceded to the USA in the post-war peace treaty, the United States flag continued to fly after the establishment of civil government operations in the territory. The populace continued to give allegiance to the United States.

It is important to recognize that under the military government of the (principal) occupying power, Guam had not yet reached a final political status. During this period, Guam was in "interim status" under the law of occupation. This "interim status" condition continued until the military government of the (principal) occupying power was legally supplanted.



 CUBA

In the Spanish American War period, United States Military Government (USMG) in Cuba began on July 17, 1898, with the surrender of Spanish troops.

The Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain (Treaty of Paris) was signed on December 10, 1898, and came into force: April 11, 1899. Article 1 specified: "Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba. And as the island is, upon its evacuation by Spain, to be occupied by the United States, the United States will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligations that may under international law result from the fact of its occupation, for the protection of life and property."

In the peace treaty, Spain ceded Cuba, but no receiving country was designated. This is a "limbo cession." In reality, the transfer of the sovereignty of Cuba from Spain to the Republic of Cuba was conducted through USMG. This can be explained as follows:

Diagram 4

 

Action

Result

1.

Spain has ceded Cuba in the peace treaty.

In effect, upon the date of cession, Spain has ceded Cuba to the "United States Military Government," and this is an interim status condition.

2.

After consideration by all relevant parties, no agreement was reached to specify any other country as the "receiving country" for the cession.

Hence, none is stipulated. Importantly, upon the date of cession, under international law, an authorized civil government for Cuba, to whom the (principal) occupying power can relinquish the territory, does not yet exist. Moreover, no country has been authorized to pass relevant legislation to establish a civil government for Cuba. Cuba remains under "United States Military Government" until USMG is legally supplanted.


Comments:

Under USMG, the United States flag flew over Cuba from July 17, 1898, until May 20, 1902. During this period, the allegiance of the local populace was to the United States. The Republic of Cuba began civil government operations on May 20, 1902, so on that day the United States flag came down, and the Republic of Cuba flag went up. The populace then gave allegiance to the Republic of Cuba.

It is important to recognize that under the military government of the (principal) occupying power, Cuba had not yet reached a final political status. During this period, Cuba was in "interim status" under the law of occupation. This "interim status" condition continued until the military government of the (principal) occupying power was legally supplanted.



 TAIWAN

In the WWII period, after the end of military battles in the Pacific, United States Military Government (USMG) in "Formosa and the Pescadores" (aka "Taiwan") began on October 25, 1945, with the surrender of Japanese troops. USMG delegated the administration of this area to the Chinese Nationalists by means of the "law of agency." It is important to recognize that the administration of this area was handled separately from the administration of the four main Japanese islands.

Notes: The law of agency is the body of legal rules and norms concerned with any principal - agent relationship, in which one person (or group) has legal authority to act for another. The law of agency is based on the Latin maxim "Qui facit per alium, facit per se," which means "he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself."

The Treaty of Peace with Japan (San Francisco Peace Treaty) was signed on September 8, 1951, and came into force April 28, 1952. The following Articles are important.

Article 2(b):

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

Article 4(b):

Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3.

Article 23:

. . . . . including the United States of America as the principal occupying Power, . . . . .

In the peace treaty, Japan ceded "Formosa and the Pescadores," but no receiving country was designated. This is a "limbo cession." An analysis of the transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan from Japan to the PRC through USMG is provided as follows. (Note: As of 2006, this transfer has not yet been completed.)

Diagram 5

 

Action

Result

1.

Japan has ceded Taiwan in the peace treaty.

In effect, upon the date of cession, Japan has ceded Taiwan to the "United States Military Government," and this is an interim status condition.

2.

After consideration by all relevant parties, no agreement was reached to specify any other country as the "receiving country" for the cession. Hence, none is stipulated.

Importantly, upon the date of cession, under international law, an authorized civil government for Taiwan, to whom the principal occupying power can relinquish the territory, does not yet exist. Moreover, no country has been authorized to pass relevant legislation to establish a civil government for Taiwan. Taiwan remains under "United States Military Government" until USMG is legally supplanted.


Comments:

Under USMG, the United States flag should be flying over Taiwan as of April 28, 1952, (if not earlier). The allegiance of the local populace is to the United States.

It is important to recognize that under the military government of the (principal) occupying power, Taiwan has not yet reached a final political status. During this period, Taiwan is in "interim status" under the law of occupation. This "interim status" condition continues until the military government of the principal occupying power is legally supplanted.

In other words, according to the examples provided above in regard to Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, and Cuba, it is clear that the military government of the principal occupying power does not end upon the coming into force of the peace treaty, but continues until legally supplanted. To date, USMG administrative authority over Taiwan is still active.



 Shanghai Communique

The following wording in the February 28, 1972, communique is important:

The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.

In the Shanghai Communique, the United States has established the One China Policy, and has made arrangements for the final disposition of Taiwan, in accordance with SFPT Article 4(b).

However, during the period of "interim status," Taiwan is entitled to fundamental rights under the US Constitution. For the territory, these fundamental rights include the Article 1, Section 8 stipulation that Congress will provide for the "common defense." For the people, these fundamental rights include life, liberty, property, and due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Unfortunately, these rights have been denied for over fifty years. Additionally, with no US High Commission established in Taiwan, the Taiwanese people have even been denied the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


 CUBA & TAIWAN

A closer examination of the situations of Cuba (according to the Treaty of Paris) and Taiwan (according to the San Francisco Peace Treaty) may be made as follows:

Diagram 6

Item

Treaty of Paris specifications for Cuba

SFPT specifications for Taiwan

United States is the (principal) occupying power

Article 1

Article 23

Original "owner" did indeed cede the territory

Article 1

Article 2(b)

No "receiving country" was specified (i.e. "limbo cession")

Article 1

Article 2(b)

USMG has disposition rights over the territory

Article 1

Article 4(b)

Military government is present, and military occupation is a reality

Article 1

Article 4(b) and the Hague Conventions (1907)





 

 

 

-->


 

 

 

 
Have we been protesting at wrong guy for Taiwan's U.N. Bid?
 
<<In summary, if the Taiwanese want more representation in international organizations, they should be petitioning the U.S. commander in chief and Congress, not the United Nations. As an overseas territory under the jurisdiction of USMG, Taiwan qualifies as the United States' sixth major insular area, after Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands. The Taiwanese have the right to establish their own civil government under U.S. authority and to draft their own constitution. Admission to the World Health Organization should be as an associate member under the United States, similar to Puerto Rico's membership.
ROGER C.S. LIN
Taipei, Taiwan>>
 
Could FAPA comment for the benefit of folks who are preparing to walk onto UN Plaza again this year?
Regards,
Charles
 
 
"RWH (Taipei)" <rwh.midway@gmail.com> wrote:
Letter by Roger Lin in WASHINGTON TIMES, Sept. 12th
 
 
Occupied Taiwan
 
Occupied Taiwan

 
In the column "Taiwan: Still less U.N. respect" (Commentary, Thursday), Don Feder tries to explain why Taiwan meets the criteria for United Nations membership. Although he advances a number of emotionally appealing arguments, his legal rationale still fails to make the laws-of-war distinction between the exercise of "sovereignty" and mere "effective territorial control."

 
Background: On Sept. 2, 1945, Gen. Douglas MacArthur issued General Order No. 1, directing Chiang Kai-shek (of the Republic of China) to go to Taiwan to accept the surrender of Japanese troops. The surrender ceremonies on Oct. 25, 1945, marked the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. Hence, the announced mass naturalization of local Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens in January 1946, during a period of belligerent occupation, was a serious violation of international law. Moreover, military conscription of local Taiwanese males, instituted in the early 1950s, amounts to an additional violation. Importantly, neither the postwar San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) nor any other legal document has ever transferred the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan to the Republic of China or any other governmental entity on Taiwan.

 
Since October 1945, Taiwan has been occupied territory, and there has been no change in that status. As can be understood from a careful reading of General Order No. 1 and the postwar SFPT, the principal occupying power of Taiwan is the United States of America, and the U.S. Military Government's (USMG) jurisdiction over Taiwan is active. The Republic of China officials are merely exercising delegated administrative authority for the military occupation of Taiwan. In December 1949, those officials moved the ROC central government to occupied Taiwan, therefore becoming a government in exile. Since the coming into force of the SFPT in late April 1952, the ROC is not the legal government of Taiwan.

 
In summary, if the Taiwanese want more representation in international organizations, they should be petitioning the U.S. commander in chief and Congress, not the United Nations. As an overseas territory under the jurisdiction of USMG, Taiwan qualifies as the United States' sixth major insular area, after Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands. The Taiwanese have the right to establish their own civil government under U.S. authority and to draft their own constitution. Admission to the World Health Organization should be as an associate member under the United States, similar to Puerto Rico's membership.

 
ROGER C.S. LIN
Taipei, Taiwan
 
 

 

The basic position of Hartzell/Lin is the following: Posted 8/14//07

* Based on the US Senate ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), Taiwan is occupied territory of the United States of America.

* The United States is the principal occupying power of all geographic areas within the scope of the SFPT, as per Article 23(a). United States Military Government (USMG) jurisdiction over Taiwan is active, as confirmed by SFPT Article 4(b).

* By way of contrast, USMG jurisdiction over the SFPT Article 3 territories ended on May 15, 1972. USMG jurisdiction over all those island groups was supplanted by Japanese civil government.

* For Taiwan, no US federal government recognized "civil government" (of any country) has ever supplanted USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan. Hence, USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan remains active.

* In terms of the military occupation of Taiwan, there is a principal – agent relationship between the Republic of China and the United States. The Republic of China on Taiwan is (1) a subordinate occupying power, beginning Oct. 25, 1945, and (2) a government in exile, beginning mid-December 1949. The ROC exercises effective territorial control over the areas of Formosa and the Pescadores, but not sovereignty.


CITIZENSHIP

The above analysis is reinforced by an examination of "citizenship" issues. What is the relation of a citizen to its country? At the most basic level, it can be summed up in the word "allegiance."

allegiance: the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign.

Let's consider the following eight commonly mentioned historical/legal items --
* December 9, 1941 Republic of China's Declaration of War Against Japan
* December 1, 1943 Cairo Declaration
* July 26, 1945 Potsdam Proclamation
* Sept. 2, 1945 Japanese Surrender Ceremonies & Issuance of General Order No. 1
* Oct. 25, 1945 Japanese Surrender Ceremonies in Taiwan
* mid-December 1949 ROC government formally moves to Taiwan
* April 28, 1952 Coming into force of SFPT
* Aug. 5, 1952 Coming into force of Treaty of Taipei

In fact, none of these can serve the purpose of a legal justification for asserting that the Taiwanese people owe allegiance to the Republic of China.
FACT #1: The post-war peace treaties did not award Taiwan to the Republic of China.

FACT #2: Taiwan territory has never been added into the ROC national territory according to the provisions of Article 4 of the ROC Constitution.

FACT #3: In terms of discussing the allegiance of the Taiwanese people, the only relevant fact from 1941 to the present is to note that all military attacks against (Japanese) Formosa and the Pescadores in the Dec. 1941 through Fall 1945 period were conducted by US military forces.


ALLEGIANCE ARISES FROM CONQUEST

The standard US Supreme Court references for the doctrine of "temporary allegiance" under the law of occupation are United States v. Rice (1819) and Fleming v. Page (1850). However, such "temporary" allegiance is raised to a more permanent condition according to the relevant Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) definition. See INA 101 (a) (31): The term "permanent" means a relationship of continuing or lasting nature, as distinguished from temporary, but a relationship may be permanent even though it is one that may be dissolved eventually at the instance either of the United States or of the individual, in accordance with law.

Taiwan has been acquired by the United States under the principle of conquest. The allegiance of the native Taiwanese people is to the United States of America.

The Hartzell/Lin view of Taiwanese persons being "US nationals non-citizens" conforms with US Supreme Court rulings on the subject.

==> speaking of Cuba's "April 11, 1899, to May 20, 1902" transitional period (after cession from Spain in the peace treaty and before the founding of the "Republic of Cuba"), the US Supreme Court held in DeLima v. Bidwell 182 US 1 (1901), that "Cuba is under the dominion of the United States." The nationality of the native persons therein is thus provided by Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 (1892) where the Court specified that: "The nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose dominion they pass, subject to the right of election on their part to retain their former nationality by removal or otherwise, as may be provided." This determination was confirmed again in Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U.S. 1 (1904).

==> This is amplified by the legal analysis in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), where the US Supreme Court held that: "To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born, not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, . . . It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered."

==> for those owing allegiance to the United States, the "right to travel" and to hold a passport is part of the "liberty" of the 5th Amendment, see Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958),

etc., etc. as expounded upon in http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/applyp6.htm


DISPOSITION OF TERRITORY ACQUIRED UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF CONQUEST

According to international law, the disposition of territory acquired under the principle of conquest must be conducted according to the laws of war. That will mean military occupation followed by a peace settlement. If there is a territorial cession, it must be specified in a formal peace treaty.

Taiwan is a territorial cession in Article 2(b) of the SFPT.
Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

Although no "receiving country" was specified for this territorial cession, USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan is active, and the United States is the principal occupying power, as outlined above. The ROC in Taiwan is merely an agent for USMG. The military occupation of Taiwan continues until USMG jurisdiction is legally supplanted.

Please see http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/viewpoint.htm for more information, and links to YouTube videos.


CONCLUSIONS:

* The commonly held assumption that native Taiwanese persons are ROC citizens is totally without legal basis.

* Taiwan is not a part of the Republic of China.

* The Republic of China on Taiwan is not a sovereign nation.

* Legally speaking, "Taiwan" is not equal to "Republic of China."

* There is no country in the world today called "Republic of Taiwan," "Democratic Republic of Taiwan," "Taiwan Republic," etc. or anything similar.

* President Chen Shui-bian is the President of the Republic of China, not President of any country called "Taiwan"

* The Republic of China in Taiwan is (1) a subordinate occupying power, beginning Oct. 25, 1945, and (2) a government in exile, beginning mid-December 1949.

 
* Taiwan is occupied territory of the United States of America, after peace treaty cession.   In other words, USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan is still active.  The Taiwanese people should be enjoying fundamental rights under the US Constitution.
 
 

 

 

NEWS BULLETIN:
 
'Territorial sovereignty'
 
 

President Chen Shui-bian writes in his Op-Ed column "Beijing's 'one China'" (Tuesday) that "Taiwan is a sovereign, independent, peace-loving, and democratic country; its sovereignty rests in its 23 million people." However, Mr. Chen's knowledge of international law is faulty. On Oct. 25, 2004, when Secretary of State Colin Powell announced, "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation," he obviously was not speaking of the commonly discussed notion of "popular sovereignty," whose main tenet revolves around the people being able to elect their own representatives to the government. Mr. Powell was speaking of "territorial sovereignty." Importantly, Mr. Powell knows that territorial sovereignty is held by a government; it is not held by the people.


 
 

At the surrender ceremonies for Japanese troops in Taiwan on Oct. 25, 1945, officials of the Republic of China (ROC) announced "Taiwan Retrocession Day," saying that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan had been transferred to the ROC on that day. However, the Allies did not recognize any such transfer, and indeed, such an "interpretation" is a violation of international law. Under international law, Oct. 25, 1945, only marked the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. The United States is the principal occupying power, and the Republic of China is a subordinate occupying power. When ROC officials moved their central government to occupied Taiwan in December 1949, the ROC became a government in exile.


 
 

In the San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 28, 1952, the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan was not awarded to China (neither the ROC nor the People's Republic of China). Hence, Taiwan remains occupied territory. The position of the ROC on Taiwan is as stated above: (1) a subordinate occupying power, beginning Oct. 25, 1945, and (2) a government in exile beginning mid-December 1949. As such, the ROC exercises effective territorial control over Taiwan, but not sovereignty.


 
 

Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department has kept all of these facts hidden from the American public and members of Congress for more than 50 years. It is high time that executive branch officials admit that under the provisions of the Senate-ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty, Taiwan is "an overseas territory under the jurisdiction of the United States of America."

 
 

ROGER C. S. LIN

 

Taipei, Taiwan

 
US GIVES TAIWAN FREE RIDE
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8203
Sunday, April 29, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
by Staff Selections
The Taiwan legislature's reluctance to pass a "special defense budget" to pay for U.S. weapons systems looks set to continue as the island's presidential campaign heats up. That leaves America in the unenviable position of having an implicit commitment to defend a fellow democracy that doesn't seem especially interested in defending itself. -Cato Institute 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.   4/29/2007 - 22:36:34PM 
BY: Roger C. S. Lin
Dear Editor,
 
I am a new reader to the Free Market News Network. With all due respect, I must point out that Ted Galen Carpenter's recent article "US gives Taiwan free ride" shows a quite overwhelming degree of ignorance regarding the historical and legal situation regarding Taiwan's current international situation.
 
An examination of the relevant issues must begin with the highest ranking document of international law which defines the relationship between the United States and Taiwan, namely the Senate-ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) of 1952. In that Treaty, Japan renounced the sovereignty of Taiwan, but that sovereignty was not awarded to any other country, (including the Republic of China "ROC"). However, Article 23a designates the United States as the principal occupying power, and Article 4b further confirms the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government over Taiwan.
 
Today, Taiwan remains as occupied territory, and the occupying power is the United States of America. The Taiwan governing authorities, as we know, continue to use the nomenclature of the Republic of China, a nomenclature which under the Taiwan Relations Act is not recognized after Jan. 1, 1979. Significantly then, the ROC government's maintenance of a "Ministry of National Defense" and the institutution of mandatory military conscription policies over a local populace in occupied territory are illegal under the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
 
Moreover, US military arms sales to the government-in-exile ROC in Taiwan are technically illegal under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution ("common defense"). In summary, the US bears full responsibility for the "national defense" of Taiwan and all other overseas territories under the jurisdiction of the United States. This is not a question of a "free ride," rather it is a matter of US constitutional law.
 
Sincerely,
 
Roger C. S. Lin
(Ph.D. international law, Meijo University, Nagoya, Japan)
rgroup.tw@gmail.com
 Chairman, Taiwan Civil Action Party
Gaoxiong, Taiwan
== See further information in the following online references ==
Introduction and Outline for Modern Taiwanese History
http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/tmodhiae.htm
Complaint for Declaratory Relief
http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/impindex.htm
Military Jurisdiction and the Taiwan status question
http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/milgovex.htm
 

Hello:

 
Our Washington D.C. lawyer states that the Judge has denied the US government's Motion to Dismiss as of March 23, 2007. 
 
This means that the case will proceed forward.   This is very good news !!!
 
Sincerely,
 
Richard W. Hartzell
March 23, 2007
Taipei

 
 

What's in a Name?
Ask Taiwan.
by Gary Schmitt & John Tkacik
02/26/2007, Volume 012, Issue 23

 


 

The Bush administration, which once pledged to do "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan, is increasingly distancing itself from the prosperous and democratic island. This has been going on since August 3, 2002, when Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-bian, first declared that "each side [of the Taiwan Strait] is its own nation." Although this assertion had the benefit of being true, it incensed Beijing's leaders, who pressured the United States into rebuking Chen, in exchange for possible Chinese support at the United Nations when dealing with Iraq.

Now, in a move that is bound to aggravate Beijing even further, Taiwan's government is saying that they do not want to identify their "Palace Museum" with China's identically named "Palace Museum," or confuse their "Republic of China" postage stamps with Beijing's "People's Republic" stamps, or pretend that Taiwan's "Chinese Petroleum Corporation" is actually "Chinese." And, indeed, last week, the government changed the post office's name to Taiwan Post Co., changed the China Shipbuilding Corporation to the acronym CSBC, removed the word "province" from the Taiwan Water Corporation, and removed the word "China" from the Chinese-language name of what is now the Central Bank.

These changes were opposed by Washington. The State Department chastised the government of Taiwan saying, "We do not support administrative steps by the Taiwan authorities that would appear to change Taiwan's status unilaterally or move toward independence." These steps include "changes in terminology for entities administered by the Taiwan authorities."

Since 1979, when the United States cut formal diplomatic ties with the "Republic


 

of China"--that is, the government of Taiwan--it has banned official U.S. government use of the term "Republic of China." Yet, in the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of Foggy Bottom, the State Department criticizes the Republic of China for using the word "Taiwan," even while addressing its statement to the "Taiwan authorities." Meanwhile, out at Langley, the CIA lists "Taiwan" in its World Fact Book not under "China," nor alphabetically, but at the end, after Zimbabwe. And under "Name: conventional long form" it says "none," when in fact the "conventional long form" of the name of Taiwan's government is "The Republic of China." So, while the State Department complains about the decision in Taipei to drop "China" in exchange for "Taiwan," the CIA is desperately trying to avoid using the term "China" in reference to Taiwan.

 

This would all be quite amusing if it weren't so deadly serious. Names matter.

China insists that Taiwan keep the name "Republic of China" in order to legitimize implicitly its claim that Taiwan is part of "one China" and, hence, part of its sovereign territory. By going along with this, the United States actually fuels China's sense of entitlement--or, more accurately, its resentment over the fact that it doesn't rule Taiwan.

But the United States has not recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan since at least April 11, 1947, when then-Acting Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in a letter to Senator Joseph Ball, stated that "the transfer of sovereignty over Formosa to China [had] not yet been formalized." Taiwan, then called Formosa, had been a colony of the Japanese Empire from 1895 until the end of the Second World War, when Japan "renounced all right, title, and claim" to the island as a condition of Japan's surrender. When, in 1951, a formal peace treaty with Japan was concluded in San Francisco, China was not represented, because of a disagreement among the signatory powers as to which government actually represented it. The delegate of the United Kingdom stated for the record that the "treaty also provides for Japan to renounce its sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores Islands. The treaty itself does not determine the future of these islands," a position that all parties, except the Soviet Union, adopted. The Soviet delegate grumbled 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."

In the context of the Korean War, the Cold War, and the Sino-Soviet alliance, the U.S. position, as articulated by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in a presentation to British foreign minister Anthony Eden in October 1954, was that the sovereign status of Taiwan "was deliberately left undetermined, and the U.S. as a principal victor over Japan has an interest in their ultimate future. We are not willing that that future should be one which would enable a hostile regime to endanger the defensive position which is so vital in keeping the Pacific a friendly body of water."

 

The State Department formally restated this position to the U.S. Senate in 1970: "As Taiwan and the Pescadores are not covered by any existing international disposition, sovereignty over the area is an unsettled question subject to future international resolution." And President Ronald Reagan, as part of his "six assurances" in 1982 to Taiwan president Chiang Ching-kuo, declared that "the United States has not changed its long-standing position on the matter of Taiwan's sovereignty." Every succeeding U.S. administration has reiterated its adherence to that assurance--though without spelling it out, which is probably why Foreign Service officers in the Department of State and staffers on the National Security Council have come to lose sight of this fundamental fact.

But understanding its implications is more urgent than ever. China continues its military buildup and is close to being able to make good on its threats to coerce Taiwan into accepting its rule, while fewer and fewer of Taiwan's


 

citizens--less than 5 percent in recent polls--think of themselves as Chinese. And the "name game" Washington, Beijing, and Taipei are playing now is a reflection of the tension generated by the inconsistencies and contradictions in America's "one China" policy. We want a peaceful resolution of the Cross-Strait dispute, but can do little to stop the Chinese military buildup and shy away from doing all we can to buttress Taiwan's defenses. We want to promote democracy globally, but find it problematic that a democratic Taiwan has no interest in becoming unified with a despotic China and wants, naturally enough, to be recognized by the rest of the world as a legitimate self-governing state.

 

At the moment, Beijing is dictating how Washington and, for that matter, Americans think about Taiwan. In late January, the New York Yankees signed an agreement with Chinese officials to help support China's fledgling baseball leagues in exchange, they hope, for getting a leg up on marketing the Yankees in China. At the press conference announcing the agreement, general manager Brian Cashman referred to Yankee pitcher Chien-Ming Wang, who last year tied for the most wins in the American league, as coming from "Chinese-Taipei." While doing so no doubt pleased his Chinese Communist hosts, it was undoubtedly an embarrassment for Wang, a national hero in Taiwan, to have his country tossed aside for the sake of the Yankees' commercial interests. Of course, the Yankees have not been the only ones to go down this road. And the real issue here is not whether the Yankees or Major League Baseball can sell a few more baseball caps and shirts in China. The real issue is that by playing this game we are not moderating Chinese ambitions toward Taiwan but fueling them.

Gary Schmitt is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and John Tkacik is senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

 

__._,_.___

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Court Documents



 


 

Oct. 24, 2006
Plaintiff's Complaint for Declaratory Relief (.pdf)


 



 


 

Jan. 12, 2007
 US Government Response and Motion to Dismiss (.pdf)


 




 

Feb. 16, 2007
Plaintiff's Rebuttal and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (.pdf)


 



 



 

Return to Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Main Menu



 

 

Letter: Taiwan is US territory

By Roger Lin

Sunday, Dec 31, 2006, Page 8

Gerrit van der Wees' article warrants a rebuttal.

It is important to look at the following points to judge whether Taiwan is a state:

(1) By way of historical background, following the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, Japan did exercise sovereignty over Taiwan and held title to its territory.

(2) The US entered the Pacific War against Japan on Dec. 8, 1941. The Allied Powers defeated Japan and it surrendered on Sept. 2, 1945.

(3) The Republic of China (ROC) was entrusted with authority over Formosa and the Pescadores as an agent of the Allied Powers. This arrangement was specified in General Order No. 1 of Sept. 2, 1945. The directive on behalf of the Allied Powers remains in force today. Nothing in the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) nor in any other treaty executed by or between the ROC and the other Allied Powers has altered this trusteeship arrangement.

(4) Following the acceptance of the surrender of Japanese forces in Taiwan by the representatives of dictator Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) government, Taiwan remained de jure Japanese territory. The ROC government occupied Taiwan on behalf of the US-led Allied powers pending a peace treaty with Japan, which would change the legal status of Taiwan.

(5) Pursuant to the SFPT, Japan renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan and title to its territory. Article 2(b) of the SFPT read: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores."

(6) China never became a party to the SFPT. Neither the ROC government, which occupied the island of Taiwan as agent for the "principal occupying power," nor the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), established in 1949, signed, ratified or adhered to the SFPT.

(7) Article 25 of the SFPT specifically provided that the Treaty did "not confer any rights, titles or benefits on any State which [was] not an Allied Power [as defined in Article 23(a),]" subject to certain narrow exceptions set forth in Article 21. Accordingly, China, a non-party, did not receive "any right, titles or benefits" under the SFPT except as specifically provided in Article 21.

(8) Specifically, China, a non-party, was not entitled to any benefits under Article 2(b) dealing with the territory of Taiwan. The parties to the SFPT chose not to give any "right, title [or] claim to Formosa and the Pescadores" to China.

(9) While Article 2(b) of the SFPT did not designate a recipient of "all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores," Article 23 of the SFPT desig-nated the US as "the principal occupying power" with respect to the territories covered by the geographical scope of the SFPT, including "Formosa and the Pescadores."

(10) Following the entry into force of the SFPT, the ROC government continued to occupy Taiwan as a US agent -- "the principal occupying power."

(11) The Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan, which was signed on April 28, 1952 and entered into force on August 5, 1952 (known as the "Treaty of Taipei"), did not transfer sovereignty over Taiwan from Japan to China either.

(12) The SFPT did not terminate the agency relationship between the US, the principal, and the ROC, the agent, with regard to the occupation and administration of Taiwan.

(13) Following the entry into force of the SFPT on April 28, 1952, the ROC did not exercise sovereignty over Taiwan and did not have title to its territory.

(14) From 1945 to the present, Taiwan has been an occupied territory of the US, "the principal occupying power." Currently, Taiwan is an occupied territory of the US, and Taiwan's statehood status is disputed and uncertain. Neither the SFPT, the Treaty of Taipei nor any other subsequent legal instruments after 1952 changed the status of Taiwan.

(15) The US as the principal occupying power is still holding sovereignty over Taiwan and title to its territory in trust for the benefit of the Taiwanese people. The occupying power never transferred the sovereignty over Taiwan or title to its territory to any other government.

(16) The international community does not recognize the ROC/Taiwan as a state, because it does not hold the territorial title to Taiwan.

Roger Lin
Kaohsiung
 

 

 

Hello:
 
Please print out, sign with name and address, and mail to Washington D.C.
http://www.taiwanbasic.com/kcity/dstate.htm
 
Thank you very much. 
 
Best wishes for a Happy New Year.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Richard in Taipei
Feb. 15, 2007

 

 

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

February 15, 2007


Dear Madam Secretary,

I make reference to the Dept. of State's "Background Note: Taiwan" located on the internet at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm

It is quite surprising to me to see that this page fails to make any mention of the Senate-ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), under which China, a non-party, was not entitled to any benefits under Article 2(b) dealing with the territory of Taiwan.

Beginning with the Truman Statement of June 27, 1950, the US position on the Taiwan status question has been "undetermined."   In military parlance such terminology is generally equivalent to &