TAIPEI TIMES, July 23, 2007
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/07/23/2003370917
Clear legal status a must
Is Taiwan's sovereignty disappearing? Considering all the problems the embattled DPP administration is currently facing, a precise definition of Taiwan's legal status is more urgent than ever.
Without a clear status, Taiwan cannot attain its deserved place in the international community.
In her article ("The treaty trumps the communique," July 16, page 8), Alison Hsieh writes about the legal implications of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) of April 28, 1952.
The Cairo Declaration does not provide a legal basis for transfer of Taiwanese sovereignty to the Republic of China (ROC) of Oct. 25, 1945.
It is just one of the proposals discussed at the end of World War II, but it was not the conclusion.
In fact, the date of the surrender of Japanese troops only marked the start of a new occupation in Taiwan when the ROC regime and its military laid claim to Taiwan without asking the people who lived here.
When the ROC regime fled to Taiwan in the middle of Dec. 1949 it became a government in exile.
According to international law, there are no actions that a government in exile can undertake to gain recognition as the legal government of its new location.
The Free French Government set up in London during World War II after Germany occupied France could not claim England as its territory, either.
By the same token, the ROC government in exile in Taiwan had no legal claim to Taiwan.
Hsieh should be applauded for pointing this out in her article.
But she also wrote that Japan renounced all its control over Taiwan and the Pescadores in the SFPT, but that no country had been designated as being the new "owner" of Taiwan.
But this is misleading. Just because no outside recipient was designated does not mean that no outside power has sovereignty over Taiwan and the Pescadores according to the SFPT.
Technically, Taiwan has belonged to the US Military Government (USMG) ever since the SFPT.
It can be argued that Taiwan is still under the jurisdiction of the principal occupying power of the SFPT -- the US.
Since Hsieh is a researcher at the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, I suggest that she very carefully consider several important questions concerning the nation's sovereignty.
Who is "the occupying power" of Taiwan that is mentioned in laws of war in various documents?
According to Article 4b of the SFPT, the USMG has disposition rights over the "property" of Japan and Japanese nationals in Taiwan.
The term "property" very clearly Includes the concept of "title."
What are the legal criteria for ending USMG jurisdiction?
Has USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan and the Pescadores ended?
If USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan is still valid, what "nationality" are Taiwanese under US law?
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
|