Iwo Jima and Evolutionary Theory of Statehood

[Hartzell]

Evolutionary Theory of Statehood

Before considering this Theory and its relationship to Taiwan, let us first present the following imagined scenario as an INTRODUCTION to this topic.

Scenario #2 - Allied forces comprised of two countries: Let us suppose that the in Battle for Iwo Jima, the United States had been allied with the Soviet Union. Military forces from the United States and the Soviet Union were fighting together in the Pacific, and after several days of heavy aerial and naval bombardments, the Japanese commanders on Iwo Jima agreed to surrender. At this point we can imagine that the United States military forces still had additional military operations to take care of in nearby geographic areas. Hence, the USMC general would direct that senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within Iwo Jima surrender to the Soviet Union's military forces, and that the Soviet Union should take charge of the administration of the island. Our question is: What flag should be raised at the surrender ceremonies?

Upon analysis, many people will no doubt say that the flag of the Soviet Union should be raised. However, this method of dealing with the administration of Iwo Jima after the surrender ceremonies may have a number of "unpleasant side effects."

The Distinction between "Occupation" and "Annexation"

According to international precedent in the post-Napoleonic era, the invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces is considered "military occupation" and not "annexation." However, what if upon accepting the surrender of Japanese troops in Iwo Jima, the Soviet Union's military commanders immediately announce that the island has become an indivisible part of Soviet national territory? Would there be any remedy at that juncture?

Moreover, what if five or six years later there is a coup d'etat in the Soviet Union, and a number of high ranking government officials and military personnel all flee to Iwo Jima? At this point it might be expected that this Soviet Union government which has established itself in Iwo Jima still has full diplomatic relations with thirty or more countries. An important question is: Can we consider the "Soviet Union in Iwo Jima" to be an independent and sovereign nation?

With reference to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention (which entered into force on December 26, 1934), the "Soviet Union in Iwo Jima" does indeed meet the four criteria of having (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) a government and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

In fact however, the "Soviet Union in Iwo Jima" is only a subordinate occupying power (i.e. "proxy occupying forces") and a government in exile! It has effective territorial control over Iwo Jima, but does not have sovereignty! Hence, it cannot be considered a sovereign state in the international community.

Having proceeded this far in our hypothetical scenarios regarding the military occupation of Iwo Jima we must pause to consider: Do the above scenarios give us any clues as to what really happened to Taiwan in 1945?

The authors must stress that regardless of the situation of a territorial cession in peacetime or as the result of war, there is always the need for a clear "transfer of title." It is only with a clear "transfer of title" that the new owners can claim sovereignty over the territory.

What is the significance of the date of October 25, 1945? According to international law, this can only be viewed as the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. Moreover, according to the principle that "military occupation does not transfer sovereignty," it is impossible to hold that there was any transfer of sovereignty on that date. Hence, the sovereignty of Taiwan was still held by Japan until the coming into force of the post war San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) on April 28, 1952. In that treaty, Japan renounced the sovereignty of Taiwan in Article 2b. Was this sovereignty transferred to the Republic of China? The answer is no.

Significantly, military occupation is a transitional period, or a period of "interim status." Since the SFPT did not specify a "receiving country" for the transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan, we must consider: Who will make the decision regarding the final disposition of Taiwan in the post-war period? The answer is: the principal occupying power will make the decision.

Japan renounced the sovereignty of Taiwan in the SFPT, but no receiving country was specified. In such a situation, who is in charge? According to Article 23, the United States is the principal occupying power, and Article 4b confirms that the United States has disposition rights over Taiwan. In 1972, when the US President announced the "One China Policy," he was actually making arrangements for the future disposition of Taiwan. Importantly, this was done in accordance with the specifications of the SFPT.



A concise statement of this theory would be as follows:

Taiwan is Taiwan, and China is China. They are different countries, and Taiwan is not a part of China. There has not been a single day since the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 that China has had effective control of Taiwan. Taiwan can be considered a nation in today's world -- it fulfills all requirements for nationhood according to international law. Specifically, it has. effective control over, the defined territory of Formosa, the Pescadores, Kinmen and Matsu. These areas are controlled by a government which has the right to form policies and the ability to conduct diplomatic, economic and other types of exchanges with other countries throughout the world. Taiwan has a population of 23 million people. From the perspective of international law, Taiwan ceased to be a part of China in 1895. Over the years Taiwan has evolved into a country in its own right.

[Hartzell]

Two Allies Fight for Iwo Jima

Let us suppose that the in Battle for Iwo Jima, the United States called on the Soviet Union to participate. Military forces from the United States and the Soviet Union were fighting together in the Pacific, and after several days of heavy aerial and naval bombardments, the Japanese commanders on Iwo Jima agreed to surrender.

At this point we can imagine that the United States military forces still had additional military operations to take care of in nearby geographic areas. Hence, the US commanding officer would direct that senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within Iwo Jima surrender to the Soviet Union's military forces. After this, the Soviet Union should take charge of the administration of the island. Our question is: Has Iwo Jima now become part of the Soviet Union’s national territory?



The Distinction between "Occupation" and "Annexation"

In the post-Napoleonic era, the invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces is considered "military occupation" and not "annexation." However, what if upon accepting the surrender of Japanese troops in Iwo Jima, the Soviet Union's military commanders immediately announce that the island has become an indivisible part of Soviet national territory?

Moreover, what if six years later there is a coup d'etat in the Soviet Union, and a number of high ranking government officials and military personnel all flee to Iwo Jima? At this point this Soviet Union government which has established itself in Iwo Jima still has full diplomatic relations with dozens of countries. An important question is: Can we consider the "Soviet Union in Iwo Jima" to be an independent and sovereign nation?


Qualifying Criteria for Statehood

The "Soviet Union in Iwo Jima" strongly appears to meet the Montevideo Convention criteria for statehood.

Hence, many international law scholars would be quick to assess that “Soviet Union in Iwo Jima” is an independent sovereign nation, and is a rightful member of the United Nations, with a permanent seat on the Security Council. Of course, the new government in Moscow will vigorously object to this, protesting that it is the rightful owner of the Soviet Union’s UN seat.

What is the truth? For Iwo Jima, we need to look more carefully at the “transfer of title.” It is only with a clear "transfer of title" that the new government personnel can claim sovereignty over the territory.

Otherwise, the "Soviet Union in Iwo Jima" is merely proxy occupying forces and a government in exile!


GRAPHIC
Montevideo Convention
Statehood Criteria
(a) a permanent population,
(b) a defined territory,
(c) a government and
(d) the capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

[Hartzell]

The above data was moved to sov-jima.docx