(1) The US entered the Pacific War against Japan on Dec. 8, 1941. Over 98% of all military attacks against the four main Japanese islands and (Japanese) Taiwan were
conducted by US military forces, as confirmed in numerous published sources. The United States is the "conqueror" and will be the principal occupying power.
(2) The Republic of China (ROC) was entrusted with authority over Formosa and the Pescadores based on the specifications of General Order No. 1, issued on of Sept. 2, 1945,
the day of the Japanese surrender. General Douglas MacArthur issued General Order No. 1 directing the "senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary
forces within . . . Formosa" to "surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek." Nothing in the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) or in any other treaty
executed by or between the ROC and the other Allied Powers has altered this arrangement.
(3) The surrender ceremonies for Japanese troops in Taiwan were held on Oct. 25, 1945, in Taipei. This date marked the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan.
(4) Although the surrender ceremonies in Taiwan on Oct. 25, 1945, were ostensibly conducted on behalf of the Allies, the ensuing military occupation of Taiwan was conducted
on behalf of the principal occupying power -- the United States of America.
(5) Following the acceptance of the surrender of Japanese forces in Taiwan by the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek's government, Taiwan remained de jure Japanese territory.
(A) The ROC government occupied Taiwan on behalf of the principal occupying power pending a peace treaty with Japan, which would change the legal status of Taiwan.
(B) At a US congressional hearing in May 1951, General Douglas MacArthur stated: "legalistically Formosa is still a part of the Empire of Japan."
(6) October 25, 1945, was not "Taiwan Retrocession Day." There was no transfer of Taiwan's territorial sovereignty to China on this day.
(7) The Hague Regulations of 1907 specify: "Oath of Allegiance Forbidden: It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power." Hence, the Jan. 12, 1946 military order authorizing mass naturalization of native Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens is illegal under international law.
It is also important to recognize that that order was never voted on, ratified, or approved by the Legislative Yuan. In other words, it never became a "law" in the Taiwan area.
(8) More information on this mass naturalization issue is given as follows:
(A) The ROC Nationality Law was originally promulgated in February 1929, when Taiwan was a part of Japan. It was revised in February 2000, but there were no Articles addressing the mass naturalization of Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens after the Japanese surrender.
(B) Article 10 of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (Treaty of Taipei) of August 5, 1952 specified: "For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their
descendents who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) . . . . "
(C) However, close examination of the ROC Nationality Law, as explained above, shows that the conditions of Article 10 of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty in regard to " . . . . in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan . . . . " have yet to be fulfilled.
(9) The US government position regarding the legal status of Taiwan after the Oct. 25, 1945 surrender ceremonies has been continually stated as "undetermined." This was reflected in the Truman Statement of June 27, 1950, and repeated again in a July 13, 1971 State Dept. Memorandum, commonly known as the Starr Memorandum.
(10) On April 11, 1947, Acting Secretary of State Acheson, in a letter to Senator Ball, stated that the transfer of sovereignty over Formosa to China "has not yet been formalized." In other words, under international law, Taiwan was Japanese territory up until April 28, 1952.
(11) A Central Intelligence Agency report Probable Developments in Taiwan of March 14, 1949, formally stated that: "From the legal standpoint, Taiwan is not part of the Republic of China." The report went on to say that Taiwan at present must be regarded as territory under military occupation in which the United States has "proprietary interests." As of 1949, Taiwan was still awaiting further disposition in a Japanese peace treaty.
(12) When the ROC fled to occupied Taiwan in December 1949, it became a government in exile.
(13) The cession of territory is accomplished by treaty. The cession of Taiwan in Japan in 1895 was accomplished by treaty. Any cession by Japan to any other country (including China) would have to be accomplished by treaty.
(14) More specifically, the specifications of the Cairo Declaration (Dec. 1, 1943), the Potsdam Proclamation (July 26, 1945), and the Japanese Surrender documents (Sept. 2, 1945) were all predicated on China successfully concluding a peace treaty with the Allies which would precisely clarify all relevant terms and conditions.
(15) The United States' position as the "principal occupying power" may be directly derived from an analysis of General Order No. 1 of Sept. 2, 1945.
(16) Pursuant to the SFPT, Japan renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan and title to its territory as of April 28, 1952. SFPT Article 2(b) read: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores." However, no receiving country was specified for this territorial
cession.
(17) China never became a party to the SFPT. Neither the (exiled) 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 on Oct. 1, 1949, signed or ratified the SFPT.
(18) SFPT Article 25 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.
(19) 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.
(20) While SFPT Article 2(b) did not designate a recipient of "all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores," Article 23(a) confirmed 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."
(21) SFPT Article 4(b) further confirmed the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government over Taiwan. Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.
(22) The Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan (aka the "Treaty of Taipei"), entered into force on August 5, 1952, did not transfer sovereignty over Taiwan from Japan to China either.
(23) In the aftermath of the coming into force of the SFPT, forty-eight governments maintained that no individual state acquired sovereignty over Taiwan and title to its territory.
(A) For example, United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles told the Senate in December 1954, "[the] technical sovereignty over Formosa and the
Pescadores has never been settled. That is because the Japanese peace treaty merely involves a renunciation by Japan of its right and title to these islands. But the future
title is not determined by the Japanese peace treaty, nor is it determined by the peace treaty which was concluded between the ROC and Japan."
(B) Likewise, British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden told the British House of Commons, "under the Peace Treaty of April, 1952, Japan formally renounced
all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores; but again this did not operate as a transfer to Chinese sovereignty, whether to the PRC or to the ROC. Formosa and
the Pescadores are therefore, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, territory the de jure sovereignty over which is uncertain or undermined."
(24) Similarly, in 1964, French President Georges Pompidou (then premier) stated that "Formosa (Taiwan) was detached from Japan, but it was not attached to anyone" under the SFPT. Thus the leading allies were in consensus that China did not acquire sovereignty over Taiwan or title to its territory pursuant to the SFPT.
(25) However, 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. SFPT Article 23(a) confirmed the US as "the principal occupying power" with respect to the territories covered by the geographical scope of the SFPT.
(26) In conjunction with the US Senate ratification proceedings on the US-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty, the Committee on Foreign Relations issued a statement on Feb. 8, 1955, which read: "It is the understanding of the Senate that nothing in the treaty shall be construed as affecting or modifying the legal status or sovereignty of the
territories to which it applies."
(27) Moreover, as confirmed by the Truman Statement of June 27, 1950, and the SFPT, the United States government has never recognized the forcible incorporation of Taiwan into China. Following the entry into force of the SFPT on April 28, 1952, it was clear that the ROC did not exercise sovereignty over Taiwan and did not have title to its
territory.
(28) Under Article 6 of the US Constitution, the content of the Senate-ratified SFPT is part of the "supreme law of the land."
|