Search This Blog

Friday, February 13, 2009

The Republic of China on Taiwan should move away from the island and let Formosa be Taiwanese Taiwan

In a letter for the Security Council meeting dated August 25th 1950 to the UN Secretary General concerning Formosa, Warren Austin, then the US representative to the UN, stated “The action of the United States was expressly stated to be without prejudice to the future political settlement of the status of the Island. The actual status of the Island is that it is territory taken from Japan by the victory of the Allied Forces in the Pacific. Like other such territories, its legal status cannot be fixed until there is international action to determine its future, The Chinese Government was asked by the Allies to take the surrender of the Japanese forces on the Island. That is the reason the Chinese are there now.”

In Austin’s letter, it was clearly stated why the Chinese (KMT’s ROC administration) were sent to Formosa. Unfortunately, the deployment of Chiang Kai-Sheik’s Chinese Nationalist (KMT) troops to Formosa by Allied Forces led to atrocities of the 228 Incident in 1947. Not even one and a half year after the arrival of the KMT troops, the local scholars and influential people were all rounded-up and killed. Later the KMT occupation has become rather permanent causing Taiwan’s identity crisis, that is, Taiwan being tangled-up with the post Chinese civil war dispute of who represents China. Despite its role of deployment on behalf of the Allied Forces in 1945, the ROC administration has also taken refuge on Taiwan after losing the Chinese civil war in 1949 as an exiled Chinese government claiming to represent the whole of China.

While the world argues as to which government represents China, no question on who represents Taiwan has ever been examined closely. As a matter of fact, the Taiwanese people have had no representation since after WWII, consequently the rights of Taiwanese people in international organizations have been ignored. The Taiwanese people cannot be represented by the ROC administration, a temporary deployment by Allied Forces which has prolonged its stay on Taiwan because it later has become an exiled Chinese government waiting to return to China one day.

Since an exiled government (ROC) cannot take the land of its refuge (Taiwan) and claim sovereignty over it, rather, it must return to its original territory (Kinmen, Matsu, or mainland China). Besides, there is no such thing that a temporary deployment of troops after a war should last beyond a period of peaceful transition, an election would have to be held for setting up a government locally. In other words, since the ROC government has neither the de jure sovereignty of Taiwan nor of the Penghu (or Pescadores) Island (Note 1). Why should the people of Taiwan be governed under the constitution and the laws of the ROC administration? There is simply no justice in the land governed by a set of unfair rules set up by the occupied troops in discrimination against local residents.

The United States’ executive branch has stated consistently on numerous occasions since the end of the WWII that it has no territorial interests on the island of Formosa, but it has maintained an interest on the security of the Pacific Rim.

Since the ROC administration has no right to sovereignty over Taiwan and the United States has never had any territorial interests on Taiwan, shouldn’t there be a proclamation to end the ROC deployment on Taiwan (and Penghu) and give the rights to the people of Taiwan to form their own government? The ROC government should move its operation to Kinmen, or Matsu, or simply return to China immediately since the ROC and the PRC are no longer hostile to each other.

Current cross-strait relations by Ma’s ROC administration put Taiwan’s democracy in jeopardy against the giant undemocratic PRC. Before Ma rushes to sell-out Taiwan and the rights of the people there, the US has the moral responsibility to correct the wrongs of more than half a century ago instead of extending its strategic ambiguity on Taiwan’s status.

Note 1:

(1) None of the Allies recognized any transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to the Republic of China (ROC) upon the Japanese surrender ceremony of Oct. 25, 1945.

(2) In the US Senate-ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) of 1952, the sovereignty of Taiwan was surrendered by Japan but was not awarded to China (ROC or PRC).

(3) Taiwan has never been incorporated into Chinese territory via the provisions of Article 4 of the ROC’s Constitution.


Michael Weatherby said...

A native Taiwanese, Dr. Roger C. S. Lin, has filed a lawsuit against the United States of America regarding its mishandling of the Taiwan question in the post-WWII period. More details are available at --

Άλισον said...

Thanks for your info and sorry for the delay in posting your comments as I check my blog only from time to time, I do know about the case you mentioned.

As stated in a recent letter ( that Taiwan’s status must be clarified because “The concept of “occupation” in the laws of war is based on actual authority exercised by external military forces over a particular territory. In reality, the US never actually exercised its right of occupation over Taiwan, nor did it end its occupation and hand Taiwan back to its people according to its obligations under treaties and international law. This resulted in massive violations of human rights."

Further, it was also pointed out that regarding to Chiang Kai-Shek’s mishandling of the 228 Incident of 1947, “The US, as the legally defined principal occupying power, failed to carry out necessary measures of humanitarian intervention and to send the perpetrators to trial in an international court. On the contrary, it recognized Chiang’s exile government on Taiwan and, in 1954, signed the Mutual Defense Treaty with the ROC. The terms of this treaty stated that it applied to Taiwan and the Pescadores, thus giving tacit approval to the ROC’s illegal occupation and rule over Taiwan.”

The ROC’s illegal occupation of Taiwan is the reason behind why the world argues only about who represents China, the PRC or the ROC, but the issue of who represents Taiwan and its people has been overlooked.

Post a Comment