US policy toward Taiwan is very confused
US policy hides behind tse lwue xing mwo hu to play liang mian shou fa with the result of
depriving Taiwan people of their civil rights
dominion 督管
虛擬託管 quasi trusteeship
Official Memoranda on Taiwan's legal status issued by DOS in 1961 and 1971 stated that legal status of Taiwan is undetermined
President Clinton, National Security Council, Secretary of State Powell, and other US Executive Branch
officials have all made important statements to the effect that the ROC/Taiwan is not an independent
sovereign nation
DOS' Treaties in Force says that we do not recognize ROC as a state or a government.
However, in 2018, the DOS became concerned about the diplomatic relations of "Taiwan".
Taiwan's diplomatic relations are conducted under the name of "Republic of China", by the ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which
has consistently claimed that the ROC on Taiwan is a sovereign independent nation,
At the same time, the ROC issues passports for Taiwan people, under the authority of the Republic of China government structure in
Taiwan. And identify the bearer as a national of the ROC. The ROC MOFA has continually stated that the issuance of these passports
is the act of a sovereign government.
The statement that the legal status of Taiwan is "undetermined" has continually frustrated the Taiwan people for nearly 70 years.
In the view of the ROC government structure in Taiwan,
sovereign acts of the ROC include issuance of passports
establish complete government structure
mass naturalization
annexation
maintenance of military and police
the ROC has government, populace, territory, and foreign relations
Added to this, the US Executive Branch is now issuing contradictory statements and acting in a contradictory manner on a regular basis,
on the one hand claiming that Taiwan/ROC is not a sovereign independent nation, and on the other hand making objections when other
countries break diplomatic relations with the ROC, such relations which were presumably based on the ROC/Taiwan being a sovereign nation
in the first place.
Hence, the present Act calls for the officials of the ROC/Taiwan to coordinate with the officials of the US Executive Branch to determine
the ROC/Taiwan's status as a sovereign independent nation, with the specific goal of planning for the future needed increases in expenditures
for the defensive needs of Taiwan, including personnel, equipment, and the allocation of all other needed resources.
Specifically, after in-depth consultations between US and Taiwan officials, --
if it can be affirmatively determined that Taiwan/ROC meets the requirements of being
an independent sovereign nation, then the statements of Clinton, NSC, Powell, the Treaties in Force, the conclusions in the 1961 and 1971
DOS Memoranda, etc. and all similar statements or pronouncements of the US government should be cancelled, revoked, abrogated, rescinded, or repealed
by formal announcement of the US Secretary of State or Commander in Chief (President). Under such circumstances, the responsibility for further upgrading
or expansion of the ROC/Taiwan "national defense" shall be the direct responsibility of the ROC/Taiwan government.
alternatively,
if it cannot be affirmatively determined that Taiwan/ROC meets the requirements of being an independent sovereign nation, then the statements of Clinton, NSC,
Powell, the Treaties in Force, the conclusions in the 1961 and 1971 DOS Memoranda, etc. and all similar statements or pronouncements of the US government shall
remain in place. However, under such circumstances, it strongly appears that that after taking into consideration
the conduct of WWII in the Pacific,
the "laws of war" recognized by the United States,
the implications of "military jurisdiction" under the US Constitution,
the content of relevant US Supreme Court cases,
the specifications of the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty,
the content of the Taiwan Relations Act,
the One China Policy, and
the Three Joint USA-PRC Communiques, and
fundamental international law principles,
there is adequate justification to say that the responsibility for the defensive needs of Taiwan are 100% the responsibility of the Dept. of Defense of the US government.
Introduction to new law act [Confused US Policy]
Re: Introduction to new law act [Confused US Policy]
The ROC in Taiwan has
a complete government structure
a populace of nearly 23 million
a well defined territory
and diplomatic relations with nearly 20 states
Additionally, the ROC has
a complete military system
a complete police system
a constitution
issuance of passports and identity documents
However, the United States government continually denies our sovereignty.
In 2018, this began to change, when
台灣的中華民國有
完整的政府結構
一個近2300萬的民眾
一個明確界定的領土
與近20個州的外交關係
此外，中華民國還有
一個完整的軍事系統
一個完整的警察系統
憲法
核發護照和身份證件
但是，美國政府不斷否認我們的主權。
在2018年，這種情況開始發生變化
In the view of the ROC government structure in Taiwan,
sovereign acts of the ROC include issuance of passports
establish complete government structure
mass naturalization
annexation
maintenance of military and police
the ROC has government, populace, territory, and foreign relations
Added to this, the US Executive Branch is now issuing contradictory statements and acting in a contradictory manner on a regular basis,
on the one hand claiming that Taiwan/ROC is not a sovereign independent nation, and on the other hand making objections when other
countries break diplomatic relations with the ROC, such relations which were presumably based on the ROC/Taiwan being a sovereign nation
in the first place.
a complete government structure
a populace of nearly 23 million
a well defined territory
and diplomatic relations with nearly 20 states
Additionally, the ROC has
a complete military system
a complete police system
a constitution
issuance of passports and identity documents
However, the United States government continually denies our sovereignty.
In 2018, this began to change, when
台灣的中華民國有
完整的政府結構
一個近2300萬的民眾
一個明確界定的領土
與近20個州的外交關係
此外，中華民國還有
一個完整的軍事系統
一個完整的警察系統
憲法
核發護照和身份證件
但是，美國政府不斷否認我們的主權。
在2018年，這種情況開始發生變化
In the view of the ROC government structure in Taiwan,
sovereign acts of the ROC include issuance of passports
establish complete government structure
mass naturalization
annexation
maintenance of military and police
the ROC has government, populace, territory, and foreign relations
Added to this, the US Executive Branch is now issuing contradictory statements and acting in a contradictory manner on a regular basis,
on the one hand claiming that Taiwan/ROC is not a sovereign independent nation, and on the other hand making objections when other
countries break diplomatic relations with the ROC, such relations which were presumably based on the ROC/Taiwan being a sovereign nation
in the first place.
Re: Introduction to new law act [Confused US Policy]
ROC/Taiwan wants to participate in international organizations and to expand its international space, but a significant stumbling block has been the lack of internationally recognized sovereignty.
Arguably this began with the Truman Statement of June 27, 1950, and there have been many other similar statements up to the present day.
This is important because many international commentators would argue that the reason why the ROC/Taiwan should bear the burden of maintaining a Ministry of National Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. personnel is precisely because it is an independent sovereign nation. Accordingly, when other countries make suggestions to the ROC/Taiwan that its military budget should be increased, obviously the responsibility for finding additional funds in the national budget rests solely on the shoulders of the ROC government officials.
On the other hand, if we (for the moment) accept the United States' long term view that the ROC/Taiwan is not sovereign and independent, then it should be possible to re-examine the history of WWII in the Pacific, and examples of other wars in which the United States has participated, to say that the responsibility for the defensive needs of Taiwan must be borne by the USA.
A good illustration is provided by the Spanish American War period and the situation of Cuba. The history and treaty specifications are very similar to the situation of WWII in the Pacific and Taiwan. However, with the coming into force of the post-war treaty, the Cuban people got the US military authorities to provide for all their defensive needs (military personnel, equipment, administration, and management) for a lengthy period.
Is there a possibility that the citizens of Taiwan have been reading the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty incorrectly, and have therefore overlooked the welfare, rights, and protection which we should be enjoying?
The relationship of Cuba and the United States military authorities after the Spanish American War is certainly worthy of investigation. At the same time, what about the situation of the Ryukyus as a result of WWII? Didn't the San Francisco Peace Treaty make many similar specifications for the Ryukyus and Taiwan? In the current era, why are these never discussed when the subject of the defensive needs of Taiwan are brought up?
We believe that all of the above subjects are certainly worthy of thorough investigation.
Arguably this began with the Truman Statement of June 27, 1950, and there have been many other similar statements up to the present day.
This is important because many international commentators would argue that the reason why the ROC/Taiwan should bear the burden of maintaining a Ministry of National Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. personnel is precisely because it is an independent sovereign nation. Accordingly, when other countries make suggestions to the ROC/Taiwan that its military budget should be increased, obviously the responsibility for finding additional funds in the national budget rests solely on the shoulders of the ROC government officials.
On the other hand, if we (for the moment) accept the United States' long term view that the ROC/Taiwan is not sovereign and independent, then it should be possible to re-examine the history of WWII in the Pacific, and examples of other wars in which the United States has participated, to say that the responsibility for the defensive needs of Taiwan must be borne by the USA.
A good illustration is provided by the Spanish American War period and the situation of Cuba. The history and treaty specifications are very similar to the situation of WWII in the Pacific and Taiwan. However, with the coming into force of the post-war treaty, the Cuban people got the US military authorities to provide for all their defensive needs (military personnel, equipment, administration, and management) for a lengthy period.
Is there a possibility that the citizens of Taiwan have been reading the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty incorrectly, and have therefore overlooked the welfare, rights, and protection which we should be enjoying?
The relationship of Cuba and the United States military authorities after the Spanish American War is certainly worthy of investigation. At the same time, what about the situation of the Ryukyus as a result of WWII? Didn't the San Francisco Peace Treaty make many similar specifications for the Ryukyus and Taiwan? In the current era, why are these never discussed when the subject of the defensive needs of Taiwan are brought up?
We believe that all of the above subjects are certainly worthy of thorough investigation.
Re: Introduction to new law act [Confused US Policy]
ROC/Taiwan wants to participate in international organization, to expand its international space, and to defend against Chinese aggression, but a significant stumbling block has been the lack of firmly recognized international “personality” or “status”.
Arguably this problem began with the Truman Statement of June 27, 1950, and there have been many other similar statements up to the present day. President Clinton’s Three Noes Policy of June 30, 1998, and Secretary of State Powell’s statement of Oct. 25, 2004, are additional examples.
A widely recognized international “status” is important. Indeed, many commentators would argue that the reason why the ROC/Taiwan should bear the burden of maintaining a Ministry of National Defense, along with its Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. is precisely because ROC officials maintain the view that “The ROC is an independent sovereign nation.”
In the international media, the Taiwan Strait is often viewed as a potential flashpoint for WWIII, and foreign dignitaries typically make suggestions that the ROC/Taiwan’s military budget should be increased, in order to maintain the peace.
As a sovereign nation, obviously the responsibility for finding additional funds in the national budget in order to facilitate increased military expenditures rests solely with the ROC government officials.
On the other hand, many of these same commentators would point out that non-sovereign nations typically no not handle their own defensive needs, and indeed frequently make other arrangements.
Therefore, if we (for the moment) can calmly and objectively consider the United States' long term view that the ROC/Taiwan is not sovereign and independent, then it should be possible to re-examine the history of various wars in which the United States has participated, in order to develop a set of “legal justifications” as to why the responsibility for the defensive needs of Taiwan must be borne by the USA.
A good illustration is provided by the Spanish American War period and the situation of Cuba. The overall history and resulting treaty specifications are very similar to the situation of WWII in the Pacific and Taiwan. Importantly, with the coming into force of the post-war treaty, the defensive needs (military personnel, equipment, administration, and management) for Cuba were handled directly by the US military authorities for a lengthy period.
Analysis shows Taiwan and Cuba to be very similar. Is there a possibility that the citizens of Taiwan have been reading the post-WWII treaty incorrectly, and have therefore overlooked the welfare, rights, and protection which we should be enjoying? At the same time, what about the situation of the Ryukyus as a result of WWII? Didn't the San Francisco Peace Treaty make many similar specifications which applied to both the Ryukyus and Taiwan? In the current era, why are these never discussed when the subject of the defensive needs of Taiwan are raised?
SUMMARY: According to the US Constitution, a Senate-ratified treaty is part of the “supreme law of the land.” Additionally, the Spanish American War, WWII in the Pacific, and a wide number of related developments all involve the field of “military jurisdiction under the US Constitution.”
Frankly speaking, this is an area of law in which most legal scholars and researchers in Taiwan are largely uninformed. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the power of the Legislative Yuan be brought to bear on undertaking a thorough investigation and re-examination of the responsibility for the defensive needs of Taiwan under the US constitutional framework, which all US government officials are obliged to respect and obey.
Arguably this problem began with the Truman Statement of June 27, 1950, and there have been many other similar statements up to the present day. President Clinton’s Three Noes Policy of June 30, 1998, and Secretary of State Powell’s statement of Oct. 25, 2004, are additional examples.
A widely recognized international “status” is important. Indeed, many commentators would argue that the reason why the ROC/Taiwan should bear the burden of maintaining a Ministry of National Defense, along with its Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. is precisely because ROC officials maintain the view that “The ROC is an independent sovereign nation.”
In the international media, the Taiwan Strait is often viewed as a potential flashpoint for WWIII, and foreign dignitaries typically make suggestions that the ROC/Taiwan’s military budget should be increased, in order to maintain the peace.
As a sovereign nation, obviously the responsibility for finding additional funds in the national budget in order to facilitate increased military expenditures rests solely with the ROC government officials.
On the other hand, many of these same commentators would point out that non-sovereign nations typically no not handle their own defensive needs, and indeed frequently make other arrangements.
Therefore, if we (for the moment) can calmly and objectively consider the United States' long term view that the ROC/Taiwan is not sovereign and independent, then it should be possible to re-examine the history of various wars in which the United States has participated, in order to develop a set of “legal justifications” as to why the responsibility for the defensive needs of Taiwan must be borne by the USA.
A good illustration is provided by the Spanish American War period and the situation of Cuba. The overall history and resulting treaty specifications are very similar to the situation of WWII in the Pacific and Taiwan. Importantly, with the coming into force of the post-war treaty, the defensive needs (military personnel, equipment, administration, and management) for Cuba were handled directly by the US military authorities for a lengthy period.
Analysis shows Taiwan and Cuba to be very similar. Is there a possibility that the citizens of Taiwan have been reading the post-WWII treaty incorrectly, and have therefore overlooked the welfare, rights, and protection which we should be enjoying? At the same time, what about the situation of the Ryukyus as a result of WWII? Didn't the San Francisco Peace Treaty make many similar specifications which applied to both the Ryukyus and Taiwan? In the current era, why are these never discussed when the subject of the defensive needs of Taiwan are raised?
SUMMARY: According to the US Constitution, a Senate-ratified treaty is part of the “supreme law of the land.” Additionally, the Spanish American War, WWII in the Pacific, and a wide number of related developments all involve the field of “military jurisdiction under the US Constitution.”
Frankly speaking, this is an area of law in which most legal scholars and researchers in Taiwan are largely uninformed. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the power of the Legislative Yuan be brought to bear on undertaking a thorough investigation and re-examination of the responsibility for the defensive needs of Taiwan under the US constitutional framework, which all US government officials are obliged to respect and obey.