.jpg)
A little known but very important lawsuit pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals over the peace treaty that ended the war with Japan may force the United States into a confrontation with China over the future of Taiwan located on the island of Formosa.
China's view that the Republic of China, more commonly known as Taiwan, is a renegade province and that Formosa should be "reunited" with the mainland flies in the face with historical fact. China never owned Formosa--the island belonged to Japan and ceded it to the United States in the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
The United States, moving from war with Japan into the 'Cold War' that followed, allowed the Chinese nationalist government fleeing the Communist takeover of China refuge on Formosa. Much to the current dismay of many on the island, the United States opposes nationhood for Taiwan and has kept it from recognition by the United Nations.
The unresolved status of Taiwan became a pivotal debate point in the famous Nixon-Kennedy presidential debates of 1960. Military exercises by the Chinese navy also periodically bring the topic into the news. However, what consistently is overlooked is the actual ownership of the island.
The plaintiffs in Roger C.S. Lin, et al v. United States, pending in the District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals, are seeking recognition of the fact that the United States owns Formosa and has never ceded ownership of the island to anyone, including the government of Taiwan. The lawsuit argues that the status of island residents are as non-citizen U.S. nationals entitled to the protection and privileges that accrue to U.S. territorial possessions.
The Bush administration made every effort to get the case dismissed arguing it was a political issue and not a legal matter. In mid-December the plaintiffs responded to the latest attempt to get the case dismissed.
"The government never addresses the central question at issue in this appeal. It fails to recognize that Appellants are seeking multiple declarations, not just one pertaining to noncitizen national status. It fails to understand that the San Francisco Peace Treaty was not modified by any Executive Order of the President or the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, and remains in full force and effect today."
In an earlier ruling that the case involved a political matter, the U.S. District Court acknowledged the plaintiffs have "essentially been persons without a state for almost 60 years." The matter is scheduled for oral argument in early February. New Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may want to sit in the courtroom to learn about the case that she no doubt will have to deal with in the future.
For further information:
Comments
It is no doubt true that the new Obama administration is going to have to deal with the "resolution of the Taiwan status issue."
The relevant Dept. of State documentation from the late 1940s and early 1950s, as well as the post-war treaties, all confirm that Taiwan is not "Chinese territory." Taiwan is currently held under the jurisdiction of a US federal agency called the "United States Military Government."
For more information on the court case, see - www -dot- taiwanbasic -dot- com -slash- vista -slash- npc-press.htm
Please don't ignore Taiwanese's human rights and interests
(1) I am Taiwanese, not Chinese! Taiwanese people support U.S.A.’s One-China policy.
(2) Taiwanese people have no nationality after World War II and Taiwan island is under the
control of USMG at present. Thus, Taiwanese people should hold the national passport of
Formosa Cession U.S.A.
(3) USA constitutions should protect Taiwanese's life, liberty, property. Taiwanese people
strongly oppose ROC government in exile in Taiwan that has been ruling Taiwan island
for 64 years.
(4)Taiwanese people herewith strongly request that USMG must return to Taiwan and end
ROC’s ruling in Taiwan, meantime, USA government should acknowledge Formosa
( Taiwan ) Civil Government ( Established on Feb. 2nd, 2008 , by Roger C.S. Lin ) immediately.
USA government needs to face to this case positively, should not ignore.
I am glad someone finally understand the history of Formosa and its current difficult/awkward situation. Only when more people realize this will the world face this and solve it. Thank you, Michael Richardson, and I have sympathy for those journalists who never study the history of Taiwan and consider Taiwan as a province of China. Pathetic and ignorant!
Below is the answer from the judge of District Court for D.C. to The plaintiff Roger C.S. Lin:
quote:
Plaintiffs ask the Court to interpret General Order No. 1, which was issued by General
MacArthur as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers—not by the Executive Branch of the
United States Government. They acknowledge that the treaty actually negotiated and signed by the
United States, the SFPT, only recognized that Japan had ceded sovereignty over Taiwan and did not
address post-war sovereignty over Taiwan. “Interpreting” the SFPT, therefore, is of no assistance
in this matter and the Court is without standards or boundaries to guide it in “interpreting” General
Order No. 1.
unquote.
As you all can see, Mr. Lin's saying about "the island belonged to Japan and ceded it to the United States in the San Francisco Peace Treaty." is based on an unexisting assumption.
To Mr. Michael Richardson,
Can you kindly clarify as to what is the fact that "New Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may want to sit in the courtroom to learn about the case that she no doubt will have to deal with in the future."
Are you saying that Ms. Hillary Clinton is going to attend the court hearing or it just a suggestion or expectation from yourself?
Thanks in advance.
There exist two phases with respect to Taiwan;i.e., a "political" Taiwan in accordance with Section 15-2 of the Taiwan Relations Act, in which Taiwan is related to the United States and the Chinese authority on Taiwan, and a "legal" Taiwan in accordance with Articles 2b,and 23 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, in which Taiwan is related to the United States and Japan. The emblem of the Republic of China attached in this article signifies a concern with the political Taiwan whereas the lawsuit over World War II Peace Treaty with Japan phrased in its title signifies a concern with the legal Taiwan. The intrinsic Taiwan of being legal is by no means equal to the extrinsic Taiwan of being political. Each phase of these two "Taiwans" is essentially in conflict and is not able to be mixed up with each other.The Chinese occupying authority on Taiwan having long been used to be deemed as the Government of Taiwan misled the world that Taiwan is a renegade province,hence a part of China.In contrast to the so-called "one China" policy, there should be a "one Taiwan" policy, in which the actual ownership of Taiwan has been legally determined pursuant to Article 2b of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Japan renounced all right to Taiwan including right to transfer the sovereignty of Taiwan to either China,the United States or even the people of Taiwan. No one in the world is privileged to violate the provisions of the peace treaty signed between the Allied Powers and Japan on September 8, 1951.
The Taiwan status quo may serve US interest in relation to China. However, this status quo will never address the issues facing US/Taiwan/China relations and problems arising from it. As a long term stratigic option, US should respond to lawsuit positively now pending at Superior court, District of Colombia
remalene:
I don't see any phase in Articles 2b,and 23 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that talk about legal relationship in which Taiwan is related to the United States.
quote,
Article 2
(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
Article 23
(a) The present Treaty shall be ratified by the States which sign it, including Japan, and will come into force for all the States which have then ratified it, when instruments of ratification have been deposited by Japan and by a majority, including the United States of America as the principal occupying Power, of the following States, namely Australia, Canada, Ceylon, France, Indonesia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. The present Treaty shall come into force of each State which subsequently ratifies it, on the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification.
unquote.
As you can see from the text of articles 2b and 23a, there's nothing prominently identifying the legal relationship between Taiwan and US.
Instead, in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it states clearly the US's privileges and obligations as per the article 3 which indicates:
quote:
Article 3
Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.
unquote.
As you can notice, Taiwan is not appeared in the list of the UN trusteeship system proposed by US.
Attn: Michael Richardson
Dear Mr. Richardson:
I like to say thank you for your great article [Future of Taiwan at stake in lawsuit over WWII peace treaty with Japan].
The pen is mightier than the sword!
Your article creates a very strong expectation by millions of Formosans that New Secretary Madam Clinton may be present in the courtroom as well as the law case may pull out 20 millions of Formosans from the living hell of statelessness for over 64 years since the end of the World War II.
Should you let me have your e-mail address, I will send it to Taiwan and Mr. Richard Hartzell will be happy to send you more true information to you. We always expect a writer like you may be awarded the Pulitzer prize by handling the Taiwan issues.
Again, thank you very much for your nice article!
Most sincerely,
Cheng-Kuang Chen
chengkuangchen@yahoo.com
Jan. 30, 2009
San Jose, CA. 95131
Thank you for the good comments and questions. I doubt Hillary Clinton will be in the courtroom next week, but she probably should be. As to treaty interpretation of the San Francisco Peacy Treaty, the appellate court will grapple with those issues should it agree to look at the merits of the case. What seems clear is that Japan surrendered Formosa to the United States and we never gave it to any other nation by subsequent treaty suggesting the U.S. still owns the island itself. U.S. Territorial law is murky business and governed by the infamous 'Insular Cases' from the early 1900's.
Michael Richardson
RichardsonReports@gmail.com
Much thanks to ground breaking media coverage by Mr. Richardson.
It should be noted that Taiwan cession is held in an interim treaty status like Cuba cession in Neely v. Henkel. Under Art. 9, 1898 Treaty of Paris, the "political staus and civil rights of native island inhabitants will be determined by the US Congress" and the civil rights were "defined" in Downes v Bidwell.
Under SFPT, these civil rights were extended to the islanders of the US Trust Territory in the early 1980's.
Two federal cases applied to the SFPT cessions of the Marshall Islands and Saipan.
The misleading statement that there is no SFPT relationship between the USA and Taiwan cession is disinformation by the ROC sympathizers.
SFPT Art 4(b)clearly states that the administrative authority relationship is subject to control by US Military Gov't for Art. 2(b) cessions of Formosa and the Pescadores. Furthermore, Art. 4(a) deals with post-war claims against the administering authorities of Formosa in accordance with Art. 2(b). The USMG is the principal occupational authority of Formosa cession and effective control by the TRA keeps external aggression out of Taiwan. Please also refer to FM 27-10, Par. 354, 12, 13 for the peace treaty role of "US military government" for the civil affairs administration on a "provisional and temporary basis" of enemy territory liberated from Imperial Japan.
Read the SFPT Art 4(a) fine print for redress of the KMT stolen property of (former) Japanese nationals of Art. 2(b) cessions.
hasn't US taken much advantage by granting Japan a freedom. there had been a war fought between Japan and China, Russia many years before Japan bribed US with treasure looted from China, and even without US's involvement in it, China,Russia could manage to annihilate Japan. everybody knows US had much profit for granting Japan a freedom after nuking Hiroshima and Nagayashi and all of them were supposed to be compensated to those toll suffered in China, Russia so US is a real incredible monster, and now good for nothing proser here still want to demand ownership of Taiwan, part of China since an ancient time by point an unfair agreement which no Chinese accepts.
let me tell you it's easier for US to declare war on Chinese than claim ownership of Taiwan
practically, US is still such an unjust country to poor nations, but to rich nations, US is nothing but a dog to be easily persuaded with a bone
if there are more such a proser here, I think governments of China, both PRC and ROC probably think of considering to cause downfall of US which caused much agony on Chinese by her cunning, unjust, inhumane act after WW2. Don't underestimate the reality of China that is no more a few centuries ago but with her own inspiration as well as aspiration.
"in GOD we trust"
that context is not worthy with US which constantly causes much hardship in Asia, North America as well as in Arab.
so it should be changed to..
"in JAPAN we always get bones"
signxxx since WW2
Good report,please follow through this case in the future.
What a shame! Have you really studied the history? Formosa is a name given by the Portugese cloniest to Taiwan. Taiwan was seized by the Japanese from China after the 1st Sino-Japan war in 1890s. Chinese has been settling in the island since acient time. How can you say it has never belonged to China?
Please respect the real history. Please don't have bias because you don't like the Chinese, or maybe because you don't like the communist party (Please be aware that the Chinese people don't like the communist party either).
Be fair, please
Jeffery raises a good point that needs clarification. Taiwan has indeed been a Chinese colony during its history. After imperial China ceded Taiwan to Japan by treaty following war in 1895 the Chinese imperial government collapsed and in 1912 the Republic of China was born. In 1949, the Communist revolution overthrew the Republic of China. Thus, Taiwan was never a colony of Red China. Also, until 1945 Taiwan was never under control of the Republic of China. Taiwan was only a territory of mainland China under 19th century imperial rule, two revolutions ago.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!