Press Conference
The Human Rights Crisis in Taiwan: Fundamental Questions
National Press Club
Lisagor Room
529 14th St. NW, Washington D.C. 20045
January 6, 2009 Tuesday morning, beginning at 9:00 am
Many people have noticed a deterioration of human rights in Taiwan since Ma Ying-jeou took office in May 2008. In an opinion piece published in the South China Morning Post in November, New York University law professor Jerome Cohen wrote about his concerns over a string of detentions of present and former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government officials, and the arrests of other local activists. He also challenged police handling of the street marchers' protests during the Taipei meeting of Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung and Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin. Cohen remarked that improved cross-strait relations "appear to have come at a cost to some civil liberties in Taiwan," and called for an independent commission to investigate the matter.
Is the government of the Republic of China (ROC) competent to establish such an independent commission? More importantly, does it have the legal authority to establish such a commission? To date, these are questions which few legal researchers have dared to ask. In order to answer such questions, we first have to ponder whether Taiwan is a sovereign independent nation and whether its government is truly the "Republic of China."
The Demands of the Taiwanese Street Marchers
In addition to protesting against PRC territorial ambitions, Taiwanese street marchers' have consistently called for the world community to give Taiwan full diplomatic recognition. While such pleas have a certain amount of appeal, unfortunately they rest on a very insecure foundation, and fail to consider the historical and legal reality of Taiwan's current situation. No leading nations can or will recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state due to the simple fact that it isn't one.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK: Fundamentally, Taiwan's status as a non-state has arisen from the events of WWII in the Pacific. After Japan's defeat, General Douglas MacArthur directed Chiang Kai-shek (CKS) of the ROC to accept the surrender of Japanese troops in Taiwan, and his representatives did so on Oct. 25, 1945. Although the surrender ceremonies were held on behalf of the Allies, the ensuing military occupation of Taiwan was conducted on behalf of the "conqueror" and "principal occupying power," and that is the United States. At the most basic level, CKS's ROC on Taiwan is a subordinate occupying power. Then in Dec. 1949 the ROC moved its central government to occupied Taiwan and added the status of "government in exile."
In the postwar San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), Japan renounced sovereignty over Taiwan without specifying a "receiving country." Hence, it can be argued that under international law the ROC is not the legal government of Taiwan, and the island has remained as occupied territory up to the present day, which means that it has not yet reached a "final political status." The "principal occupying power" of Taiwan is, according to the SFPT, the United States of America.
Executive Branch's Stance on Taiwan
In his August 2008 Asian trip, President Bush spoke out about human rights abuses in China, stressing "fundamental liberty" as a natural right of all human beings. Such rhetoric is certainly praiseworthy. At the same time, many commentators frequently challenge that the US Executive Branch's stance on the Taiwan question is fundamentally contradictory. However, it must be pointed out that all of the US Executive Branch's seemingly puzzling, incongruous, or paradoxical statements on the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan's undetermined status, the One China Policy, opposition to Taiwan's admission to the United Nations, etc. can be understood if viewed within above legal framework.
Unfortunately, for over 50 years, the provisions of the SFPT have been ignored by the US Congress and Executive Branch. As a result, the Taiwanese people have seen their fundamental US constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, and due process of law trampled upon by US officialdom in the name of political expediency.
Our press conference on January 6th will discuss the various remedial actions necessary to remedy this situation, including the progress of our current
US Court of Appeals court case in Washington D.C.
Press Conference Links
Press Conference Handout
Additional Comments by Cheng-Kuang Chen
Dr. Cheng Chung-mo
Background Links
San Francisco Peace Treaty
Roger Lin v. United States of America
Taiwan History
Home | Top
|
|
