Richard W. Hartzell

Corbett | February 19, 2004 3:58 AM

Uncovering the Truth of the Taiwan Status

by Richard W Hartzell

As most people know, at the present time Taiwan is not recognized as a sovereign independent nation by the world community.

Uncovering the Truth of the Taiwan Status

by Richard W Hartzell

As most people know, at the present time Taiwan is not recognized as a sovereign independent nation by the world community. Over the last three years I have been researching this curious fact in detail. According to the historical record, the "major participants" in Taiwanese history after WWII up through the signing of the peace treaty in 1951 were Japan, the United States, and the Republic of China. The People's Republic of China, founded in 1949, was still not a major player in world politics at that time. In the peace treaty, Japan gave Taiwan up, but it wasn't given to the Republic of China.

Interestingly, the United States was the principal occupying power of all areas spoken of in the treaty. How do all these facts fit together? Please read on.
Included in this research I have overviewed the US occupation of Cuba (after the Spanish American War), certain areas of Mexico (during the Mexican American War), and West Berlin (after WWII), and analyzed how this all corresponds and dovetails with the situation of Taiwan. I also looked at the legal details of the British occupation of certain areas of Maine during the War of 1812. I have pieced this together with recent Chinese history, the Shanghai Communiques, and all other pronouncements of the US government including the Three Nos, Six Assurances, Taiwan Relations Act, the policies of the current Bush administration toward Taiwan, and a large number of US Supreme Court cases......and it all fits together quite nicely. The 1992 "Cross Straits Consensus" also fits in. In particular, (a) Taiwan's entry to the WTO as a "separate customs territory", (b) the Taiwan Relations Act as a domestic US law, and (c) the fact no other country in the world has a Taiwan Relations Act, (d) the consideration that the USA is a democratic country but it opposes a referendum on Taiwan independence, (e) the fact that the UN Charter speaks of the right of all peoples for "self determination" but the UN doesn't accept Taiwan as a member, etc. myriad factors......exactly fit with my conclusion.

My conclusion is that under international law, Taiwan remains under United States administrative authority up to the present day. This administrative authority arises from the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), which went into effect on April 28, 1952. More specifically, according to the terms of the treaty, Taiwan is held by the military establishment, i.e. the United States Military Government.

Let's step back for a moment to the Truman presidency. On June 27, 1950, President Truman stated that the future status of Formosa would have to be determined......(at some future date)......and many would say that his remarks were frozen in the SFPT -- this is because Japan renounced any rights she had to "Formosa and the Pescadores" but they were not awarded to any other nation.

However, doing an overview of "territorial cession law" of the United States, and with reference to the situation of "cession by conquest (by US military forces)" followed by "cession by treaty", we clearly see that the US Supreme Court has ruled that without any additional action by Congress, the default status for new territories acquired in this fashion with the United States Military Government (USMG) as principal occupying power is: (pre 1898) "incorporated territory under USMG", and (1898 and beyond) "unincorporated territory under USMG." This can be determined by looking carefully at the 1901 cases of Neely v. Henkel, Downes v. Bidwell, DeLima v. Bidwell, etc., and the other so-called US Supreme Court "insular cases".

Hence, in the case of Cuba, after the Spanish American War, it was not awarded to any other country in the Treaty of Paris (Senate ratification: Feb. 6, 1899) and therefore qualifies as "unincorporated territory under USMG" until its independence on May 20, 1902. This analysis exactly corresponds to the historical record.

Puerto Rico was "unincorporated territory under USMG" until the promulgation of the Foraker Act, in April, 1900, providing for its civil government.
We can compare Articles 2b, 4b, and 23 of the SFPT with Article 1 of the 1899 Treaty of Paris, and we have basically the same formulation. For Taiwan, the USMG was the principal occupying power, and therefore since it was not awarded to any other country, Taiwan should legally qualify as "unincorporated territory under USMG" upon Senate ratification of the SFPT on April 28, 1952. (Gen. MacArthur delegated the administrative authority for the occupation of Formosa and the Pescadores to the Rep. of China military forces, but this does not alter the fact that the USMG is the "principal occupying power" and neither Mr. Truman or Gen. MacArthur have any power to formally transfer the sovereignty of these areas to any other nation.)

Hence, on the date of April 28, 1952, the Republic of China is clearly not the legitimate government of Taiwan, it is merely a government-in-exile. The "island citizens of Taiwan" should be enjoying fundamental rights under the US Constitution", including the 5th Amendment right to life, liberty, property, and due process of law. Particularly notable is that according to the Supreme Court, ¡§liberty¡¨ of the 5th Amendment includes travel rights, and travel rights include the right to a passport. Hence, rather than holding passports of the non-sovereign ¡§Republic of China on Taiwan,¡¨ the Taiwanese should be holding "US national non-citizen" passports, similar in many respects to the people of American Samoa. Additionally, Article 1 of the US Constitution provides that Congress will provide for the "common defense." In fact, Congress established the War Department in 1789, and this was reorganized as the Department of Defense in 1949. Hence, according to the above analysis, the US President should announce the end of mandatory military conscription in Taiwan at the earliest possible date, and the Department of Defense should handle Taiwan¡¦s defensive needs directly.

Further background

In General Order No. 1 of September 2, 1945, Gen. MacArthur directed the Japanese troops in Formosa to surrender to the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek. What happened was that the Republic of China (KMT) troops finally got over to Taiwan and held the surrender ceremonies on Oct. 25, 1945, then immediately announced that Taiwan was being annexed to Republic of China as Chinese territory! Hence, in Asia, calendars list October 25 as "Taiwan Retrocession Day.

Despite the fact that there had previously been various "press releases" (Potsdam Proclamation, Cairo Declaration, etc.) about the "intended" future disposition of these areas, Oct. 25, 1945, merely marks the beginning date of the belligerent occupation of Taiwan. Under the international law precedent that "occupation does not transfer sovereignty", the outright annexation of Formosa and the Pescadores on Oct. 25, 1945, by the Chinese is legally impossible. The Republic of China military forces were merely acting as "agents" of USMG, and they cannot claim any special benefits for themselves in this regard.

Hence, from the vantage point of today, this appears to be a very big problem which occurred during President Truman's administration, and which has been allowed to continue up to the present day, with no rectification from the Oval Office, the State Department, the Secretary of Defense, etc. Yet at the most basic level, these "island citizens of Taiwan", residing in a US insular area (outlying area), are being denied their fundamental rights under the US Constitution......and yet the US President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc. have taken an oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" !

In his 2004 "New Year's Resolutions" essay, printed in the New York Times, Secretary Powell stressed the importance of peace, freedom, and prosperity. The Taiwanese want to protect their freedom by having a referendum on Taiwanese independence, but the State Department and the Oval Office constantly voice their vigorous objections. Doesn't this strike you as strange?
But it is not strange if you realize that the President Nixon and Henry Kissinger already made an agreement with the People's Republic of China in 1972 to transfer the sovereignty of Taiwan to the PRC, based on the result of successful negotiations between representatives on boths sides of the Strait. That agreement was called the Shanghai Communique.
My conclusion remains that Taiwan actually qualifies as US "unincorporated territory" as of the ratification date of the SFPT on April 28, 1952. The sovereignty of Taiwan is currently held by the United States.

Please see the following essays in this brief collection:
- Uncovering the Truth of the Taiwan Status
- A Solution to the Dilemma of Taiwan
- Taiwanese Should Seek US Constitutional Rights
- Understanding the San Francisco Peace Treaty¡¦s disposition of Formosa & the
Pescadores
- A Straightforward Explanation of Taiwan¡¦s Political Status under International Law
- Taiwan¡¦s Past, Present, and Future: A New Explanation

A Solution to the Dilemma of Taiwan
by Richard W Hartzell

In 1895 the Ching court of China concluded the Treaty of Shimonoseki with Japan, ceding ¡§Formosa and the Pescadores¡¨ to Japan in perpetuity. After WWII, the Republic of China military forces were directed to come to Taiwan in 1945 and accept the surrender of Japanese military forces and handle all matters concerning the occupation of these areas. In the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) which came into effect in 1952, Japan renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. Although these areas were separated from Japan, they were not joined to any other nation. The Chinese-Japanese Peace Treaty concluded in 1952 also repeated the provisions of the SFPT. During this entire period of time, and indeed up to the present day, the People¡¦s Republic of China (PRC), which was founded in 1949, has never ruled Taiwan.

Even though these facts are clear, yet it is also true that Taiwan has never been able to escape from the criticism that it is not ¡§an independent sovereign country¡¨, or that ¡§the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China¡¨ . . . . and indeed these factors have rendered Taiwan¡¦s international position to be something of a dilemma. Whether we are trying to solve the thorny issue of how President Chen Shui-bian is to pick an appropriate topic for a national referendum, or how Taiwan can get admitted to the World Health Organization, or how to improve Taiwan¡¦s investment climate,¡K¡Kfor all of these issues, a clear statement of Taiwan¡¦s correct international position is a clear prerequisite.
But, what is best procedure for researching such a statement? Actually, we will do well to start with the concept of ¡§territorial cession.¡¨

Whether in the history of the Chinese dynasties or of the western nations, all heads of state have had the experience of adding to their own territory by the military conquest of neighboring areas. These types of actions can be called ¡§cession by conquest.¡¨

However, in the 1800¡¦s and after the end of the Napoleonic Era, this concept of cession came to be regarded differently by the world community. World leaders came to agree that this method of conquering and seizing new territory was not advantageous to the maintenance of a proper world order and respect for human rights. As a result, after nearly one hundred years of consensus building, in 1907 the Hague Conventions specified that ¡§Territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.¡¨ Moreover, the international community formed a consensus that ¡§occupation does not transfer sovereignty,¡¨ and so any arrangements for the cession of territory needed to be clearly stated in an international treaty in order to be considered valid.

From this standpoint it can be seen that the rather ancient concept of ¡§cession by conquest¡¨ underwent a drastic change in the 1800¡¦s, and according to the Hague Conventions could only be regarded as the ¡§beginning of belligerent occupation.¡¨ In order to be valid under international law, ¡§cession by conquest¡¨ had to be confirmed by ¡§cession by treaty.¡¨

Cession in Peacetime vs. Cession by Conquest

To look at the situation of the Alaska cession as an example, after the US Secretary of State negotiated a price of US $7,200,000, Russia agreed to cede Alaska to the USA. Before the coming into effect of the treaty on October 18, 1867, Alaska was under the administrative authority of Russia, but beginning on this date and thereafter, Alaska came under the administrative authority of the USA. This simple formulation is how most people regard the subject of ¡§territorial cession¡¨ -- there is one point in time which marks a clear division. However, it must be noted that this simple formulation is only applicable to territorial cessions conducted during peacetime.

For cessions which are the result of war, it is somewhat more complicated. The issues of military occupation, the coming into effect of the peace treaty, and the end of military government of the hostile power (and subsidiary military forces under its direction) must all be taken into account. The final status of ¡§occupied territory¡¨ is only achieved when the principal occupying power has both de-facto and de-jure returned this territory to the lawful government of the area.
Belligerent occupation may be specified as covering the point in time where the hostile army places its authority over the territory, or the local troops surrender, to the point in time where the peace treaty comes into effect. Friendly occupation, or the ¡§civil affairs administration of a military government¡¨ may be specified as covering the point in time where the peace treaty comes into effect until the point where the military government of the principal occupying power ends.

Looking at the situation of Taiwan from this perspective, we note that the head of the United States Military Government, General Douglas MacArthur, directed the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek to come to Taiwan and accept the surrender of Japanese military forces, so October 25, 1945, clearly marks the beginning of the belligerent occupation of ¡§Formosa and the Pescadores.¡¨ International law dictates that ¡§military occupation does not transfer sovereignty,¡¨ so of course there was no transfer of sovereignty on that date. On April 28, 1952, the SFPT came into effect, but ¡§Formosa and the Pescadores¡¨ were not ceded to the Republic of China, nor to any other country, so it follows that the sovereignty of these areas continues to be held as interim status by the principal occupying power, which is the United States as per Article 23. This is a fiduciary relationship, and not ¡§ownership¡¨ or ¡§annexation¡¨ per se.

Under this analysis, it is clear that the ¡§Republic of China on Taiwan¡¨ is not a sovereign nation. This is exactly the view of the US State Department and the People¡¦s Republic of China. However, after the publication of my last article in the AsiaTimes, several readers wrote in vehemently disagreeing with this conclusion, stating unequivocally that the ¡§Republic of China on Taiwan¡¨ is indeed a sovereign nation, and suggesting that this author review the definition of ¡§sovereignty¡¨ in a dictionary.

Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention specifies the international legal standards by which nationhood is adjudged. These are (a) permanent population, (b) defined territory, (c) government, and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states. However, if we accept these four stipulations for recognizing a ¡§sovereign state¡¨ in the case of the ¡§Republic of China on Taiwan,¡¨ we are immediately faced with the conclusion that ¡§military occupation does transfer sovereignty,¡¨ which is a clear violation of international law, as specified in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Upon closer analysis it will be found that Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention is incomplete, and cannot correctly delineate situations which involve (a) military occupation, or (b) governments in exile. (The author has completed a lengthy research paper on this subject which has been linked to the ¡§International Law ¡V Publications¡¨ page of the prestigious Findlaw website. Readers may overview that paper for more information.)

The SFPT and Taiwan¡¦s referendum

SFPT Article 4(b) states: ¡§Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3.¡¨ Up to the present day, the United States¡¦ administrative authority over Taiwan is still active, because Taiwan has still not reached ¡§final status.¡¨ Under the provisions of the three USA-PRC bilateral communiqués, final status will be achieved when Taiwan unifies with the PRC.

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 is a domestic law of the United States because Taiwan is still under United States administrative authority. What is missing during this period of interim status however are any provisions for the Taiwanese to enjoy their fundamental rights under the US Constitution -- rights which apply in all insular areas under US administrative authority.
President Chen Shui-bian¡¦s choice of March 20th referendum questions regarding ¡§whether the citizenry supports enhancing the nation's defenses should China refuse to openly renounce the use of force and withdraw the missiles it has targeted at Taiwan, and whether the government should hold talks with China on cross-strait peace and stability¡¨ don¡¦t seem to be particularly controversial or meaningful. Indeed, many countries have openly criticized these referendum questions. In order for Taiwan to solve many of the problems with which it is faced, the Taiwan governing authorities could offer more meaningful wording for a referendum as follows: According to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it can be maintained that United States administrative authority over Taiwan is still active up to the present day. Do you agree to the United States¡¦ administrative authority over Taiwan, and concur that the United States Department of Defense should directly and completely assume responsibility for all of Taiwan¡¦s defensive needs, as it does for the fifty states and all other overseas US territories?¡¨

The Montevideo Convention and Military Occupation, see link at
http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/24international/publications.html

See the author¡¦s previous article --
Taiwanese should seek US Constitutional rights
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FA31Ad05.html

Taiwanese should seek US Constitutional rights
by Richard W Hartzell

We can construct a simple model of modern Taiwan history which will help us better understand the status quo as viewed by the United States government.
We must begin at the close of World War II, after the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan. There is the necessity of handling the surrender of Japanese troops and the military occupation of each locale. Over such a broad geographic area, it will be necessary to determine the "principal occupying power" to deal with these issues. In General Order No 1 of September 2, 1945, General Douglas Macarthur, whom in today's terminology we would call "leader of the coalition forces", directed the military troops under his command to handle all related details. A law of war analysis shows that Macarthur is acting in his position as head of the United States Military Government (USMG), in issuing this general order.

The representatives of Chiang Kai-shek (CKS) were directed to accept the surrender of Japanese forces in "Formosa and the Pescadores" (hereinafter referred to as "Taiwan"). When CKS' representatives finally did get to Taipei, Taiwan, and accept the Japanese surrender, they immediately claimed that day of October 25, 1945, as "Taiwan Retrocession Day", and stated that Taiwan was returned to the Republic of China based on the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the terms of the Japanese surrender documents signed on the USS Missouri.

Even though many scholars have argued about the legal validity of such actions for decades, in fact no argument is necessary. According to the Hague Conventions, and accompanying Hague Regulations of 1907, "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army". This, along with the fact that "occupation does not transfer sovereignty", are accepted principles of the law of war, and its subset: the law of occupation.
Although the Chinese history books state that CKS' representatives came to Taiwan on their own initiative, in fact they were exercising delegated administrative authority for the occupation under USMG. According to the fiduciary relationship established under the law of occupation, USMG holds the sovereignty of the area in trust in its position as "principal occupying power." October 25, 1945, clearly marks the beginning of the period of belligerent occupation.

Post-World War II legal issues for Taiwan

In this type of scenario, after the surrender of Japanese troops in Taiwan, we have several legal issues to deal with:

- The determination of the "lawful government" of Taiwan;
- The end of US military government in Taiwan;
- The transfer of sovereignty to the "lawful government" of the area.

In the post-war peace treaty, we would normally expect to see explicit provisions for the handling of the occupied territory. However, in the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), which came into effect on April 28, 1952, Article 2b only states: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores." No specification was made about to which government these areas were ceded.

Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian and his advisors today interpret this clause to mean that the sovereignty of Taiwan has been returned to the Taiwanese people, however, under the law of war such an analysis is incorrect. The cession of territory is from "government" to "government". Hence, a more coherent analysis of SFPT Article 2b would hold that the "lawful government" of Taiwan had not yet been determined as of April, 1952. In such a situation, military occupation continues, but we call this "friendly occupation", or more properly "the civil affairs administration of a military government".

Since Taiwan was not ceded to the Republic of China in the SFPT, it remains under the administrative authority of the principal occupying power, which is the US, as per Article 23. This is further clarified by Article 4b, which states: "Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3."

If the lawful government of Taiwan was undetermined as of April, 1952, when was it determined? In over-viewing all relevant documentation, we find the Shanghai Communique of 1972, which stated there is only one China, and the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China. In that communique, the US also reaffirmed its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.

Shanghai Communique leaves unification to be negotiated

The relevant clauses of this 1972 communique conveniently serve the purpose of a civil affairs agreement under the law of occupation to arrange the transfer of territory to the "lawful government" of the area. No timetable was specified, hence the determination of the exact date for this expected "unification" has been left up to negotiations between officials on both sides of the Strait. Here in 2004, it is clear that the PRC officials would like to see quicker action on this matter, while the Taiwanese officials would prefer that any actions toward unification be put off further into the future.

At some point in the future, when the Taiwan and PRC officials do come to the negotiating table, it can be expected that Taiwan will have to agree to the "one country, two systems" model. When the two sides finally unify, the US administrative authority over Taiwan will be supplanted, and the transfer of Taiwan's sovereignty to the PRC (ie "the lawful government of the area") will be completed with the agreement of the Taiwanese themselves. At that point the US will offer its blessings.

By using law of war principles to construct this simple model of modern Taiwan history, we can review various US actions over the past 50 years and we find them in perfect agreement with this model's parameters. In addition to the Shanghai Communique's specifications mentioned above, the diplomatic break with the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan in late 1978, the promulgation of the Taiwan Relations Act, President Reagan's Six Assurances, President Clinton's Three Nos, and the current pronouncements of the Bush administration on the Taiwan question all dovetail nicely.

The ROC on Taiwan currently has (a) permanent population, (b) defined territory, (c) government, and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states [international legal standards by which nationhood is adjudged], yet it is not considered a "sovereign nation" by the United Nations. In other words, the world community does not consider that the "sovereignty" of Taiwan is held by the Taiwan governing authorities. Considering that the PRC does not currently exercise any administrative authority over Taiwan, this model also gives us an answer to the perplexing question of where Taiwan's sovereignty currently is.
Are there are "two equal governments" on each side of the strait, as the Taiwanese officials claim? Or is the ROC on Taiwan merely a "government-in-exile"? What is the proper format for Taiwan to apply for membership in the World Health Organization? Will Taiwan's bids to join the UN be successful? We can evaluate all of these topics with this model (based on law of war principles).

1952 treaty giving US authority over Taiwan still valid

In summary, under the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952, the US's administrative authority over Taiwan is still active, even here in 21st century. However, as of 1972, the US has placed Taiwan on a "flight path" for eventual unification with the PRC. This defines the status quo from the US perspective. Based on this realization, an evaluation of what the White House or the State Department mean when they dissuade either Taiwan or the PRC to undertake any "unilateral moves to change the status quo" is easy.
The PRC must hold to the preconditions of not using force or coercion, and Taiwan should not deviate from the "flight path" which was previously determined for it.

In the Insular Cases of the early 1900s, the US Supreme Court developed the idea that, without any action by the Congress, "fundamental rights" under the US Constitution are available in all areas under the jurisdiction of the US, but that other rights apply only when extended to such areas by law. As recently as 1990, in United States vs Verdugo-Urquidez, it was reaffirmed that, "It is not open to us in light of the Insular Cases to endorse the view that every constitutional provision applies wherever the United States Government exercises its power."

Question: What would be the reaction of Washington if the Taiwanese, being under US administrative authority during this period of interim status under the law of occupation, demand their "fundamental rights" under the US Constitution?
The US Constitution grants Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty, property, and due process that are certainly considered "fundamental". In addition, there is the US Constitution's basic Article 1 stipulation that the US Congress will provide for the "common defense". The Congress established the War Department in 1789, and this was reorganized as the Department of Defense in 1949.
Afghanis and Iraqis who are held by US authorities know enough to ask for their US Constitutional rights. When will the Taiwanese start asking for theirs?

Richard W Hartzell is a researcher into the laws of war, a columnist and writer who has lived in Taipei for nearly 30 years and is fluent in Mandarin. His interests include differing Chinese and Western cultural norms, the Chinese language, the US-Taiwan-PRC legal relationship, military law, laws of occupation, international treaty law, Chinese and international law, territorial cession law, US insular law, US Constitutional law and US Supreme Court cases. He can be reached at taiwanmidway@hotmail.com.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FA31Ad05.html

Understanding the SFPT¡¦s disposition of ¡§Formosa & the Pescadores¡¨
Hartzell¡¦s Six Questions Using the Law of War to Determine Taiwan¡¦s International Position

Q1: When did Japanese troops in Taiwan surrender or come under the complete authority of the hostile army?
A1: Chiang Kai-shek¡¦s representatives accepted the surrender of Japanese troops on October 25, 1945, raised the Republic of China flag, and immediately announced this event as ¡§Taiwan Retrocession Day.¡¨ (See Note #1) However, according to the dictates of international law, this so-called Retrocession on October 25th is impossible. ¡§Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army,¡¨ explains the concept of military occupation, as codified in the Annex to the (1907) Hague Conventions IV, Article 42. This is a basic principle of the Law of War. Military occupation is not equivalent to annexation.

Q2: Who is the principal occupying power?
A2: In General Order No. 1 of September 2, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur specified the handling of the surrender formalities of Japanese troops and the military occupation of over twenty areas under Japanese control. The commanders and troops receiving directions and following his orders are acting on behalf of the United States Military Government (USMG), and cannot claim any special benefits resulting from their actions in this regard. The SFPT confirms the United States as principal occupying power in Article 23. Hence, USMG administrative authority in Taiwan began on October 25, 1945, with the surrender of Japanese troops.
Under the law of the United States, ¡§military government¡¨ is a kind of military jurisdiction which is exercised in time of foreign war outside the boundaries of the United States, and superseding, as far as may be deemed expedient, the local law, and exercised by the military commander under the direction of the President, with the express or implied sanction of Congress. This is outlined in the US Supreme Court case of Ex Parte Milligan (1866).

Q3: When did the Peace Treaty come into effect?
A3: The SFPT was signed on September 8, 1951. It was ratified by the US Senate and came into effect on April 28, 1952.

Q4: What is the name of the lawful government of the area known as ¡§Formosa and the Pescadores¡¨?
A4: Before World War II, the lawful government of these areas was Japan. As outlined above, military occupation of Formosa and the Pescadores began on October 25, 1945. According to the law of occupation, the goal for the final disposition of occupied territory will be to turn it over to ¡§the lawful government of the area.¡¨ In Article 2b of SFPT, it is stated: ¡§Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.¡¨ However no ¡§receiving country¡¨ was specified for this territorial cession, hence it is clear that at the time the SFPT was written, there was no consensus in the international community regarding the determination of the ¡§lawful government¡¨ of Formosa and the Pescadores.
Looking back at the historical record, the reason why no ¡§receiving country¡¨ was specified was because during the Chinese civil war in the late 1940¡¦s, the Nationalists and the Communists were both maintaining that they represented ¡§the legal government of China.¡¨ The Communists declared the founding of the PRC on October 1, 1949, and the Nationalists fled to Taiwan which was at the time under USMG military occupation, with administrative authority for the occupation delegated to Chiang Kai-shek¡¦s representatives ¡V the Nationalists. The Soviet Union and the U.K. had already given diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1949 and 1950 respectively, while France and the USA still maintained that Chiang Kai-shek¡¦s Nationalists (in exile on Taiwan as of December, 1949) were ¡§the legal government of China.¡¨ With no consensus on ¡§the legal government of China¡¨ among the leading world powers, the SFPT made no assumptions about the legal government of Formosa and the Pescadores, leaving the ¡§receiving country¡¨ unspecified. This left the final political status of Taiwan undetermined.

Under such a situation, although the final political status of Taiwan was undetermined, the ¡§interim status¡¨ was fully defined as of April 28, 1952, as an ¡§unincorporated cession under a USMG civil affairs administration,¡¨ with administrative authority delegated to the Chinese Nationalists, who were formerly co-belligerents with the United States in the WWII China Theatre of operations.

On February 28, 1972, nearly twenty years after the coming into effect of the SFPT, the USA and the PRC signed the ¡§Shanghai Communique,¡¨ firmly establishing the PRC as the ¡§legal government of China.¡¨ The wording of this communiqué is important.

The US side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.

This can be viewed as a civil affairs agreement under the law of occupation and establishes the PRC as the legal government of Formosa and the Pescadores. (See Note #2)

As of February 1972, the viewpoint of the US government regarding Taiwan¡¦s final political status changed from ¡§undetermined¡¨ to ¡§a part of China.¡¨ In other words, Taiwan was placed on a flight-path for eventual unification with the PRC. However the timetable for this was not specified, and was left up to negotiations between the Taiwanese and the PRC authorities. Hence, some persons would say that with the Shanghai Communique and the recognition of the One China Policy, the final political status of Taiwan appears to have changed. In fact, whether ¡§determined but unimplemented¡¨ is strictly equal to ¡§undetermined¡¨ is something for political analysts to discuss.

Q5: What proof or disproof can be offered to show that the military government of the principal occupying power has been legally supplanted?
A5: From 1952 to the end of 2003, in relation to all agreements, laws, declarations, etc., in respect to Taiwan, we do not find any record of the end of USMG in Taiwan, or its supplanting by another legal arrangement.

By contrast the following points may be noted:
(1) In Cuba, USMG ended on May 20, 1902, by formal proclamation.
(2) In Puerto Rico, USMG was supplanted by the Foraker Act, on May 1, 1900.
(3) In West Berlin, USMG was supplanted by the ¡§Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany¡¨ on September 12, 1990.

Also notable is that in the US Supreme Court case of Cross v. Harrison (1854), it was stated that: ¡§¡Kholding that from the necessities of the case the military government established in California did not cease to exist with the treaty of peace, but continued as a government de facto until Congress should provide a territorial government.¡¨

"Military government continues until legally supplanted¡¨ is the rule as stated in Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, 3rd edition, 1914.
In fact, the consideration that the US Department of State does not regard Taiwan as sovereign nation is adequate proof to show that the sovereignty of ¡§Formosa and the Pescadores¡¨ has never been transferred to the Taiwan governing authorities, and that the United States administrative authority over Taiwan is still currently active.

Q6: What is the principle covering the final disposition of Japanese property in ¡§Formosa and the Pescadores¡¨?
A6: In Article 4b of SFPT, it is stated: ¡§Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3.¡¨ In other words, the United States Military Government has authority over the final disposition of ¡§Formosa and the Pescadores.¡¨

Under the law of occupation, the goal for the final disposition of occupied territory will be to hand it over to ¡§the lawful government of the area.¡¨ Acting in the position of principal occupying power, the United States has determined the legal government of Formosa and the Pescadores to be the PRC, and has concluded a civil affairs agreement to specify this. No firm timetable for implementation has been agreed upon however.

Conclusion:

United States administrative authority over Taiwan is still currently active. Taiwan is now in interim status under the law of occupation as unincorporated territory under USMG, and during this period of interim status the Taiwanese are entitled to the US Constitution¡¦s fundamental rights, which apply in all insular areas. These include 5th amendment rights to life, liberty, and due process, as well as the basic Article 1 guarantee that the Congress will provide ¡§for the common defense.¡¨

Note #1: It is a matter of historical record that US military representatives were already in Taiwan in early September 1945, well before the arrival of CKS¡¦ representatives.

After studying the law of occupation and overviewing dozens of possible scenarios for the military occupation of Formosa and the Pescadores, it is clear that when the principal occupying power has delegated administrative authority to a co-belligerent for the occupation of a particular area, the flag of the principal occupying power should be raised. There is no recovery mechanism under international law when the co-belligerent moves to annex the territory to its own, or in the case of local insurgents recognized as co-belligerents, to declare independence after some period of time, in the attempt to found a new nation. In the case of Formosa and the Pescadores, if CKS¡¦ representatives actions on October 25, 1945, are to be considered legally correct, this immediately leads us to the conclusion that ¡§military occupation does transfer sovereignty¡¨ --- a clear violation of the law of war as recognized by civilized nations since the end of the Napoleonic era.

Note # 2: The origins of the law of occupation can be traced back to Roman times, and dovetails exactly with the functioning of modern governments, which are typically separated into three branches. A civil affairs agreement such as the Shanghai Communique is effective because a decision of the United States President in this regard is not reviewable by the Congressional or the Judicial Branch.

The United States decided to break relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan in 1978 and gave notice of its intent to cancel the existing defense arrangements, the Mutual Defense Treaty (entered into force March 3, 1955), in connection with its planned diplomatic recognition of the PRC. Senator Goldwater from Arizona sued President Carter over this decision to cancel the MDT. However the US Supreme Court denied any authority to judge such matters, which essentially fall in the realm of foreign policy. In the US Supreme Court case of Goldwater v. Carter, (1979): Justice Powell gave an opinion which summarized the situation as follows:
This Court has recognized that an issue should not be decided if it is not ripe for judicial review. Prudential considerations persuade me that a dispute between Congress and the President is not ready for judicial review unless and until each branch has taken action asserting its constitutional authority. Differences between the President and the Congress are commonplace under our system. The differences should, and almost invariably do, turn on political rather than legal considerations. The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse. Otherwise, we would encourage small groups or even individual Members of Congress to seek judicial resolution of issues before the normal political process has the opportunity to resolve the conflict.

Justice Brennan gave an opinion which summarized the situation in another way:
The constitutional question raised here is prudently answered in narrow terms. Abrogation of the defense treaty with Taiwan was a necessary incident to Executive recognition of the Peking Government, because the defense treaty was predicated upon the now-abandoned view that the Taiwan Government was the only legitimate political authority in China. Our cases firmly establish that the Constitution commits to the President alone the power to recognize, and withdraw recognition from, foreign regimes. That mandate being clear, our judicial inquiry into the treaty rupture can go no further.

Note #3: For a glossary of Chinese ¡V English terminology which contains Chinese equivalent translations of important concepts mentioned in this essay, please see http://www.taiwanadvice.com/six/gloss.htm (This requires Chinese system.) A Chinese language summary of this essay is available in the form of a chart analysis.

Background notes on military occupation:

Military occupation results in the occupier having the authority to exercise the rights of sovereignty, and is considered an ¡§intermediate period¡¨ or a time of ¡§interim status.¡¨ Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty, but the sovereignty of the occupied territory is held by the occupier in the form of a fiduciary relationship.

After the Spanish-American War of 1898, Cuba was ceded by Spain, but was not ¡§given¡¨ to any other country. This is a very similar situation to the handling of Taiwan in the SFPT, with ¡§cession by conquest¡¨ followed by ¡§cession by treaty,¡¨ with no receiving country specified, but the United States as the (principal) occupying power. In the 1901 Supreme Court cases of Neely v. Henkel and Downes v. Bidwell, the following analysis was given which explains the nature of the fiduciary relationship.

It is true that as between Spain and the United States ¡V indeed, as between the United States and all foreign nations ¡V Cuba, upon the cessation of hostilities with Spain and after the treaty of Paris, was to be treated as if it were conquered territory. But as between the United States and Cuba that island is territory held in trust for the inhabitants of Cuba, to whom it rightfully belongs, and to whose exclusive control it will be surrendered when a stable government shall have been established by their voluntary action.

A similar analysis was offered in Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, (3rd edition, 1914). See Chapter VI ¡¨Effect of Occupation on Local Administration¡¨, Section 63 "Instance occupation of Cuba".
The position of the United States military authorities in Cuba, before the Spanish authorities abandoned the island in 1899, was one of military occupation, pure and simple; after that event, it was military occupation of a particular kind ¡V namely, wherein the dominant military power exercised authority over the island as trustee for a Cuban nation not yet in existence, but the creation of which was promised and which was to have the assistance of the United States in establishing itself.

Final comments:

The statement that ¡§United States administrative authority over Taiwan is still currently active,¡¨ is not a goal, but a statement of current reality. In addition, I maintain that this assertion of Taiwan¡¦s interim status position does not result in the creation or recognition of ¡§One China, One Taiwan¡¨, ¡§Two Chinas¡¨, or a ¡§Taiwan Republic¡¨, and is fully compatible with President Truman¡¦s Statement of June 1950, the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Taiwan Relations Act, One-China policy, the Six Assurances (1982.17.14), the Cross-Straits Consensus of 1992, the Three No¡¦s Policy (1998.6.30), and the three USA-PRC joint communiqués. As such, this statement does not amount to a change of US policy, but rather a new recognition of all pre-existing US policy.

Note on terminology: The terms ¡§Formosa and the Pescadores¡¨ and ¡§Taiwan¡¨ are used interchangeably.

A Straightforward Explanation of Taiwan¡¦s political status under international law
by Richard W Hartzell

Q: In 1945, the Republic of China military forces under Chiang Kai-hek were directed to come to Taiwan and accept the surrender of Japanese troops. In the Peace Treaty ending the war, Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan, but these areas (often called ¡§Formosa and the Pescadores¡¨) were not ceded to any other country. In terms of the classification of territory, what is Taiwan¡¦s status under international law?

A: From the vantage point of today, the answer to this question may be derived by doing a four part historical overview of similar situations. It will be important to keep in mind the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, including the definition of military occupation provided by Article 42 of the Hague Regulations: ¡§Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.¡¨

Part 1

A general type of methodology may be derived from the US Supreme Court case of Cross v. Harrison (1854) in regard to the situation of California after the Mexican American War.
¡mChart 1¡n

Points of analysis

This is the beginning of belligerent occupation by US military forces, and the beginning of US administrative authority over California.

This is the coming into effect of the Peace Treaty ending the war.

This is the end of US military government.

This is California¡¦s final political status as a territory of the USA, and with a civil government legislated for it by the US Congress. (Later upgraded to statehood.)

(Note: the ¡§yes¡¨ on the right side indicates that this step has been completed.)

Question: What is California¡¦s status from point B to point C?
Answer: ¡K?

Part 2

The answer to the above question may be derived from the US Supreme Court case of Downes v. Bidwell (1901) in regard to the situation of Puerto Rico after the Spanish American War.
¡mChart 2¡n

Points of analysis
This is the beginning of belligerent occupation by US military forces, and the beginning of US administrative authority over Puerto Rico.

This is the coming into effect of the Peace Treaty ending the war.

This is the end of US military government; which was supplanted by the passage of the Foraker Act.

This is Puerto Rico¡¦s final political status as a territory of the USA, and with a civil government legislated for it by the US Congress.

Q: What is Puerto Rico¡¦s status from point B to point C?
A: Upon the coming into effect of the peace treaty, the Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico became unincorporated territory of the USA. Hence, before the passage of the Foraker Act providing a civil government for Puerto Rico, it must be classified as ¡§unincorporated territory under USMG.¡¨ Since the concept of unincorporated territory did not exist before the Downes v. Bidwell ruling, the area from point B to point C on chart 1 must be ¡§incorporated territory under USMG.¡¨

Part 3

California was ceded to the United States by treaty. Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States by treaty. What about the situation where the treaty does not specify any ¡§receiving country¡¨ for the cession?
An overview of this situation is provided in the Supreme Court case of Neely v. Henkel (1901) regarding the situation of Cuba after the Spanish American War.
¡mChart 3¡n

Points of analysis
This is the beginning of belligerent occupation by US military forces, and the beginning of US administrative authority over Cuba.

This is the coming into effect of the Peace Treaty. Spain renounced all right, title, and claim to Cuba.

This is the end of US military government, which was ended by formal proclamation by the US President.

This is Cuba¡¦s final political status May 20, 1902 as an independent country: the ¡§Republic of Cuba.¡¨

Clearly, the classification of the area from point B to point C must be ¡§unincorporated territory under USMG.¡¨

Part 4

How can the above analysis help us to understand the international position of Taiwan in the present day?
We can draw a chart to provide a quick overview of the situation after WW¢º.
¡mChart 4¡n

Points of analysis
This marks the beginning of belligerent occupation by Republic of China military forces who are merely exercising delegated administrative authority of USMG (the principal occupying power); hence, at the same time point A marks the beginning of US administrative authority over Taiwan.

This marks the coming into effect of the San Francisco Peace Treaty on April 28, 1952.

¡¯Article 2b:
Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
¡¯Article 4b:
Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3.
¡¯Article 23:
¡§¡K including the United States of America as the principal occupying Power¡K¡¨

This marks the end of US military government.
¡¯No official announcement by the US has been made in the period of 1952 to the present
¡¯No supplanting legislation has been promulgated by the US Congress from 1952 to the present.
¡¯The United States broke diplomatic relations with the ¡§Republic of China on Taiwan¡¨ in late 1978, cancelled the Mutual Defense Treaty, and promulgated the Taiwan Relations Act to provide a continued basis for non-diplomatic US-Taiwan relations.

This marks Taiwan¡¦s final political status.
¡¯Neither the United States nor the United Nations consider Taiwan a sovereign state.
¡¯In the Shanghai Communique of 1972, the USA and the PRC agreed that Taiwan¡¦s final political status would be as part of the PRC, however no firm timetable for unification was established.
¡¯Most countries in the world are not in favor of Taiwan independence.

Clearly, Taiwan is currently between points B and C, and qualifies as ¡§unincorporated territory under USMG.¡¨ This is a period of interim status, and United States administrative authority over Taiwan is still active.

To summarize this, in a situation regarding ¡§cession by conquest¡¨ by US military forces, which is followed by ¡§cession by treaty¡¨, with the United States as principal occupying power, the default status for the territory (beginning in 1898) is ¡§unincorporated territory under USMG.¡¨ Such a classification shows that no civil government for the territory has yet been provided by US Congressional legislation.

It is worthy of note that in WWII, all attacks against Japanese installations on Formosa and the Pescadores were carried out by US military forces. There is no historical record of any attacks by Republic of China military forces against Japanese installations in these areas. Nor did the Republic of China military forces launch any attacks against the four main Japanese islands.

Taiwan under United States administrative authority

Why could the United States make an agreement for the ¡§final disposition¡¨ of ¡§Formosa and the Pescadores¡¨ in 1972 without so much as consulting the Taiwanese government officials or local ¡§island citizens¡¨? Why does the United States continue to interfere in the ¡§internal affairs¡¨ of Taiwan up to the present day? The answer is because, under international law, United States administrative authority over Taiwan is still active.

Unfortunately, looking at the historical record, it appears that the United States has not treated Taiwan very well. During this period of interim status, the people of Taiwan are entitled to the ¡§fundamental rights¡¨ under the US Constitution that apply in all insular areas. These rights include the 5th Amendment guarantees of life, liberty, property, and due process of law.

Perhaps it is fitting that a US Congressional investigation be launched on this issue.

Taiwan¡¦s Past, Present, and Future: A New Explanation
by Richard W Hartzell

In his article ¡§What We Will Do in 2004¡¨ published in the New York Times on January 1, 2004, US Secretary of State Colin L. Powell outlined the Bush administration¡¦s agenda to promote freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity throughout Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. However, Taiwan¡¦s desire to deepen its democratic system, to exercise the right of self-determination, to draft a new Constitution, to join the United Nations, to establish full diplomatic relations with the USA, etc. have all met with the US State Department¡¦s disapproval. On the surface, this appears to completely violate America¡¦s basic principles and values, such as democracy, freedom, and human rights. Even from the point of view of international law, America¡¦s actions toward Taiwan seemingly violate its founding principles and the image it attempts to present to the world community of a democratic nation ruled by laws.

However, at the present time in Taiwan there is some discussion that in dealing with matters of international law, we must separate it into two categories: one is the international law of peace-time, and the other is the international law of war-time. Let us first consider the actions of the US troops in Iraq, in order to more firmly grasp the spirit of the international law of war-time, and then return to the USA¡¦s handling of Taiwan.

1. Two types of military occupation: (A) administrative authority directly administered by US troops, (B) administrative authority delegated to other troops.

According to the Hague Conventions of 1907 and their accompanying regulations, ¡§Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.¡¨ Regardless of whether the invasion is resisted or unresisted, or the local troops surrender straightforwardly, the result is that ¡§military occupation¡¨ begins. Moreover, international law specifies that ¡§military occupation does not transfer sovereignty.¡¨ The common appellation for the organization of United States military forces conducting military operations abroad is the ¡§United States Military Government¡¨ (USMG). In Iraq, the United States is a hostile power, and its actions are ¡§military occupation¡¨ and not ¡§annexation.¡¨ According to an identical line of reasoning, ¡§General Order No. 1¡¨ of Sept. 2, 1945, issued by the head of the USMG General Douglas MacArthur, was outlining the delegation of administrative authority for the acceptance of surrender of Japanese forces and the subsequent ¡§military occupation¡¨ of over twenty areas, including the directive by USMG (as the principal occupying power) for the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek to come to Taiwan to accept the surrender of Japanese military troops. Hence, October 25, 1945, is clearly the beginning of the military occupation of ¡§Formosa and the Pescadores¡¨ (now commonly called ¡§Taiwan¡¨).

2. Viewing the USA¡¦s handing of Taiwan from the post-war Peace Treaty specifications

The San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) came into effect on April 28, 1952, and although Japan renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores, the treaty did not cede these areas to the Republic of China, nor to any other country. When we consider that the cession of territory is from ¡§government¡¨ to ¡§government¡¨, the only possible explanation of the SFPT which conforms to the specifications of the Hague and Geneva Conventions is to say that the principal occupying power (which is the United States, as per Article 23) continues its administrative authority over Taiwan, holding this area as interim status under a fiduciary relationship arising from the law of occupation, and that the United States accepts responsibility for the final disposition of Taiwan by arranging for the transfer of sovereignty to ¡§the lawful government of the area.¡¨ In fact, this is clearly outlined in Article 4(b).
Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3.
According to the necessities of this arrangement, the Shanghai Communique was signed on Feb. 28, 1972, and recognized the People¡¦s Republic of China as the ¡§sole legitimate government of China.¡¨ The relevant clauses of this communique clearly serve the purpose of a civil affairs agreement under the law of occupation for transfer of the occupied territory to ¡§the lawful government of the area.¡¨ Hence, the United States has put Taiwan on a flight path for eventual annexation by China, but no firm timetable has been established. Up to the present day, Taiwan remains under the administrative authority of the United States during this transitional (interim status) period. This analysis defines the ¡§status quo¡¨ in the Taiwan Strait as viewed by the high-ranking Washington, D.C. government officials.

3. The United States has obligations to Taiwanese people under the US Constitution

Under the legal system of the USA, a Senate-ratified treaty (such as the SFPT) carries the same weight as the US Constitution, and its provisions are binding on all US government departments. If we maintain that the Taiwanese people are well advised not to challenge the specifications of the three USA-PRC joint communiques, the One China Policy, and the Taiwan Relations Act, nevertheless we must pose the following question: During this transitional (interim status) period, when the United States is demanding that the Taiwanese maintain the ¡§status quo,¡¨ has Washington treated the Taiwanese at all inappropriately? Upon reflection, we realize that all areas under the administrative authority of the United States should enjoy fundamental rights under the US Constitution. So-called ¡§fundamental rights¡¨, in regard to people, include the 5th amendment protections of life, liberty, property, and due process of law; in regard to territory, there is the Article 1 provision that Congress will provide for the ¡§common defense.¡¨

4. ¡§Formosa and the Pescadores¡¨ are overseas territories under the administrative authority of the United States

President Bush of the USA and Premier Wen of the PRC met in Washington, D.C., in December 2003, and Secretary of State Powell told the press that the problem of Taiwan must be settled peacefully¡Kif China attacks Taiwan, the United States will certainly get involved in the conflict¡K. The logic in this statement precisely corresponds to the analysis given in this paper up to this point. Most importantly, Secretary Powell¡¦s statement underscores an essential fact, which is that the United States has responsibilities and obligations to Taiwan under the US Constitution.

With the above clarification of the Taiwan status, it is clear that Taiwan¡¦s membership in the WHO should be as an associate member under the USA, the comments Taiwan desires to express in the United Nations should be passed to the United States¡¦ representative for appropriate action, Taiwan should continue in WTO as a separate customs territory, Taiwan¡¦s mandatory military conscription policy should be terminated, Taiwan¡¦s fishermen who are held illegally by the authorities of other nations should ask the US Dept. of State for help, and even though the Taiwanese people cannot participate in US federal elections, nevertheless as an insular area they are not liable for US federal income taxes.

For many decades, the core problem of the Taiwanese has been the lack of a clear national identity. Certainly the United States has a responsibility to help the Taiwanese discard their great historical burdens, and to walk into the sunlight. After the current situation is adequately stabilized, it should be relatively straightforward to improve Taiwan¡¦s investment climate, update Taiwan¡¦s immigration policies, improve public safety standards, root out corruption in local politics, re-invigorate cultural standards, improve the people¡¦s livelihood, undertake educational reforms, open the Three Links and launch many important cross-strait initiatives.

After this unmasking of Taiwan¡¦s true international position, and subject to the approval of the US Congress, plans for Taiwan¡¦s much needed new Constitution can begin in earnest. At some point in the distant future, the issue of Taiwan¡¦s ¡§final status¡¨, whether it be to separate from the USA and become fully independent, to be annexed to another country, or to upgrade its status under United States administrative authority¡Kthis can be something for the people of future generations to decide.

In the international community, there are many who point out that ¡§the USA is the problem¡¨, but we hope that in the case of Taiwan, the USA is the solution.

This document was downloaded from
http://www.taiwanadvice.com/six/entext.doc

Note: This collection of six essays is also available in Chinese translation at the following URL: (requires Big-5 system)
http://www.taiwanadvice.com/six/chtext.doc

This research report was written by Richard W. Hartzell, in Taipei, Taiwan
Email: taiwanmidway@hotmail.com or taistat@ms76.hinet.net

---

Category: Ramble

---