Let me be clear about this…I got results:
Cool, taiwanstatus, but what exactly are the results you are referring to? You have stated that you were not representing Falung Gong members in US courts, correct?
Remember I am not a lawyer nor Falun Gong member.
However, I am quite savvy about the available options and methods for protecting human rights. Three years ago, I saw how unfairly they were mistreated by the American press in the wake of the China lobby bid for China WTO. I contacted the NYC leadership and drove home the point that their people were dying while the volunteers in New York were chasing the Nobel Peace Prize!! Their “spiritual healing” practices were being so skillfully manipulated in the US press to have caused such a very negative social comparison to the similiar religious practices of the Christian Science movement. The Falun Gong explosion onto the international news headlines was a time when no one understood or even truly cared about the inhumane treatment issues of Falun Gong abuses.
I mean it was so smoothily coordinated with Xinhua News Agency even adopting the “cult” terminology of an American cult researcher at Berkeley. Prior to that time, the CCP would call Lee Tenghui a “rat” and “scum of the earth”. Not very original, so the invisible hand of someone was pulling the strings…AIG?
The public relations manipulations was intended to confuse, divide, and conquer the religious right-wing Congressmen from using Falun Gong to stop WTO. It may have originated from the White House Offices based upon some Judicial Watch lawsuits on “foreign information” dissemination practices of the right-wing. Inconclusive, but Hilliary aides really knew how to fend off the right-wing. And their corporate lackeys like AIG would have carried out their instructions.
I contacted many Falun Gong members and expressed a concern for their well-being…the abuse records and forensic evidence of torture is graphic and not for the faint of heart.
AIG…the prime leaders of the China corporate lobbists and the ones with the most to gain with a WTO opening of the China insurance markets. They are the biggest private political insurance company for commercial assets in most foreign countries with especially heavy concentrations in China.
In 1972, the State Dept originally encouraged China investments with the Overseas Political Insurance Corporation (OPIC), a government instrumentality. The corporate executives arrived in Beijing along with the Secretary of State on later “business missions” to encourage risky trade underwritten by OPIC insurance. OPIC no longer underwrites political insurance products for China since about 1996. But AIG still offers various political insurance products to corporate members of the China WTO lobby in full support of their China operations.
Falun Gong has utilized the ACTA to place the PRC State-owned Enterprises in serious legal jeopardy of becoming attached under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. PRC-commercial assets are fair game under US laws and we could shut down COSCO shipping with maritime liens. More PRC companies are now endangered by their human rights abuses as Falun Gong stops the practice of business as usual. Sound familiar for life after some Taiwan invasion?
If the PRC chooses to expropriate any US assets in China in politically motivated retaliation, OPIC is not effected. AIG is screwed royally by the US corporate losses and claims made against their political insurance products, if any.
It is open season on Chinese assets in the USA. Don’t forget that the KMT are the richest party in the world!! Makes the CCP looks like paupers.
Please - be more clear. What results did you, personally get. All I’m reading is that you contacted some Falun Gong members and expressed concern. Is this a key point? or no big deal? Depends on your point of view I guess.
My own past concerted efforts to drive home the point about the suitability of ACTA as “non-violent resistance” has done more than irk Beijing. This has resulted in great personal satisfaction for me. Many Falun Gong were very reluctant to do something “political” but then eventually I got through to some deeper thinkers and the rest is their doing. It was not easy…and I have not been involved much since…
…without letting the cat out of the bag, there are some reasons to believe these Falun Gong cases and others yet to come will become the very first successful torture cases to actually collect their court awards. And to collect directly from the SOE assets in the USA, not indirectly from some long ago siezures of Iranian or Cuban assets held for ages by the US Treasury Dept. The events are ongoing, but Beijing is definitely on track in what I had expected to ultimately happen.
Big deal? Yes, it was as the break through came at the time the Falun Gong demonstration at NTU in Taipei in 2000. I was then hooking them up with attorneys and lobbists to get the job done properly. Some wisemen obviously heeded the free advice of a concerned stranger.
I was in the USA, you were in Taiwan. I know you weren’t involved, but I hope you cared.
So, you were in the US at the time of these protests in Taipei. What EXACTLY did you do? How did you get in touch with these students in Taiwan? Or did they contact you? If so, how? What exactly did you do for them? Who are they (or is that a secret, despite the fact that they are taking steps to stand up and be counted in court?) Why was none of this covered in the local press? I would have thought a story about Taiwanese student Falung Gong members hiring US lobbyists and attorneys to bring cases against Beijing in US courts would have made some kind of impression on the press, no?
Maybe you could post some links here that can show us some of what you’ve done, as I’m sure you must follow these events very carefully indeed and must have an enormous databank of press clippings, etc. in which your name is mentioned.
All we know so far is that you seem to have a penchant for writing letters to the local papers and you have some kind of obsession that victims of KMT terror can take the party or the government to court in the U.S. and get money.
And of course, the Falun Gong thing.
Are these just theories?
I am not going to reply to the specifics of this for good reasons and you do assume far too much and know too little. I only shared the insights so that the Taiwan community could be informed about the important redress issues of their past, their future, and then for them, or some of them, to be able to move towards a self-determination basis of the SFPT without getting any permission of the United Nations or Beijing.
According to my firsthand sources, the Chinese mob is very active in LA and has been closely linked to the PRC consular officials noted in the Wash Post article on their lawsuits. If this is the first time that it has come to the surface in the mainstream press, then you have been living in bliss. Mainstream reporters do not report as sympathetically as they pretend to for the likes of ‘cults’, or they are too influenced by their corporate owners and lobby pressures. The Falun Gong are very hardpressed for financial support and are isolated from the mainstream society. It seems I was the very first one to actually locate some US attorneys and lobbists most sympathetic to their cause. Later they used other lawyers and it appeared a confict of interest was going to occur, so they instead found more convenient and qualified attorneys. The new attorneys are just located by the Falun Gong families in their personal quests for justice. It is a solitary journey for them.
And most of the stuff occurring is behind the scenes and independent of each other. Although it all does seem to overlap at times…and the issue is the US press has not been truly interested in any insular “cult groups” like Falun Gong. The Canadians were quite savvy to the whole thing, but the USA has a problem of insensitive igorance.
Part of it is the environment of disinterest made by a shrewd, public relations counter offensives coordinated with Xinhua.
I am a strong supporter of the TAIP…and am the bane of the DPP and Taiwan lobby establishment in DC. I do mostly stay under the public radar for good reasons. Whom do you really suppose was the first draft ghostwriter of this very “unhappy” Holbrooke letter? I don’t get compensated but the issues of Foreign Agents Registration Act is a very dangerous smear tool of the anti-Taiwan supporters. I really loathed the Neo-McCarthyist slanders which came from these same sources, too.
As you can tell, I do extensive research and then pursue aggressively to get a final legal opinion or solution. The problem is no one seems to have any expert opinion as the only insular law experts, outside the military, were at the State Dept under the Asia Desk! Red Team had the very exclusive monopoly on insular law experts, as so it would seem thus far. If there was another nonpartisan or reasonably fairminded insular law expert in the US government, I would have found him or her by now. The last one was investigated for misappropriations and then conducting secret investigations of their opponents…most coincidentally against the primary supporters of Taiwan in Congress.
Since Kerr and Civil Affairs Officers out of Ft. Bragg, no one has any inkling of the legal issues of the SFPT and Kerr. Plausible denial stems from an absence of info and the fact that most of the manuals and so on were classified until recently. Even the Kissinger papers are just being published and I am having to give the public scholars pointers on what to look for and what it means in context of Laws of War. In 1971, Vietnam was being theorectically “united” by Kissinger under these international laws.
Given that insular law is not sufficiently codefied is one problem…of its overlap into the Laws of War. The Puerto Ricans have the most experience with insular law and a couple of them do have an understanding of the un-incorporated territory status, but when I bring up “Occupied Cuba” of 1900 for laws of war and insular laws, everyone is so clueless or just suffers from “One China” syndromes.
To get to the bottom of this issue, expensive attorneys must be hired. If we’re going to go that far, then we might as well as go all the way and get some free publicity against the KMT and PRC for the redress issues right in the middle of this.
Taiwan Independence, eh? There are different opinions on that issue.
Just the tip of the iceberg.
Misguided depends on who is talking about what. Does it not disturb you when Holbrooke and those particular types still remaining at the State Dept have shared his views to suggest a Fourth Communique?
The Asia Desk is misguided. Very much so and very potentially willing to contravene Taiwan “human rights” in a habitual capriciousness epitomized by Mr. Holbrooke. The Neo-McCarthyism charge is such a glaring example of how these guys will initiate private or even federal law enforcement investigations of their vocal opposition. This time around the shoe is on the other foot. That is why I wanted to post the FEER article on liberal scaremongering of Blue Team. Getting lampooned in the Wash Times for policies is not personal, per se, when it clearly addresses the fundamentals of “why” they are so angry with the policymakers. I think when the liberal idealist became a “pragmatist”, they lowered the standards of integrity to become bottom-feeders. These guys are not nice. Their only method of first choice are lies, smear, and sensationalism.
When I undercovered that insular law had implications for the laws of war and SFPT, I was shocked. Then I read Kerr and was stunned by what I already knew and was reconfirmed by him.
The only competent, and I mean competent, insular law expert was behind the ultra radical tactics of the Saipan scandals. I don’t even deny that these local social issues were not addressed properly, but the abuses of federal power and its sensationalism is not the proper means to an end if it grossly violates constitutional integrity.
That is my obession with SFPT and Taiwan status as I am very concerned that the Pentagon is not really following constitutional landmarks for Taiwan. And the State Dept is even worse on the issue. That makes the military look even better, but not perfect.
I’d like to ask you, taiwanstatus, why haven’t you, and the other persons that share your theories, formally pursued your claims? Why haven’t you put together a legal team and started filing claims?
There would seem to be plenty of individuals and groups both in Taiwan and the United States who spend money on pro-Taiwan independence research and lobbying (such as the pro-independence think tanks in Taiwan that are backed by wealthy individuals, or FAPA in the United States) that would be willing to fund a legal challenge.
I have identified several competent attorneys in this area of law. One law professor from Berkeley is very interested and has a good background with SFPT and insular laws, others are just lost.
The problem is somewhat about money and FAPA just wants to only believe Prof. Chen of NYU that “ROC is a sovereign country”. TAIP has nearly taken legal action but again the Taiwanese-American professors want to scuttle the truth of their treaty status. Either they’re naive or the Kerr legacy is too disturbing given the implications.
I think it a little bit of being naive, cunning, and infatuated with the UN without any understanding of the UN Security Council and gaining membership.
I have several other noted professors whom have a more contrary opinion of the Chen view and some of them were former US Ambassadors. While some might leans towards the evolution towards a shared sovereign of “One China”. Their legal basis and background was in insular law and SFPT issues. I don’t predetermine the future results of my research when the current issue is what is really going on with that “limbo” treaty status.
This is what we are faced with today.
taiwanstatus … were you in Desert Storm? I guess we’ll never know.
Military always says where there is will, there IS a way. And a strategem states,“The most committed, wins.” On this basis, I am nearly certifiable.
Here is my questions: WHAT is it that you are committed to in terms of Taiwan?
What is it EXACTLY? I haven’t counted the number of words you’ve posted, but it must run into the thousands on the various threads, and I’m none the wiser as to your agenda.
I won’t even ask what your motives are, but SURELY YOU CAN STATE, CLEARLY AND SIMPLY, WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WANT FOR TAIWAN.
If you cannot, I’m afraid you are not going to make any progress toward a resolution of outstanding issues by posting in these Forums . . . . .
I too get the feeling that Taiwan Status has something to say, but can’t figure out what the hell it is he’s going on about. My ‘mental image’ of him is shifting more and more towards a caricature of the . . . . (something)
Very simple. If the “limbo” treaty status of Taiwan is legally being held under the colonial laws of the USA, then there are also basic civil rights. One can’t have their cake and eat it too.
If you agree with that statement, then read on:
By this I mean the on purpose American retention of the “undetermined status” of the 1950 Truman Statement and the “limbo cession” of SFPT. Peace treaties are governed by the laws of war and by FM 27-10 Laws of Land Warfare. There is now some precise information on the political decision by President Nixon to intentionally make a treaty status change from “undetermined” to “between” ROC and PRC on July 1, 1971. It was just recently published and was declassified about 12 months ago.
What is important about “between”? Nixon ordered Sec. Kissinger and General Haig to specifically change this Taiwan status issue of the 1950 Truman Statement. Without looking like a sellout.
Kissinger is the personification of the “foreign powers” of the executive branch. Haig was also the personification of the “military powers”. Nixon’s order was an executive exercise of both powers which are literally monopolized by the executive branch in the US Constitution as “Head of State” and “Commander-in-Chief”.
The Nixon “between” became part of the Shanghai Communique of February 28, 1972. These are executive agreements under the foreign affairs powers. One step below treaties. The Shanghai Communiques are “mini-treaties” while the SFPT is a Senate ratified treaty. Ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land right next to the US Constitution. To be supreme law or a legislative equivalent, they must become compatible with the Constitution.
The Shanghai Communique is also supported by 3 longstanding policies of:
- “No US support for Taiwan independence”
- “No support for Taiwan in international organizations requiring soveriegn status”
- “The status of Taiwan is between the ROC and PRC”.
Condoleeza Rice reaffirmed these last February as part of the “One China” policy. It does sound innocous and even “fair”, but Nixon imposed it upon the “undetermined” status of Taiwan. The USA is not “neutral” despite the fact we will not try to mediate “between” the ROC and PRC. Deceptive and misleading for the “between” of SFPT status.
SFPT is governed by the FM 27-10. SFPT cannot be interpreted alone like most people will try to do wrongly. FM 27-10 is a summary and commentary of the body of war treaties comprising the Laws of War. This is the “war zone” of the international public law for jus feciale, or laws of diplomacy and war. Laws of diplomacy would be those Vienna Conventions for things like diplomatic immunity.
The best instructive example to demonstrate is the “submarine cables” in SFPT. Where did this oddball item come from? Try FM 27-10.
In order for Kissinger to exercise the executive agreements or foreign affairs powers on Taiwan status, the military powers must have also altered the SFPT status. The State Dept had no such military power except for General Haig of the Dept of Defense. His rank and authority was sufficient for this purpose as he was trying to “unite” the North and South Vietnamese with Beijing’s assistance. Such attempts at forming any coalition governments are only so created under “Civil Affairs” military powers and the Laws of Occupation (eg. Chapter 6 of FM 27-10).
I have pointed in other writings to be published on how Lt. Kerr’s actions lawfully and most competently created the “joint-occupation” of Formosa on October 25, 1945. Chapter 2 of Formosa Betrayed will support the issue of peace treaties and Taiwan status.
Kerr’s policy preference was for “mandate status” or “trust territory” of the UN Charter. Truman made it only one of three possibilities in his 1950 Statement. The SFPT froze the “undetermined status” in 1952 upon the Senate ratification.
The SFPT was not signed by the ROC or PRC, and the SFPT just made the ROC as the “subordinate” of the Allied Powers for being the “joint” administering authorities of Taiwan. No ROC ownership here despite their claims of sovereign control of Taiwan. Overruled by the USA as “paramount authority” of those notorious laws of war…countries are not ‘equal’ for purposes of the military commanders.
What happens to a territorial cession before and after a peace treaty? This is answered by FM 27-10 in Par. 353 and 354. The legal continuation of a “military government” for a legally surrendered territory is authorized, but the “occupation status” officially ceases because the Japanese sovereignty is officially ended. This is taking of territorial ownership by conquest. The laws of occupation will still legally apply to this new foreign territory or “friendly territory” under US dominion or sovereignty. This is especially true for those “interim status” treaty cessions where the political status is not determined or finalized. It is like the trust territory, but under those laws of war…which means ‘ownership’ of a traditional colonial status is created.
That is the laws of war…international public law.
Under the US domestic laws or “municipal laws”, that limbo treaty status is further modified.
The friendly territory just becomes “conquerred territory” to the rest of the world, and the US sovereignty is applied. However, “between” the USA and the “friendly territory”, the status is now held in limbo or an interim period of post-occupation. This interim can become indefinite, but it is not permanent.
That is called the doctrine of un-incorporated territory and it lawfully still applies to those US Possessions or “friendly territory” of the FM 27-10 descriptions.
It constitutionally applies to US Virgin Islands or Guantanomo Bay, “Cuba”. Whatever be those constitutional powers being lawfully exercised on a cession status of peace treaties, it applies even to Taiwan, “Cuba” if held in an “interim status” under insular law or “colonial laws” of SFPT cessions. The State Dept leveraging of the Taiwan interim status of “between” is capricious and the remarkable thing is how very consistent the Taiwan Relations Act is with the laws of war.
Does this answer the question? Or have we launched onto another tangent?
If the “limbo” treaty status of Taiwan is legally being held under the colonial laws of the USA, then there are also basic civil rights. One can’t have their cake and eat it too.
Get to the bottom of the Taiwan status in order to determine if there have or have not been any constitutitional violations. There probably have been numerous contraventions up until just last year.
Seek redress for the SFPT property issues (eg. KMT assets)
Support civil remedies against the abuses of Taiwanese.
Define an insular status for Taiwan without strategic ambiguity, and to then provide their policy options:
a. Free-association (Republic of Marshall Islands)
b. Commonwealth Status
(Commonwealth of the Philippines 1934-46, or Commonwealth of Australia)
c. Self-governing dominion (Dominion of Canada, Gitmo, “Cuba”)
Any of the above three with or without statehood characteristics of Montevideo Convention, but to protect Taiwan territory, but not so necessarily the “ROC”. Any self-determination is a wild card.
- Define the “human rights” of TRA so no one will attempt to ever again mistreat Taiwanese.
This is already provided for under Laws of War and US insular law, but trying to get everyone to see the light is not easily done due to the fact US rule of law is a joke.