Hartzell's Proposal to Jian Guo Dang & ADT

I have been invited to give a formal proposal to the “Jian Guo Dang” (Establish the Nation Party) and the Alliance for the Defense of Taiwan (ADT) … for them to accept my agenda and to re-organize their party platforms according to my suggestions.

Granted, in terms of political parties in Taiwan, “Jian Fuo Dang” it is a small party with only a few thousand members, and the Alliance for the Defense of Taiwan only has at most 5,000 members. Nevertheless, they are very dissatisfied with the direction that the Green Camp is taking, and want to re-invigorate their own efforts at "nation building. "

In the past two weeks, I have had dinner meetings with the Chairmen, Executive Secretaries, and other officers of these organizations. I believe that our initial discussions went very well. They are impressed with my research on the true nature of the Taiwan status, including my recent 9000 word article in the Harvard Asia Quarterly, Fall 2004 edition. (That is also available in Chinese-translation.)

My collected (Chinese language) writings about the true international position of Taiwan, as published in local newsweeklies, newspapers, etc., when photocopied on A4 paper, are over an inch thick.

I stress that “safety first” is the most important consideration, and “nation building” would be the next step. They have told me that they consider this a very compelling argument, and recognize that the direct thrust for Taiwan Independence over the last 30 or more years has been particularly unsuccessful.

They are arranging for me to meet with other important people who are considered leaders in the field of the struggle for Taiwan independence. If the moderator of this forum will allow this thread to stand, I will continue to post further developments here as they occur. Of course, other posters to forumosa.com can offer their comments as well. (Constructive comments are most welcome.)

One important point that the Executive Secretary of the “Jian Guo Dang” made at a recent dinner meeting was this: “Their Executive Board is intimately familiar with all the different proponents, researchers, international law scholars, etc. who are pushing for Taiwan independence. However, none of them have a clear action plan as Mr. Hartzell does.” (This is apparently referring to the fact that all attempts for Taiwan to enter the United Nations or other international organizations have met with little or no success. Contrastingly, I have a firm legal action plan for forcing the “Taiwan card” with the US government, both through lobbying efforts and court action … )

As a final plug for forumosa.com, I will say " … remember that you heard it here first."

Dear Mr. Hartzell,

I am happy that Jianguo Dang and ADT find you to help them. Here is my suggestion to you.

Make Jianguo Dang an open party. Convince Jianguo Dang to build a party with plenty of members. Members are not required to pay fees, or give solemnly oath to join the party… Members are free to join or withdraw from the party. Members have the right to elect party leaders and to participate in primary elections.

If the party platforms are attractive and the method toward the party objectives are practical, I would join the party knowing that I am free to contribute my resources or to separate from the party any time.

All other political parties in Taiwan are closed paries with limited members. All of them are nothing but gangsters. The pary’s interests are above the national interest. There is no right or wrong. Party members are puppets. You can help Jianguo Dang to form a political party that is worthy of the trust of Taiwanese.

n : politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations[/quote]


Well, I am asking these political parties and alliances to put aside their “Taiwan independence” stance for the time being.

[quote=“Shenme Niao”][quote]realpolitik
n : politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations[/quote]


Hartzell, are you an ROC citizen? If not, then just how is that you think you will avoid deportation? That seems to be the direction this will head in if you are directly involved in a political party.

Even if the authorities don’t give you any trouble concerning your “purpose of stay,” I think your arguments might be a little more convincing (although still hardly convincing) if you were to renounce any other citizenship you have and take ROC citizenship. People seem to trust the words of a person more if they know that person won’t be able to easily hightail it back to the US once the shit hits the fan.

I don’t think that Hartzell is going to be deported for this. he’s famous for one thing.

One of the interesting things about ‘activities incompatible with the purpose of your visit’ is how selectively it is applied. Several foreigners marched in yesterday’s rallies and hundreds if not thousands did at last year’s Hands across Taiwan.

The only things these days that will get you in trouble are appearing on stage at a political rally, public union activity, or playing music in Taidong.

A Taiwanese is one who contributes his energy and time for Taiwan. Many foreigners in Taiwan are more a Taiwanese than Chinese who suck blood from Taiwan and yet dream to have Taiwan eventually ruled by Chinese.

Unfortunately, these Chinese are merely stupid Taipao in the eyes of the Beijing comrades.

I respect Mr. Hartzell for his involvement in the interest of Taiwanese. He is more a Taiwanese than a lot of people here. My heart is with you, Mr. Hartzell.

The response from a local to this statement would be something like: “but considering that he’s not an ROC citizen and he holds a US passport, then how can we be sure he’ll be here when the shit hits the fan?” Talk is cheap. Making the commitment involved in becoming an ROC citizen is not.

Yeah, but if your position is that Taiwan is an overseas territory of the USA, and so the ROC government is not legal, then becoming an ROC citizen would be a bit counter-intuitive. :smiling_imp:

I’m just kind of curious Hartzell, but do you honestly expect to get anywhere with your Taiwan=U.S. territorial possession arguement? Because quite frankly, I’d imagine you would be ignored by practically all governments and no amount of lobbying by a small near insignificant political party is going to change it. It’s been a while since anyone was successful in pushing such a radical agenda and unless the “Alliance for the Defense of Taiwan” reorganizes itself as a Leninist revolutionary vanguard party, I’m afraid you are out of luck.

No I agree with Hartzell: it is much much better to become a US territory than become part of an anti-Christian, anti-Human, and anti-democratic Chinese province. I support anyone who advocates for the independence of Taiwan from the Chinese communists in China! :sunglasses:

In the name of “building a great China”, the totalitarian regime of Beijing screwed the mass majority of Chinese.

How can a Taiwanese want to be a Chinese? How do you convince Taiwanese to want to be Chinese? If there are two offers, an American citizenship, and a Chinese citizenship which do you think most Taiwanese take? Which do you think most Chinese take?

An American citizenship means equality, freedom, rules by law. A Chinese citizenship means slavery, oppression, corruption of the officials, and a subject of the

Here is my proposal to Mr. Harzell.

Help Jianguo Dang to lobby the USA government to offer Taiwanese citizenship or green card.

Allow Taiwanese to hold dual citizenship or waive the residency requirement while holding green card (must live in USA territory). There will be a long line at AIT.

I fully support you Chou :wink:

Hmm … I find myself broadly agreeing with cmdjing :help:

As you have obviously expended a lot of effort on the legal argument, the only sensible approach that I can see is this argument: From a legal perspective, the status of Taiwan was never sensibly resolved after WWII, and it was primarily the U.S. Govts responsibility to resolve this. The currrent status of Taiwan is (in part) a result of this, and so the U.S. bears some moral responsibility in helping find a solution.

Although there are some problems with this approach (would history have been any different if Taiwan had officially been passed to ROC on ‘retrocession day’? What would you do if the US says: “It’s our responsibility and we are handing legal ownership to the PRC”?) it is much more likely to get somewhere than a strict adherence to “Taiwan is US territory”.

Just my NT$2

Maybe you should read my article in the Fall 2004 edition of the HARVARD ASIA QUARTERLY.

Send me an email and I will include it as an attachment in my return email. It is PDF format and approx. 350K. The title is –
Understanding the San Francisco Peace Treaty’s Disposition of Formosa and the Pescadores

The US does not recognize the “Republic of China” after Jan. 1, 1979. Moreover, the US government’s position is that Taiwan is not a sovereign country. Fine. My article has a detailed explanation of how and why the Taiwanese people are entitled to hold “US national non-citizen passports,” and the historical, legal, and constitutional precedent applying thereto … based on the true legal status of “Formosa and the Pescadores” under the SFPT.

Mr Hartzell, I say the following with the greatest respect to you and I know you have done many good things here in Taiwan.

You are wasting your time trying to promote the argument that Taiwan is a territory of the USA. Sure, there may be very good historic and legal reasons for your argument and I don’t doubt that you have researched it very thoroughly. The problem is it is no longer relevant or helpful. The only useful argument regarding Taiwan’s status is that Taiwan’s sovereignty rests with the people of Taiwan and only the people of Taiwan can make any decision about it. The USA can never be trusted to help the people of Taiwan (this is not to say that they won’t help them, but that their help cannot be counted on). I believe that the USA maintains a deliberately ambiguous position on Taiwan so that it can take an each way bet. It might help Taiwan if it sees that it is in the USA’s best interest. Equally it might turn its back on Taiwan if it suits its purposes.

The Taiwan Indepedence Party should be a loud voice for Taiwan’s independence. It is important that there are strong, uncompromising voices for Taiwan’s independence because it creates more po,litical space for realistic and achievable moves towards independence by the DPP and other moderate, mainstream groups.

To masaotakashi,

Thank you for you kind support.

To Mr. Hartzell,

When we talk about legal status of

The United States is opposed to Taiwan Independence.