RE: proposed lawsuit in US Federal District Court, Washington, D.C.
** denial of liberty and due process issues **
We are changing this idea around somewhat and proposing to sue the US Department of State. I had an interview with the China Times Express about this which was printed in their (evening) edition, p. 6, August 24, 2003.
I have more TV appearances and radio appearances coming up. Also, we are planning a press conference in the Taiwan University Alumni Club Building (Ji-Nan Road in Taipei, near Chung Shan S. Rd.) at 10:00 on Tues. Sept. 2nd.
The supporters of this idea are also talking of organizing a “Pan Silver Alliance” . . . . . so that may be another development worth noting. This is the third option, i.e. (3) Taiwan becomes a self-governing overseas territory under USA administrative authority.
The other two options are of course: (1) Taiwan becomes independent, (2) Taiwan unites with the PRC.
On what grounds? That they are responsible for the denial of due process and civil rights to American citizens? If the claimants succeed, what remedy will you seek? Monetary, or force the U.S. government to put political pressure on Taiwan? I see no way that that U.S. will ever seek to make Taiwan an “overseas territory” … the best that can be hoped for is some change in U.S. policy wherein they exert some real political pressure on Taiwan to quicken the pace on reforms (political, economic, judicial, human rights, etc.) Would this “pressure” really work, though? Probably not … the U.S. has already put a lot of pressure on Taiwan over the violation of intellectual property rights issue, and to little avail. The problem is that with a lot of these issues, the authorities and majority of the population don’t see that they’re doing anything wrong … it would take a massive education campaign and shift in social consciousness for that to happen … very unlikely, IMO. And if pressure from the U.S. government on these issues is not what you are seeking, and really making Taiwan an overseas territory under U.S. authority is, then like those who are pushing for Taiwanese independence, the only outcome will be an unnecessary war with China. I don’t think you’d get much support among the U.S. public to sacrifice thousands of American lives for such a cause.
Anyway, I’m all for the U.S. putting more political pressure on Taiwan, and even for pursuing the grievances of the foreign community through the U.S. federal court system (although I’d rather see the Taiwanese government sued as opposed to the U.S. State Department), but I don’t think what you’ve proposed could ever be successful, and even if it was, would only lead to war and further tarnish the image of the United States as a hegemonist/imperialist power.
I think that Mr. Hartzell’s point is that, historically speaking, Taiwan belongs to the USA . . . . . and that this is a fact which has been carefully covered up by the US State Dept. for over fifty years.
[quote=“Quest”]You seem to assume that Taiwan belongs to China.
When did that happen?
I think that Mr. Hartzell’s point is that, historically speaking, Taiwan belongs to the USA . . . . . and that this is a fact which has been carefully covered up by the US State Dept. for over fifty years.[/quote]
No … that was not my point. My point was that if Taiwan declares independence (whether or not Taiwan legally belongs to China, Japan, the US or whoever is a moot point here) the Chinese will invade. If the U.S. can somehow be convinced that they legally “own” Taiwan and should incorporate it as an overseas territory, I can’t see the PRC sitting idly by and saying “duh, ok, go ahead.” I happen to agree with Mr. Hartzell’s legal theory, and many of my Taiwanese friends think it’s a great idea, but I think getting his goal implemented is impractical (as we all know, just because something has a legal basis doesn’t mean the reality and the legal precedent are going to match up). The U.S. (most likely) is the de jure “owner” (or whatever you want to call it) of Taiwan, but certainly not the de facto owner. Perhaps it’s something like with co-habitation laws in some places … if you live together for a certain period of time, whether or not you actually sign marriage papers, you’re considered legally married … but I don’t see Taiwan being able to ask for a divorce or enter into a new marriage (with the U.S. as protector) without China getting really pissed off and beating the living hell out of it’s “disobedient wife”. Anyway …
I don’t think this approach is going to get Mr Hartzell a Taiwan ID card (without the renouncing of the US citizenship). That is what it is all about anyway isn’t it.
The US government doesn’t have sovereignty over Taiwan in anyway shape or form - and thank god for that .
I have to agree with gazza. I believe there is no way that you can state that there is any more to the relationship between Taiwan and the USA over and above the normal relations of two “sovereign states” …
…except for the fact that Taiwan is not recognized by the world community as a “sovereign state”, and of course the Taiwan Relations Act is a domestic law of the United States, and of course the USA is the only country in the world with a Taiwan Relations Act, and of course Taiwan/Penghu is considered a “separate customs territory” which is a status derived from military occupation, and of course Nixon, Kissinger and the PRC dictated in the Shanghai Communique of 1972 that (subject to agreement between Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait) Taiwan would become part of the PRC, thus putting Taiwan on a “flight path” for the eventual transfer of its sovereignty to the PRC, and of course the USA is a country founded on democratic principles but it disagrees with any plans for the Taiwanese to take a referendum to establish independent status … none of these facts can be used to indicate in any way, shape, or form that Taiwan’s sovereignty is held by the USA.
Thank you so much gazza for your enlightened comments, which I have further clarified as per the above. I hope that the reading public will be able to learn more from your continued postings on this website, and it is with eager breath that we wait for further enlightenment …
Why do you assume that? If they failed, the CCP would lose power. Given their extreme aversion to risk, a chinese invasion of Taiwan is a very unlikely scenario. Try to avoid spreading FUD.
Why do you assume that? If they failed, the CCP would lose power. Given their extreme aversion to risk, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is a very unlikely scenario. Try to avoid spreading FUD.[/quote]
Try to avoid accusing people of spreading “FUD” … if the Taiwanese declared independence and China didn’t invade, they would lose too much face, especially among their own people who they’ve been filling up with propaganda for the past 50 years about how Taiwan must be reunited with the motherland at all costs and how Taiwan will be flattened if they declare independence … this could be as much of a risk to the CCP’s hold on power as a failed invasion. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the original topic, so I’ll stop here.
What are the legal reasons this suit will be thrown out? I’m told by a lawyer that laches, waiver, and estoppel are all possible legal reasons this suit might lose in court.
Laches means, essentially, that you let your claim go too long, and it would be unjust to enforce it now. It’s like a statute of limitations for situations where there is no actual statute.
Waiver means that you’ve acted in a way that indicates that you didn’t dispute the wrong (for example, you applied for Taiwanese documents of some sort, rather than demanding a US documentation for the same purpose – in other words, you did anything that acknowledged the facts as they are, rather than as you’d like them to be) and thus waived your rights.
And estoppel is like waiver, with the added twist that the alleged wrongdoer – the U.S. State Department in this case I guess – somehow relied on your acceptance of the facts as they are.
Again, I’m told by this lawyer that waiver and estoppel are a little shaky and fact dependent, but that a fifty-year old claim based on a technical flaw in procedure is absolutely going to be barred by laches.
[quote=“Cold Front”]Laches means, essentially, that you let your claim go too long, and it would be unjust to enforce it now. It’s like a statute of limitations for situations where there is no actual statute.
Again, I’m told by this lawyer that waiver and estoppel are a little shaky and fact dependent, but that a fifty-year old claim based on a technical flaw in procedure is absolutely going to be barred by laches.[/quote]
This is the point I was trying to make with my little co-habitation law metaphor. I agree with you completely, Cold Front. I think the suit is doomed to failure from the start, unfortunately.
What do airplanes and lawsuits have in common? If you put enough thrust behind them they will fly. Of course relying on good engineering will make the job a lot easier.
How many lawsuits did Martin Luther King and the forerunner of the ACLU file before African Americans could ride in the front seat of a public bus? It really doesn
Your situation seems to have less to do with the battle over civil rights in the 50s and 60s and more to do with those cranks who are trying to open up Area 51 to find out what the U.S. government is doing to those aliens.
What about my children who are born here. What rights do they have? Those inconveniences, small slights, and occasional genuine injustices can also be described as human rights violations.
When the government of the ROC declared that my children were not my children but the children of the ROC. They crossed a line and by doing so adopted me, their American father.
As for serving in the military I have done more to defend this little island and it’s peoples freedom than an entire battalion of the ROC army. I did that by serving in the US military and putting my life on the line as a professional military person. I feel that conscripts in the slave army of the Republic of China, do little to defend Taiwan. The only real purpose for such an army is to maintain the illegitimate control of the ROC over Taiwan.
It is not just the foreigners who have to deal with these injustices but a vast majority of the entire population of Taiwan. The people of Taiwan have been oppressed for so long by their Chinese overlords that they cannot even identify their own inalienable rights as equal human beings. If there is one minority on this island that can force the government of the ROC to respect that groups human rights it is the Americans living on Taiwan. I am not Taiwanese and as such do not feel it is my place to speak for the oppressed people of Taiwan. As an American living on Taiwan and having my rights as a human being trampled on daily, I fell an obligation to defend those rights and the rights of my Taiwanese born children.
[quote=“Cold Front”]Taiwan is a de facto country . . . . [/quote] This is exactly the point. Taiwan is not a de jure country, and so it should quit its bullying and restrictive behavior. As American citizens, we have as much right to live here and work here as anyone else.
It is a fact that the sovereignty of Formosa and the Pescadores was never transferred to the ROC. As such, that sovereignty is still held by the United States Military Government, which is the principal occupying power of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. (See SFPT Articles 4b and 23.)
Exactly. The ROC government in Taiwan is illegitimate, hence mandatory military conscription in Taiwan is a violation of the Geneva and Hague Conventions.
.