ROC is a government-in-exile

According to my girlfriend, a number of Taiwan scholars have recently come forward and stated that an analysis of all relevant treaties shows that the ownership of Formosa and the Pescadores was never transferred to the ROC. In the last couple days, of course the KMT and PFP have denied this . . . . . . but their point of view seems to be without legal basis, when you consider the actual provisions of these international treaties.

What this all amounts to saying is that “the ROC is a government-in-exile.” But, in my opinion this fact is only occasionally mentioned in the various scholarly reports . . . . . . when in fact it should be the center of attention. Again, according to my girlfriend, this fact is not mentioned at all in Taiwanese school history textbooks.

It seems that if the ROC government has no legitimate claim to the land area of Formosa and the Pescadores, this should be stated clearly at the beginning of every discussion of the ROC government’s status in the world . . . . . . but it seems to me that it clearly isn’t. There has been a lot of talk recently that “the ROC does not exist”, and of course this has been firmly rejected by the KMT and PFP supporters . . . . . but these two groups also never address that fact that the ROC is a government-in-exile.

Does anyone have any related insights on this historical matter?

I am not sure if the textbooks have been changed yet, though I have friends who are schoolteachers, so I can ask. However, I know that this is in fact being taught in many schools today. A large number of my younger friends here in Taiwan know that there is no treaty handing Taiwan to China following the way. It is also not surprising that a recent poll shows that 72% of people between 20 and 30 believe Taiwan should be independent.

I think a lot of people understand that Taiwan is not a part of the ROC and that the ROC is dead, however, no one in power here can speak too loudly lest it upset the CCP and the PLA and their One-China friends in the KMT and PFP. Taiwan could use a little support from other countries, but they seem afraid of the PRC as well.

Not sure what will change things. Hoping that President Chen will be reelected, or the PRC will make some mistake that the world reacts to allowing other countries to become more sympathetic towards Taiwan. Would be nice if a group of countries stepped in and officially recognized Taiwan as a sovereign nation, but then maybe Taiwan has to change its constitution and hold a referendum on a name change before other countries will start to recognize Taiwan and allow it to join the United Nations. Taiwan doesn’t have to vote for independence only get people to understand the obvious by unduing years of selfish KMT One-China opium pipe dreams of returning to China.

JiveTurkey: You haven’t been following the news very closely. The China Times poll last week showed Chen-Lu ticket as one percentage point ahead of Lien-Soong. Today’s papers are reporting that the Blue alliance is considering accepting the Cai Tongrong’s draft of the Referendum Law in which voting on independence will allowd. Did you see Soong kneel earlier this week? The Blue camp is reeling at the moment. You sound a little bit like all the folks who insisted before the last election that Chen would never win.

On the initials post: the argument over Taiwan’s status after World War II is pretty technical. It does seem that Japan never gave Taiwan back to the ROC, but on the ground the KMT-led ROC was very much a real government until (I would argue) 1996 when Lee became the first elected President of an ethnically Chinese state. Since then, the ROC has been a shell. What’s crucial is that many Taiwanese THINK that there was a real problem with the alleged transfer of of Taiwan back to the ROC.

RE: USA - ROC Mutual Defense Treaty, 1955, preliminary discussions, remarks by Secretary Dulles

I have recently heard that former Secretary of State Dulles once commented on the Taiwan question by stating words to the effect that Chiang Kai-shek’s “Republic of China” was a government-in-exile on foreign territory. I believe this remark was made in connection with the debate in the US Senate in relation to the discussions involved in the ratification of the Mutual Defense Treaty. That treaty was finally ratified in 1955.

Chiang Kai-shek’s government was of course in Taiwan at that time.

I wonder if anyone could point me to any online references where I could find the exact quotation.

I can’t point you to online references … but the fact that the KMT went into exile on Taiwan in 1949 is frequently mentioned in the Chinese language press here in Taiwan … see the Chinese language “Taiwan Daily News” for example … the commentators on the opinion page frequently mention this.

The “Liberty Times” also has similar comments on occasion.

Unfortunately … no one has really done a thorough study of the entire issue, and see how this “government in exile” situation dovetails with Taiwan’s current international crisis … for example:

  • Why is Taiwan not allowed to show its flag in international events?

The answer is certainly related to the fact that the ROC is a government in exile …

The chance for Taiwan to obtain greater participation in the international arena will be limited even more severely if more and more countries realize that the ROC is actually just a government-in-exile.

I read this editorial in the Taipei Times today. Thought it raised some interesting points.

[quote]Letter: Sovereignty a tough question
By Richard Hartzell

Monday, Jul 04, 2005,Page 8

I read Dennis Hickey’s letter (Letters, June 29, page 8) with much interest. Hickey has provided a very lucid analysis of some of the key international legal perspectives which have a great bearing on the Taiwan sovereignty issue.

From the content and tone of Hickey’s letter, it is clear that he hopes that the Taiwanese people can have a bright future under a democratic government, and that peace, stability and prosperity in the Western Pacific can be maintained. I am sure that the readers of this newspaper, myself included, also share in these hopes.

Nevertheless, I must point out the arguments advanced in his letter are not persuasive. I have no doubt that Hickey is sincere. The problem does not rest with the thoroughness of his analysis, rather it rests with the underlying legal assumptions. [/quote]
taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003262186

Great rebuttal to Hartzell’s argument in today’s Taipei Times.

taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003262682

Brian

[quote=“Bu Lai En”]Great rebuttal to Hartzell’s argument in today’s Taipei Times.

taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003262682

Brian[/quote]
A well worded, polite smack down.

[quote=“Jive Turkey”][quote=“Bu Lai En”]Great rebuttal to Hartzell’s argument in today’s Taipei Times.

taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003262682

Brian[/quote]
A well worded, polite smack down.[/quote]
I haven’t yet looked at the authors in Chen’s excellent piece but she’s piqued my interest far more than Hartzell ever did.
Could it be that we’ve found someone who actually has a clue about the situation?

:bow: to Ms. Chen. She seems to know a few things about this topic, heh.

I was only able to find the reference in Westlaw for Chiang, Y. Frank (2000). State, Sovereignty and Taiwan In Fordham International Law Journal, 23, p. 959.

If any one is interested in it further, I’ll see what I can do to scram up the reference list and maybe the articles themselves.

[quote=“Jive Turkey”][quote=“Bu Lai En”]Great rebuttal to Hartzell’s argument in today’s Taipei Times.

taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003262682

Brian[/quote]
A well worded, polite smack down.[/quote]

Smack down is the correct word, logical and supported rebuttal it is not. Had she wanted to make a valid rebuttal, she should have actually explained why Hartzell is wrong and then cited sources, not just the immediate “you’re wrong and I have some sources that say so”. I’m not saying who’s right, just that Hartzell presented an arguement while Chen just said “Nooo you’re wrong”. She should pay attention to her own last paragraph.

And who are the real experts in international law?

Eh? Seems to me that’s exactly what she did and I’ll be following them up for sure – it’ll be interesting to read what some real lawyers have to say on the issue.

[quote=“Yellow Cartman”]:bow: to Ms. Chen. She seems to know a few things about this topic, heh.
[/quote]

:unamused:
She’s citing sources that are completely consistent with Hartzell’s interpretation. Seems to me the woman can’t read!

Christopher J. Carolan: “What’s Left of One-China”

Eh? Seems to me that’s exactly what she did and I’ll be following them up for sure – it’ll be interesting to read what some real lawyers have to say on the issue.[/quote]

No, she points at some areas and says “it’s tenuous” or “that’s not what expert’s say”. She doesn’t explain why its tenuous or wrong, and doesn’t clarify her sources. Just throwing around names, which while might be extremely valid and supportive sources, does not an argument make.

You have to write for the audience and make a concise, rational argument.

Eh? Seems to me that’s exactly what she did and I’ll be following them up for sure – it’ll be interesting to read what some real lawyers have to say on the issue.[/quote]

I’ve seen Scientologists and New Earth Creationists use the same method, they cite sources and sound really legitimate, until you check the sources themselves. I have to concur that these articles really do support Hartzells view and not hers.

** SEE **

The Territorial Cessions of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Cuba, & Taiwan
taiwanadvice.com/prcutai3.htm

She probably finds Hartzell cute and wants him to contact her to talk about “territorial cessions”.

[quote=“chung”][quote=“Yellow Cartman”]:bow: to Ms. Chen. She seems to know a few things about this topic, heh.
[/quote]

:unamused:
She’s citing sources that are completely consistent with Hartzell’s interpretation. Seems to me the woman can’t read!

Christopher J. Carolan: “What’s Left of One-China”[/quote]

Don’t know about this article, but Prof. Frank Y. Chiang’s piece in the Fordham Law Review doesn’t sound like it supports Hartzell’s US-Taiwan arguments at all. Then again, I don’t quite follow Hartzell’s arguments either so… :s

Frankly, it’s mostly academic to me but my interest is piqued. I’ll check into the bibliography and dig around. Should be interesting. It’ll take me a few days…