The transferring of the title of Taiwan

Politics Taiwan Politics
281

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

… c. United States Does Not Recognize Assertion of Sovereignty: Historically, there are circumstances in which the United States does not recognize the annexation of territory by another country. When this occurs, the Department will provide specific guidance to passport authorizing officers and the 7 FAM 1300 Appendix D will be amended accordingly. Do not enter in the passport the name of any independent country listed as place of birth on a passport application or birthplace evidence whose incorporation into another nation is not recognized by the United States as the country of birth.

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read in a Government document. :loco:
If I write Columbia as place of birth, then the State Department can’t enter it because the independent country Columbia’s “incorporation into another nation has not been recognized by the US”! [/quote]

I think the author meant to say “Do no enter as the country of birth the name of any State whose incorporation of a territory is not recognized by the United States.”
After all, the original statement does not fit well with the example on p.5:

For Example: The United States never recognized the annexation of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia by the U.S.S.R. The United States did not authorize entry of “U.S.S.R” or the “Soviet Union” as a place of birth name in a U.S. passport for a person born in Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia, even if the evidence of birth listed U.S.S.R.

Here, the USSR was the annexor State, and Latvia, Lituania, Estonia were the annexees. A person born in any of the latter three places cannot write ‘USSR’ as his/her place of birth, because the incorporation was not recognized by the USA.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
In reagrds to Taiwan, was Taiwan a former country that is “recognized as having been incorporated into another nation” for people born between 1895 and 1945??[/quote]

If my reworked version is on the right track, the fact that ‘China’ is a permisslble option suggests that the incorporation of Taiwan by China is recognized by the USA.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
On Page 44
United States citizens born abroad may list the city or town, rather than the country, of their birth in United States passports when there is an objection to the country listing as established by the Department of State.

Oddly enough, my daughter’s US Passport reads:
Place of birth: TAIWAN
[no “R.O.C.”]

Does this mean that Taiwan is now a “city or town”, or that it is a “country”, or was it a country that was incorporated into another nation? :lick:[/quote]

None of the above.

In the document, the US expressly denies the Statehood of Taiwan on top of p.9.
It is not regarded as a ‘city or town’ either; in fact, on p.9, it is shown that the Taiwanese-born applicant has three options: 1. Taiwan 2. China 3. city of birth.

…
(e) The city of birth only option (7 FAM 1380 Appendix D) is an available alternative.
…

282

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]

I think the author meant to say “Do no enter as the country of birth the name of any State whose incorporation of a territory is not recognized by the United States.”
After all, the original statement does not fit well with the example on p.5: [1]

If my reworked version is on the right track, the fact that ‘China’ is a permisslble option suggests that the incorporation of Taiwan by China is recognized by the USA. [2]

In the document, the US expressly denies the Statehood of Taiwan on top of p.9. [3]
It is not regarded as a ‘city or town’ either; in fact, on p.9, it is shown that the Taiwanese-born applicant has three options: 1. Taiwan 2. China 3. city of birth.

…
(e) The city of birth only option (7 FAM 1380 Appendix D) is an available alternative.
…[/quote]

[1] I see you are attempting to reword State Department documents. Maybe you should take it up with them before doing so.
[2] Nope. You are reaching. In fact, the USA does NOT recognize the incorporation of Taiwan by China, or it would have used such specific terminology in paragraph (f).
All the US does is ACKNOWLEDGE the “Chinese” position…
To wit:
“(f) One China Policy: Passports may not be issued showing place of birth as “Taiwan, China”, “Taiwan, Republic of China” or “Taiwan ROC”. The United States recognizes the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.”

Look at that statement from another angle, and one could derive from it that persons who do not side with the position of “One China” and “Taiwan is a part of China” are thus excluded, and therefore acknowledged as being “NOT Chinese” in the eyes of the State Department. Interesting… :ponder:

[3] Again, you are reaching. The US does not “deny” statehood to Taiwan; it only expresses the position of being one of several countries which do not RECOGNIZE Taiwan’s statehood. It may be inferred that they support a distinction between China and Taiwan, as they clearly allow the word TAIWAN to be used as a place of birth while at the same time denying Tibetans (in that fictitiously named “Autonomous Region”) the same right.

“NOTE: The United States does not officially recognize Taiwan as a “state” or “country,” although passport issuing officers may enter “Taiwan” as a place of birth.”

Hmmm… TAIWAN, not a recognized country/state, certainly not a city, and not likely a province (Canadians/Aussies, etc. can’t list a Province name in lieu of their country’s name and no exclusion to this practice has been stipulated as applicable to Taiwan). So what IS it? Just a “PLACE”???
What’s next? A person born in Taiwan is allowed to use the word “EARTH” as “Place of Birth”? hahaha

Are we having fun yet?

283

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]

I think the author meant to say “Do no enter as the country of birth the name of any State whose incorporation of a territory is not recognized by the United States.”
After all, the original statement does not fit well with the example on p.5: [1]

If my reworked version is on the right track, the fact that ‘China’ is a permisslble option suggests that the incorporation of Taiwan by China is recognized by the USA. [2]

In the document, the US expressly denies the Statehood of Taiwan on top of p.9. [3]
It is not regarded as a ‘city or town’ either; in fact, on p.9, it is shown that the Taiwanese-born applicant has three options: 1. Taiwan 2. China 3. city of birth.

…
(e) The city of birth only option (7 FAM 1380 Appendix D) is an available alternative.
…[/quote]

[1] I see you are attempting to reword State Department documents. Maybe you should take it up with them before doing so.[/quote]

How would you make sense of the sheer inconsistency between the USSR example and the original statement, if my reworded statement isn’t adopted?

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
[2] Nope. You are reaching. In fact, the USA does NOT recognize the incorporation of Taiwan by China, or it would have used such specific terminology in paragraph (f).
All the US does is ACKNOWLEDGE the “Chinese” position…
To wit:
“(f) One China Policy: Passports may not be issued showing place of birth as “Taiwan, China”, “Taiwan, Republic of China” or “Taiwan ROC”. The United States recognizes the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.”

Look at that statement from another angle, and one could derive from it that persons who do not side with the position of “One China” and “Taiwan is a part of China” are thus excluded, and therefore acknowledged as being “NOT Chinese” in the eyes of the State Department. Interesting… :ponder: [/quote]

“Taiwan, China” is excluded for a simple reason; it’s too wordy; note that “Guangdong, China”, “Hong Kong, China” or “Tibet, China” is not used either. But you wouldn’t say the USA does NOT recognize HK, Tibet, Guangdong, etc. as parts of China.

The point is that the Shanghai communqie forbids the US to challenge the Chinese position. If the option China were not offered, that would consitute a challenge to the position, in light of the fact that the names of other countries can be printed as place of birth.

To put it simply, the US ACKNOWLEDGES the Chinese positin, but at that time it cannot challenge that position. The fact that other countries can be used as place of birth put the US in a position to offer the ‘China’ option.

Let’ say the US is unwilling to put China there, because it is bound by the Shanghai communque to do so. But at the same time offering this option amounts to reluctantly regarding Taiwan as part of China, or at least acquiescing in this position.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

[3] Again, you are reaching. The US does not “deny” statehood to Taiwan; it only expresses the position of being one of several countries which do not RECOGNIZE Taiwan’s statehood. It may be inferred that they support a distinction between China and Taiwan, as they clearly allow the word TAIWAN to be used as a place of birth while at the same time denying Tibetans (in that fictitiously named “Autonomous Region”) the same right.

“NOTE: The United States does not officially recognize Taiwan as a “state” or “country,” although passport issuing officers may enter “Taiwan” as a place of birth.”

Hmmm… TAIWAN, not a recognized country/state, certainly not a city, and not likely a province (Canadians/Aussies, etc. can’t list a Province name in lieu of their country’s name and no exclusion to this practice has been stipulated as applicable to Taiwan). So what IS it? Just a “PLACE”??? hahaha

Are we having fun yet?[/quote]

The US does deny Taiwan is a State. Not recognzing the statehood of Taiwan is equal to denying its Statehood. If the wording in the document is not clear enough, you can look at the statements by US official Dennis Wilder:

“Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not a state in the international Community.”

datelinetaipei.blogspot.tw/2007/ … joice.html

It’s true that the US wants a distinction to be made between Taiwan and China. After all, its de facto independence is different from, say, HK or Tibet.
Also, the option ‘Taiwan’ was an innovation introduced by a Public Law in 1994. Really curious to see what options were granted to Taiwanese-born applicants prior to that year.

284

Taiwan is occupied territory.

For those who are familiar with laws of war studies, a review of the content of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 28, 1952, shows that Taiwan’s status as occupied territory is clearly specified.

For the rest of you, . . . . . . well, I am sorry that you cannot understand the treaty. You need to improve your knowledge of international law. The following Chart will help get you started –
civil-taiwan.org/chart-int1law.htm

285

[quote=“Hartzell”]Taiwan is occupied territory.

For those who are familiar with laws of war studies, a review of the content of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 28, 1952, shows that Taiwan’s status as occupied territory is clearly specified.

For the rest of you, . . . . . . well, I am sorry that you cannot understand the treaty. You need to improve your knowledge of international law. The following Chart will help get you started –
civil-taiwan.org/chart-int1law.htm[/quote]

Richard, may I just ask a question? Why are you working so hard to get Taiwan declared an “occupied territory?” Is it your goal to make this place into another Guam or Puerto Rico?

286

[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]
Richard, may I just ask a question? Why are you working so hard to get Taiwan declared an “occupied territory?” Is it your goal to make this place into another Guam or Puerto Rico?[/quote]

I am not here to speak for Richard Hartzell but for myself. The reason that I agree with Richard Hartzell’s declaration is because Hartzell and Lin had submitted sufficient critical evidences to support their claim and they convinced me.

287

Taiwan is occupied territory.

For those who are familiar with laws of war studies, a review of the content of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 28, 1952, shows that Taiwan’s status as occupied territory is clearly specified.

For the rest of you, . . . . . . well, I am sorry that you cannot understand the treaty. You need to improve your knowledge of international law. The following Chart will help get you started –
civil-taiwan.org/chart-int1law.htm[/quote]

Which part of the SFPT and law of war unambiguously specify that Taiwan is occupied territory of the US?

288

[quote=“Hartzell”]For the rest of you, . . . . . . well, I am sorry that you cannot understand the treaty. You need to improve your knowledge of international law. The following Chart will help get you started –
civil-taiwan.org/chart-int1law.htm[/quote]
I was and still am one of those who doese not fully understand the intricacies of international law. However thanks to Harzell & Lin (Don’t they sound like a real law firm?), I started to be enlightened. Hartzell will be to Formosan as Paine to American. Both fostered the birth of a new identy, which pursued their own cultural, national, and ethnic destiny under the guidance of higher values.

289

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]
Which part of the SFPT and law of war unambiguously specify that Taiwan is occupied territory of the US?[/quote]
When are you going to sit down and start reading the SFPT sincerely?

290

[quote=“printlessfoot”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]
Which part of the SFPT and law of war unambiguously specify that Taiwan is occupied territory of the US?[/quote]
When are you going to sit down and start reading the SFPT sincerely?[/quote]

Instead of accusing me of failing to read the SFPT ‘sincerely’, you could show exactly which parts thereof support the claim that Taiwan is occupied territory by the US.

291

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]
Instead of accusing me of failing to read the SFPT ‘sincerely’, you can show exactly which parts thereof support the claim that Taiwan is occupied territory by the US.[/quote]
Hartzell and Lin are far more qualified to educate anyone on the law of war. However I like to bring to your attention to the fact that the US millitary force has never ceased occupying Taiwan.

292

[quote=“printlessfoot”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]
Instead of accusing me of failing to read the SFPT ‘sincerely’, you can show exactly which parts thereof support the claim that Taiwan is occupied territory by the US.[/quote]
Hartzell and Lin are far more qualified to educate anyone on the law of war. However I like to bring to your attention to the fact that the US millitary force has never ceased occupying Taiwan.[/quote]

Claiming something is a fact doesn’t turn it into a fact.

293

I seem to recall that there was a lengthy article published about this in the Harvard Asia Quarterly (HAQ) some years back. I believe it was entitled “Understanding the San Francisco Peace Treaty’s Disposition of Formosa and the Pescadores.” If you haven’t read it, it is informative.

The analysis is not simple, but this HAQ article does a good job of explaining the key points.[/quote]

After reading your aricle, I came to the same conclusion that there is no definitive evidence for treating the USA as the principal occupying power over Taiwan. You referred to Article 23 of the SFPT, but this alone does not categorically determine the US to be the occupying power over Taiwan.

Article 23
(a) The present Treaty shall be ratified by the States which sign it, including Japan, and will come into force for all the States which have then ratified it, when instruments of ratification have been deposited by Japan and by a majority, including the United States of America as the principal occupying Power, of the following States, namely Australia, Canada, Ceylon, France, Indonesia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. The present Treaty shall come into force of each State which subsequently ratifies it, on the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification.

You also mentioned Article 4b. Here the interesting part is the wording “the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3.”
It’s true that Taiwan is one of the areas mentioned in Articles2 and 3, along with the Ryukyu Islands and Korea. But does Article 4b entail the presence of the USMG in every one of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3?

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.

294

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]

You also mentioned Article 4b, but again, this alone cannot allow us to infer that the US is the so-called principal occupying power over Taiwan; it only shows that Japan agreed to obey the US’s dispositions of its property and nationals in places including Taiwan and Okinawa. Of course, the proposition that 4b expresses is consistent with the claim that the US was the principal occupying power over Taiwan. But it is also consistent with the claim that the US was the principal occupying power over Japan and therefore was in a position to give orders to Japan. Again, this is no conclusive evidence that the US occupies Taiwan. Indeed, you mentioned in the article that the US flag would need to fly on the island as part of the correct procedure; since no US flag is flown on the island, the US cannot have completed the correct procedure. It is thus not ‘the occupying power’.

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.[/quote]

I beg to differ. The US flag was being raised daily on Taiwan at the US Taiwan Defense Command headquarters upon its establishment in early 1951 (prior to the SFPT) and continued until 1979 when formal diplomatic relations with the ROC were severed. :raspberry:
ustdc.blogspot.tw/2008/05/ustdc- … oto-2.html
ustdc.blogspot.tw/2011/05/chen-f … art-1.html

Oddly enough, I don’t know of any time when a PRC flag was raised here regularly. Do you? :discodance:

295

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]

You also mentioned Article 4b, but again, this alone cannot allow us to infer that the US is the so-called principal occupying power over Taiwan; it only shows that Japan agreed to obey the US’s dispositions of its property and nationals in places including Taiwan and Okinawa. Of course, the proposition that 4b expresses is consistent with the claim that the US was the principal occupying power over Taiwan. But it is also consistent with the claim that the US was the principal occupying power over Japan and therefore was in a position to give orders to Japan. Again, this is no conclusive evidence that the US occupies Taiwan. Indeed, you mentioned in the article that the US flag would need to fly on the island as part of the correct procedure; since no US flag is flown on the island, the US cannot have completed the correct procedure. It is thus not ‘the occupying power’.

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.[/quote]

I beg to differ. The US flag was being raised daily on Taiwan at the US Taiwan Defense Command headquarters upon its establishment in early 1951 (prior to the SFPT) and continued until 1979 when formal diplomatic relations with the ROC were severed. :raspberry:
ustdc.blogspot.tw/2008/05/ustdc- … oto-2.html[/quote]

It’s interesting, but the flag was raised following the arrival of the Military Assistance Advisory Group. So, its purpose was only advisory, not to occupy Taiwan.
For the occupying power to fly its flag does not mean that the flag can be flown by anyone; it must be flown by the governing authority.

Bw, don’t forget the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, in which the ROC granted , and the US accepted, the right to deploy troops on the island. If the US was the ‘principal occupying power’, it would not have been in such a passive, receving position.

296

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]

It’s interesting, but the flag was raised following the arrival of the Military Assistance Advisory Group. So, its purpose was only advisory, not to occupy Taiwan.
For the occupying power to fly its flag does not mean that the flag can be flown by anyone; it must be flown by the governing authority.

Bw, don’t forget the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, in which the ROC granted the right to deploy US troops on the island. If the US was the ‘principal occupying power’, it would not have been in such a passive, receving position.[/quote]

USMAAG AND USTDC are not the same entity. Furthermore, I was only correcting YOUR statement inferring that a US flag was never flown on Taiwan. :unamused:
The “principal occupying power” and the “governing authority” need not be the same entity either. We have touched upon the principal-agant relationship in the past, and I believe you acknowlege that the ROC overstepped its authority in declaring Taiwan a “Province of China” immediately upon its arrival.

Also note: The S-A MDT was not signed until 1955. I am talking US Military forces and a flag here on Taiwan in 1951.

297

If the flag was not flown by (or in the name of) the USMG, then it was not relevant at all.
Of course, I didn’t mean to imply the US flag has never been flown by anyone in the absolute sense. The statement was framed in the context of which criteria the principal occupying power must fulfill: It would have to be flown by the governing authority acting as agent. You were only nitpicking. True, let us suppose that The “principal occupying power” and the “governing authority” need not be the same entity; but how could you prove that the agency relationship existed? The ROC flying the US flag in the name of the USA would be the best proof. This appears to be what Hartzell has in mind, for he wrote the following:

…if this correct procedure had been followed, the ROC flag would fly under the US flag…

There are many countries with the presence of US personnel, but you wouldn’t say these countries are currently under ‘occupation’ by the US.

The US Military Assistance Advisory Group was the beginning of the said U. S. military presence in Taiwan; after the arrival of the USMAAG, the Formosa Liaison Center was established in 1952. The US Formosa Defense Command, a subunit of the United States Pacific Command and precursor to US Taiwan Defense Command, did not come into being until April 25, 1955, when the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty had come into effect.

tw.myblog.yahoo.com/hoon-ting/ar … l=f&fid=35

298

[quote=“Hartzell”]You will recall that in Roger Lin v. USA, the judges found that native Taiwanese persons are essentially stateless. See – taiwanbasic.com/court.htm

In conformance with this line of thinking, we are pressing the DOD to authorize the issuance of some form of “Travel Document” to native Taiwanese persons. (Those ROC exiles who came to Taiwan in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and their descendants, will continue to use ROC passports.) In this way, native Taiwanese persons will obtain visa free travel to the USA.[/quote]

Hartzell, this point is now moot. All holders of ROC passports will enjoy visa free travel to the USA starting November 1, 2012. What are your current initiatives in getting the US government to recognize it owns the title to Taiwan?

299

The US govt can assert its claim to the title to Taiwan. Work out a deal
with the commies and transfer the title to the People’s Republic of China.
In exchange for 17.8 trillion US dollars.

Think that idea is too crazy? You bet! But look at who wrote that idea.
(hint several respected foreign advisers working for one of the two U.S
presidential candidate running this November)

Quote: “For the US, the cost paid can be considered a form of compensation
to the for providing security to Taiwan over the last 60 years. For China,
it’s a mighty cheap price to pay for the ultimate prize of reuniting the
motherland…”

300

17.8 trillion? How about… nothing. From the Beijing point of view, they’d rather just take it for nothing when they can. I don’t mean through military occupation, but when the ROC government actually wants to talk. Of course that may not be for a long time, if ever, but there’s no need for the PRC to relieve the U.S. of its debt in exchange for Taiwan. Also, making the U.S. give up its intelligence interests in Taiwan is not worth 2 trillion or whatever number of trillion dollars is owed. Even if a deal is worked out, the ROC still has a military and won’t just let the PRC take Taiwan and other islands for fun. If the U.S. leaves Taiwan, that’s their own business. The ROC will still be here and whatever discussion over peace treaties like which one counted and which ones didn’t or what means what, is really just an academic discussion.