The transferring of the title of Taiwan

First of all, thumbs-up Dan2006, you hit the nail on the head. I couldn’t agree more.

As for the rest of this “Taiwan is occupied by the USA” nonsense, the USA withdrew its diplomatic relations with the ROC (and military forces at the same time) in 1979. Without a single US soldier on Taiwanese soil, this does not strike me as an “occupied country.” True, Ma Yin-jeou is down on his hands and knees kissing the asses of American agribusiness lobbyists (over the ractopamine-in-beef issue), but his being an idiot still doesn’t make Taiwan a US colony.

1 Like

After googling the keywords you provided, I came across one article written by you. You tried to explain what ‘military occupation’ is. However, you quoted a work published in 1914, only two years later than the work I quoted. I doubt any kind of dramatic change could have taken place in the realm of laws of war during the two years.

With the aid of Google Books, I managed to find the 1920 edition of Oppenheim’s book. On p. 384-5, I found [color=#8080BF]the same passages [/color]as in the 1912 edition that I quoted. Now it is your turn to find something contrary to Oppenheim’s claims.

That said, let us now examine what you quoted from Birkhimer’s work:

“…In the opus, Military Government and Martial Law,4 which was a standard reference for US military personnel for decades, the author William E. Birkhimer held that The truth must be that a territory is militarily occupied when the invader dominates it to the exclusion of the former and regular government. The true test is exclusive possession…”

The explanation calls for further explanation. What exactly is ‘exclusive possession’? I looked up the entry of ‘possession’ in the Oxford Dictionary of Law:

Actual control of property combined with [color=#BF80BF]the intention to use it[/color], rightly or wrongly, as one’s own. In the case of land, possession may be actual, when the owner has entered onto the land, or possession in law, when he has the right to enter but has not yet done so. Possession includes receipt of rent and profits, or the right to receive them.

And this definition echoes with Oppenheim’s claim: the intention of the occupying power is a necessary condition of effective occupation.
Since the US government expressly denied any such intentions, the US cannot be ‘the principal occupying power’ over Taiwan.

Good luck trying to get the US government to claim that it is the rightful occupier (or has sovereignty) over Taiwan. You’ll need it, to put it mildly. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? :loco:

Quote:
There are various forms of military occupation and it is possible for the United States to occupy Formosa without many Americans being physically present.

Foreign Relations of the United States
taiwanbasic.com/state/frus/t … 1951ar.htm

Even if there were US military personnel on the island of Formosa, their presence, as the words ’ an American Military Advisory Group for Formosa’ indicate, was only [color=#8080BF]advisory [/color]in nature. To reiterate, the governing authority on the island has [color=#80BF00]never [/color]administered Taiwan [color=#80BF40]in the name of [/color]the USA. The situation contrasts sharply with South Korea, where the USA established the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK). The presence of US military personnel in Korea was [color=#BF80BF]not advisory [/color]in nature, and the US military personnel governed the portion of the Korean Peninsula [color=#BF80FF]in the name of [/color]the USA. If the US were the ‘principal occupying power over Taiwan’, we would expect Taiwan’s situation to be similar to Korea’s, i.e. be governed in the name of the USA. The failure of this prediction shows that the US was not, and is not, the principal occupying power over Taiwan.

Btw, I hope you don’t think the words from the mouth of the Soviet Communists are ‘reliable information on international law’. Were they jurists like Oppenheim? Also, FYI, the Soviet representative to the SFPT conference openly declared that Formosa is an indisputable part of Chinese territory. Would you buy that as well? Don’t clutch at straws here; it won’t be helpful.

Well, I always thought there was something sinister about all these English teachers here in Taiwan. After all, they get paid so much money to do nothing, but now that I realize the CIA is paying their salaries, it all makes sense. Must be highly trained agents - some of them are so good that they even pretend to be Brits or South Africans and manage to fake the accent.

I salute our boys here on the front lines. Next time I walk past a buxiban, I’ll have renewed respect.

:bravo: :notworthy:
Huzzah!

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]There are grounds for believing that the US was not an occupying power of Taiwan. Please examine the following passages from Oppenheim, L. , International law: A Treatise, 2nd ed., Longmans, Green and Co., 1912 .

§222. Para 1
Theory and practice agree nowadays upon the rule that occupation is effected through taking possession of and establishing an administration over the territory [color=#BF8080]
in the name of and for the acquiring State
[/color]. Occupation thus effected is real occupation, and, in contradistinction to fictitious occupation, is named effective occupation. Possession and administration are the two essential facts that constitute an effective occupation.[/quote]
This quotation, and the others which you have provided from Oppenheim, are not concerned with “military occupation.” What Oppenheim is speaking of here is “occupation of terra nullius,” such as the situation of uninhabited islands in the Pacific Ocen which were claimed by US citizens under the legal authority of international law plus the Guano Islands Act.

For general information on the contents and application of this Act, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act

Totally incorrect. As I have said before, read the treaty.

Do I ned to repeat that here for you? Here it is in capital letters:
READ THE TREATY.

Further comments are as follows: My associates and I do not agree with the viewpoint that Taiwan, with a population of approx. 6 million persons in 1945, was terra nullius. Indeed, under international law, Taiwan was sovereign Japanese territory until renounced in the post-war treaty effective April 28, 1952. (General Douglas MacArthur stated at a congressional hearing in May 1951, “legalistically Formosa is still a part of the Empire of Japan.” )

Unfortunately, there may be some confusion being generated here due to the different meanings of “occupation” in the English language.

Primarily, there are two types of “occupation,” and the first would be over islands with no population –- which we would view as terra nullius. (A subset of this type would be occupation over populated islands or other territories with “no central government” (characterized by the presence of a large number of aboriginal tribes, etc.) – which we would view as terra sine domino.)

terra sine domino – [spoken of populated territory] “land without master,” land with no central government, abandoned territory.

terra nullius – [spoken of unpopulated territory] uninhabited islands or lands.

However, the second type of “occupation” is “military occupation” and that is something else entirely.

[DEFINITION]
Military Occupation – (1) invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces, (2) a condition in which territory is under the effective control of foreign armed forces, (3) the military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

International law specifies that “Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty.” [Note: military occupation is not annexation and the doctrine of “prescription” does not apply.]

The quotes which some posters here on forumosa.com have provided from Oppenheim appear to fall into the realm of the first type of “occupation.” That however, is not military occupation, which is what I am concerned with.

Also see FM 27-10
362. Necessity for Military Government
Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.

If this is the case, don’t you think it’s about time US should figure what to do with Taiwan’s title? Afterall it’s been 60 years since SFPT, and there’s absolutely no reason the US should continue the occupation of Taiwan any longer. So what should the US do with Taiwan?

Where did you hear this? According to your logic, Taiwan has been in “interim status” for 60 years, time for the US for figure out a permanent solution, no?

[quote=“Hartzell”] This quotation, and the others which you have provided from Oppenheim, are not concerned with “military occupation.” What Oppenheim is speaking of here is “occupation of terra nullius,” such as the situation of uninhabited islands in the Pacific Ocen which were claimed by US citizens under the legal authority of international law plus the Guano Islands Act.

For general information on the contents and application of this Act, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act[/quote]

You’re right that the part of Oppenheim I quoted belongs to Part II: The Objects of the Law of Nations. It is indeed appplicable to ‘non-military occupation’. It was my mistake. But I’ve also examined the 2nd volume of Oppenheim, which is devoted to laws of war. There are other sources available that support intention and actual authority as necessary conditions of military occupation, in a way consistent with Oppenheim’s views in the 2nd volume:

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations stipulates that territory is considered occupied when it is [color=#4080FF]actually placed under the authority of the hostile army[/color]. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and [color=#BF80FF]can be exercised[/color].

LAW OF WAR HANDBOOK (2005) edited by MAJ Keith E. Puls:

Occupation = Invasion plus[color=#8080BF] taking firm possession of the enemy territory [/color]for the [color=#80BF80]purpose [/color]of holding it. FM 27-10, Para. 352a.
(1)Invasion: Invasion continues for as long as resistance is met. If no resistance is met, the state of invasion continues only until the invader takes firm control of the area, with an intention of holding it. Invasion is not necessarily occupation, but invasion usually precedes occupation. FM 27-10, Para. 352a. Invasion may be either resisted or unresisted.
(a) Resisted v. Unresisted Invasion. Occupation “presupposes” a hostile invasion -However, a “hostile” invasion may be either resisted or unresisted.

Since purpose presupposes intention and is part of the definition of military occupation and the US has expressly denied any such intention and exercised no actual control over Taiwan, it cannot be the so-called ‘principal occupying power’ over Taiwan.

Totally incorrect. As I have said before, read the treaty.

Do I ned to repeat that here for you? Here it is in capital letters:
READ THE TREATY. .[/quote]

Which part of the San Francisco Peace Treaty [color=#8080BF]unambiguously [/color]claims that the US is ‘the principal occyping power’ over Taiwan?

Also, there’s evidence contrary to the claim that the US is any sort of ‘principal occupying power’ over Taiwan.
The Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty (1954) signed between the ROC and the USA stipulates:

ARTICLE VI

For the purposes of Articles II and V, the terms “territorial” and “territories” shall mean in respect of the Republic of China, Taiwan and the Pescadores…

ARTICLE VII

The Government of the Republic of China [color=#4080BF]grants[/color], and the Government of the United Stares of America accepts, the right to dispose such United States land, air and sea forces in and about Taiwan and the Pescadores as may be required for their defense, as determined by mutual agreement.

Graned, the purpose of the treaty was not to trasnfer the sovereignty over the islands. But this at least shows that the US considered Taiwan as part of the territiry controlled and [color=#8080FF]occupied [/color]by the ROC. If the US had been ‘the principal occupying power’ over Taiwan and the ROC its proxy, there would have been no need to conclude this treaty; the US could have just notified the ROC via a phone call in case of military need. In other words, the right to deploy troops in Taiwan would have remained with the US as the ‘principal occupier’; the ROC as the presumed proxy then could not have ‘granted’ such a right to the US.

[quote=“Hartzell”]International law specifies that “Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty.” [Note: military occupation is not annexation and the doctrine of “prescription” does not apply.]

The quotes which some posters here on forumosa.com have provided from Oppenheim appear to fall into the realm of the first type of “occupation.” That however, is not military occupation, which is what I am concerned with.

Also see FM 27-10
362. Necessity for Military Government
Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.[/quote]

I am not arguing in this thread that the ROC acquired sovereignty over Taiwan through military occupation. I am only trying to show that the US is not ‘the principal occupying power’ over Taiwan.

books.google.com/books?id=G8NAAA … &q&f=false
See p.233.

As we are talking about the true owner of the title to Taiwan territory, several signs indicate that US millitary is subtly taking control of Taiwan in a stable and secured fashioln. These signs are

  1. The testing Pave Paws system on top of Leshan Mountain in Hsinchu County is new completion. The radar will become fully functional and fully connected with their counterparts in the states in the end of this year. Taiwan’s Pave Paws station will be fully operated by American solders and not a single ROC millitary personnel will be allowed to enter this base. The newly-bought Apache hellicopters will also be manned by American pilots, and American only.

  2. The national emblem of ROC is gradually disappearing from our sight. First the airforce, army, and the navy have been ordered to delte it from all the aircrafts, tanks, and other equipments. The police at Wenshan District, Taipei is solicting a new design for their police emblem to replace the ROC emblem.

US millitary looks like not coming here suddenly but just let the ROC gradually phase out. I agree that this is a pretty cool approach. Let’s see what would happen in the end of the year.

[quote=“printlessfoot”]As we are talking about the true owner of the title to Taiwan territory, several signs indicate that US millitary is subtly taking control of Taiwan in a stable and secured fashioln. These signs are

  1. The testing Pave Paws system on top of Leshan Mountain in Hsinchu County is new completion. The radar will become fully functional and fully connected with their counterparts in the states in the end of this year. Taiwan’s Pave Paws station will be fully operated by American solders and not a single ROC millitary personnel will be allowed to enter this base. The newly-bought Apache hellicopters will also be manned by American pilots, and American only. [/quote]

Don’t read too much into the installation of the Pave Paws. This system is only part of the national defense purchase that the ROC made.
Since it is new to Taiwan, it will of course have to be opeated by trained American personnel in the beginning. This event actually contradicts the claim that the US is taking control of Taiwan. IF the US were the ‘occupier’, then why would Taiwan have to spend money on such military equipment?

[quote=“printlessfoot”]2. The national emblem of ROC is gradually disappearing from our sight. First the airforce, army, and the navy have been ordered to delte it from all the aircrafts, tanks, and other equipments. The police at Wenshan District, Taipei is solicting a new design for their police emblem to replace the ROC emblem.

US millitary looks like not coming here suddenly but just let the ROC gradually phase out. I agree that this is a pretty cool approach. Let’s see what would happen in the end of the year.[/quote]

the national flag gradually disappearing from the ROC military? Have you stayed in Taiwan long enough to know how frequently the ROC flag appeared in the army in the past, compared with the present?

[quote=“printlessfoot”]As we are talking about the true owner of the title to Taiwan territory, several signs indicate that US millitary is subtly taking control of Taiwan in a stable and secured fashioln. These signs are

  1. The testing Pave Paws system on top of Leshan Mountain in Hsinchu County is new completion. The radar will become fully functional and fully connected with their counterparts in the states in the end of this year. Taiwan’s Pave Paws station will be fully operated by American solders and not a single ROC millitary personnel will be allowed to enter this base. The newly-bought Apache hellicopters will also be manned by American pilots, and American only.

  2. The national emblem of ROC is gradually disappearing from our sight. First the airforce, army, and the navy have been ordered to delte it from all the aircrafts, tanks, and other equipments. The police at Wenshan District, Taipei is solicting a new design for their police emblem to replace the ROC emblem.

US millitary looks like not coming here suddenly but just let the ROC gradually phase out. I agree that this is a pretty cool approach. Let’s see what would happen in the end of the year.[/quote]

Oh, so Ma is junking the ROC and letting the US takeover (so he’ll be running for governor of Taiwan Territory at the next election?) Somehow I must have missed that.

Seriously, where in the world are you getting these info? Don’t you think it all sounds a little nutty? Just because Hartzell thinks Taiwan is occupied US territory doesn’t mean it’s actually happening, or that the Taiwanese people would agree with it. Even Chen Shui Bian didn’t dare to mess with the emblem, which would be innocuous by comparison.

Under US administration, Ma Ying-jeou would not be qualified to hold any public office. He is not a native Taiwanese.

He is an exiled Chinese from China.

I’m sure that Printlessfoot has been here every bit as long as Hartzell, whom I am sure would never consider putting himself up for the director-generalship of Taiwan under this so-called US administration. :slight_smile:

Under US administration, Ma Ying-jeou would not be qualified to hold any public office. He is not a native Taiwanese.

He is an exiled Chinese from China.[/quote]

Well that’s why Taiwan is NOT under US administration. Thanks for providing the rebuttal to your own assertion.

I didn’t provide a rebuttal to my own assertion. The administration of Taiwan is currently delegated to the Chinese Nationalists. That is a “principal - agent” relationship.

We are looking for the US military authorities to terminate this agency arrangement, and to handle the administration of Taiwan directly.

Either way, the United States of American remains the principal occupying power. That is stated in the post-war treaty.

I collected some pictures to show that the ROC is being gradually phased out from Taiwan.

(1)

The national emblem of ROC logo was deleted from this tank.

(2)

Not only ROC’s emblem was deleted from this hellicopter but also the words ‘U.S. Army’ was printed on its equipments.

(3)

This aircraft before the deletion is shown in upper figure and the same aircraft after the deletion is shown in lower figure.

(4)

The police replaced ROC’s emblem with a green mountain.

Then why are there presidential elections in Taiwan, are they fake or something? I seem to remember those same Chinese Nationalists were on the sideline in Taiwan from 2000-08. Clearly the fact that there was a DPP administration flies in the face of your assertion. Why are there even elections if the KMT is the delegated authority? According to your logic, Taiwan should rid democracy and go back to KMT one-party rule because the KMT alone are delegated to administer Taiwan.

[quote]We are looking for the US military authorities to terminate this agency arrangement, and to handle the administration of Taiwan directly.
[/quote]

This is crazy now. How does the US go about directly administering Taiwan which is de-facto independent and has it’s own government, laws, courts, etc. Are Taiwanese officials suppose to just junk the ROC constitution and resign in en masse and let Americans come over to take over Taiwan if the US just conveys that they want to administer Taiwan directly? And why would the Taiwanese people go alone with it? If they don’t want China taking them over, they sure don’t want the US to do it either.

So tell me, how is the US suppose to go about handling the administration of Taiwan directly.

[quote=“printlessfoot”]I collected some pictures to show that the ROC is being gradually phased out from Taiwan.

(1)

The national emblem of ROC logo was deleted from this tank.

(2)

Not only ROC’s emblem was deleted from this hellicopter but also the words ‘U.S. Army’ was printed on its equipments.

(3)

This aircraft before the deletion is shown in upper figure and the same aircraft after the deletion is shown in lower figure.

(4)

The police replaced ROC’s emblem with a green mountain.[/quote]

Fuckin’ A!
It’s about bloody time they took off that hideous KMT imagery.
Though, in point of order, that is not a tank, it’s an APC.
And as for the equipments, well, why not?
:scooby: