To would-be ROC citizens:

Legal Dual Nationality
21

I can’t speak for everyone, but surely knowledge of how to operate a variety of weapons, target shooting, hand-to-hand/knife combat training, and how to negotiate various types of terrain under fire seem to be appropriate kinds of training. And that is what is taught as far as I know. As for forgetting, that’s what reserve training is for, which is one of the reasons I think it should be supplemented, in addition to my desire to just have an excuse to get out of the office and still be paid.

Also, how would you coordinate a bunch of people who had never been part of a military organization? Who listens to whom? Who does what? Any foreigners involved would have to be able to speak and be able to understand Chinese, of course, and basic Taiwanese wouldn’t hurt either. I think that military training is still pertinent in more ways than one to Taiwan’s situation.

22

Paogao,

Please see the posts on the legal forum for your legal answers and suggestions. As for the NCO situation of Taiwan, Mennick’s article in the Taipei Times has drawn criticism as well as my own:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2001/12/26/story/0000117388
(The editors misquoted my points on “failure” of officers to pass inspections. It is out of context as most senior officers understand this. If they don’t, they do so at their own peril. I could have ended a few military careers, if I had “lost” something of value like an M-16.)

23

As for the ROC conscription system of Taiwan, it is not in compliance with the laws of occupation under the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

FYI, I was ‘cross-trained’ in Civil Affairs regulations by the US Army, and FM 27-10 Rules of Land Warfare are the “keys” to legally unlocking the SFPT. I am very sorry to say but NO ONE, especially ROC attorneys or American civilian officials, seem to understand this fact of peace treaties, or don’t want to tell too much. Additionally, these manuals were “RESTRICTED” to Civil Affairs officers in the US Military until only recently, it seems.

Thus no one has told the Taiwanese people about it until now, but the Internet is making this an “open secret”:

FM 27-10 Laws of Land Warfare
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm

Here is the fundamental problem of SFPT:

  1. Oath of Allegiance Forbidden

It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power. (HR, art. 45.)

GV means Geneva Convention of 1949
HR means Hague Conventions of 1907, or collectively as “Hague Regulations”

The HR were into legal effect when US Naval Civil Affairs Officer George Kerr took the Japanese surrender of Formosa on October 25, 1945, and he used the Civil Affairs regulations of 1940 as applied to Taiwan. At that time, this was a “hostile occupation” by the Allied Powers of Japanese territory. However, the ROC “annexed” Formosa very prematurely on that “Retrocession Day”, and it is null in the laws of occupation under SFPT. Period.

SFPT ended the “hostile occupation” but did not transfer sovereignty to ROC. This is in FM 27-10 (Chapter 6), FM 27-5 Civil Affairs Regulations, and TM 27-251, Treaties Governing Land Warfare.

ROC conscripts must take an oath of allegiance to the ROC Constitution which is in international violation of the HR and SFPT. Not to mention the US interest in the ‘human rights’ of Taiwan, which are still unalienable under the SFPT.

This interest is under the international laws of occupation, not “annexation”, as Taiwan is in an interim status of legal occupation.

I am seeking out “officially qualified” legal opinions on this very peace treaty issue, but there are few qualified civilian lawyers for the laws of occupation and insular affairs. Most such civilians have worked for the State Dept, and you know how they don’t say too much on this issue because of their “One China” Communiques with Beijing.

Sorry guys, but the cat is out of the bag.

Jeff Geer