Channel Button

There are 2 articles on this title. You are reading the article ranked and rated #2 by Helium's members.

Politics, News & Issues   >

Politics in Asia

Get a Widget for this title

Understanding Taiwanese and US relations

Since the break in relations with the Republic of China (ROC) in late 1978, and the implementation of the "Taiwan Relations Act" in 1979, Congressional hearings on the the Taiwan question consistently overlook one important legal document. That document, the Senate ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) of 1952, is in fact the highest ranking item of US constitutional law in the post-WWII era regarding the status of Taiwan.

US policy, as clarified by President Clinton in 1998 stated that: "We don't support independence for Taiwan; . . . or 'two Chinas'; or 'one Taiwan, one China'; . . . and we don't believe that Taiwan should be a member in any organization for which statehood is a requirement." The PRC reaction was quick and straightforward, as officials ther quickly pointed out that Mr. Clinton's statements could only permit one possible interpretation: namely, if Taiwan lacks the qualifications necessary for independence or statehood, (as witnessed by the United Nations' yearly refusal to admit Taiwan for membership), and since the US has recognized the PRC as the sole legal government of China, the US necessarily must agree that Taiwan is a province of the PRC.

However, in study of fifty key elements of US policy in regard to Taiwan's legal status released by the Taiwan Civil Alliance in 2007, less than 20% corresponded to the theory that Taiwan is a province of China. Contrastingly, over 90% corresponded to an interpretation which flows from a reading of the historical and legal record from the point of view of "the laws of war" and "military jurisdiction under the US Constitution." That interpretation says that Taiwan is occupied territory of the United States of America.

The mental blocks for most people in accepting such a conclusion are (1) confusing the surrender ceremonies with the military occupation, and (2)failing to recognize that the military occupation of a particular area can be delegated to other country's troops. In other words, under General MacArthur's General Order No. 1 of Sept. 2, 1945, surrender was to the Allies, and the United States was the legal occupier (aka "principal occupying power.") The Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek were still officially subject to the supreme authority of General MacArthur, who was the Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces in the Far East. It was the United States Military Government (USMG) whom was legally occupying Japan and her territorial dependencies like Taiwan.

In a June 14,


Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:

Understanding Taiwanese and US relations

  • 1 of 2

    by Richard Hamilton

    US Position As a third party, the United States' opinion in this matter is less important as China and Taiwan's, but ... read more

  • by Roger Lin

    Since the break in relations with the Republic of China (ROC) in late 1978, and the implementation of the "Taiwan Rel... read more

Add your voice

Know something about Understanding Taiwanese and US relations?
We want to hear your view. Write_penWrite now!

What do you know about?
  • Tell us! Get published today.
  • Reach millions.
  • Many ways to earn.
Join Helium Today

Already a member? Log in.

Helium Debate

Cast your vote!

Will ordinary Muslims rejection of extremists hasten the end of terrorism?

Click for your side.

136151

Featured Partner

MENTOR - National Mentoring Partnership

MENTOR has partnered with Helium, giving you the chance to write for a cause. Browse MENTOR's featured titles, p...more

What is Helium? | Help | Contact Us | Community | Helium’s Official Blog | Link to Helium | Privacy | User agreement | DMCA

Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA