A Mini-course in Taiwan’s Undetermined Status, and an Examination of the Implications for a correct “Taiwan Defense Strategy” More and more people are viewing China’s expansionist actions in the South China Sea with alarm, and are becoming increasingly concerned about the United States being pulled into a war with China in the near future. As a result, they are urging that the United States’ policy of “strategic ambiguity” toward the defense of Taiwan needs to change sooner rather than later. To date, the officials in Washington D.C. have been consistently hesitant to commit themselves to provide Taiwan with more technologically advanced defensive weapons or to make a pledge to actively come to the island’s defense in the event of a Chinese attack. Many claim that such a posture creates much doubt and confusion in Asian governmental circles. Additionally, it encourages China to continue the pursuit of all possible defensive and offensive strategies to keep the United States out of any potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait. its anti-access, area denial strategy of deploying attack submarines and ballistic missiles to deter, delay, or defeat any U.S. intervention in a cross-Strait conflict. 

[-- http://news360.com/digestarticle/AL1dK1H-N0eNIPkMr6ahyA ]

On Wed., April 1, 2015, two U.S. F-18 fighters landed at Tainan Air Force Base in southern Taiwan. Pro-KMT local Chinese-language dailies in Taiwan reported that the two fighter jets took off from a U.S. base in Okinawa, some 500 miles (800 km) away, and were conducting a routine patrol above waters north of Taiwan before one of the planes encountered a mechanical problem.

Insert: U.S. Airbases in Taiwan before 1979Chiayi Air Base, TaiwanChing Chuan Kang Air Base, TaiwanLo Shan Radar Site, TaiwanMakung Island, TaiwanO Laun Pi, TaiwanShihmen Air Station, TaiwanShu Linkou Air Station, TaiwanSung Shan Air Base, Taiwan

Tainan Air Base, TaiwanTaipei Air Station, TaiwanTakangshan, TaiwanTaoyuan Air Base, TaiwanHsinchu Air Base, Taiwan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Air_Force_installations#Taiwan

Commentary in some of the non-KMT media, and on many online weblogs, asked the simple question: “Why don’t the U.S. fighters stay in Taiwan, and the U.S. take charge of Taiwan’s defensive needs directly?”

Such discussions were quite active in the Taiwan media for a week or more. In the view of many members of the Taiwan populace, the issues of the United States’ announced policy of “strategic ambiguity” toward the defense of Taiwan, and what commitments should be made in that regard, cannot be settled unless a consensus is reached on which country should bear the “final responsibility” for the “national defense” needs of Taiwan.

This problem is especially acute because, as all Taiwanese are aware, the United States does not consider the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan to be a sovereign nation. Is it merely a play on words, and some sort of “semantic squabbling” to suggest that the ROC on Taiwan cannot be responsible for the “national defense” of Taiwan because it is not a nation? Or are there other arguments which carry more weight, if we want to get into a thorough discussion of this “national defense” topic, and attempt to sort out the legal and historical fundamentals?

Interestingly, topics such as the legal responsibility for the defense of Taiwan, while frequently debated in various forums on the island, are almost totally absent from discussions about Taiwan in Washington D.C. Among think tanks, academic institutions, and research organizations in the United States, dialogue on the future of Taiwan is predominately centered on two possible envisioned “future outcomes” for the island‘s development: formal independence or annexation by China.

All matters relating to Taiwan’s current legal commitments are brushed aside with the convenient rejoinder that Taiwan’s international legal status is “undecided” or “unsettled.” The presumption then appears to be that this situation can only change

when Taiwan achieves a condition of (as stated above) (1) formal independence, or (2) annexation by China.

Those persons who claim to support further democratic development on the island are generally supporters of Taiwan independence one way or the other, most likely under the KMT-preferred name of Republic of China, or the local Taiwan preference of “Republic of Taiwan.” But, if such an outcome cannot be achieved, due to pressure from China, then it may well be true that some sort of “unification with the PRC regime” is the only other alternative.

THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA’S ENVISIONED RETURN TO LEGITIMACY

Many liberal observers in North America note that in the eyes of US officialdom, the Rep. of China on Taiwan was legitimate before 1979. In the election year of 2016, and the ensuing new U.S. Presidential administration, they therefore hold the view that the ideal scenario is that the new President will formulate a new consensus with the US Executive Branch, and undertake a reversal of the pre-2016 policy on Taiwan. In this way, the US will quickly establish (or “re-establish) formal diplomatic relations with the ROC on Taiwan. At that point, the ROC will be quickly admitted (or “re-addmitted”) to the community of nations. The islanders can then move forward with all desired changes to the current democratic structure, under the authority of the ROC Constitution, at their own pace. In summary, if all necessary moves are made for the ROC to regain its previously legitimacy, discussions of “strategic ambiguity” and Taiwan’s “undetermined legal status” can be cast aside, and the ROC government leaders can manage their nation’s future development, in all areas, in a much more effective manner.

At that point there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the Republic of China on Taiwan bears the final responsibility for the “national defense” needs of Taiwan.

At this juncture, it would be most desirable to debate the pros and cons of such an “REPUBLIC OF CHINA’S ENVISIONED RETURN TO LEGITIMACY” scenario. However, members of the public who have read this far in this REPORT no doubt already have a number of “entrenched views” on this topic. Direct acquiescence to and approval of such views will come as no surprise to them, since they already consider their points of view to be correct. On the other hand, direct assault or

aggression against such views will quickly turn them off, and they will refuse to follow the author’s discourse and analysis any further.

Hence, at this point, we will introduce a “thought experiment,” which we have loosely adapted from a chronicle of certain events which occurred in Belgium during recent memory. Of course, the author has modified these events, and embellished them to a certain degree, to serve the purpose of this narrative. After this thought experiement, we will return to a discussion of more fundamental “legitimacy” issues for Taiwan, and examine the degrees of truth and falsity of some multiple choice questions. Although the reader may not immediately see the relevance or applicability of the situation expounded upon in the Belgian Thought Experiment to the situation in Taiwan, please bear with us, and give it some thought.

QUESTIONS OF LEGITIMACY: A BELGIAN “THOUGHT EXPERIMENT”

Let’s imagine the situation where Sabena (the national airline of Belgium from 1923 to 2001), had been allowed to continue to exist even after its bankruptcy, and to slowly expand into other areas of commercial activity in order to maintain a minimum level of income. As a result, in the present era the Sabena company officers continue to challenge the legality, authority, and authenticity of the currently designated flag carrier, Brussels Airlines. Indeed, we could imagine that officials of the major European and world governments also have vigorous debates on this issue from time to time. Does Belgium really have two “national carriers”?

We could further hypothesize that in 2001 Sabena's original headquarters was rather hastily moved from its location in Brussels to a previously abandoned series of warehouse buildings and nearby grounds. This is near the Ursel airport, in the Belgian province of East Flanders. Of course, the company has not paid rent on the facilities for many years, although it has established its own electrical power supply, irrigation network, training center, etc.

So, we have the headquarters of Sabena in a new location, BUT WHAT IS THE POINT? Or, to put this another way – What is being accomplished with this entire scenario?

Our answer is simple – In our thought experiment, the continuing "debate" over the designation of a Belgian national carrier (should it be Sabena? Or Brussels

Airlines?), which should have been settled long ago, serves as a convenient "smokescreen" for avoiding any discussion of the crucial issues of when Sabena, a derecognized, dechartered, and essentially illegitimate airline should be formally renamed, reorganized, and its assets liquidated for the benefit of outstanding creditors and employees.

WAITING FOR THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA’S RETURN TO LEGITIMACY

Due to the prevalence of this type of thinking, a large number of other important considerations and topics regarding the Republic of China in Taiwan are never discussed.

To put this another way – What if the US State Dept’s pronouncements regarding the Republic of China on Taiwan are correct?It is not sovereignIt is not independentIt is not qualified to join organizations whose requirements for admittance are sovereigntyIt is not qualified to join the United Nations We will call these the “five defranchisements.”

If indeed these “pronouncements” are true, then their implications need to be thoroughly examined and discussed. But, we notice that up to the present time, the Executive Branch officials are not doing this type of investigation, coordination, or any related research.

In our Belgian though experiment, it would certainly have been considered quite rash, rude, and boorish for anyone to come forward in the years after 2001 and say outright that Sebena was not a legitimate enterprise. This is despite the reality that, according to a cursory examination of the facts on the ground, it was clear that Sebena had lost all its routes, been declared bankrupt, and even that the continued legal occupancy of its current “headquarters” was extremely questionable.

In response to such charges, the top officers of Sebena would of course ceremoniously produce copies of the company charter, and other official

incorporation documents, which authorized the company to begin operations on May 23, 1923. Additionally, they could bring out bound copies of all the minutes of the Board Meetings which have been held up to the present day.

Moreover, they would stress that those who pledged allegiance to the enterprise were issued ID cards, and these were considered “acceptable” by most international organizations, even those of which Sebena was no longer a formal member. This fact, it would be argued, showed that Sebena still retained a large measure of legitimacy.

xxThe Board Members (who are now predominately retired volunteers serving in these “honorary positions”) have continued the least of which is the legitimacy of the entire legal structure of the “Republic of China” in Taiwan

In relation to the Republic of China on Taiwan, the five defranchisements are not actively discussed, because, as pointed out previously, the majority of scholars are convinced that only two outcomes for the Taiwan question are possible.

No. 1, as discussed above, would be – THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA’S RETURN TO LEGITIMACY

No. 2, as frequently discussed in the world press, would be THE ANNEXATION OF TAIWAN BY THE PRC

The background for this dichotomy of thinking is very simple. Most persons educated in schools in North America or Europe are pre-disposed to the democratic development of society. They view the ROC on Taiwan as being a functioning democracy, and thus would like to see it accepted as a member of the world community of nations.

Yet, there seems to be strong structural impediments to this kind of outcome. Not the least of these is the fact that the PRC is a member of the UN Security Council, and can veto any application for a new member under the name of “Taiwan,” or anything similar.

Hence, the facts on the ground may actually lead to the undesirable, yet somehow inevitable, result that Taiwan will be annexed by the PRC.

The scholars who support Taiwan developing further along the democratic path are further frustrated because they hold to the view that –

Most of the major components of the United States’ Taiwan policy are based on elaborate fictions. According to their observation and analysis, the most prominent of these is –

the “One China Policy.”

= = = = =

The questions asked at the beginning of this report were – Should Taiwan be completely combined with the United States western Pacific defensive perimeter, with the DOD assuming full responsibility for the “defensive needs” of Taiwan, both personnel and equipment?

(We disregard the issues of “budget” for the time being, since if large enough numbers of Congress people support such a scenario, the budget would be expected to materialize.)

Before we can give an answer to this question, we will have to examine all relevant assumptions which underlie the present arrangements for Taiwan’s defense.

Hopefully, in the course of this examination, some clear conclusion will be obtained as to whether the United States should maintain a One China Policy, or switch to a Two China Policy.

The Republic of China is commonly praised as a multi-party democracy with an established constitutional structure. The MND is a cabinet-level agency under the Executive Yuan of the Republic of China responsible for all defense affairs of Taiwan.

The MND was originally established as Ministry of War in 1912 at the creation of the Republic of China. It was changed to the Ministry of National Defense in 1946.

In the United States the organization of the DOD is specified in ________, under the

overall authority of the US Constitution. The Constitution was formulated in the following manner:

 

Hence, in order to gain a better understanding of the organizational premises and authority for the functioning of the MND, we can overview its organizational parameters.

The Organization Act of the Ministry of National Defense, Republic of China, specifies as follows: Article 1 The Executive Yuan shall establish the Ministry of National Defense

(“MND”) to administer the nation’s defense.

The Organization Act of the Executive Yuan of the Republic of China stipulates as follows: Article 1 The Act is established in accordance with Article 61 of the Constitution.

The relevant Article of the Republic of China Constitution is as follows:

Article 61 The organization of the Executive Yuan shall be prescribed by law.

The following additional Articles are relevant to discussing the geographical scope of application of the ROC Constitution as well as the implementation of military conscription policies over the “local populace.”

Article 3 Persons possessing the nationality of the Republic of China shall be citizens of the Republic of China.

Article 4 The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly.

About MND http://www.mnd.gov.tw/English/Publish.aspx?cnid=39&p=725

Based on this brief legal investigation, we see that the authority for the establishment of the ROC’s Ministry of National Defense must be traced back to the authority of the ROC Constitution, which is currently used in the Taiwan area.

The Legitimacy of the Republic of China Constitution in Taiwan

In regard to Taiwan, the most recent “Country Report on Human Rights Practices” by the U.S. State Dept. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor mentions the word constitution twelve times, but does not discuss the issue of how the ROC Constitution came to be regarded as the organic law of Taiwan. Historical Notes: As we know, Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895, and became a part of the Japanese Empire. After many years of fighting, the Japanese were defeated in WWII in the Pacific. The San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) came into force in late April 1952.  In the treaty, Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan. 

()____?____ 1945.10.25 ()____?____ 1952.04.28 ()____?____

(A)   The Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China was drawn up in March 1912 and formed the basic government document of the Republic of China until 1928. The Taiwanese were considered ethnically Chinese, hence Sun Yat-sen and other Chinese leaders considered Taiwan to be a part of the mother country. Taiwan was therefore specifically mentioned as being part of the geographical scope covered by this Constitution.

[ No, part of Japan, In 1935, delegates from the Rep. of China visited Taiwan to participate in the celebrations marking the 40th Anniversary of Japanese rule. ] Argument: ethnically Chinese so-called irredentism

(B) The Nationalist Government under Chiang Kai-shek promulgated the Provisional Constitution of the Political Tutelage Period in 1931, effective for all of China, and providing for a one-party system with supreme power held by the National Congress of the Kuomintang. Taiwan, having been ceded to Japan in (what was regarded as) an “unequal treaty” in 1895, was still considered by Sun

Yat-sen and other Chinese leaders as part of China’s national territory, was included within territory of “China” as specified in this Constitution. Argument: Unequal treaty

(C)  The Chinese arrived in Taiwan in October 1945, transported on US ships and aircraft.  Taiwan was then formally annexed on the date of the Japanese surrender ceremonies, with approval by General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. General MacArthur was aware that Chiang Kai-shek had announced the cancellation of this 1895 treaty on several occasions in the 1930s and early 1940s. With the end of the Pacific War in 1945, there was a reversion of Taiwan to China. Argument: CKS announced cancellation of 1895 Treaty hence reversion to China, end of war in 1945

(D) The Chinese in Taiwan promulgated a new Constitution for Taiwan after the coming into force of the ROC – USA Mutual Defense Treaty (“MDT”). In the MDT, the members of the U.S. Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee confirmed that Taiwan was part of ROC national territory. Primarily, this interpretation was based on the Cairo Declaration of Dec. 1, 1943. Moreover, as all students of Chinese history know, the ROC has existed as a sovereign state since 1912. Argument: Mutual Defense Treaty, Cairo Declaration, sovereign state since 1912

(E)   After major world nations began breaking diplomatic relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan in the late 1960s and early 1970s, local Taiwanese groups saw that the ROC would soon have to give up its claim as the legitimate government of China.  A constitutional convention was called in Taipei, delegates from every sector of Taiwan’s society were invited to attend, and a new Taiwan Constitution was promulgated in early February 1972, nearly two weeks before Nixon and Kissinger visited China. The establishment of a sovereign Republic of China was based on the facts that after twenty years of continuous occupation, the ROC had already evolved into a sovereign state, in addition to the obvious fact that the ROC had the best claim, under international law, to sovereignty over Taiwan. Argument: evolvement into sovereign state, best claim argument

Xx In January 1949, anticipating a possible needed move of the ROC government to Taiwan later in the year, representatives of several groups of

native Taiwanese came together to call a constitutional convention, which was attended by representatives from throughout the areas of “Formosa and the Pescadores.”  After a year of deliberations and consultations, the Taiwan Constitution was promulgated.== == == == == == ==  

Which is the correct choice?  Of course, the answer is: None of the above.  The Republic of China Constitution was promulgated on Dec. 25, 1947.

[Constitution] Article 3 specifies the citizenship of local persons.

IN SPITE OF ALL THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS, A MAJOR FLAW IS STILL EVIDENT: When were the procedures in the Article 4 of the ROC Constitution, regarding the incorporation of new territory, completed?

January 12, 1946, military order authorizing mass naturalization.

To determine the legal basis for the Jan. 12 1946 order and Dec. 25, 1947, we must go back even earlier, and determine the point in time when the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan was transferred to the ROC.

The Constitution, with minor revisions from the latest draft, was adopted by the National Assembly in Nanjing on December 25, 1946, promulgated by the National Government on January 1, 1947, and went into effect on December 25, 1947.

There are eight major theories or hypotheses as to when this happened.An initial consideration is that many Chinese say that Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times. Hence, they feel that

=====* 1) The Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese, hence it is proper and fitting that Taiwan be recognized as part of China. irredentism

Technically not a legal doctrine, and indeed if such a doctrine was applicable, then after the War of 1812, the orginal American colonies would have been returned to the U.K.

Authors of twenty books say that the “return of sovereignty” issue is very contentious, with many different opinions on all sides of the issue. Hence, they avoid dealing with it.

Actually all of these authors make the same mistake because they are civilians, and have not expertise in laws of war studies. International law chart -- what they are missing (ignoring)

ANALYSIS OF A TRANSFER OF TAIWAN’S TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY TO THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Seven rationale or hypotheses may be considered. These all, to a lesser or greater degree, involve the interpretation and/or application of customary law resulting from the conduct of war. The first three also require knowledge of the force and application of peace treaties after war.

Again, it is noteworthy to remember that the analysis below goes far beyond any descriptions or analysis in any of the scholarly books or essays written by the many authors mentioned above.

Rationale to be discussed with consideration of Laws of War

Rationale Involving the Application of general Treaty Law Principles====* 2) The 1895 Treaty was unfairly forced upon China, and therefore should be considered invalid from the start (void ab initio). And “unequal treaty”Estoppel: Chen Yi came in 1935, Mao tse-tungs comments to Edgar Snow.

=====* 3) Chiang Kai-shek announced the cancellation of this 1895 treaty on several occasions in the 1930s and early 1940s. Taiwan thus reverted to China. No relevant clause, what is cancelled is active clauses. Qing China has already disappeared. ROC is not successor to Qing.

4) With no receiving country specified in 1952 peace treaty, ROC is here, so of course belongs to them. postliminium

Rationale Involving the Application of general Laws of War Principles======= * 5) The Cairo Declaration of Dec. 1, 1943 already resulted in the transfer of Taiwan’s terr. sov. to China. Rebuttal: State Dept.

6) With the surrender ceremonies, Taiwan Retrocession Day was announced. No recognition by Allies. No precedent under int. law

======= * 7) Mutual Defense Treaty of USA recognized ROC sovereignty over Taiwan. Effective territorial control. In the SFPT, Japan renounced all _____ but no receiving country was specified

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The result of this overview is to say that none of these are valid arguments. Hence, we conclude that Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty is not held by the Republic of China.

The statement of this “conclusion” does not, frankly speaking, amount to a new discovery regarding the legal status of the Republic of China on Taiwan. Indeed, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated:

Even without an inspection of the eight rational given above, there are many seemingly substantial “objections” to such a conclusion, advanced by both the authors of the above books, and other well respected scholars and commentators. Hence, it will be useful to make an additional overview and analysis of their objections.

However, before looking at these objections, we need to first consider the best way to describe the status of Taiwan territory after the close of fighting in WWII in the Pacific. As we have mentioned, the Japanese surrender ceremonies in Taiwan were held on October 25, 1945.

Numerous descriptive adjectives will come to mind. Among the most commonly mentioned are the following.

overrun liberated invaded

captured conquered appropriatedseized occupied sequesteredwholly annexed tentatively annexed temporarily annexed ceded retro-ceded provisionally cededtransferred preliminarily transferred conditionally transferrednewly possessed confiscated unconditionally surrenderedimpounded under bailment consigned etc.

The question we must ask is: Which of these terms are the most relevant for a discussion of the “disposition of territory”?

Or alternatively – Which of these terms qualify as legal descriptions, the discussion and analysis of which can be found in the decisions of many international tribunals, and the US Supreme Court?

Answer is: conquered territory.

Which is most relevant?

conquered occupied

Look at Supreme Court references (quotations)

Unfortunately, there is no record of Roc military attacks on the island during this period

The USA is the conqueror and will have a 1st tier (i.e. “primary” or “foremost”) jurisdictional authority over Taiwan. Under the laws of war, such jurisdiction will continue until legally supplanted.

FURTHER OBJECTIONS

Above, after a seven part analysis, the conclusion was reached that the ROC on Taiwan is not a sovereign state.

Another seven major objections to this conclusion can be discussed.

===== * ROC existed as sovereign state since 1912

1952 Treaty of Taipei Article 10

===== * Long term occupation, Taiwan/ROC has already evolved into a sovereign state

===== * ROC has best claim to sovereignty over Taiwan

Sovereignty of Taiwan belongs to local TW inhabitants

Meets Montevideo Convention criteria

ROC on Taiwan meets definition of sovereignty in dictionary Look at Shanghai communiqué, (Taiwanese residents not consulted) “sovereignty” definition written by civilians

These SEVEN OBJECTIONS are analyzed as follows:

However, turning to customary law, including its codification in the Hague and Geneva Conventions, along with relevant US Supreme Court decisions, and codified US Army regulations and summaries of international law, such as FM 27-10 The Law of Land Warfare provide the answers.

LINE CHART 1945.10.25 1946.01.12 1947.12.25 1949-mid 1949.12.10 1952.04.28 1955.03.03

With the recognition that Taiwan is occupied territory as of Oct. 25, 1945 , then we must recognize that there are many types of activities which are forbidden in occupied territory. These are considered violations of the laws of war. Mass naturalization, new legal structure, mil. Conscription

Listing of violations of the laws of war by ROC Regime

See twclarify.com chart

The Senate Foreign Rel. Committee (comments as above)

With the above knowledge, we can draw a chart/table regarding the situation of Taiwan from Oct. 1945 to March 1955 as follows

Legal Status of ROC in TaiwanLegal Status of USA in TaiwanLegal Status of Taiwan territory See http://www.civil-taiwan.org/timeline7.htm

Republic of China in Taiwan Status #1 Status #2 Beginning Oct. 25, 1945 prox. Occ. force Beginning Dec. 10, 1949 gov. in exile

Taiwan territory (See charts on civil-taiwan.org etc. )

1959 Court case Sheng v. Rogers This court case provides a final summation that Taiwan is not part of ROC national territory

We can now compare the above results with the announced stance of the US Executive Branch Powell: not independent Wilder: undecided State Dept.: neither a state nor a government Three nos

One China Policy (but this policy does not mean that Taiwan is part of China)

With the recognition that these statements of the Executive Branch are 100% correct, we can then move on to a discussion of the RAMIFICATIONS of these statements

Use of ROC Constitution Any legal structure based on Roc Constitution, including Nationality, military conscription, elections, national property bureau, ownership of land by RoC regime

All illegal

But at present, the “dialogue” in Washington DC by thinktanks, academic personnel, researchers, etc. is dominated by the following considerations –

In reality there are two Chinas The ROC on Taiwan meets the definition of a sov. State The US Exec. Branch should re-establish formal diplomatic relations with ROC The US Exec. Branch should support ROC entrance to UN and other world bodies

Viewed from the angle of a firm recognition of the ROC’s non-sovereign status, these statements appear to be a deliberate attempt to divert the discussion on Taiwan away from the TRUTH OF THE MATTER, which is

The US Exec. Branch should nurture local (native) Taiwan groups to form their own civil government

With no legal basis for the functioning of an ROC MND on Taiwanese soil, or the imposition of mandatory military conscription polices over the local Taiwan populace, a moratorium on arms sales to “Taiwan” should be instituted, and the US DOD should assume all responsibility for the “national defense needs” of Taiwan, both personnel and equipment

In terms of dealing with all matters regarding Taiwan, the US Executive Branch should deal with local Taiwan groups, not the “foreign regime” of the ROC

The native Taiwanese people should not be carrying passports or other identity documents which identify them as being “nationals of the Republic of China”

Government officers and strong supporters of the ROC should make plans to move back to their beloved homeland of mainland China, or if remaining in Taiwan, to become registered to have “residency” rights (not citizenship rights in the near term)

Hopefully, the complete record of military attacks on Taiwan during WWII period will be released by the Pentagon.

Native Taiwanese people now comprise over 87% of population, and are not correctly identified as having ROC nationality, subject to ROC military conscription, or under ROC Constitution.

Primarily

One China

The Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of China is organized under the ____ law under the authority of the ROC Constitution. This is the organic law of the ROC MND.

Which is correct? The nationality of the people in Taiwan is “Chinese”? The nationality of the people in Taiwan is “Taiwanese”?US Policy on the Taiwan PRC USA relationship One China TRA Three Communiq.

Notes: SFPT is higher and should be included, US Constitution, laws of war

Legitimacy of ROC Constitutional Legal Structure on Taiwan

Organization of ROC-MND none

Mass naturalization none

Mandatory Military conscription none Must be based on national sov.

Native Taiwanese and ROC Exiles

RESPONSIBILITY FOR “NATIONAL DEFENSE” NEEDS OF TAIWAN

Common defense clause of US Const.

What the above means for the national defense of Taiwan