#48-49: 環球漫話社 on: Hartzell/Lin Taiwan Position. 07.8.15=3 11pm & 23=4 2:15pm.

---------------------------
---------------------------
環球漫話社: 總編輯 黃惠瑛
http://tinyurl.com/2mwkl7 or
http://chengkuangchen.googlepages.com/


' 被隱瞞60年的 "台灣國際地位" 真相 '

"" 台灣雲林出身，留學日本名古屋名城大學法博士的林志昇先生及「國際戰爭法」專家的美國人何瑞元 (Richard Hartzell) 先生，在2004年，前總統李登輝先生安排認識，並促成共同研究，極少數人研究過的【國際戰爭法與占領法】，真正了解『台灣的真正國際地位』。

倆位花三年徹底探究結果，竟然發現，台灣居然還是『美國軍事政府(USMG) 管轄下的未合併領土(Unincorporated Territory)』，與「關島」同樣是屬於美國列島區 (Insular Area) 第一類自治區，是屬於「暫定狀態(Interim Status)』的國際地位，而且在美國憲法領土條款第四條第三項第二款清楚明列。

林, 何兩位對他們所研究的【美台屬地法理論述】，歡迎有人來反證或反駁 ,但尚未接到任何人的質疑或挑戰. 依照【林何論述】複雜的「台灣問題」，決不是中國內戰遺留的問題，更不是中華人民共和國的「內政問題」，而確實是美日太平洋戰爭所遺留下來的「政治問題」。 ""
... ...

"" 蔣介石集團的非法佔領 ""

... ...
"" 「林何論述」已被檢證，何的論文曾登在美國哈佛大學2004 年亞細亞秋季刊內，又於2005年9 月 20日林何在美國華盛頓郵報上以"What are you doing?" ( 你們在做什麼？ ) 為題登廣告文，公佈戰爭法理台灣地位根據。向美國政府質問台灣主權的歸屬問題，並追究其責任，要被同意刊登"法理論述"在美國首都的主要報紙，不是那麼容易，經過八次以上的電子信來往詢問兩位所述的法案與條例，由華盛頓郵報的法務部門檢證後才准許登報。
網站地址 : http://www.taiwanadvice.com/what2do.htm


美國對台的錯誤政策

美國政府不公開"台灣國際地位"的真相，是因為美國不願意承認過去對台政策的錯誤，而造成的自私與欺騙的行為，把台灣放在模糊不確定狀態，才能符合美國的利益，就這樣，台灣人被美國欺騙，台灣人的權益被糟踏了，被美國憲法第 8條修正案所說的「殘忍對待」達62年之久，至今台灣仍然被利用做為美、中兩國的外交籌碼。

台灣問題複雜化，使中國威脅台海危機昇高，導致東亞各國的不安，美國應負大部分責任，因為 " 主要佔領權國"的美國，隱瞞了60 年戰後 "台灣主權歸屬"的真相，默認中華民國的非法佔領台灣，管轄台灣，放任蔣介石在台灣大屠殺等等，對台灣人極不公平的錯誤政策，是美國開國以來 200多年的人權醜聞，而所帶的竟是"主要佔領權國 "的美國，基於舊金山和平條約，雖有處理佔領地台灣的權利，責任及義務，卻怠慢處理台灣問題，因此，無辜的台灣人民被捲入中國兩政權內戰的紛爭，引發台灣人的悲劇，持續惡化到現在，成為國際孤兒的台灣人從來不知道被美、中隱瞞真相、被叛的事實，一直忍受著蔣介石獨裁政權的壓迫與羞辱，只有以微弱聲音向國際社會訴求，爭取同情，在國外發動錯誤的獨立運動，卻被美蓋上「台獨代表戰爭的烙印 , 而震驚的不知所措，崇尚自由、平等和法治的美國，竟會如此反其立國精神反對台灣獨立？原來美國不願台灣脫離美國屬地地位而不明白表示。過去台灣人的奮鬥功勞，對台灣民主化有貢獻。但對" 台灣國際地位"的定位無進展，一直無法參與國際組織，這些現狀是由於複雜的國際情勢與台灣人的無知所造成，現在林志昇先生與何瑞元先生根據 "國際戰爭法與佔領法"對台灣從新定位，過去台灣國際地位的真相，台灣人完全不知情。


台灣不是主權獨立國家

美國前國務卿" 包爾"於二零零四年十月二十四日在北京的記者會說："台灣非享有主權獨立之國家 "， ""
... ...

"" 為什麼美國擁有這麼絕大的權利來左右台灣的命運??

探究這些矛盾的疑點，就可斷定林志昇博士與何瑞元所提倡的論述是完全正確的，因為台灣主權是被美國「暫時」握有，台灣是美國的「未合併的海外領土」，也是屬於美國列島區間 (Insular Area)第一類的海外自治區，美國AIT最近在台北內湖地區租用了二萬坪地，租期為九十九年，可再延期九十九年，台灣人難道還傻傻不知其用途目的何在？


讓台灣人終止美國對台的曖昧政策

"台灣主權歸屬 " 的真相，漸漸明朗化的現在，十六代台灣人的林博士找到了台灣建國之高速路，並已發起實際行動，向華盛頓地區美國聯邦法院提出確定台灣地位之訴訟。同時，具體採取為台灣地位的準備措施。
(1) 於二零零五年九月二十日在華盛頓郵報上登廣告 , ，以台灣主權問題向 美國政府質問台灣的國際地位。
(2) 於二零零六年三月二十九日率領二百二十八名本土台灣人，向台北 AIT申請與（早期）關島同樣的美國國民護照,， AIT 已受件，這表示美國沒有退件的理由.。
(3) 於二零零六年十月二十四日，為了要打破美國的曖昧政策，並要得到台灣人民的信賴，證實「林何論述」的正確性，委託華府律師團，經過美國聯邦法院，要求美國政府 (白宮 國防部 國務院)依美國憲法，保護人權之法律規定，正式提出控訴，並要求 " 強制執行命令"明確回答 " 台灣主權定位"，聯邦法院檢證後已受理，台灣人控訴美國政府，是史上成功的頭一次，可說是號外的大新聞，但台灣媒體一字不提，完全封鎖報導，更令人感到台灣當局企圖永遠欺騙台灣人的可惡心態。
　
訴訟查詢網: http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/ http://www.taiwankey.net/de/taiwan/suitsumj.htm

(4) 林志昇為了宣傳「林何論述」，希望得到更多的民意，以便與美國談判，於 2006 年秋季參選高雄市長，但不幸被執政黨與國民黨以非常手段施壓，完全封鎖他的一切，沒有宣傳活動而遺憾落選。林博士在被限制的媒體中，利用唯一的" 高雄主人廣播電台" ，向高雄市民說明 "台灣主權歸屬 " 問題，但他的"法理論述 "一時無法被受過蔣介石政權五十年洗腦教育的台灣民眾所能馬上理解，再說，這個「林何論述」對中華民國與國民黨或民進黨，有巨大的殺傷力，因此林博士的一切宣傳活動的消息都被媒體所消音，連國號叫中華民國的本土執政黨，都怕被推翻既得政權而不支持他。

台灣要成為安定、和平的真正主權國家，台灣應以" 法理論述"向美國要求促成 [ 台灣主權問題 ] 的根本解決，相信這是台灣最後的一條救生路，戰後以來，台灣人從未向美國質疑或追究" 台灣主權歸屬問題 "，美國是徹底的法治國家，感情論是行不通的，要打破美國對台灣的隱瞞政策，需要堅持用" 法律根據的理論 "向美國理論到底，相信最後必會成功，林志昇團隊希望能得到陳水扁政府與有建國理念的民間團體或社會人士的支持與協助，大家團結一致，來思考轉換走另一個建國之路，這才是台灣求生存之唯一選擇。

林博士與何先生打開了" 台灣地位之潘朵拉盒子"，台灣的命運，今後會如何進展？只有神明得知，盼望台灣能向正確方向發展，誠心祈求二二八英靈怨靈的保佑。台灣的地理位置對於東亞地區間( 包括日本)之和平與安定有絕大影響力，台灣重要戰略位若被中國併吞，亞細亞各國亦不可避免限於中國侵略，台灣海峽是日本經濟生命線，若台海發生衝突，不知日本能擔任何種任務？日本媒體過分顧慮中國的打壓，不敢報導台灣消息，視台灣問題如他人之事，真不可思議。在日本沖繩 (琉球)的美軍基地，正猛受當地住民的反對，美國應早日承認台灣是美國屬地，這樣，美軍事基地亦可轉移到台灣，亦可強化美、日安保防衛之戰鬥能力，日本應幫助台灣，才符合日本的利益，並可消除台海危機，保持亞細亞地區的和平與安定與繁榮 .。
懇請 日本政府及日本國民能伸援手,，支持與援助台灣的法理地位能得到真相。

環球漫話社 總編輯 黃惠瑛 Keiko7314@gmail.com ""
... ...
"" 【附註】： ""
... ...
-------------------------

'CK Chen's Global Forum':

"" Dear Readers:

We use English, Japanese and Hanji Mandarin in this forum in order to have more peoples reading. The main purpose is of course to seek the status of Taiwan and looking for the right way to build the sovereign state of Taiwan. We welcome your opinions. Please send your mail to us at chengkuangchen@gmail.com

Cheng Kuang Chen Feb. 15, 2007

(1) 中華民国と中国に引導を渡せるか？ (2) 台灣地位與主權的真相 (3) 行動 行動 再行動!
(4) 軍事佔領と領土割讓之關係 (5) 台湾の独立と統一の論争 (6) 上海コミュニケの再検討
(7) 行動才會推動台灣建國 (8) 台灣人要講真話 (9) 228元兇是日本政府 (10) 台湾228大屠殺は日本政府の画策? (11) 亡命政府と亡命政権の概念 (12) 台湾と中国の無頼糾葛 (13) 台灣人的國籍歸屬 (14) Are Taiwanese Persons ROC Citizens?
chengkuangchen@gmail.com ""

--------------------------
--------------------------

Hartzell/Lin Basic Position on Taiwan Status:
http://tinyurl.com/37gvp4 or
http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/applyp6.htm

'Statement of Historical and Legal Evidence for US Nationality Status provided in accompaniment with Application for US nationality non-citizen PASSPORT', by native Taiwanese person born in Taiwan:

"" Section 1. PREFACE ""
... ...

"" Section 2. CONCLUSIONS FOR THE LEGAL STATUS OF TAIWAN, THE NATIONALITY OF NATIVE TAIWANESE PERSONS, AND RELATED ISSUES

1. Taiwan's international legal position: unincorporated and unorganized territory under the United States Military Government, and currently in interim status under the subset of the laws of war known as the "law of occupation."

A. As such, and regardless of the lack of any action by Congress, Taiwan is a TYPE 1 Insular Area of the United States, acquired under the principle of conquest.

B. At the present time, Taiwan has not reached a "final (political) status" and is being held under the administrative authority of "the principal occupying power" (i.e the United States), as specified in the SFPT.

2. Scope of applicability of US Constitution to native Taiwanese persons: Even without any action by Congress, "fundamental rights" under the US Constitution apply in all Insular Areas. Native Taiwanese persons are entitled to these fundamental rights. The right to travel, and to hold a passport, are fundamental rights included within the "liberty" of the Fifth Amendment.

3. Allegiance of native Taiwanese persons: to the United States of America

4. Nationality of native Taiwanese persons: US nationals (non-citizens)

5. Status of the Republic of China on Taiwan: a subordinate occupying power (beginning Oct. 25, 1945) and a government in exile (beginning Dec. 1949).

Section 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Part 1. World War II in the Pacific ""
... ...

"" Part 2. Determination of Taiwan's Insular Status under United States Law

1. The DOS Foreign Affairs Manuals provide the following information:

REFERENCE: 7 FAM 1121.1 How Territories and Possessions Were Acquired (TL:CON-66; 10-10-96) ""
... ...

"" Part 3. Dissection of a TYPE 1 US Insular Area ""
... ...


"" Section 4. NATIONALITY DETERMINATION UNDER US LAW FOR NATIVE TAIWANESE PERSONS BORN IN TAIWAN, WITH REFERENCE TO DOS FOREIGN AFFAIRS MANUALS (FAM)

1. Native Taiwanese Persons Born in Taiwan are US nationals (non-citizens).

REFERENCE: 7 FAM 1111.3 Nationality (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95) ""
... ...

"" REFERENCE: 8 USC 1408 ""
... ...


"" Section 5. NATIONALITY DETERMINATION UNDER US LAW FOR NATIVE TAIWANESE PERSONS BORN IN TAIWAN, WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAN FRANCISCO PEACE TREATY ""
... ...

"" Section 6. NATIONALITY DETERMINATION UNDER US LAW FOR NATIVE TAIWANESE PERSONS BORN IN TAIWAN, WITH REFERENCE TO THE TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT


Part 1. United States Code Specifications

1. The Taiwan Relations Act has some specifications regarding how native Taiwanese persons are to be treated under INA. All are included in the United States Code.
REFERENCE: Taiwan Relations Act, 22 USC 3303 (b) (6)
For purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1101 et seq.), Taiwan may be treated in the manner specified in the first sentence of section 202(b) of that Act (8 USC 1152(b)).

REFERENCE: Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC 1152(b)
Rules for chargeability
Each independent country, self-governing dominion, mandated territory, and territory under the international trusteeship system of the United Nations, other than the United States and its outlying possessions, shall be treated as a separate foreign state for the purposes of a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) of this section when approved by the Secretary of State. ""
... ...


"" Part 2. Taiwan's international legal status

1. Taiwan is a "Sub Sovereign Foreign State Equivalent" and "Self-Governing Dominion." Under INA [8 USC 1101 (a) (14)] the term "foreign state" includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship are regarded as separate foreign states.

2. As discussed in Section 7 of this document, the United States has never recognized the forcible incorporation of Taiwan into Chinese territory. As of late 1949, the Republic of China on Taiwan is fulfilling the dual roles of (1) subordinate occupying power (beginning Oct. 25, 1945), and (2) government in exile (beginning Dec. 1949). With plans for the full recognition of the PRC moving forward rapidly, the United States derecognized the Republic of China as the legal government of China in late 1978. The Taiwan Relations Act does not recognize the terminology of the "Republic of China" after Jan. 1, 1979, but instead refers to the government of Taiwan as the "Taiwan governing authorities."

3. The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) was passed by the US Congress. Among people in Taiwan there is much confusion about the true meaning of the TRA. Importantly however, this Act cannot be interpreted to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign independent nation. This rationale is explained Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (Dec. 13, 1979).

In regard to the decision to cancel the Mutual Defense Treaty with the ROC on Taiwan, Justice Brennan filed a statement which examined the constitutional issues as follows: "The constitutional question raised here is prudently answered in narrow terms. Abrogation of the defense treaty with Taiwan was a necessary incident to Executive recognition of the Peking Government, because the defense treaty was predicated upon the now-abandoned view that the Taiwan Government was the only legitimate political authority in China. Our cases firmly establish that the Constitution commits to the President alone the power to recognize, and withdraw recognition from, foreign regimes. See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 410 (1964); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S.186, at 212 (1962); United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 , 228-230, 62 S. Ct. 552 (1942)."

4. Again in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), the Supreme Court observed that responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs and for protecting the national security are "'central' Presidential domains." Similarly, in the Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), the Supreme Court " . . . recognized the generally accepted view that foreign policy [is] the province and responsibility of the Executive."

5. For the purposes of INA, the "subordinate occupying power and government in exile" of the Republic of China on Taiwan is treated as a self-governing dominion.


Part 3. Categories of Aliens in Insular Areas

1. Although there were some proclamations made in the Fall of 1945, the most commonly quoted reference for the "legal basis" of native Taiwanese persons as having ROC nationality is a Jan. 12, 1946, order issued by the ROC military authorities. However, that order was never ratified by the Legislative Yuan, nor made into a law. Importantly, as "belligerent occupation" of Taiwan began on Oct. 25, 1945, with the surrender of Japanese troops, and only ended with the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty on April 28, 1952, such an order is prohibited. More specifically, the imposition of mass-naturalization procedures over the civilian population in occupied Taiwan territory is illegal under the laws of war.

2. Reference to the pronouncements of the US State Department in the late 1940's (and even into the 1950's) confirms that the United States government has never recognized the legal validity of the mass naturalization of native Taiwanese persons as "ROC citizens" by the Chiang Kai-shek regime.

3. Beginning Oct. 25, 1945, as stated above, Taiwan's legal position was "independent customs territory under USMG on Japanese soil," with the administrative authority for the military occupation delegated to the Chinese Nationalists.

4. Under the customary laws of warfare, upon the surrender of Japanese troops the local populace passes under an "allegiance" to the conqueror, which in the post-Napoleonic era will be the principal occupying power. Such an analysis is fully recognized in international law and by the US Supreme Court. See full clarifications regarding the "legiance" of native persons in conquered territory in Section 10, Part 2, below.


Part 3. The Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty and the ROC Nationality Law

1. Article 26 of the SFPT serves to authorize the drafting of a peace treaty between the ROC and Japan. Article 10 of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (Treaty of Taipei) of Aug. 5, 1952 specifies: "For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendents who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) . . . . . "

2. The ROC Nationality Law was originally promulgated in Feb. 1929, when Taiwan was a part of Japan. It was revised in Feb. 2000, however there were no Articles addressing the mass naturalization of Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens.

3. Japanese Courts have held that the native persons of "Formosa and the Pescadores" were of Japanese nationality until the early Spring of 1952. In the SFPT, Japan renounced the sovereignty of Taiwan, but the Republic of China (ROC) was not the recipient of this sovereignty. This is stated in Article 2b and confirmed in Article 21. Hence, according to the provisions of the SFPT, the Republic of China is not the legal government of Taiwan.

4. For native Taiwanese persons to be bona fide ROC citizens, two conditions would need to be met. First, the San Francisco Peace Treaty would have to award sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC and second, there would have to be a law passed regarding these mass-naturalization procedures, after the peace treaty came into effect on April 28, 1952. In fact, neither of these two conditions has been met.

5. Importantly, the ROC Constitution does not clearly define its own "territory." By contrast, the Constitution of the United States specifies the inclusion of the original thirteen states, as well as additional states which have entered the Union via acts of Congress. In regard to territories over which other countries have relinquished sovereignty, and which have come under the jurisdiction of the United States, there are treaties which give the full specifications.


Part 4. The "Republic of China" Constitution

1. The "Republic of China" Constitution currently in use in Taiwan was passed on Dec. 25, 1946, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) still ruled China. It was promulgated on Jan. 1, 1947, and came into force on Dec. 25, 1947. It was brought over from Mainland China by the KMT during the Chinese Civil War period of the late 1940's. During this period of time, Taiwan was under military occupation, and had not been incorporated into Chinese territory.

2. Notably, Article 4 of the ROC Constitution specifies that "The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly." In regard to the alleged incorporation of Taiwan into Chinese territory, there is no resolution of the National Assembly on record.

3. As such, this ROC Constitution, which is often called the "Nanjing Constitution", is not the true organic law of the Taiwan cession. Under international law, and US Constitutional law, Taiwan remains as an unorganized territory.


Section 8. NATIONALITY DETERMINATION UNDER US LAW FOR NATIVE TAIWANESE PERSONS BORN IN TAIWAN, WITH REFERENCE TO A DETERMINATION OF THE "COMPETENT AUTHORITY" TO ISSUE ID DOCUMENTATION TO NATIVE PERSONS IN TAIWAN ""
... ...


"" Section 9. NATIONALITY DETERMINATION UNDER US LAW FOR NATIVE TAIWANESE PERSONS BORN IN TAIWAN, WITH REFERENCE TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTION ""
... ...


"" Section 10. NATIONALITY DETERMINATION UNDER US LAW FOR NATIVE TAIWANESE PERSONS BORN IN TAIWAN, WITH REFERENCE TO THE COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE OF CUBA AFTER THE SPANISH AMERICAN WAR ""
... ...


"" Section 11. NATIONALITY DETERMINATION UNDER US LAW FOR NATIVE TAIWANESE PERSONS BORN IN TAIWAN, WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR "PERMANENT ALLEGIANCE" ""
... ...


"" Section 12. FINAL COMMENTS

1. This 35-page document is presented as a "Statement of Historical and Legal Evidence for US Nationality Status" provided in accompaniment with an Application for a US nationality non-citizen PASSPORT by a native Taiwanese person born in Taiwan. The content herein does not touch on any issues which involve a "political question," and does not contradict the "One China Policy" as espoused by the United States. For more than thirty years, the official policy of the United States has been that it does not support "Taiwan independence", "One China, One Taiwan," or "Two Chinas."

2. China's unification policy, articulated in the 1993 White Paper, has four major principles: (a) one China, (b) one country, two systems, (c) a highly autonomous Taiwan, and (d) peaceful negotiation. The specification of "peaceful negotiation" is predicated on Beijing's assertion that "everything is negotiable within the framework of One China."

3. It must be pointed out that a "full clarification of the status quo" (as provided in this document) is not a unilateral change of the status quo. As the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of State have frequently commented, the United States is opposed to any unilateral moves by either Taiwan or China to change the political status quo in the region. This would include any moves toward military coercion by the PRC, or any moves toward self determination by Taiwan.


Footnotes ""
... ...


"" This file is available as a Microsoft WORD document --

Statement of Historical and Legal Evidence for US Nationality Status provided in accompaniment with Application for US nationality non-citizen PASSPORT by native Taiwanese person born in Taiwan
(33 pages) apply-passport.doc ""

--------------------------------
--------------------------------