State, Nation, and Sovereignty
Many of us may feel somewhat confused by the statements in emails that claim
“Taiwan is a de facto (not the de jure) State”.
We also read the news from Taiwan which quoted that “Taiwan is an independent nation”, said Lee Teng-Huei, the past President of Taiwan. However, we also saw the present President Chen Shui-bian said “..(I) will not declare independent” on TV. Weeks before that we had also heard US Secretary of States, Collin Power, said “Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation. [see Big Eagle Note at the bottom of this article]
Did you get confused by these statements about the status of Taiwan? Only recently, there are two law professors, both are member of NATPA, published their view in the Editorials section of Taipei Times. On March 12, 2005, Prof. Frank Chiang wrote “Sadly, Taiwan is still not a sovereign state”. Prof. Chiang argued that Taiwan is a political entity, not a State, and it has no sovereignty. On March 15, 2005, Prof. Chen Lung-chu wrote “Challenges lie ahead in staying on course”. In which, Prof. Chen claims “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent State. Neither Taiwan nor China belongs to each other.”
Therefore, we face a task to understand the correct meaning of Country, State, Nation, and Sovereignty. Thank to Prof. K.S. Huang’s effort, he found a good reference for this matter. According to Matt Rosenberg of Your Guide to Geology (About Inc.,A PRIMEDIA Company), here are the definitions we have been looking for:
A State (note the capital “S”) is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.
A nation is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.
An independent State (or country) is defined when it –
*Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are all right);
*Has people who live there on an on-going basis;
*Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money;
*Has the power of social engineering, such as education;
*Has a transportation system for moving goods and people;
*Has a government which provides public services and police power;
*Has sovereignty. No other States should have power over the country’s territory;
*Has external recognition. A country has been “voted into the club” by other countries.
Territories of country or individual parts of a country are not countries in their countries. Example of entities are not countries include: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Puerto Rico, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England.
When a nation of people have a State or country of their own, it is called a nation-state. Places like France, Egypt, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand excellent examples of nation-state.
Some States have two nations, such as Canada and Belgium. United States is also a nation-state because of the shared “American “culture.”
From the above definitions of an independent State (or country), Taiwan is not yet a de jure State or an independent country because Taiwan has not yet obtained the external recognition (by UN), and Taiwan’s sovereignty is still in dispute because:
(1) ROC is not a State representing Taiwan. ROC government is a government in exile,
(2) Taiwan has no her own government, constitution.
Therefore, it is correct to say that “challenges lie ahead.”
[Big Eagle Note] On the list of "Independent States in the world" published by US State Department, Taiwan is separately listed in "Other" category.
Independent States in the World
..... omit the 191 countries on the list ...
Other: Taiwan (see note 6)
Note 6: Claimed by both the Government of the People's Republic of China and the authorities on Taiwan. Administered by the authorities on Taiwan. (see note 3)
Note 3: With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979, the US Government recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
On March 19, 2005, Richard Hartzell published an article on "Taipei Times". The title of the article is "Taiwan belongs to US" . Mr. Hartzell concluded that "...The US is the principal occupying, as stated in Article 23. The USMG has the authority to make final disposition of Taiwan, as per Article 4b. Hence, as of late April 1952, Taiwan is the unincorporated territory of the US, and the US flag should be flying." Therefore, "The USMG in Taiwan has not ended, and the territotiral sovereignty us still held in trust by the principal occupying power."
Big Eagle read the whole article and his other related articles. Big Eagle found Mr. Hartzell reached this conclusion based on piecemeal history of pre- and post WWII. There is not hard evidence of document from USMG, which is no longer exist. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with the present US policy (from Nixon to Bush) toward China.
Taiwan's sovereignty unclear
By A.M. Cambronne
Thursday, Jul 14, 2005,Page 8
I am both deeply appalled and bothered by Chen Ching-chih's (陳清池) editorial ("Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese," July 7, page 8). It is not the basic argument that I contest but the presentation itself. I find it absolutely hypocritical of Chen to denounce an anonymous US professor for "Having strived to teach his Chinese students how to think rather than what to think," when I would dare say that the improper manner with which he editorializes fails to do justice to himself, the reader and the anecdote.
Furthermore, while I quite agree with his interpretation of temporal events, as all history is interpretive, I would contest his analysis of the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty.
Signed in September 1951 by 46 nations, its stipulations went into effect on April 28, 1951. The purpose of the treaty was to resolve World War II, not Taiwanese independence issues. The document itself relies heavily upon the official UN Charter of 1945 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The document officially states that Japan was to withdraw from Korea, Taiwan, the Kuril islands, the Pescadores, the Spratly islands, Antarctica and portions of Sakhalin and other islands adjacent to it.
Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China signed the treaty, as neither was invited to the conference. There was a second treaty between Taiwan and Japan in 1952, the Treaty of Peace with Japan that details the withdrawal of Japanese forces. Both documents set guidelines for repatriation of prisoners of war and renounce future military aggression.
The treaty does not explicitly clarify in any way, shape or form Taiwan's sovereignty, but merely makes clear Japan's withdrawal.
While I would highly espouse Taiwanese autonomy, you cannot point to documents such as the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Treaty of Peace with Japan nor Article 77b of the UN Charter for a resolution of the matter. When you misinterpret a legal document, you set a dangerous precedent for further abuse and misinterpretation of Taiwan's legal documents.
A.M. Cambronne
United States
Big Eagle noted: This article appeared on 7/14/2005 in Editorial of Taipei Times.
Post a Comment