What about the United States’ position on this issue? Some scholars hold that the ROC - USA Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) of 1955 effectively changed the US government's position on the Taiwan sovereignty issue. These scholars claim that the MDT recognized ROC sovereignty over Taiwan.
The US Senate never agreed to such an interpretation however. In conjunction with the ratification of the 1955 MDT, a report issued Feb. 8, 1955 by the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations specified: "It is the view of the committee that the coming into force of the present treaty will not modify or affect the existing legal status of Formosa and the Pescadores."
To avoid any possibility of misunderstanding on this aspect of the treaty, the committee decided it would be useful to include in this report the following statement:
It is the understanding of the Senate that nothing in the treaty shall be construed as affecting or modifying the legal status or sovereignty of the territories to which it applies.
But what was the “legal status or sovereignty of the territories” to which the MDT applied? As stated above, in the SFPT of 1952, Japan renounced the sovereignty of Taiwan, but this sovereignty was not awarded to the ROC. The status of Taiwan remained as “undetermined,” which means that the ROC was only recognized as having “effective territorial control” over Taiwan, not sovereignty.
Obviously the ROC on Taiwan cannot be considered a sovereign nation if it is not holding clear “legal title” to Taiwan territory. If Taiwan territory does not belong to the ROC, then there is no legal basis to consider native Taiwanese people as ROC citizens, and no legal authority for the ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue ROC passports to native Taiwanese people.
By ignoring the specifications of the SFPT and the implications of the INA in their analysis of the Taiwan question, the officials of the State Dept. have completely hoodwinked the international community, and the members of Congress, for over 55 years.
So, in the final analysis, why does the State Dept. continue to accept ROC passports as valid travel documents? Of course the answer is “The China Lobby.”
Taiwan’s Possible Qualifying Criteria for UN Membership
On November 8, 2007, nineteen members of the US House of Representatives led by Congressman Scott Garrett (R-NJ) introduced a resolution supporting UN membership for the Taiwan and its 23 million people. The resolution concluded that it is the sense of Congress that Taiwan deserves full membership in the United Nations under the name "Taiwan."
Obviously, membership in the United Nations is only open to sovereign states. In the present day, is Taiwan a sovereign state?
Significantly, there is nothing in the ROC Constitution to support the contention that the national title (i.e. Republic of China) may be officially abbreviated to “Taiwan,” moreover there is no record of the Taiwanese people having ever founded a “Republic of Taiwan.” So, technically speaking, “Taiwan” is a geographic term, and not the name of a state.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s accept the premise that the Taiwanese people, under the jurisdiction of the ROC, are allowed to call their “country” whatever they want. Based on such a premise, we then have to show that at the minimum, the ROC has a government, a permanent population, a defined territory, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. These are the minimum requirements for “sovereignty,” as specified in the Montevideo Convention of 1934.
On the surface, the ROC appears to meet these criteria, however former Secretary of State Colin Powell maintained otherwise. On Oct. 25, 2004, Mr. Powell stated that "Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation." In order to delve into the legal logic behind Mr. Powell’s remarks, it is helpful to do an overview of the last 125 years of history, as we have done above.
Our conclusion must be as follows: Whether considered from the standpoint of US constitutional law or international law, Mr. Powell’s analysis is 100% correct. Unfortunately, Mr. Powell forgot to explain why the State Dept. has continued to accept ROC passports as valid travel documents.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
