exercised colonial rule over Taiwan from 1895 to 1945, and that the KMTgovernment's takeover of the island territory was illegal since it was only authorized toaccept the surrender of Japanese forces.The implication that Washington has the right to decide Taiwan's fate may be music tothe ears of nutcases who nurse quixotic hopes that Taiwan may become a 51st state,but is scarcely less anathema to partisans of the Taiwan democratic movement thanthe claim by the Chinese Communist Party that Taiwan belongs to the People'sRepublic of China.The reason is that the Lin-Hartzell claim negates the decades of sacrifice and effort bythe Taiwan people and the Taiwan democratic movement, including the efforts of Chen's former Democratic Progressive Party, to secure the right of our 23 millionpeople for democratic self-determination.Not surprisingly, DPP spokespersons promptly affirmed that the party's position onTaiwan's status remains the same as reflected in the landmark May 1999 "Resolutionon the Future of Taiwan."That position is simply that, after decades of effort by the Taiwan people forced theKMT to accept political reform and hold general elections of the national legislature inDecember 1992 and the March 1996 direct presidential election, Taiwan has becomea democratic and independent country even if its formal constitutional name remainsthe "Republic of China."Moreover, the DPP maintains that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent countryand any change in the independent status quo must be decided by all the residents of Taiwan by means of plebiscite."This position is based on the legal and substantive fact that all of Taiwan'sgovernment is now fully elected by its 23 million citizens and no one else and reflectsthe principle of "popular (i.e., people's) sovereignty" which underlies the reality of Taiwan's substantive independence.This position also affirms the right of self-determination of the Taiwan people under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which the KMT governmentunder President Ma Ying-jeou has promulgated.Securing international recognition for Taiwan's actual independence can neither besecured by claiming that Taiwan should be under U.S. occupation or by beggingBeijing to "permit" participation in international organizations in which our 23 millionpeople have the right to participate.It is ironic that the former KMT authoritarian regime's justification of imposing martiallaw rule in Taiwan because it was the sole rightful ruler of "China," the Lin-Hartzellclaim that Taiwan is legally an "occupied territory" of the U.S. or the shared KMT andCCP belief that "the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to the Chineserace" share a common mentality underneath their legalistic, political or even racialist
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/print.php
Leave a Comment