Under-fire official arrives back in Taiwan
　

By Flora Wang
STAFF REPORTER
Monday, Mar 16, 2009, Page 3
　

The Toronto-based Government Information Office (GIO) official at the center of a controversy for allegedly having written several articles defaming Taiwan and Taiwanese people returned to Taiwan yesterday and is set to answer to a GIO summons today.

When approached by reporters at Taoyuan International Airport, Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英), director of the information division at Taiwan’s representative office in Toronto, said he came back to Taiwan in a bid to explain the matter to the GIO. He promised to fully account for the allegations to the press after he “has a shave.”

The GIO summoned Kuo to return to Taiwan for questioning after Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) on Friday promised to give the public an explanation today regarding the controversy surrounding Kuo.

Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Kuan Bi-ling (管碧玲) alleged on Wednesday that Kuo used the pen name Fan Lan-chin (范蘭欽) to publish a number of articles online containing remarks that defamed Taiwan.

The articles referred to Taiwanese as taibazi (台巴子), meaning “Taiwanese rednecks,” or wokou (倭寇), meaning “Japanese pirates.”

The author of the articles said “the imposition of martial law had been a benevolent act of the then government,” and that “[China] should spend many years suppressing [people in Taiwan] instead of granting any political freedom [to them] once it has taken Taiwan by force.”

Kuan said her allegation was based on the fact that an online article about Taipei’s Jiancheng Circle market posted on Fan Lan-chin’s blog on July 25, 2006, was also published by Kuo in the Chinese-language China Times on Aug. 2, 2006. The article described feelings about the decline of the Jiancheng Circle, Taipei’s oldest food market. A phrase that read “we are high-class mainlanders” was mentioned in the article.

Kuo has denied that he wrote articles under the pen name of Fan Lan-chin.

But a Web user at the Professional Technology Temple — the most popular bulletin board system of the National Taiwan University — questioned Kuo’s denial.

The user said that the articles written by Fan that the user had saved bore a striking resemblance to those posted on a Web page called “Section of Kuo, the Gifted” on the Web site of the “Chinese Unification Promotion Party.”

When asked for comment, GIO Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) said the office ordered Kuo to return to Taiwan to answer the allegations. Su said the office would stand by Kuo if it was proved that Kuo did not write the articles.

Meanwhile, Minister of Foreign Affairs Francisco Ou (歐鴻鍊) was quoted by a Central News Agency report as saying yesterday that he will remind all officials at Taiwan’s overseas diplomatic missions about the rule that diplomats are not allowed to write political commentary articles whether using their real name or a pen name.

Ou said in the interview it would be highly inappropriate if Kuo had written the articles and said that the rule applies not only to articles published in newspaper or magazine, but also articles on blogs or Internet forums.

Additional reporting by staff writer

Macau bars ‘Long Hair,’ four activists

REJECTED: : Five members of a 30-person delegation were refused entry on the grounds that they had violated the internal security laws of the former Portugese colony

AFP, MACAU
Monday, Mar 16, 2009, Page 4
　

Five pro-democracy lawmakers and activists from Hong Kong were turned away from Macau yesterday in a mission to test if an earlier entry ban had been lifted, amid fears for freedom of expression.

The five were part of a 30-strong delegation who traveled to Macau to challenge government moves to deny entry to a handful of Hong Kong politicians and academics and a photographer in recent months.

Customs officers questioned Hong Kong lawmakers “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung (梁國雄) and Lee Cheuk-yan (李卓人) and three others when they arrived on a ferry from Hong Kong yesterday morning.

The officers then sent them back to Hong Kong, saying the decision was made in accordance with Macau’s internal security laws. The rest of the group was allowed to enter the territory.

Macau has turned away Hong Kong politicians in previous years, but the introduction of new internal security legislation last month has raised fresh fears, with rights groups saying it has the potential to stifle freedom.

The law was passed in accordance with the mini-constitution introduced after Macau’s return to Chinese rule in 1999 and prohibits treason, secession, sedition and subversion against the central government in Beijing.

Leung said he was frustrated at being turned away.

“The original idea of the internal security law was to protect Macau people against triad groups and terrorists,” Leung said.

He said that when he asked the officers which part of the legislation he had breached he was told: “The entire law.”

The lawmaker also criticized the Hong Kong government for failing to adopt a stronger stance against Macau on the issue.

Lee, leader of Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, said he believed authorities were worried he would try to contact workers’ groups in the gambling enclave, where unemployment has risen sharply due to the financial crisis.

He said even low-profile members of Hong Kong’s workers’ unions had been barred from entering Macau in recent months.

The Macau government admitted yesterday that it had turned away five Hong Kong residents.

The Macau Police “has the responsibility to, in accordance with the law, refuse the entry of any non-Macau resident who does not fulfil the entry requirements in order to maintain the social stability and public order of Macau,” a statement said.

Macau Chief Executive Edmund Ho (何厚鏵) had said that Macau would not make any decisions detrimental to exchanges between the two Chinese territories.

A spokesman for the Hong Kong government said in a statement yesterday that Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang (曾蔭權) had expressed concerns earlier this month to Ho over the issue.

“The Hong Kong government will continue to monitor the development of the situation,” the spokesman said.

Some Hong Kong politicians fear Macau’s new law could smooth the passage of a similar bill in Hong Kong.

Taiwan’s status must be clarified
　

By Huang Chi-yao 黃啟堯
Monday, Mar 16, 2009, Page 8

The San Francisco Peace Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Peace with Japan, which came into effect on April 28, 1952, is the most important legal document concerning Taiwan’s sovereign status. Article 2(b) of the treaty states: “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores [Penghu].”

The treaty did not transfer sovereignty over these territories to any country. Article 23 of the treaty clearly identifies “the United States of America as the principal occupying power.”

Occupation does not transfer sovereignty. It should be pointed out that the peace treaty was based on the UN Charter, and the Treaty of Taipei — the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan — was based on the San Francisco Peace Treaty. A subsidiary law may not exceed or contravene the scope and content of the parent law. The right of the people of Taiwan to establish an independent state according to the right to self-determination given in Article 1 Part 2 of the UN Charter is not only in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the UN Charter, it also complies with the aims of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the obligations of the occupying power.

General Order No. 1 issued by General Douglas MacArthur and approved by then US president Harry Truman on Aug. 17, 1945, assigned the ROC under Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) to accept the surrender of Japanese forces on Taiwan on behalf of the Allied Forces. When ROC forces took control of Taiwan on Oct. 25, 1945, Chiang unilaterally declared the “retrocession” of Taiwan to China.

Then, in 1946, Chiang’s government incorporated the people of Taiwan collectively and without their consent as nationals of the ROC. From 1947 onwards, Chiang’s forces launched a massacre on Taiwan in which many of the island’s elite were killed and imposed martial law and a regime of White Terror. In so doing, Chiang was guilty of war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity. In effectively annexing Taiwan, he was also guilty of the crime of aggression.

The US, as the legally defined principal occupying power, failed to carry out necessary measures of humanitarian intervention and to send the perpetrators to trial in an international court. On the contrary, it recognized Chiang’s exile government on Taiwan and, in 1954, signed the Mutual Defense Treaty with the ROC. The terms of this treaty stated that it applied to Taiwan and the Pescadores, thus giving tacit approval to the ROC’s illegal occupation and rule over Taiwan.

The US established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China on Jan. 1, 1979, and terminated the Mutual Defense Treaty exactly one year later. In place of the treaty, the US Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). Article 2 B (5) of the TRA obliges the US to “to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character,” providing for mutual defense beyond the occupied territories.

Section 4 B (1) of the TRA places Taiwan under the category of “foreign countries, nations, states, governments or similar entities” instead of defining it as an unincorporated territory, which would be defined as domestic territory under the US Constitution. Section 15 (2) of the TRA defines “Taiwan” as including not only “the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores [and] the people on those islands,” but also “the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities” — a definition different from the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. By these means, the US apparently condoned the exiled Chinese government’s illegal rule over Taiwan while negating its own legal status as the principal occupying power.

The concept of “occupation” in the laws of war is based on actual authority exercised by external military forces over a particular territory. In reality, the US never actually exercised its right of occupation over Taiwan, nor did it end its occupation and hand Taiwan back to its people according to its obligations under treaties and international law. This resulted in massive violations of human rights.

Because the land and people of Taiwan and Penghu do not legally belong to the ROC, Taiwan lacks essential conditions for statehood and its status remains undetermined. It is necessary, therefore, to clarify through a proper process the legal relations between the entities concerned.

Huang Chi-yao is a visiting researcher at the Max Planck Institute and a consultant in international law.