April 6, 1999

An issue is whether Taiwan should be consider part of China - as contended by the authorities in Beijing. A brief survey of Taiwan's almost 400 years of recorded history shows that Taiwan was an integral part of China.
In the pre-1400s, Taiwan was inhabited by people of Malay - Polynesian descent, called the island "Pakkan." The most comprehensive historical records on Taiwan go back some 350 years, to the period of Taiwan (1624-1662). The records also show the presence of the original Malayo-Polynesian aborigine population.
Subsequent to the Dutch period and the rule of Ming loyalist, the successive Ch'ing Imperial Governments paid scant attention to the island. For a brief period, from 1887 to 1895, the Ch'ing declared Taiwan a province of China, in a vain attempt to stop Japan's expansion in a southerly direction.
This failed, and after the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese War, Taiwan was ceded to Japan in perpetuity in the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki. From 1895-1945, Taiwan was a colony of Japan until the end of World War II.
In I945, Taiwan was not " returned to China " but was occupied on behalf of the Allied Forces. General Douglas McArthur, as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, authorized a temporary military occupation of Taiwan by Chiang Kai-shek's army on behalf of the Allies. They started exercising administrative control over the island as a "trustee on behalf of the Allied Powers."
In 1949, Taiwan did not "split off from China" , but was occupied by the losing side in the Chinese Civil War. In that year, Chiang Kai-shek lost the war in China to the Communists, and fled to Taiwan. There he established the remainder of his regime. The contention that Taiwan "split off " from China is thus false: it was not part of China in the first place, but officially still under Japanese sovereignty. It only became a bone of contention when two warring parties - Nationalists and Communists - perpetuated a Civil War in which the Taiwanese never had any part.
From 1949 to 1987 the people of Taiwan lived under Martial Law, while the KMT authorities attempted to maintain the fiction that they ruled all of China, and would some day "recover" the mainland.
In 1971, the UN accepted the Beijing regime as the representative of China. In 1972, President Nixon visited China which resulted in the switch in recognition from the KMT regime to the Beijing regime in December 1978. At the sane time, Taiwan's democratic opposition movement started its growth and evolution.
The Kaohsiung Incident of December 1979 galvanized the Taiwanese on the island and overseas into political action. The democratic opposition started to question the KMT's anachronistic claim to represent all of China, and began to work towards ending the 40-year old Martial Law. In September 1986, this movement culminated in the formation of the Democratic Progressive Party, soon grew into a full-fledged opposition party.
In 1987, Martial Law was finally lifted in Taiwn. This was largely due to international pressure as well as pressure from within Taiwan, where the democratic opposition became increasingly organized and vocal. Of special importance were the efforts by U.S. Senators Edward M. Kennedy and Claiborne Pell, and Congressmen Jim Leach and Stephen Solarz, who prompted by the Taiwanese-American community held numerous hearings questioning the lack of human rights and democracy in Taiwan.
Since 1992, Taiwan his evolved into a free nation with increasingly democratic institutions. This vibrant democratic nation-state is asking to be accepted as a full and equal member of the international community. Prompted by the democratic opposition of the DPP, the ruling KMT started in 1993 to address the issue of membership in the United Nations.

International Legal Perspective
From an international legal perspective, four defining events during the past century are of major importance to the status of Taiwan.
* The first event took place in 1895, when the Japanese defeated the Manchus in the Sino-Japanese War, and China ceded Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity through the Treaty of Shimonoseki,
* The second defining event was the 1945 "temporary occupation" of Taiwan by the forces of Chiang Kai-shek. As was clearly stated in Allied documents from that period, this was done "on behalf of the Allied Forces". As time went on, this occupation became rather permanent, but as the deliberations at San Francisco illustrate (see below), it did not change the formal legal status of the island.
* The third defining event was the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty Conference, whereby the Allied Powers and Japan formally ended World War II. That treaty is important for the discussion on Taiwan's future, because it decided that Japan gave up sovereignty over Taiwan, but it did not specify a recipient. The majority of the conferees voiced the opinion that the views of the people of the island needed to be taken into account. The Charter of the conferees voiced the opinion that the views of the people of the island needed to be taken into account.
The Charter of the UN contains article 1.2 which states that it is a purpose of the UN " To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…" It was the intention of the attendants of the San Francisco Peace Conference that the people of Taiwan should determine the future status of the island based on the principle of self-determination. The San Francisco Peace Treaty is thus that the one and only international treaty of the 20th Century which deals with the status of Taiwan.
* The fourth defining event was the 1971-1972 switch of representation at the United Nations and the subsequent derecognition of the Kuomintang authorities as the government representing China. Contrary to general perception, this did not alter the status of Taiwan, because UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 dealt with the question who was the rightful representative of "China" in the United Nations, not with Taiwan's status.
The 1972 U.S.-China Shanghai Communique and other communiques-which are quoted often as the basis for U.S. policy on this matter-cannot be determining factors in the debate on Taiwan's future because 1.) they were simply statements at the end of a meeting, and were not ratified, either by the U.S. Congress or agreed upon by the international community, and thus do not have the weight of a treaty. 2.) Most importantly, the communiques were arrived at without any involvement or representation, of the people of Taiwan, and can thus not have any validity in determining the future of the island.
From an international legal perspective, it is thus essential that the debate about Taiwan's future is based on the fundamental principles enshrined in the UN Charter and the conclusions of the San Francisco Peace.

Respect for Human Rights
China's human rights record is blemished at best. There are still 1,100 forced labor camps in China with an estimated population of 6 to 8 million, including many political dissidents and religious believers. Repression of Tibetans and Muslims continues unabated. The People's Liberation Army engages in systematic harvesting and marketing of human organs extracted from executed prisoners.
This larger picture should not be forgotten when the Chinese governemnt releases a few prominent dissidents for political effect. China's willingness to sign the UN Covenant on Political and Civil Rights is a hollow, cosmetic gesture when it denies the right of self-determination to the 21.8 million freedom-loving people of Taiwan.

China claims it has a right to take Taiwan by force, even though the Taiwanese people have indicated that they wish to keep their hard-won freedom and democracy. Giving in to Chinese pressure would be a major step backwards for human rights, not only for the people of Taiwan but for the people of Asia as a whole, including China.
Universality and Self-determination.
The Charter of the United Nations gives "universality" and "self-determination" as guiding principles for relations between peoples and nations.
Article 1(2) of the UN Charter states: " The purposes of the United Nations are: to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."
Also, UN Resolution 2625 (XXV) of October 24, 1970 states that "all peoples have the right freely to determine without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development " So, the UN not only supports the right of self-determination, it encourages it.
Taiwan fulfils all requirements for being accepted as a full and equal member in the international community. With just under 22 million people, Taiwan meets all three criteria for statehood specified in international law: it has a defined territory, a defined population and the ability to enter into--and keep international agreements.
Furthermore, Taiwan is eminently qualified to be a member Art. 4 (1) of the UN Charter reads: "Membership is open to all… peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter…" Taiwan has not threatened or intimidated its neighbors, it is willing to accede to the UN and accept all obligations under the Charter.
If the U.S. and other democratic nations accede to Chinese demands, and deny the Taiwanese people their right of self-determination, and their right to join international organizations such as the United Nations, this will constitute a violation of a basic principle enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, not to mention betrayal of the values of freedom and democracy.

Peace and Stability
Peace and stability in East Asia can only be maintained if there is balance of power in the region. However, over the past decade China has been increasingly aggressive in laying territorial claims outside its borders.
A firmer and more consistent U.S. and European policy is thus needed, ready to assert U.S. and European interest in the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region. This approach, rather than the present accommodation approach, will help China's civilian leaders in adopting more moderate and peaceful policies.
The current policy of constructive engagement with China is dominated by the drive of corporate America and Europe for access to the Chinese market. The risk is that such a policy tends to turn into a policy of appeasement, resulting in undesirable consequences. The recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan are an example.
The weakening of the U.S.-Japan alliance is another. The U.S. and European nations need to adopt a more prudent China policy which gives long range peace and stability interests as much weight as short-term commercial profit.

Our Appeal
We as Taiwanese citizens of the world, appeal to the international community and in particular to the United States, Canada and other nations that profess to adhere to democratic principles to:
* Affirm that the people of Taiwan have the right to determine their own future under the principle of self--determination as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;
* Urge China to renounce the use of force, and accept Taiwan as a friendly neighboring state instead
of perpetuating the hostility and rivalry dating from the Civil War China fought against the
Kuomintang five decades ago; and
* Accept Them as a full and equal member of the international family of nations, including the United
Nations.
* Peaceful competence between Taiwan and China as two friendly nation-states is the only way
through which peace and stability in East Asia can be guaranteed.