To: Director, American Institute in Taiwan
No.7, Lane 134, Xinyi Road, Sec. 3
Da-an District
Taipei City 10659, Taiwan
From:
Subject: Recommendation for AIT to hold another NGO Meeting
Date: March 2016
Dear Sir,
(1) In recent years, Taiwan people traveling and doing business overseas have often received unfair treatment, and there have been many examples reported in the media. One instance occurred in April 2010 when there was a volcanic explosion in Iceland. This event influenced the operational safety of international air flight routes at that time. News media reported that during the many days that European airports were closed, the number of people stranded in the Frankfurt airport reached in excess of 100,000, since they were unable to complete their airline travel arrangements. Notably, certain international relief agencies were mobilized to distribute food, water, and blankets to these unlucky travelers.
However, these humanitarian supplies were only distributed to those persons who were holding a passport and nationality recognized by the United Nations, as confirmed in the International Organization for Standardization's "ISO 3166" standard, and adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
According to these three-letter ISO country codes adopted by ICAO, at the present time in the international community, the "Republic of China" (ROC) is neither a recognized state nor a recognized nationality. Accordingly, there is no "ROC" entry. News coverage in Taiwan reported that nearly thirty Taiwanese persons holding "Republic of China" passports were confirmed to be unable to receive any humanitarian supplies, because their passports were not considered proper and legitimate. (Below, this will be referred to as the "Frankfurt Airport Incident.")
(2) The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) sponsored an NGO Meeting on June 11, 2015, and favorable reactions were received from all quarters. With reference to the "human rights clause" of the Taiwan Relations Act, we hope that AIT can conduct another NGO Meeting to overview the implications of the "Frankfurt Airport Incident" and discuss methods for dealing with similar problems which will most likely arise in the future, specifically:
(A) Taiwanese people carry a Republic of China passport. Inside this passport, it is specified that the holder has "Republic of China nationality." However, neither the United Nations nor ISO recognize any such name of a "state" or any such designation of a "nationality." With reference to Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, having an internationally recognized nationality must be viewed as the basis for preserving each person's human rights protections. Hence, the question arises, how can any U.S. government official or elected representative maintain that the continued use of a Republic of China passport is in compliance with the clause in the Taiwan Relations Act which specifies:
The preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan are hereby reaffirmed as objectives of the United States.
(3) Additionally, we must note that many people carefully read the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, as well as all the Executive Orders and other statements concerning Taiwan issued by U.S. Presidents from the period of WWII in the Pacific up to the present day, however they fail to find any wording or clauses which can be interpreted to provide a legal basis for a so-called "Republic of China" regime to issue passports in the Taiwan area.
(A) Based on this recognition, [1] why does the U.S. government consider the Republic of China passport to be a "valid travel document," and allow the holders of such passports to enter the United States? Moreover, with the clear lack of legal basis, [2] how can the Republic of China Ministry of Foreign Affairs be deemed to be a "competent authority" to issue passports to Taiwanese persons under 8 USC 1101 (a)(30) ?
(B) With respect to the above, for passports held by Taiwan persons, would it not be more proper to remove all "Republic of China" wording, and to replace it with the nomenclature of "Taiwan Governing Authorities" ? Indeed, such phrasing would be in full conformance to the content of the Taiwan Relations Act, isn't that true?
(4) Former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that: "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy."
Dennis Wilder, US National Security Council Senior Director for Asian Affairs, stated that: "Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community. The position of the United States government is that the ROC -- Republic of China -- is an issue undecided, and it has been left undecided, as you know, for many, many years."
Mandatory Guidance from DOS Regarding Contact with Taiwan specifies that: "The United States supports, as appropriate, Taiwan's involvement in international organizations, processes, agreements, and gatherings where statehood is not a prerequisite."
However, looking at the administration of Mr. Ma Ying-jeou (2008 to 2016), in his position as President he has continually claimed that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a sovereign nation, and indeed he has repeatedly undertaken many types of declaratory actions in this regard. Frankly speaking, we are unaware of any instances where officials of AIT, DOS, or other U.S. government agencies have made any objections or clarifications to Mr. Ma's statements, activities, or posturing. Need we mention that Mr. Ma's pronouncements and undertakings are typically given major coverage in the local Taiwan press?
As a result of this, many local Taiwan people are unsure of the sincerity of U.S. government officials' statements regarding the legal status of Taiwan/ROC, because the U.S. officials never reiterate, re-issue, or re-explain these statements after the officials of the Republic of China say that such statements or descriptions are false and inaccurate.
Significantly, the consequence of this continuing argument over the legal status of Taiwan/ROC is that the local Taiwan people are unable to confirm their own identity in the international community, and live in a psychological condition of apprehension and trepidation, never knowing what the future may bring. Doesn't the United States have the obligation to issue clear statements on these issues, and promulgate firm conclusions which are agreed to by the officialdom of Taiwan and the USA? Why aren't U.S. officials doing this?
|
|