Despite Hartzell's assertion that a military occupation began in Taiwan on Oct. 25, 1945, the consensus among the experts in the field is that no military occupation began on that day. While Hartzell might believe the application of military law is appropriate in these circumstances, the fact is that the principal-agent relationship he argues for is extremely tenuous -- bordering on the ridiculous -- because the government of the Republic of China was fully self-directing and not subordinate to the US government or any other government.I sent in a response, which I will blog here on Monday if they don't run it.
Technorati: [Taiwan]
Actually, Amy Chen is not correct. The civil affairs practice by the US Military Government saw General DeGaulle of the exiled Free-French put under the supreme command of US General Eisenhower in a 1945 civil affairs agreement for the Free French to conduct "civil affairs administration" of French North Africa. The French area was liberated by USMG from the Vichy French government. You can find this 1945 civil affairs agreement in Law of Recognition: Emphasis on Exiled Goverments by Stephan Talmon, Oxford Press.
ReplyDeleteUsually, civil affairs agreements (i.e. executive agreements) are signed with the lawful government of the liberated area in order to avoid any type of legal condition of USMG belligerent occupation. A civil affairs agreement of SFPT was signed in 1972 by the USA and PRC. Using the non-hostile relations of the Laws of War, the Shanghai Communique was signed by two "belligerents". They had no diplomatic relations but they did recognize each other under the law of war. The objective of the law of war is the restoration of peace and diplomatic relations. The 1972 Shanghai Communique was the Kissenger orchestration of an attempted "reversion" of Taiwan to China. It is a SFPT strategy seen in a 1968 Nixon-Sato Communique on the reversion of Okinawa back to a residual sovereignty of Japan in 1972. The Japanese abrogation of bilateral Treaty of Taipei was done under "USMG directive" to Japan under SFPT Art. 26. Beware of the US puppetmasters in these issues.
Hmmm....lots to think about there. Thanks for the info.
ReplyDeleteHartzell's analysis is in fact correct. CKS was sent by Douglas MacArthur, he did not act on his own initiative. The United States is the principal occupying power of Taiwan, and CKS's Rep. of China is only a subordinate occupying power. You have to have an in-depth knowledge of military occupation and military government in order to follow Hartzell's reasoning .... this is good for starters http://www.taiwantda.org.tw/tda/home/
ReplyDelete