The US Supreme Court has denied the petition to appeal in Lin vs US( see page 37). The case is the one in which the US is being sued to get it to recognize that it holds sovereignty over Taiwan (most recently discussed on the blog here). The docket says (my emphasis):No. 09-33
Title:
Roger C. S. Lin, et al., Petitioners
v.
United States
Docketed: July 8, 2009
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-5078)
Decision Date: April 7, 2009
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 6 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 7, 2009)
Aug 3 2009 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Aug 5 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2009.
Oct 5 2009 Petition DENIED.
Not much to say here. Hopefully the money wasted on this case will now flow to more constructive pro-Taiwan activities.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!
You know these guys are going to "continue the fight". It is an issue of faith at this point.
ReplyDeleteThere is nowhere to continue the fight in the US courts.
ReplyDeleteMichael Richardson is the winner of this case.
ReplyDeleteMaybe next time they should sue the Japanese government to make Taiwan be capital of the Ryukyu's.
It has nothing to do with faith, it has everything to do with stupidity. Nobody wants to live under the communist rule, but the trick is how to peacefully change PRC, as opposed to killing everybody on the island.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead to continue your fight, but remember to use your own money to support your own "faith".
It IS about faith. These guys hold a dogmatic belief in the Lin Manifesto as the sacred word. Any entity that tries to stand in the way is regarded as a "devil". They will simply call the US Supreme court a corrupt branch of the "Great Satan" and take their religion to the streets to cry foul. This is latest setback is merely a test of faith.
ReplyDeleteHow to peacefully change PRC? Not necessarily. That's what certain hopefuls, hope for. That is, Taiwan's democracy influencing and changing China. The fact is that over the past year, it's been the other way around-China is influencing Taiwan instead.
ReplyDeleteThe real trick is... well, I don't think there is any real trick. All the outcomes that are reasonably possible don't look good for Taiwan at this point. I guess the real trick is for the people in Taiwan to further unify together and stand up for the country as a whole. Because as of now, there's still too much of pan-green vs pan-blue, aboriginals/hakka vs hoklo, etc. that is giving the world mixed signals, including the U.S.
Lin-Hartzell group's overall contribution to the research and further understanding of Taiwan's current status must be recognized.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the group's final, intermediate (or immediate?) goal for having the USMG take over TW is a risky assumption that the US State Dept will not betray TW again. It had in 1947 and 1979.
The US has tilted its policy in favor of China by stating that it supports only a PEACEFUL resolution but in the meantime that it does NOT support the independence of TW. It uses TW as a bargaining chip for negotiations with CCP-PRC on climate control, US deficit talks, etc.
The US should not manage or co-manage the ROC. It is a VIOLATION OF the UDHR for Taiwanese to continue living under limbo.
Nor should TW be managed by a KMT-ROC government that had fought with the CCP-PRC and lost, fled to the island for refuge, exploited it, and now is preparing to surrender, taking TW and its people as a present, to its old enemy.
The PEOPLE OF TAIWAN should be left to manage their own country (free from the disputes or co-operations of the 2 parties, KMT and CCP, that brought human disasters to both Taiwan and China, and continue their journeys to undermine global peace and security under a bigger merged force.
Lin-Hartzell group's are racist.
ReplyDeleteTheir history of Taiwan started only in October 1945.
They whitewashed the genuine 'Native Taiwanese' Naruwan History.
They even usurped the word 'Native Taiwanese' to mean those descendants of Hokkien Hans to which Lin belongs.
This is akin to ethnic genocide so the US SC is right in giving them a lesson.
This so-called 'Native Taiwanese Hans' even calls Taiwan's First People 'O-Huan' or 'Hua-Na' and then laughs!
In the Non-Han Naruwan Republic of the future Lin and company will
face the Naruwan Supreme Court for treason and literary ethnic cleansing.
Naruwan Republic
Lin v US was certainly a bizarre and quixotic undertaking, though probably no more bizarre than the open-ended stewardship of Taiwan by a virtual-reality republic and no more quixotic than, say, the annual bid for UN membership. (And far less bizarre, looking at the big picture, than the nutty alternative reality imposed on China by the bandit regime and which we are supposed to accept is somehow natural, native, and intrinsically Asian.)
ReplyDeleteIt may have some merit though, no matter how hopeless. If you are bullied by a calculating and heavily armed sociopath, one sensible tactic is to yell for the attention of passersby. They may not help, but they'll watch. Bullies generally don't like to operate in the glare of public view.
A case like Lin v US generates a little more international noise about a subject that Beijing wants kept bolted indoors. There must be some deterrent value in that, even if only slight.
This is a very, very good comment that needs to be repeated:
ReplyDelete"[The US] uses TW as a bargaining chip for negotiations with CCP-PRC on climate control, US deficit talks, etc."
Taiwan is not a bargaining chip. The US doesn't use Israel/Palestine as a bargaining chip with Iran, nor should it. This is a ridiculous situation, created by a bunch of liberal, closed-minded elites that know nothing about Taiwan. Listen to your conscience and stop it right now! Taiwan's democracy and human rights are not to be bargained away!
Anon 7:57,
ReplyDeleteYou're making the Lin Group look sane.
Michael, I'm surprised you take such a resigned position on the Lin case. I'm jumping with joy! It's such a great foil for Ma Ying-jeou every time he tries to claim that the "ROC" is but one of two competing heirs to some indivisible meta-China that includes Taiwan, Mongolia, Tibet, East Turkestan, etc!
ReplyDeleteOnce you get rid of all the ridiculous historical/ahistorical arguments, what you're left with is self-determination--the only proper, democratic, liberal principle that should be supported.
Nor should TW be managed by a KMT-ROC government
ReplyDeleteAin't democracy a bitch?
Well, I'm tired of the Lin case and I want to give it as little publicity as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe basic legal logic, as I understand it, is as follows:
ReplyDelete1) Oct. 25, 1945, was the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. "Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty." (Taiwan remained as sovereign Japanese territory until given up in the San Francisco Peace Treaty effective April 28, 1952.)
2)The ROC is exercising delegated administrative authority for the military occupation of Taiwan, in other words it is a "subordinate occupying power." The United States of America is the principal occupying power.
3) The Jan. 12, 1946 military order which authorized a "mass naturalization" of native Taiwanese people as ROC citizens was illegal under international law.
4) When the ROC moved its central government to occupied Taiwan in Dec. 1949, it became a government in exile.
5) International law does not recognize any procedures, actions, or methods whereby a government in exile can become "the legally recognized government of its current locality of residence."
See --http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/rocexile-ex.htm
CONCLUSIONS: (1) The Republic of China is not the legitimate government of Taiwan. (2) The Republic of China will never be recognized as the legitimate government of Taiwan by the world community.
I believe that the above is the basic logic of Lin's legal strategy, and I believe it is sound. I have a hard time understanding what the other persons commenting on this case are talking about.
Here is some additional data - http://www.taiwanbasic.com/court/tinte.htm