Blast from the Past: Byoritsu oil refinery, Miaoli, 26 May, 1945

Wiki says:

Scope and content: Spectacular crash at Byoritsu oil refinery, Formosa, was photographed by a B-25 of the 5th Air Force's 345th Bomb Group on 26 May 1945. Just as it released its string of parafrags B-25 NO. 192 was hit by flak from a camouflaged battery and trails smoke. A gaping hole is visible on the piolot's side.

General notes: The aircraft visible is the North American B-25J-10-NC Mitchell (s/n 43-36192) "Jaunty Jo". Crew : 2/Lt Robert J. Knauf Pilot, 2/Lt Martin H. Mulner Jr. Co-Pilot, 1/Lt Lloyd E. Bodell Navigator, Cpl Harold O. Montville Eng/Gunner, Sgt Tennyson C. Harrell Radio/Gunner.

Taiwan Airpower Blog has the background and story, along with more photos of the crash, and then and now photos.
_______________________
[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!

Ted Galen Carpenter ♥ Beijing and Wants to Solve Their Strategic Headaches for Them!

In 1938, at Munich, the British and French agreed to Hitler's demands on Czechoslovakia. Hitler's pretext for grabbing his neighbor's land was that ethnic Germans were being mistreated. The Franco-British capitulation on the Sudetenland stripped Czechoslovakia of its modern border defenses and left the nation defenseless. Later Hitler would swallow the rest.

Germany's acquisition of Czechoslovakia solved a number of headaches for Hitler. His generals had considered an invasion of Czechoslovakia a dubious proposition; Czech border defenses were first rate and its army modern and strong. Since Czechoslovakia had not been fought for, the occupation was uneventful and Hitler was quickly able to gain control, saving the Germans from the nastiness of a lingering post-invasion guerrilla conflict. Moreover, the bloodless invasion not only gave Hitler the massive Skoda arms works, one of Europe's largest and most modern arms makers, completely intact, but enough equipment and vehicles to outfit over three dozen divisions. During the 1939-42 period the Panzer 35 and 38 tanks were produced at Skoda (over 1400 supplied to the German war effort), and its sturdy chassis formed the basis for the notable Hetzer tank destroyer and other vehicles. Some authorities argue that Hitler probably could not have gone to war without this vast addition to his arsenal -- it also equipped Germany's Balkan allies, encouraging them to go to war as well.

Why am I telling this story? Because Ted Galen Carpenter has published another piece, another variation on his endless theme of Why The US Should Sell Out Taiwan. This variation is the claim that Taiwan is not an asset for the US. I've dealt with his misunderstanding of the problem of Taiwan before, the way he decontextualizes it (most recently) -- it is a problem of Chinese expansion that isn't going to go away if Taiwan is annexed to China -- but I just wanted to focus on another issue often ignored in discussions of Taiwan.

Taiwan isn't just a problem for the US; it is also a problem for China. Everyone focuses on how easy it would be for China to take Taiwan. Perhaps that may be true, but taking Taiwan is only half the problem -- it must be occupied and administrated as well. From that perspective Taiwan presents a vexing problem for Chinese authorities which will be neatly solved -- just as Czechoslovakia was solved for Hitler -- if China is permitted to annex Taiwan. Indeed, that is why the CCP looks to Ma Ying-jeou with such hope. The raving nationalists in China may call for the extermination of democracy supporters in Taiwan, but the people who crunch numbers and handle logistics know that is easier said than done. Yet the Sellout Crowd would solve this problem for the CCP.

Another thing that will drop into China's lap, intact, is Taiwan's massive arms manufacturing industry. The shameful embargo on arms sales by the democracies has forced Taiwan to manufacture all sorts of items it might otherwise have imported, from fighter jets to missiles to rifles. Think Beijing won't enjoy having access to all that, as well as Taiwan's computer capabilities in software, hardware, and hacking, along with the island's other hi-tech manufacturing facilities. And its weapons, tanks, aircraft, artillery, attack craft, missiles.... the list is endless.

And then there are the ports and airfields, including the base in the South China Sea. All handed over to Beijing. At no cost.

Of course, like Hitler, once the CCP is ensconced in Taiwan, it's on to the next set of projects, the Senkakus, the South China Sea, and Okinawa. Annexing Taiwan to China won't resolve those conflicts; instead Carpenter's "solution" would have the US committed to eventual conflict without the logistical, military, and moral support of an advanced economy with its own armed forces, right on China's doorstep.

Taiwan is not a security liability as Carpenter asserts. It is an asset that, properly exploited, can be helpful in the coming conflicts that Chinese expansionism is bound to provoke. At present, by offering a thorny strategic problem for Chinese analysts to solve, Taiwan serves the important role of tying up Chinese resources and attention that would be freed up to cause problems elsewhere, as well as offering a democratic alternative in the Chinese cultural sphere that is an implicit critique of CCP rule and an inspiration to its enemies.
_______________________
[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! Delenda est, baby.

Japanese Chemical Warfare Testing in Taiwan

A few weeks ago, as I related in my post on history touring in Pingtung, I stumbled across the remains of the Japanese era Kato airfield in Pingtung on Rte 115-1. The only thing remaining is the  observation tower in the picture at left. Researching Kato on the net, I found this ugly historical fact in this US postwar report on Japanese chemical weapons development:

c. Formosa tests (conducted by the Sixth Military Laboratory with the Narashino Army School)

Tropical tests were first carried out near Kato Airfield, Formosa, in about 1930, and again in the summer of 1941. Included were tests on mustard shell, bombs, and spray, phosgene shell, tear gas spray, and self projecting toxic smoke candles.

Colonel Saiki, of the Sixth Military Laboratory, described one unsuccessful mustard gas spray test (see ATIG 127), but no significant results were included.

Phosgene papayas, anyone?
_______________________
[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! Delenda est, baby.

The People Hosed of Cairo

Cecilia: I just met a wonderful new man. He's fictional but you can't have everything.

President Ma Ying-jeou was at it again with the Cairo Declaration and Taiwan's status this week, another in the long line of examples of the constant KMT iteration of the falsehood that the Cairo Declaration and the Treaty of Taipei are the legal basis for the ROC claim to have "recovered" Taiwan for China. This week was especially egregious, for he added a claim about President Truman:

The 1943 Cairo Communique, worked out by the ROC president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), then-US president Franklin Roosevelt and then-British prime minister Winston Churchill, said Japan should return Taiwan, Penghu and other territories in northeast China that it had “stolen” from the Chinese, Ma said.

The Potsdam Declaration of 1945 reaffirmed the Cairo Communique and gave the ROC the right to take sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu, he said.

According to Ma, in its Instrument of Surrender, Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration and former US president Harry Truman also accepted the idea that sovereignty over Taiwan was settled as the US Department of State said that the US and other Allied powers accepted the exercise of Chinese authority over Formosa, which was surrendered to Chiang.

Ma's claims about Cairo are the more complex of the two sets of claims here, so we'll first look at what Truman said. Ma refers to Truman's "1950" statements in his remarks (see the Taiwan Today piece). In 1950 Truman made two major statements on the status of Formosa. Remarks about the status of Formosa are included in his famous June 27, 1950 announcement:

The attack upon Korea makes it plain beyond all doubt that communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent nations and will now use armed invasion and war. It has defied the orders of the Security Council of the United Nations issued to preserve international peace and security. In these circumstances the occupation of Formosa by Communist forces would be a direct threat to the security of the Pacific area and to United States forces performing their lawful and necessary functions in that area. Accordingly I have ordered the 7th Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa. As a corollary of this action I am calling upon the Chinese Government on Formosa to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland. The 7th Fleet will see that this is done. The determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.

However, on Jan 5 of that year Truman issued a statement on the status of Formosa in which he appears to accept Chinese sovereignty over Formosa (extract here).

"A specific application of the foregoing principles is seen in the present situation with respect to Formosa. In the Joint Declaration at Cairo on December 1, 1943, the President of the United States, the British Prime Minister, and the President of China stated that it was their purpose that territories Japan had stolen from China, such as Formosa, should be restored to the Republic of China. The United States was a signatory to the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, which declared that the terms of the Cairo Declaration should be carried out. The provisions of this declaration were accepted by Japan at the time of its surrender. In keeping with these declarations, Formosa was surrendered to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, and for the past 4 years the United States and other Allied Powers have accepted the exercise of Chinese authority over the island.

"The United States has no predatory designs on Formosa, or on any other Chinese territory. The United States has no desire to obtain special rights or privileges, or to establish military bases on Formosa at this time. Nor does it have any intention of utilizing its Armed Forces to interfere in the present situation. The United States Government will not pursue a course which will lead to involvement in the civil conflict in China.

"Similarly, the United States Government will not provide military aid or advice to Chinese forces on Formosa. In the view of the United States Government, the resources on Formosa are adequate to enable them to obtain the items which they might consider necessary for the defense of the island. The United States Government proposes to continue under existing legislative authority the present ECA program of economic assistance."

It might be possible to read: "...or on any other Chinese territory." as Truman saying Formosa is Chinese territory. To put that in its proper context, the KMT had just retreated to Taiwan in Dec and suddenly, after saying Formosa was irrelevant, the US did an about face and began to prepare a policy that shifted between saying Formosa was irrelevant and that it was important, because it did not appear that the Communist Chinese would have any trouble taking Formosa when they got around to that task -- thus the declared policy of the US was to simply let the chips fall as they may. This Time article from 1951 gives a sense of that. Hence, Truman is not saying that Formosa belongs to China. He is merely announcing that the island was not a strategic interest of the US and that there the US had no dog in that fight and no designs on any Chinese territory, however such territory may be construed.

The clear indication of the June 27th statement, however, is that the US position was that the status of Taiwan is undetermined. That has been the US position for all of recent history down to the present day.

However, let us recall some salient facts: (1) Truman can't dispose of Formosa. In 1950 the US didn't own it; Japan did. (2) The Formosans themselves weren't consulted on the issue. Lest you think that is some idealistic modern interpretation that didn't apply in those hard-nosed days, Chen and Reisman's seminal review of the issues for the Yale Law Journal in 1971 (Who Owns Taiwan: the Search for an International Title) observed of the Cairo Declaration that in its own League of Nations context:

As to environing international norms, it is sufficient to note that the doctrines of self-determination and the prohibition of use of force for territorial changes, as embodied in many resolutions of organs of the League of Nations, had transformed the component of acquiescence of the indigenous people into a peremptory aspect, and a virtual requirement of lawful transfers of territorial title. Hence, even assuming that the Cairo Declaration, as reinforced by the Potsdam Declaration, had been intended by the parties to it to create new international rights, such an intention would have been limited by international law. Jure gentium, the Cairo Declaration could mean only that the participants agreed to recognize a Chinese acquisition of Formosa if the inhabitants of Formosa indicated that they desired to be part of or to be governed by China.

In other words, Cairo, Potsdam, Truman, Mao, whatever is said and done, in the end, no legal transfer of territory can take place without the consent of the population. Even by the norms prevailing in 1943.

Shifting to the Cairo Declaration, several things may be noted. First, here is the text:

The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.

With these objects in view the three Allies, in harmony with those of the United Nations at war with Japan, will continue to persevere in the serious and prolonged operations necessary to procure the unconditional surrender of Japan.

The Cairo Declaration is not a treaty and has no force. It is merely a declaration of common aims, subject to any changes the future might bring. The language of the CD was adopted as a sop to keep Chiang Kai-shek in the war. The US clarified its position on Cairo in a statement issued Dec 27, 1950:

The Cairo Declaration of 1943 stated the purpose to restore "Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores to the Republic of China." That Declaration, like other wartime declarations such as those of Yalta and Potsdam, was in the opinion of the United States Government subject to any final peace settlement where all relevant factors should be considered. The United States cannot accept the view, apparently put forward by the Soviet government, that the views of other Allies not represented at Cairo must be wholly ignored. Also, the United States believes that declarations such as that issued at Cairo must necessarily be considered in the light of the United Nations Charter, the obligations of which prevail over any other international agreement.

That is also the UK position. George Kerr observed:

This [the Cairo Declaration] was not a carefully prepared State Paper but rather a promise to divide the spoils, dangled before the wavering Chinese. It was a declaration of intent, promising a redistribution of territories held by the Japanese. None of the territories mentioned in the document were at that moment in Allied hands.

Similarly George Kennen wrote:

No one seems to know from what deliberations this declaration [Cairo] issued; it was apparently drafted, at the moment, by Harry Hopkins, after consultation only with the President and the Chinese visitors.

I bet your head is nodding. Chen and Reisman point out two major issues, (1) the norms of the day (paragraph noted above) and (2) the capacity of the participants:

As to the capacity of the declarants, three states were simply not empowered under the principles and peremptory procedures of the Covenant of the League of Nations then in force, to decide that the territory held, and formerly recognized as validly so held by another, could now be forcibly removed from that state.

So much for Cairo. The real reason President Ma and other KMT fantasists keep referring to Cairo and to Truman and to Potsdam and the Treaty of Taipei is simple: under the postwar treaty arrangements codified in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan gave up sovereignty over Taiwan and no recipient is named. Thus, under international law, the status of Taiwan is undetermined. Note that Ma generally omits discussion of the SF Peace Treaty, since to mention it instantly invalidates his case.

The purpose of this heightened exposure for Cairo and the like is simple: I believe it is the KMT plan to establish a basis for Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan without ever setting the matter before the people and legislature of Taiwan. By pretending that Taiwan has already become part of China -- and always has been, hence it was "returned" -- a 'stealth annexation' of Taiwan can be accomplished, and a plausible fait accompli offered to the world.
_______________________
[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! Delenda est, baby.

Japanese War Dead Shrine in Taichung

My friend Jim over at Sponge Bear went up to Taoyuan the other day and stopped by the very well-preserved Shinto shrine there. The shrine was preserved only because the local government lacked the funds to remake it as a Confucian temple. Interest in these Japanese-period buildings has blossomed since the 1980s, as Taiwanese have begun to explore, understand, and reconceptualize their lost past. Jim reminded me that my son and I had stopped at one of Taichung's few remaining Shinto shrines the other day as well. Here are the pictures...

The Shrine is located on Jianxing Rd not far from the intersection of Beitun Rd. Probably many of you in Taichung can recall driving by it: a large religious institution with great green roofs. There are interred the bones of Japanese who died in Taiwan, and there is a memorial to the Taiwanese who died fighting for Japan in WWII, with a dedication written by none other than former President Lee Teng-hui. Lee, like many in his generation, identifies more with Japan than China.

The original shrine is still there.

The shrine is undergoing some kind of renovation, and if you look closely, you can see the entire building is mounted on jacks.

Bones of the Japanese dead interred here.

In one of the buildings funeral ceremonies were taking place. These plaques belong to different families.

[Taiwan] [Taichung] [Shinto] [Japan]

Asia's Glass Houses

Asia observer Phil Deans, formerly of SOAS at London University, discusses Asia's glass houses in Newsweek. For those us who have noticed the irony of the CCP or the KMT complaining about Japanese murders, the article's theme will be a familiar one:

These attempts, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's prevarications on the comfort-women question, have understandably made Japan's neighbors nervous. But few of Tokyo's Asian critics have impeccable records themselves. The governments of China, both Koreas and, to a lesser extent, Taiwan have all glossed over the dark blots on their own histories.

Of Taiwan, he notes:

Of all Japan's neighbors, Taiwan has been the most open in confronting its past, though even there history has been politicized. When martial law was lifted in 1987, there was an explosion of efforts to address the abuses of early Kuomintang rule, especially the "2/28 Incident" of 1947, when up to 20,000 people were killed in intercommunal violence and in a subsequent crackdown by Gen. Chiang Kai-shek. As part of the democratization process that began 20 years ago, the brutalities of the martial-law period have been widely and publicly debated. Yet many pro-independence Taiwanese have begun to challenge the anti-Japanese history promulgated by the KMT and deny Japanese atrocities such as the forced conscription of prostitutes.

Do "many pro-independence Taiwanese" deny Japanese atrocities? There are no doubt revisionists out there -- but a substantial portion of pro-independence types? I'd need some serious evidence for that, Professor Dean.

[Taiwan] [Asia] [Japan] [China]

Does the US own Taiwan?

"Sovereign,” like “love,” means anything you want it to mean; it’s a word in the dictionary between “sober” and “sozzled.” - Robert A. Heinlein

Who owns Taiwan? China certainly wants to annex Taiwan, but has no legal title to it. For most of us Taiwan belongs to the 23 million people who live on it, but there is another group of people with a most interesting legal theory. Essentially, they argue that since Taiwan was occupied jointly by the US and the Chiang Kai-shek government, under the authority of the wartime allies, Taiwan is a US trust territory, an unincorporated territory of the United States.

This theory of Taiwan's sovereignty is being promoted by Dr. Roger Lin, and by longtime expat Richard Hartzell, who has been in Taiwan so long I think he should probably have squatter's rights to the island. Hartzell has written at length on it in several commentaries on in Taipei Times. Lin and Hartzell have some essays in PPT format here. Hartzell's position is laid out in a long editorials in the Taipei Times here:

By late 1949, with a civil war raging in China, additional military forces and government officials of the ROC fled to Taiwan. As of early 1950, the ROC government in Taiwan was "wearing two hats" -- it was a subordinate occupying power (beginning Oct. 25, 1945), exercising effective territorial control over Taiwan, and at the same time it was a government-in-exile -- beginning in December 1949.

Decisions regarding the transfer of Taiwan's sovereignty were to be made in the post-war peace treaty. Hence, in early 1950 the ROC was clearly not in possession of the sovereignty of Taiwan. Statements made in the 1943 Cairo Declaration and 1945 Potsdam Proclamation were "expressions of intent" made before the close of the war, but the final determination of Taiwan's status would be made under the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) signed Sept. 8, 1951.

On April 28, 1952, the SFPT came into force. Japan renounced sovereignty of Taiwan in Article 2b. However, no receiving country was specified. This is a "limbo cession." The US is confirmed as the principal occupying power in Article 23.

Final disposition of Taiwan was to be according to the directives of the USMG, as per Article 4b: Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to the directives of the USMG in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3.

In English, the word property includes "the right of ownership or title." With regard to territorial cessions, this includes "sovereignty."

As we know, the ROC was the legal government of China as referred to in World War II. However, the ROC failed to maintain its legal position when it fled to Taiwan in late 1949. As of late April 1952, with the coming into force of the SFPT, the ROC was not the legally recognized government of Taiwan; it was merely a subordinate occupying power and government in exile.

The fallout from Hartzell's argument is potent: all Taiwanese should hold US passports. The reader is invited to imagine that Chinese reaction should the US government actually advocate the position that it has territorial rights over Taiwan.

Recently, Dr. Lin sued in US court to get the US government to recognize its alleged obligations. A reader notified me that on March 23 the court denied the government's motion to dismiss.

UPDATE: I got corrected in the comment below:

"A reader notified me that on March 23 the court denied the government's motion to dismiss."

This is very misleading. The government filed a motion to dismiss their complaint pointing out numerous legal problems with their complaint. Instead of disputing the government's arguments, they ask the government to give them a second chance by filing an amended complaint. The government agreed to their request.

In essence, they agree their complaint is defective, so the court said there was no point in deciding the motion if the government is giving them a second chance. The court said the motion is moot.

This is not a victory as Messrs. Lin and Hartzell try to claim, but simply a second chance to see if they can state a legally recognized claim. My guess is that the governmet will file another motion to dismiss their amended complaint.

Next time, they may not be so lucky. Don't be misled. It is all spin with no substance. This is no victory.

[Taiwan] [Taiwan Independence] [democracy] [China]