Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

The Honorable

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, DC20520

Jan. 31, 2007

RE: Recognition of native Taiwanese persons as “Republic of China” citizens

Dear Madam Secretary,

My associates and I have been researching the international legal status of Taiwan for several years. We have continued to check and re-check our research over the last few months, however we still come to the conclusion that (1) there is no legal basis under US law to recognize native persons in the areas of “Formosa and the Pescadores” (hereinafter “Taiwan”) as citizens of the Republic of China, (2) there is no legal basis under ROC law to recognize native persons in Taiwan as citizens of the Republic of China, and hence (3) the false claims of "citizenship of the Republic of China" for native Taiwanese persons holding ROC passports should make those passports illegal under US law.

I strongly feel that the above analysis can be the only possible interpretation of the Senate-ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 28, 1952, as well as the Taiwan Relations Act. The following points are notable –

(1) The Republic of China was entrusted with authority over Formosa and the Pescadores as agent for the Allied Powers. This arrangement was specified in General Order No. 1 of Sept. 2, 1945. Such trust on behalf of the Allied Powers remains in effect today. Nothing in the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) nor in any other treaty ever executed by or between the Republic of China (ROC) and the other Allied Powers has altered this trusteeship arrangement.

(2) The United States of America is and remains the "principal occupying Power" of Taiwan under SFPT Article 23(a).

(3) By way of historical background, following the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, Japan exercised sovereignty over Taiwan and held title to its territory.

(4) The United States entered the Pacific War against Japan on Dec. 8, 1941. The Allied Powers defeated Japan, and it surrendered on Sept. 2, 1945.

(5) Following the acceptance of the surrender of Japanese forces in Taiwan by the representatives of the ROC's Chiang Kai-shek (CKS), Taiwan (Formosa) remained de jure Japanese territory. The ROC government occupied Taiwan (Formosa) on behalf of the Allied Powers (led by the United States) pending a peace treaty with Japan, which would change the legal status of Taiwan (Formosa).

(6) Pursuant to the SFPT, Japan renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan (Formosa) and title to its territory. Article 2(b) of the SFPT provided, "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores."

(7) China never became a party to the SFPT. Neither the ROC government, which occupied the island of Taiwan (Formosa) as agent for the "principal occupying Power," nor the government of the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), which controlled mainland China, signed, ratified, or adhered to the SFPT.

(8) Article 25 of the SFPT specifically provided that the Treaty did "not confer any rights, titles or benefits on any State which [was] not an Allied Power [as defined in Article 23(a),]" subject to certain narrow exceptions set forth in Article 21. Accordingly, China, a non-party, did not receive "any right, titles or benefits" under the SFPT except as specifically provided in Article 21.

(9) Specifically, China, a non-party, was not entitled to any benefits under Article 2(b) dealing with the territory of Taiwan (Formosa). The parties to the SFPT chose not to give any "right, title [or] claim to Formosa and the Pescadores" to China.

(10) While Article 2(b) of the SFPT did not designate a recipient of "all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores," Article 23 of the SFPT designated the United States as "the principal occupying Power" with respect to the territories covered by the SFPT, including "Formosa and the Pescadores."

(11) Following the entry into force of the SFPT, the government of the ROC continued to occupy Taiwan (Formosa) as agent for the United States, "the principal occupying Power."

(12) The Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan, which was signed on April 28, 1952, and entered into force on August 5, 1952 (the "Treaty of Taipei"), did not transfer sovereignty over Taiwan (Formosa) from Japan to China either.

(13) The SFPT did not terminate the agency relationship between the United States, the principal, and the ROC, the agent, with regard to the occupation and administration of Taiwan (Formosa).

(14) Following the entry into force of the SFPT on April 28, 1952, the ROC did not exercise sovereignty over Taiwan and did not have title to its territory.

(15) From 1945 to the present, Taiwan has been an occupied territory of the United States, "the principal occupying Power." Currently, Taiwan is an occupied territory of the United States, and Taiwan's statehood status is disputed and uncertain. Neither the SFPT nor the Treaty of Taipei nor any other subsequent legal instruments after 1952 changed the status of Taiwan. The occupying Power never transferred the sovereignty over Taiwan or title to its territory to any other government, and the international community does not recognize Taiwan as a state

According to Article VI of the Constitution, the SFPT is part of the “supreme law of the land.” Hence, we would assume that its provisions must be binding on all US government departments and agencies.

US government officials often speak of the “Government of Taiwan,” however we must respectfully point out that passports for native Taiwanese persons are not issued by any “Government of Taiwan,” rather those passports are issued by the Republic of China. Yet, under the terms of the Senate ratified SFPT, the Republic of China (via its Ministry of Foreign Affairs) cannot be construed as the “competent authority” for issuing passports to native persons in Taiwan. We sincerely believe that you and your legal staff need to review the provisions of the SFPT.

I recognize that the term “competent authority” is not linked with the maintenance diplomatic relations with, or recognition by, the United States. I have no argument with this. However, in the post-WWII era the highest ranking legal document regarding the status of Taiwan is the Senate-ratified SFPT, and there is nothing in this Treaty which would give any indication that the ROC (via its Ministry of Foreign Affairs) can be construed as the as the “competent authority” for issuing passports to native persons in Taiwan.

I must point out that the Taiwan Relations Act can only be interpreted in a similar manner. In other words, there is nothing in the TRA which would give any indication that the ROC (via its Ministry of Foreign Affairs) can be construed as the as the “competent authority” for issuing passports to native persons in Taiwan.

Regarding the often heard statement that “the status of Taiwan is undetermined,” according to our understanding, in military parlance this is often just a convenient way of saying “under military occupation.” An analysis of the Spanish American War cessions of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and Cuba clearly shows that “the military government of the (principal) occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty, but continues until legally supplanted.” See --

I have tried to contact the American Institute in Taiwan about this matter, and they do not reply.

I would ask for your urgent attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Cheng-Kuang Chen

1252 Fairweather LakeCommon

San Jose, Calif.95131