6. On October 1, 1949, the Chinese Communists led by Mao Tse-tung defeated the Nationalist Chinese (Kuomintang) forces headed by Chiang Kai-shek and proclaimed the establishment of the People's Republic of China.

7. Chiang Kai-shek, repudiated by the Chinese people, fled with the remnants of his military and civilian personnel to Formosa in the autumn of 1949. On March 1, 1950, Chiang Kai-shek unconstitutionally and illegally reimplanted himself on Formosa as the "President" of the "Republic of China" and the actual ruler of Formosa. Chiang thus quickly transplanted and coercively and oppressively imposed on Formosa the Nationalist Chinese Constitutional structure designed to govern China replete with the government officials.

8. All of this was done against the wishes of the Formosan people and in defiance of the trust of the Allied Powers, for, at that time, Formosa was legally still a Japanese colonial territory under the Allied military occupation of 1945, as reaffirmed in the Japanese Peace Treaty of 1951. Chiang declared a permanent state of siege under martial law on Formosa justified by the transparent hoax of fighting the Chinese "Communist rebellion." International supervision by means of the Allied Powers Trusteeship was thus illegally and arbitrarily converted into a dictatorship, usurping the sovereign power of the Formosan people. 9. In September 1951 the Peace Conference with Japan was convened in San Francisco; 51 Allied Powers participated. One of its principal tasks was to settle the status of Formosa, Japan's former colony.

10. Since territorial claims are a principal source of conflict in world affairs, it is well recognized that "who renounces what, to whom and when" is to be stated in unequivocal terms in a peace treaty. In this instance, the Peace Treaty with Japan made it clear that Japan renounced all her "rights, title and claim” to Formosa but the Treaty did not specify any beneficiary. The sovereignty of Formosa was not transferred to either the so-called Republic of China or the 'People's Republic of China.

11. The decision to keep Formosa's status indeterminate, as stated by the British delegate at the Japanese Peace Conference, was of profound significance:

"The treaty also provides for Japan to renounce its sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores Islands. The treaty itself does not determine the future of these islands. The future of Formosa was referred to in the Cairo Declaration but that Declaration also contained provisions in respect to Korea, together with the basic principles of non-aggression and no territorial ambitions. Until China shows by her action that she accepts those provisions and principles, it will be difficult to reach a final settlement of the problem of Formosa. In due course a solution must be found, in accord with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. In the meantime, however, it would be wrong to postpone making peace with Japan. We therefore came to the conclusion that the proper treatment of Formosa in the context of the Japanese peace treaty was for the treaty to provide only for renunciation of Japanese sovereignty."

12. In the same vein, shortly after French recognition of the People's Republic of China on January 27, 1964, President Georges Pompidou (then Premier) made it clear on April 23, 1964 that the act of recognition in no way implied French acquiescence to Peking's territorial claim over Formosa. In his view, "Formosa (Taiwan) was detached from Japan, but it was not attached to anyone" under the Peace Treaty with Japan; hence, Formosa's indeterminate status "must be decided one of these days, taking the wishes of the Formosa population into consideration."

13. After the 1951 Peace Treaty with Japan formally ended that nation's sovereignty over Formosa only a mandate from the people living on Formosa could have justified the legitimacy of the continued rule of Formosa by the Chiang's Nationalist Chinese regime. Knowing the free will of the Formosan people, the 'Chiang Kai-shek regime does not dare hold a plebiscite in Formosa.

14. Taking advantage of the crisis conditions of the post World War II world, the Chiang Kai-shek exiled regime has continued to occupy Formosa illegally by terroristic and police state tactics against the wishes of the Formosan people. The neo-colonialistic domination, subjugation, and exploitation of the people of Formosa by the corrupt Chiang regime has made Formosa a de facto non-selfgoverning territory under the despotic rule of a foreign invader and aggressor. Formosa is a captive territory.

15. The exiled Nationalist Chinese regime represents neither the people of China nor the people of Formosa. Its specious justification is the fraudulent myth that it is "the only legitimate government of China" and its sacred task is to

recover the Chinese mainland." Members of the three national congressional bodies, who were elected on the Chinese mainland in 1947 and 1948 for 3- and 6year terms and later fled to Formosa, are still in office, in Formosa, without ever having been elected by the Formosan populace.

16. The Formosans comprise over 85% of the island's population yet are allowed only a 3% token representation in the three congressional bodies created on the Chinese mainland before Chiang's flight and now based on Taiwan. The actual figure of Formosan representation is as follows: 32 out of 1448 in the National Assembly (which elects the President and the Vice President), 17 out of 447 in the Legislative Yuan (in charge of legislation and appropriation), and 6 out of 74 in the Control Yuan (empowered to censure, to impeach high government officials, to audit, and to give consent to certain key Presidential appointments). 17. Imposing the reign of terror under a perpetual state of seige (martial law) since 1949, the tyrannical Chiang Kai-shek regime has violated every article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The torture and massacre of tens of thousands of Formosans, the arbitrary imprisonments, dehumanization, and denial of human rights and justice by the Chiang regime have made Formosa a captive garrison state based on provocative militarism. Formosans have no civil rights. There is no freedom of expression and no freedom of association and assembly; and judiciary is under military domination; ex post facto laws are enforced for political acts committed prior to the passage of the prohibition statutes; there is no remission of punishment for political offenses committed by persons underage; leniencies are denied a political offender's family; and there is no parole for political offenders. In sum, there is a total denial of due process of law. As the Chinese Hitler, Chiang Kai-shek has committed and continues to commit crimes against humanity. In 1953, Chiang himself told his KMT party: "If there is no further-type leader there can be no fatherland and no revolution can be successful."

18. There is, in fact, no China problem. The real issue is Formosa, whose status is yet to be settled.

19. The 44 million people living on Formosa-a larger population than more than two thirds of the U.N. Member States-are self-sufficient and capable of managing their own affairs. They want to become masters of their own destiny and establish a free and independent country of their own.

20. The fundamental principle of self-determination embodied in the Charter has been affirmed and reaffirmed, applied and reapplied in many concrete cases since the United Nations came into being. In its Declaration of the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14 December 1960. Resolution 1514 (XV), the General Assembly declared, among other things, that—

(1) The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation; and

(2) All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

This Declaration, buttressed by numerous other Assembly resolutions and international practice, and the International Covenants on Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 have solemnly established that—

All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. (Article 1, Paragraph 1 of both Covenants)

21. If the principle of self-determination means anything at all in the contemporary world, it means that a plebiscite must be held to ascertain the popular will of the majority of inhabitants on a former colonial territory whose international legal status remains undetermined. The shared demands, aspirations and identity of the people most directly concerned are of decisive importance.

22. The case of self-determination for Formosa is very much like those of former colonial peoples of Asia and Africa. Because of the coincidence that Formosans have the same skin color as their colonial rulers-Japanese before the Nationalist Chinese now-the impact of their case for self-determination is often lost upon the Member States of the United Nations. The one color-one ruler concept does violence to human rights and human dignity which are the bucklers and shields for self-determination. Many of the Member States to

whom this request is addressed emerged as independent States through the route of self-determination initiated by the international influence of the United Nations, including holding plebiscites under its direct aegis.

23. Therefore, a legally, politically and morally sound solution to Formosa's indeterminate status is to hold a plebiscite in Formosa. It must be held under the auspices of the United Nations in accord with the principle of self-determination. Only in that manner can the Formosan people freely express their will and determine their future.

24. Only when Formosa becomes free and independent can the China question be answered. There is only one China. When it fulfills the Charter requirements, it should be seated in the United Nations. There is only one Formosa, which should be free and independent.

25. In the light of the foregoing, we urge the Member States to adopt in the 25th General Assembly a Resolution, declaring the basic principles of the Charter of the United Nations applicable to Formosa (Taiwan), particularly the preemptory principle of self-determination. Noting the critical relation of Formosa's status and world peace, the Member States can direct the appropriate U.N. instrumentality to commence the implementation of a plebiscite for Formosa (Taiwan).

PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON SELF-DETERMINATION FOR FORMOSA-TAIWAN

The general assembly

Considering that self-determination is a fundamental principle of the United Nations and of World Order,

Recalling the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, Considering its commitment to human rights throughout the world,

Considering its competence to deal with matters of international concern that may threaten the peace of the world,

Recognizing that Formosa (Taiwan) is a former Japanese colony whose international legal status was left undetermined by the post World War II Peace Treaty with Japan,

Deploring that the Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) regime has continued to occupy Formosa with neither international legal right nor the consent of the people of Formosa,

Noting with grave concern that the continued illegal occupation, neo-colonial domination, subjugation and exploitation of the people of Formosa by the Nationalist Chinese exiled regime contravene purposes and principles of the United Nations,

Confirms

That denying self-determination to the people of Formosa under the perpetual state of siege (martial law) constitutes a threat to the peace;

That the legal, political and cultural status of Formosa are matters of international concern;

That by virtue of the foregoing the plenary jurisdiction of the General Assembly is activated;

Recommends

That an internationally supervised plebiscite be held forthwith on Formosa (Taiwan) to resolve the indeterminate status of Formosa and to decide the form of government desired by the electorate people of Formosa ;

That the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and peoples be forthwith directed to supervise the preparations for the plebicite.

REPORT BY U.S.-CHINA COMMITTEE, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FOR PEACE THROUGH LAW

"AN EVEN-HANDED POLICY TOWARD PEKING AND MOSCOW"

(By Paul Findley, March 26, 1970)

Earlier this month the Nixon Administration took another forward stepsmall but nevertheless significant-in easing relations with Mainland China by announcing that travel to that country by Americans would be permitted

"for any legitimate purpose." This was the third announcement in a series by the State Department which hopefully will bring about greater contact and understanding between our two countries.

Last July, the Administration decided to permit six categories of Americans to have their passports validated for travel to China. In addition, U.S. citizens traveling abroad were told they could bring back $100 worth of goods originating in China.

Then, in December the Administration further liberalized the regulations governing trade with China. The $100 ceiling on Communist Chinese goods which could be brought into the United States was removed entirely. More significantly, the ban on trade with China by foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms was also lifted. Last year I wrote to President Nixon urging him completely to "remove from U.S. passports the requirement of an official endorsement which prohibits travel to China by most Americans." The action taken last week by the State Department removes that prohibition for all practical purposes. It is the type of bold initiative which I feel will contribute to world peace and security, but other initiatives remain to be taken, other doors opened, other barriers knocked down. Although much remains to be done, the United States is beginning to show progressive attitude toward participation by the People's Republic of China in the world community.

At the United Nations on September 18, 1969, President Nixon stated to the General Assembly that our country is ready to talk with the leaders of Communist China in a frank and serious spirit whenever they choose to abandon their self-imposed isolation. Representative Irving Whalley, who is a U.S. representative at the United Nations and who delivered the official U.S. statement of position on the Albanian resolution to seat the People's Republic of China and expel Nationalist China, did not at any point preclude future membership for China in the United Nations or place unreasonable restrictions upon such membership. Rather, he stated that the United States "shares the conviction that it is important for mainland China to return to the family of nations." And Representative Whalley reiterated Secretary of State Rogers' comment that "Communist China obviously has long been too isolated from world affairs."

This year, the vote to seat Mainland China and to expel Nationalist China won four more votes than last year. Even this small shift is evidence of the slow but steady progress being made each year, and of the inevitability with which most view China's eventual seating at the United Nations. Mainland China maintains that it has a "legitimate right" to be represented in the world body and would doubtlessly assume a seat in the U.N. under certain circumstances. By the year 2000, China will contain one-third of the people in the world and no one will surely question that right. Hopefully it will not take that long for this most populous country to be accorded representation in some form and to cease its isolation.

While it is fair to describe China's isolation as self-imposed, it is also true that this isolation has been encouraged by U.S. policy. Our government has but limited potential for influencing internal China policy, but at least we can discard the remnance of our own out-dated, self-defeating and ineffective effort to isolate China.

The time is long past, if it ever existed, when Communist China can be isolated within her Asian borders merely by the fact that the United States pretends that politically and economically it does not exist. The time is past when this giant among nations can be ignored and relegated to the ranks of those either too weak or too muscle-bound to deserve attention. The time has gone, if it ever existed, when simple bilateral power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union is sufficient to assure the security of the world-eastern and western alike. The time has gone when the United States can afford-either politically or economically-to stand idly by in the make-believe of mythology while other countries adapt to the reality of the changing relationships among Russia and the two Chinas.

It may be argued that there never was a such a time; that only minor countries separated by huge geographical, economic and cultural expanses could afford to conduct their policies as if China did not exist. The Asian countries which rim China, while many have welcomed our support, have never for a moment felt that China was isolated. Rather, they have only hoped that Communist China be "balanced" by western support.

The balance was based upon the fact that while China was as close as next door to many of these countries, it had not yet achieved the status of world

power. Thus, what the United States and other western countries lacked in proximity and understanding of their Asian friends, we made up in military and political power.

This balanced situation no longer exists. While the geographical separation still exists between the east and the west, China has itself truly become a power with a major influence on world affairs, and one to be reckoned with whenever major policy is formulated, whenever world security is discussed, whenever conditions, of peace are sought. Thus, Prince Sihanouk has journeyed to Moscow and Peking, seeking their support for the removal of North Vietnamese troops from Cambodia and to support his personal position at home. China's influence in Asia is unquestioned.

The enormous power of this Asian giant has been demonstrated most convincingly within the Communist family of nations. China's behavior over the last decade and a half caused her great ally, the U.S.S.R., to reduce economic and military support to a trickle, to call home its ambassador, and to make contingency plans for the possibility of unlimited war with Communist China.

The Soviet Union created a new Central Asian Military District along its 1,000 mile border with China in the area of Sinkiang province. Moscow also. shifted the former First Deputy Commander of Soviet strategic missile forces to head up the Far Eastern Military District on the Manchurian border to thenorth.

Western intelligence shows a marked shifting of some Soviet nuclear-tipped short range missile installations into positions threatening China, not the West. One year ago, in the early months of 1969, both sides reported bloody clashes between armed regulars of the two countries along the 4.575 miles of territory which forms their common border. Western newsmen who have spoken with soldiers while traveling the trans-Siberian railway confirm these incidents and testify to the rapid and heavy build-up of armed material, tanks, troops and other war supplies which could be used defensively or offensively. And Soviet correspondent Victor Louis, who often operates at the behest of the Soviet officials, reported after one of these border incidents over islands in the Ussuri River that "the whole surface of the island was burned together with any Chinese troops and equipment there." Such "scorched earth" tactics are extreme indeed, and suggests that fighting has been particularly savage between these former allies.

Perhaps the most significant piece of news to come out of Moscow since the invasion of Czechoslovakia was the speculation that the U.S.S.R. might be giving serious consideration to the possibility and consequences of mounting a surprise attack upon China, with the intention of knocking out China's nuclear facilities and perhaps other industrial and population centers. This possibility of a pre-emptive first-strike was apparently broached to member nations of the Warsaw Pact in anticipation of any expanded conflict. Whether or not the Russians ever seriously contemplate such a conquest, no one can doubt that their satellites in Europe, still smarting from the invasion of Czechoslovakia, viewed the possibility as a very real one. The Brezhnev Doctrine, which proclaims the right of socialist countries to intervene in each other's internal affairs, is surely as applicable to China as it was to Eastern Europe.

China recognized this fully, and began making preparations for all out war with the Soviet Union. Air-raid shelters and complex systems of tunnels have been constructed in many areas, and air-raid drills have become a part of regular Chinese life. Training in guerrilla combat tactics with dummy guns has been given to Chinese men so that should war come, they will be equipped and capable of defending their homeland.

There can be little doubt that the Communist Chinese feared greatly an outbreak of war and took steps to lessen its impact should it occur. Unfortunately, there is little reason to believe that the danger of an Asian explosion between Russia and China has yet passed.

True, the rising crescendo of mutual vilification between Moscow and Peking En-Lai on September 11, 1969. However, Victor Louis' justification for Soviet intervention in China in terms of the Brezhnev Doctrine came one week after the meeting in Peking. And on the evening the Sino-Soviet talks were to begin Tass distributed a summary of an article describing "the adventurist and chauvinistic policy of the present leaders of the Chinese Communist Party." On this unpromising note, the talks began in October, 1969. Almost six months: later, the two parties appear to be deadlocked, and the prospect for a long, hot summer along their borders all the more real.