the simultaneous evacuation of all civilians from such islands who (or whose parents or other custodians, in the cases of minors and incompetents) express an unwillingness to remain on such territory after the withdrawal of military forces therefrom, with such of their possessions as it is feasible to transport, to Formosa or the Pescadores, for which operation members of the United Nations in a position to do so should furnish necessary transport and protection on and over said territories and the waters between them.

3. A plebiscite under United Nations auspices among residents of Formosa and the Pescadores wherein those who are adults are given an opportunity to register their choice, by secret ballot or voting machine among :

(a) remaining under the sovereignty of their present government;

(b) coming under the sovereignty of the Peoples Republic of China;

(c) becoming a province of Japan; or

(d) becoming independent under United Nations protection, with the guidance of a United Nations Commission in establishing an independent and indigenous government, to be fully functioning on or before 1 July 1972, such guidance to be exercised in a manner similar to that used to guide Libya to independent selfgovernment, in pursuance of Part A of Resolution 289 (IV) 21 November 1949. 4. Transfer of the permanent membership on the Security Council and in other United Nations bodies now held by the Republic of China in the name of China to the Peoples Republic of China.

5. That the Security Council recommend the admission of Formosa to United Nations pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 of the Charter if and when it becomes independent pursuant to paragraph 3 (d) hereof.

Respectfully submitted,

FREDERIC C. SMEDLEY.

[From The Washington Post, Sunday, May 23, 1971]

"TWO CHINAS" DILEMMA

SOLUTION FOR TAIWAN: HOLD A PLEBISCITE

(By Lung-chu Chen)

(The following is from a speech delivered on April 29 at the Panel on Chinese Participation in the United Nations chaired by former Secretary of State Dean Rusk at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law in Washington. Dr. Lung-chu Chen, Research Associate at Yale Law School, is Secretary for External Affairs of World United Formosans for Independence.)

The so-called dilemma of "two Chinas" or "dual representation" in the United Nations is due to the fact that Taiwan, or Formosa, if you like, has too often been misidentified as "China." In a basic sense, China is not at issue, because it is quite clear who governs the 800 million people on the Chinese mainland. The real issue is Taiwan, whose international legal status is yet to be settled.

The 1951 Japanese Peace Treaty affirmed the colonial status of Taiwan and kept its legal status undetermined, pending an international settlement. Japan renounced all her "rights, title and claim" to Taiwan, but the Treaty did not specify any beneficiary. The sovereignty of Taiwan has not been transferred to China, Nationalist or Communist.

Contrary to the claims of Chiang and Mao and their supporters, Taiwan does not belong to China. Taiwan is Taiwan and China is China; they are two separate political entities.

For centuries the Formosan people have been living in an environment different from that of the Chinese people and undergoing experiences distinctly Formosan. They have forged a distinct sense of identity and perspective in their quest to be masters of their own destiny.

The Taiwanese people do not identify with the People's Republic of China, a foreign country with which they have never had contact. It is significant to note that ever since its founding 22 years ago, the People's Republic of China has never extended its jurisdiction and effective control over Taiwan.

Nor do the Taiwanese people identify with the Chiang Kai-shek regime. Betraying the trust of the Allied Powers, the exiled Chiang regime has usurped the sovereign power of the people of Taiwan and illegally occupied the island. At present, the 12 million Taiwanese, 85 percent of the island's population, are

allowed only a 3 per cent token representation in the congressional bodies on Taiwan. Under the reign of terror and coercion of the Chiang regime, as perpetuated by the secret police and the continuous imposition of martial law for more than 20 years, Formosa has become a non-self-governing territory

...

If there should be a settlement by negotiation, as suggested, the true representatives of the people of Taiwan, not the Chiang regime, must be included. The crux of the question of Chinese participation in the U.N. is whether or not Taiwan is or should be part of China. A peaceful and clear-cut solution that would serve the common interests of all parties concerned and promote world public order would be to hold a plebiscite on Taiwan under U.N. auspices. Let the future of Taiwan be decided by the 14 million people on Taiwan, not by the 800 million people on China. And let all parties concerned abide by the outcome of such a plebiscite.

Legally, such a solution would be imperative because the international legal status of Taiwan remains undetermined subsequent to the termination of half a century of Japanese colonial rule. As in the case of some 60 former colonial territories that have achieved independence after World War II, the principle of selfdetermination should be applied to Taiwan.

Politically, such a plebiscite would be practical and sound because it would subject the assertions and assumptions of all claimants, including those of Communist Chinese, Nationalist Chinese and Taiwanese, to verification in an impartial and peaceful procedure. Imposing any solution about the future of Taiwan against the wishes of its inhabitants is not a solution at all, it would be a constant source of instability and disorder

Morally, such a solution would be just, because it gives true expression to human dignity and human rights. If human dignity and human rights mean anything at all, it means that the 14 million people on Taiwan must not again become a pawn of power politics. The age for trading people like sand and rock, like a piece of property, is long past. The future of Taiwan as well as American policy in this matter must not be dictated by what Chiang and Mao say, what they like or dislike.

It is suggested that somebody has to pay the price; but why the long oppressed people of Taiwan? Any solution that would accommodate the People's Republic of China at the expense of the 14 million people on Taiwan will not serve the common interests of the world community; nor will it serve the "national interest" of the United States.

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind what the outcome would be if a U.N. plebiscite were held on Taiwan today. Given a free and honest election, the overwhelming majority of the people of Taiwan would choose to establish an independent State of Taiwan, free of foreign domination, Chinese or otherwise. This independent State of Taiwan should be admitted as a member of the United Nations. Thus both China and Taiwan would be seated in the United Nations, not as two Chinas, but as China and Taiwan. There would be no China dilemma.

On the other hand, should such a plebiscite result in integration of Taiwan with China, there would be no China problem either.

Accordingly, it appears that a U.N. plebiscite for Taiwan in accord with the principle of self-determination is a prerequisite and the key to a just and viable solution to the question of Chinese participation in the United Nations.

[From the Congressional Record, Oct. 14, 1970]

THE QUESTION OF SELF-DETERMINATION FOR FORMOSA-TAIWAN

(By Hon. Donald M. Fraser of Minnesota)

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Sneaker, Dr. Lung-chu Chen, Secretary for External Affairs of World United Formosans for Independence, has sent me copies of an explanatory memorandum on "The Question of Self-Determination for Formosa-Taiwan" and a proposed U.N. resolution on "Self-Determination for Formosa-Taiwan."

In a statement prepared earlier this year and reprinted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. I considered the plight of the Formosan people and the need to breathe life into their right to determine their political future.

The national security of the United States does not require the United States

to determine who governs each nation of the world or what geographical area should not be sovereign. Many of us are working to decrease the need for untrammeled national sovereignty and for wider international cooperation.

But until international harmony becomes more widespread our country cannot ignore legitimate claims to nationhood, especially when such claims are a viable alternative to incorporation into a closed society such as mainland China or continuation of a rightwing dictatorial regime. Formosa-Taiwan-presently is not governed with the consent of its citizens. This is not a reason to surrender it to China. But neither should we be content with the status quo wherein the United States actively supports the dictatorial Nationalist Chinese regime on Formosa.

There is a third alternative and Dr. Chen's materials describe it-self-determination for Taiwan:

THE QUESTION OF SELF-DETERMINATION FOR FORMOSA (TAIWAN)

(Prepared by the World United Formosans for Independence)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. For more than twenty years now, the United States has failed to resolve the question of China in the U.N. This is largely attributable to the fact that Formosa, also known as Taiwan, has too often been mis-identified as "China." Fundamentally speaking, "China" is not at issue, because it is quite clear who governs the 800 million people on the China mainland. The real issue is Formosa, whose legal status has remained undetermined since the 1951 Peace Treaty with Japan terminated Japan's "right, title and claim" over the island. 2. Formosa (“a beautiful island" in Portuguese) is a hundred miles off the southeast coast of mainland China. (Unless otherwise specified, Formosa is meant to include the Pescadores, and is used interchangeably with Taiwan). Of the 14 million inhabitants on Taiwan, 12 million are native Formosans (Taiwanese) whose ancestors began to settle in Formosa four centuries ago from southeastern China to be free from authoritarian Chinese rule, and 2 million are Chinese, who fled to Formosa with Chiang Kai-shek in 1949 when the Chinese Communists took over the Chinese mainland.

3. From its inception Asian and European Powers sought to make Formosa their colony. During the seventeenth century, foreign powers, notably the Portuguese, Spaniards and the Dutch, as well as dissident Chinese forces, vied for control of the island. In 1683 the Ch'ing Dynasty of China nominally annexed Formosa and kept it under very loose control for about two centuries. In fact, in 1871 the Ch'ing government of China stated to Japan that Formosa was "outside its jurisdiction" and thus it could not be held responsible for what Formosans had done to Japanese nationals in Formosa. Not until 1887 did the Ch'ing government proclaim Taiwan a province of China. But shortly afterward, defeated in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, China ceded Formosa to Japan and agreed to Korea's "independence" by the Treaty of Shimonoseki concluded in 1895. Hence, from 1895 to 1945, Formosa was ruled by Japan.

4. When Japan surrendered, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Command in the Pacific, General Douglas MacArthur, authorized the Nationalist Chinese authorities to accept the surrender of Formosa from the Japanese and to temporarily undertake military occupation of the island as a trustee on behalf of the Allied Powers, which took place on October 25, 1945. The subsequent atrocities, corruption, deprivations of human rights and maladministration of the Nationalist Chinese occupation authorities were such that Formosan rage exploded on February 28, 1947, after the Chinese police killed a Formosan woman for selling untaxed cigarettes. During the "2-28 Incident," as the event is remembered by Formosans, about 20,000 Formosan leaders from all walks of life were seized, tortured and then brutally massacred in March, 1947, by the occupation forces and reinforcements sent by Chiang Kai-shek from the Chinese mainland. The Formosan leaders who survived the genocide by the Chinese occupation forces either went abroad or underground to struggle for self-determination and independence for Formosa. Thus began the worldwide Formosan Independence Movement of today.

5. On January 21, 1949, at the height of the Chinese civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists, Chiang Kai-shek legally resigned as the President of the Republic of China, a post he assumed on May 20, 1946 in Nanking, and was succeeded by then Vice President Li Tsung-jen.

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