- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I am not suggesting anything rosy, only that there has been considerable progress over the years. Not some major change, though it adds up over years, but just that they haven't remained static or gotten worse. Also are you talking about communist sympathizers who probably praised Stalin or Castro as well? I wouldn't trust anything they say automatically, though I would not rule out something if I can verify it with another source.
One step forward, two steps back? Have you ever lived there? You have already admitted you are not conversant in the language. As for the people reporting in the past, surely some of them were sympathizers. Others were China scholars who relied on the Chinese Communists for access to the country. Many Westerners were given tours of Potempkin-style villages during the Cultural Revolution showing how wonderful things were, and then dutifly reported back to the West how wonderful things were.
I remember hearing Western tourists talking back in the late 90s how wonderful things were in China. And, talking about the people, the culture, the food, etc. I totally agree. However, there were many things they didn't see -- they couldn't see. They were on carefully controlled tour groups and only saw what the government wanted them to see -- and none of them could communicate in the language. Easy to fool. CNN journalists are also pretty easy to fool -- their language skills are typically pretty poor. I actually met a couple of CNN journalists when Clinton visited Shanghai. One of them was stationed in the Beijing bureau, the other in Hong Kong. Neither could speak Mandarin or Cantonese.
It wasn't simply a matter of using it, but claiming it. From what I read Vietnam is the one making a serious claim long before it was believed to be significant and the French that ruled over the territory apparently said the islands were part of Chinese territory in a treaty. Now, maybe there is something to contradict that, but if not then it seems pretty clear cut and I haven't read anything indicating the other islands were being claimed by any country other than China before last century. The Philippines seems to have a really absurd argument to back up their claim. Now, maybe this is not the case but aside from the Philippines the only countries other than Vietnam and China, including Taiwan as it claims them as a Chinese government, claiming any of the other islands have all made their claims to the Spratly islands after oil was found and are making claims based on the continental shelf as opposed to historic claims.
By which treaty did France recognize Chinese sovereignty over the Spratleys? France administered those islands up until 1954. The ROC stated in 1928 that the Paracel Islands, NOT the Spratleys, were the southernmost portion of China's territory as it was preparing to engage in a survey of its territory. Furthermore, the Chinese law in which it claimed the entire basin of the South China Sea was passed in 1982. The other states have far stronger claims off their coastlines as well as for EEZs in accordance with the UNCLOS. China's claim to anything south of the Paracel Islands is spurious at best. Furthermore, those islets are not capable of independently sustaining a permanent human population.
If I am missing something by all means point it out. Personally, I have not invested much time looking into that particular dispute.
See above... there is a lot more...
I also pointed out that the Instrument of Surrender met all those criteria because all that matters is that representatives deemed by the governments in question to have the legal power to accept such an agreement accept it. Whether generals or diplomats if the governments who send them agree they have the power to simply accept the treaty and give it legal effect than it is all that matters. That is also based on centuries of state practice.
It is not regarded as a document by which sovereignty of territory can be transferred. It is not recognized by the United States, PRC, ROC, or Japan as a treaty.
I also noted it didn't technically transfer territory, only said a declaration would be implemented that says it must be transferred. That it created an armistice rather than peace does not mean it wasn't a treaty. Also I was not citing rules but definitions, which certainly are legitimate as otherwise the clause stating it isn't retroactive would be meaningless. Obviously the definitions applied to agreements before that one.
If it didn't transfer territory, what was the LEGAL means by which soverengity over Taiwan was transferred to China?