• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Truth of Taiwan's Status

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Taiwan is NOT a part of China

A. History

The notion that Taiwan is a part of China is taken as a matter of faith among China’s government and most of its citizens. It is also similarly taken as a matter of faith among the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which formerly ruled the islad and still retains a strong presence in local Taiwanese politics. However, rarely is an actual examination taken of the legitimacy and legal veracity of these claims.

The indigenous population of the island is proto-Austronesian peoples who are believed to be the progenitors of the Malayo-Polynesian peoples who have spread through Southeast Asia and as far west as Madagascar and as far east as Hawaii, Easter Island, and perhaps even mainland South America. They had lived in Taiwan in relative isolation, with only limited and infrequent Chinese contacts, as late as the 16th century.

As the 17th century dawned, Taiwan was still out of the realm of China. China had never established governmental authority east of the Pescadores Island chain in the Taiwan Strait. Even that authority was short-lived. In 1624, the Dutch established a trade outpost in the Pescadores. This elicited the opposition of the Ming Chinese government, who ousted the Dutch. The Ming, however, offered no objection to the Dutch using southern Taiwan as an outpost because they conceded that it was outside their jurisdiction.

A half-Japanese pirate, and Ming loyalist, by the name of Koxinga (Jheng Chenggong) led a naval raid on the Dutch settlement at Anping (present-day Tainan) and ousted the Dutch in 1660. However, the Ming Dynasty had fallen nearly two decades earlier and he had no authority from the Ming remnants fighting a losing battle in southwestern China at the time. Thus, it cannot be said that Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan was assumed at that time. Shortly thereafter, the Manchus from a region northeast of China took complete control of the country. In 1683, they added Taiwan to their list of conquests and made it a part of their empire. This is the first time in history that Taiwan and China were a part of the same political entity, and the reality is that both were conquered and occupied by an outside power, the Manchus.

Now, we fast forward to the 1880s. The Manchus still controlled both China and Taiwan and attempted to make Taiwan more integrated with their empire. The fact is that most of Taiwan still lay outside of their control as late as the 1870s as the east coast and the mountain areas were outside their jurisdiction. Taiwan was made a province of the Qing Dynasty in 1886 and they made a short-lived effort to modernize the island. However, the corrupt empress dowager, Cixi, put a stop to it. Regardless, it did not matter as the fate of Taiwan would be decided far from its shores. China managed to get itself into a war with Japan, a war that Japan was itching for, but a war that China provoked and was completely ill-prepared for. The cause was intervention in Korea. The resulting Treaty of Shimonoseki transferred sovereignty of Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity, meaning forever.

Taiwan became a part of the Japanese empire. Japan tried to turn Taiwan into an integral part of the country. Taiwan’s economy and educational system were developed to an extent not seen in other territories occupied by Japan. Sure, there were Japanese atrocities in Taiwan, especially against the aboriginal population who resisted Japanese rule. However, on balance, Japanese rule over Taiwan was relatively benign, even to the extent that a limited degree of self-rule was introduced in the 1930s.

Japan invaded China in 1937, beginning the Asian phase of what became World War II. A variety of documents emerged from this war what will be addressed later in this essay. However, virtually all of China’s claims that Taiwan belongs to it stem from this eight-year conflict. Japan was defeated by the Allied powers (which included China) in 1945. KMT forces from China came to Taiwan to accept Japan’s surrender on behalf of the Allied powers. The San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed in 1951 (taking effect the following year) which formally ended the war in the Pacific.

B. China’s claim

As mentioned in the above section, China’s claims to Taiwan mostly stem from World War II and the agreements and treaties that were signed as a result of the conflict. The notion that Taiwan is a part of China rests on four agreements and a basic theory of international law known as “state succession.”

American President Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Churchill and Republic of China Generalissimo Chiang Kaishek (Jiang Jhongjheng) met in Cairo, Egypt in November, 1943. The Cairo Declaration was a joint declaration that the territories “stolen” by Japan are to be returned to China following the end of the war. Taiwan was one of the territories referenced.

Less than two years later, after the war in Europe was concluded, there was a meeting near Berlin including the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union. They reaffirmed the content of the Cairo Declaration in that meeting and demanded Japan’s unconditional surrender.

Japanese representatives signed an Instrument of Surrender on September 2, 1945 in which they stated an acceptance to accept the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation. Japanese and American military commanders were the only signatories.

Finally, a bilateral treaty was signed between the Republic of China government (by then in exile in Taiwan) and Japan in 1952. In it, Japan signified that it had “returned” Taiwan to the Republic of China. This document is used by the KMT to bolster its claim that Taiwan is a part of China.

This document is NOT used by the PRC, however. In fact, they do not even recognize its legitimacy. They use another rationale to support their claim. They claim that Taiwan was “returned” to China on either September 2, 1945 (with the signing of the Instrument of Surrender) or on October 25, 1945 when KMT troops accepted Japan’s surrender in Taiwan. Theoretically, as Taiwan was a part of China when the Communist Party won the civil war in 1949, and under the successor state theory, all agreements signed by the previous government (including boundaries) are binding on the successor government.

C. Examination of International Law on State-to-State Transfer of Territory

However, when these claims are illuminated under the light of international law, their argument is shown to be built on shifting sands.

According to international law, there is only one mechanism by which territory can be transferred from one state to another: a legally ratified and binding peace treaty. This is confirmed by state practice, the leading source of international law in the pre-World War II era.

The Treaty of Shimonoseki, the very treaty in which Taiwan was transferred to Japanese control in the first place, includes a specific mention of that transfer. Article two of that treaty provided for the transfer of Taiwan to Japan. The transfer is specifically referenced as is the beneficiary power.

The Versailles Treaty ended World War I and was signed in Paris in 1919. In this treaty, territory transfers and new boundaries were specifically spelled out. All territorial transfers were specifically referenced with both the surrendering power and beneficiary being specifically referenced at all points in the document.

Japan completely defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Japan already occupied territory that it was granted by the Treaty of Portsmouth (N.H.) in 1905. However, all of the territories to be transferred as well as the beneficiary (Japan) are specifically mentioned in the document, although common sense would inform someone that it was not necessary.

The 1848 Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo was signed by the United States and Mexico when the former had already occupied a significant amount of territory of the later in a war that was begun when Mexican troops crossed into U.S. territory. Regardless, Mexican territory that was transferred to the United States was specifically spelled out in the treaty.

The 1898 Treaty of Paris concluded the Spanish-American War. At the conclusion of the war, the U.S. physically occupied Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Cuba, all Spanish colonies at the onset of the war. This treaty is very useful in pointing out the power of the mechanism to transfer territory from one state to another. On the one hand, the transfer of the Philippines and Puerto Rico to American sovereignty is specifically mentioned in the treaty. However, there is no such mention of Cuba being designated as being U.S. territory. Consequently, shortly thereafter, Cuba was granted independence rather than being incorporated as a U.S. territory as were Puerto Rico and the Philippines.

There are countless more examples where these came from, but the point has been sufficiently made that territory can only be transferred from one state to another through the peace treaty.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: The Truth of Taiwan's Status (Part 2)

D. Implications for China’s Claim on Taiwan

The provisions of Cairo and Potsdam are properly regarded as unfulfilled wartime commitments. Three allies announced their plans to give Taiwan to China following the war, but those promises were never formalized in a peace treaty. Remember, there were dozens of countries in the anti-Japan alliance. Three, no matter their size and importance, have no legal legitimacy in making decisions of this nature for the entire alliance.

The Instrument of Surrender is a little closer because it is the first document that is accepted by Japan, the legal sovereign of Taiwan since 1895. However, it was only signed by military commanders of two countries, and had no provisions for ratification because it was technically no more than a cease-fire agreement.

There was a treaty that was signed to end this war. It is a treaty that is all but ignored by China and the Chinese KMT here in Taiwan. In fact, the KMT has prevented it from even being presented in school textbooks here in Taiwan. That is the San Francisco Peace Treaty. This treaty was signed by Japan and about two dozen Allied Powers in 1951. It then went through the ratification process in each and all of the signatory powers before it came into effect in 1952. This treaty has a provision concerning Taiwan. Japan surrendered their sovereign claim over Taiwan as a result of this agreement. However, there is absolutely no provision whatsoever for Taiwan being transferred to China, a clause deemed necessary by public international law to effectuate the transfer of sovereignty. So, simply stated, there is absolutely no legitimacy to the claim by China or the Chinese KMT in Taiwan that Taiwan was handed over to China following World War II.

There is still one more treaty to discuss, the Treaty of Taipei between the ROC and Japan. That treaty was signed AFTER Japan had already given up sovereignty over the island. There is absolutely no legal argument that can be made for Japan designating sovereignty over a territory it had already given up in a bilateral treaty with a government that was not even a party to the treaty that ended the war. The territory had already been disposed of. Japan has no further legal right to have any input as to the future disposition of the territory in question.

E. Where Does that Leave Taiwan?

That is the big question. Unlike Korea, the treaty did not declare Taiwan an independent state. The reality is that Taiwan was neither ceded to a state nor was it declared independent. There is only one solution to this state of affairs. In accordance with the United Nations Charter, Taiwan should have been permitted to exercise its rights in self-determination. The only way to accurately gauge the will of the Taiwanese people would have been through a plebiscite shortly after the ratification of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The KMT’s denial of that right to the Taiwanese people rendered it an outlaw regime. In fact, the KMT engaged in four decades of repression and murder to prevent Taiwanese people from telling their story to the world.

Today, the rest of the world needs to wake up to the reality of the situation. Many states declare a “one-China” policy without any regard for the legality of their political statements. Essentially, Taiwan is being sacrificed on the alter of “one-China.” This is nothing in international law that supports this position nor is there anything in morality. China is a despotic regime while Taiwan is a peaceful state that has become one of the greatest economic and democratic success stories in Asia. It is time for the world to step up and recognize the rights of Taiwan’s people as they did for the people of East Timor in 1999. Taiwanese have the legal right to a plebiscite on the future status of the island without undue coercion from China.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
In response to Ludahai.
Sure Beijing is messed up and a compelte disgrace.
However, the DPP party of Taiwan is just as messed up if not worse. They are nothing better than a bunch of thugs that muscled thier way into power by launching an all out assault of trying to engage long historic conflict between mainlanders and islanders.
I don't see how any of what has been written in those former 2 posts prooves to the least extent that Taiwan is not Chinese or for that matter a part of the definition of what China is. Is not the national name of the Taiwan region Republic of China? I don't think you can get anymore China than that. Particularly to the claim that China has never "formally held control" of Taiwan is rediculous. If that were the case, Japan should never have needed for China to surrender Taiwan as part of cease fire during the 1895 Sino-Japanese war. Which interesting you left out. It is also interesting how you make it seem that the island is made up of indiginous natives and not 90% immigrants from the mainland since the 15th century and prior as well (though not as much). Then perhaps Guam is not US sovergnty?

Now I am not in anyway saying that Taiwan is part of the PRC which it certainly is not. But Taiwan is China is an undeniable fact that you can not change with insignificant and irrelevant technicalities.
 
Last edited:

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
In response to Ludahai.
Sure Beijing is messed up and a compelte disgrace.
That is an understatement

However, the DPP party of Taiwan is just as messed up if not worse. They are nothing better than a bunch of thugs that muscled thier way into power by launching an all out assault of trying to engage long historic conflict between mainlanders and islanders.
The DPP didn't muscle their way into anything, they were elected! It was the Chinese KMT that tried to muscle their way in (literally) after they lost last year. I won't soon forget the weeks of mayhem they caused in Taipei, or even here in Taichung the night of the election. As far as your "mainlanders" and "islanders" thing, that is typical of the imperial Chinese mindset. Taiwanese are Taiwanese, not islanders. People from China are increasingly referred to as Hsinjhumin (newcomers) here in Taiwan. It is the KMT who has engaged in ethnic conflict for decades in Taiwan with their policies of supporting their own colonists after they fled China in 1949.

I don't see how any of what has been written in those former 2 posts prooves to the least extent that Taiwan is not Chinese or for that matter a part of the definition of what China is.
It is pretty clear that in accordance with international law, Taiwan simply is NOT a part of China. There is no legal basis for the claim that Taiwan is a part of China. There is no basis for the claim that Taiwan was given to China following World War II. Either you didn't read the entire essay, or you don't have a sufficient understanding of the basic principles of international law.

Is not the national name of the Taiwan region Republic of China? I don't think you can get anymore China than that.
That moniker was illegally imposed on Taiwan by the KMT following World War II. As I conclusively explained, there was no legal transfer of sovereignty to China, this the application of the moniker in reference to Taiwan is no applicable. In 1946, even the KMT didn't regard Taiwan as a part of China. When the 1946 Constitution was promulgated, there were no representatives of Taiwan present. Why? Because at that time, Taiwan's legal status was that of an occupied territory awaiting final disposition in the peace treaty.

Particularly to the claim that China has never "formally held control" of Taiwan is rediculous.
I just skimmed the essay and I can't find the phrase "formally held control." The Qing Dynasty, itself a foreign dynasty ruling China occupied somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of Taiwan in the 1870s, and expanded greater control over the last two decades of Manchu rule. Following World War II, China never formally held control of Taiwan.

If that were the case, Japan should never have needed for China to surrender Taiwan as part of cease fire during the 1895 Sino-Japanese war. Which interesting you left out. It is also interesting how you make it seem that the island is made up of indiginous natives and not 90% immigrants from the mainland since the 15th century and prior as well (though not as much). Then perhaps Guam is not US sovergnty?
Completely irrelevant where the people came from. About 85% of the people in Taiwan were here before 1949, 15% came afterward or are the decendants of them. About 1-2 percent were here before the Chinese came, but the number that are mixed is hard to determine. It is likely that a large minority or even majority of the "Minnan" people who came during the 17th-19th centuries are actually admixed with the local aboriginal population. Still, in legal terms, this is all irrelevant. The Qing Dynasty surrendered Taiwan in 1895 and there was no mechanism by which Taiwan was transferred to Chinese sovereignty at any time subsequent to that event.

Now I am not in anyway saying that Taiwan is part of the PRC which it certainly is not. But Taiwan is China is an undeniable fact that you can not change with insignificant and irrelevant technicalities.
These "technicalities" happen to be international law and they affect the rights of 23 million people in Taiwan. If China chooses to regard these are merely technicalities and decides to coerce Taiwan to join it, it will then show a blatant disregard for international law and the rights of the 23 million people who live in Taiwan.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ludahai said:
The DPP didn't muscle their way into anything, they were elected! It was the Chinese KMT that tried to muscle their way in (literally) after they lost last year. I won't soon forget the weeks of mayhem they caused in Taipei, or even here in Taichung the night of the election. As far as your "mainlanders" and "islanders" thing, that is typical of the imperial Chinese mindset. Taiwanese are Taiwanese, not islanders. People from China are increasingly referred to as Hsinjhumin (newcomers) here in Taiwan. It is the KMT who has engaged in ethnic conflict for decades in Taiwan with their policies of supporting their own colonists after they fled China in 1949.
You need to get out of that southern rural region if you don't think that the DPP tries to bring out tensions amongst islanders towards mainlanders. So what mayhem did the KMT cause? Was it anything as rediculous as faking a bullet wound and walking into the hospital holding your hand when it was your waist that was shot?


ludahai said:
It is pretty clear that in accordance with international law, Taiwan simply is NOT a part of China. There is no legal basis for the claim that Taiwan is a part of China. There is no basis for the claim that Taiwan was given to China following World War II. Either you didn't read the entire essay, or you don't have a sufficient understanding of the basic principles of international law.
You're right Taiwan is not a part of China, which I agree. Taiwan is China.

ludahai said:
That moniker was illegally imposed on Taiwan by the KMT following World War II. As I conclusively explained, there was no legal transfer of sovereignty to China, this the application of the moniker in reference to Taiwan is no applicable. In 1946, even the KMT didn't regard Taiwan as a part of China. When the 1946 Constitution was promulgated, there were no representatives of Taiwan present. Why? Because at that time, Taiwan's legal status was that of an occupied territory awaiting final disposition in the peace treaty.
Please explain what you mean by "illegally" imposed on Taiwan. How is reclaimation illegal? Did not the UK reclaim HK after the war? France reclaim Vietnam? US reclaim Phillipines? China also recliaming the province of Shandong as well as all cities along the Yangtze from colonial rule? You're reasoning is greatly flawed.


ludahai said:
I just skimmed the essay and I can't find the phrase "formally held control." The Qing Dynasty, itself a foreign dynasty ruling China occupied somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of Taiwan in the 1870s, and expanded greater control over the last two decades of Manchu rule. Following World War II, China never formally held control of Taiwan.
Qing Dynasty is a foreign dynasty? What? Last I recall from any history sourse the Qing was a very Chinese dynasty. The only foreign powers that "ruled" china are the Europeans that colonized as well as Japan to some extent. Now 1/3 and 1/2 of Taiwan in the 1870's..... The US only "occupied" 1/4 ~ 1/2 of the total area of the US in the mid 1800's to 1900. I don't see how occupational area plays any relevance in terms of authority. Hell the Japanese set up a freaking light house on diaoyu Island and claim the entire chain of islands. Even though Diaoyu Island is the sovergnty of ROC.


ludahai said:
Completely irrelevant where the people came from.
Really? Irrelevant? Accoding to International law, claim of territory has everything to do with the origination of those whom arrived there first. You probably need to go back and hit those books a little more if you are an "educator"

ludahai said:
About 85% of the people in Taiwan were here before 1949, 15% came afterward or are the decendants of them. About 1-2 percent were here before the Chinese came, but the number that are mixed is hard to determine. It is likely that a large minority or even majority of the "Minnan" people who came during the 17th-19th centuries are actually admixed with the local aboriginal population.
Minnan if you are knowledgable, are Han, Han is Chinese, really don't get any more Chinese than that. Now as for your false claim of intermixing with aboriginal populations which was completely forbidden both on the "migrant" side and on the aboriginal side.

ludahai said:
Still, in legal terms, this is all irrelevant. The Qing Dynasty surrendered Taiwan in 1895 and there was no mechanism by which Taiwan was transferred to Chinese sovereignty at any time subsequent to that event.
The Qing also surrendered the island of Hong Kong and Kowloon Pennisula to GB, as well as surrendering the Pennisula of Shandong to Germany which ironically was handed over to Japan in 1919. Again, your legalities, as I said earlier, irrelevant technicalities.
Now in particular to International law. Sadly, these laws to not in anyway apply to the ROC anymore, why? Because ROC is not a country. It's not internationally recognized, and thus has not basis for anything under International Treaties. People like you only make it worse as well.


ludahai said:
These "technicalities" happen to be international law and they affect the rights of 23 million people in Taiwan. If China chooses to regard these are merely technicalities and decides to coerce Taiwan to join it, it will then show a blatant disregard for international law and the rights of the 23 million people who live in Taiwan.
Again, ROC is not an internationally recognized country. It doesn't matter how many people live there. Finally, face it, it's impossible for China regardless of how powerful it gets to, in anyway, coerce the ROC into it's governing.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
You need to get out of that southern rural region if you don't think that the DPP tries to bring out tensions amongst islanders towards mainlanders. So what mayhem did the KMT cause? Was it anything as rediculous as faking a bullet wound and walking into the hospital holding your hand when it was your waist that was shot?
Actually, I live in the central part of the country. And as for the southern "rural" region you speak of, two of the four largest cities in the country are in the south (Kaohsiung and Tainan). There is no evidence at all that the shot was faked. Just like the Chinese to go and claim that it was faked with no evidence. As for mayhem, here in Taichung, mobs of KMT-PFP supporters tried to break through police lines and smashed windows of the local judicial buildings the night of the election. In Kaoshiung, it was worse. A PFP legislator actually mounted a campaign truck and tried to smash through the police barricade guarding the judicial offices down there. For weeks, the KMT-PFP disrupted daily life in downtown Taipei with their protests on Ketegalan Blvd, an area that has two hospitals and a high school!


You're right Taiwan is not a part of China, which I agree. Taiwan is China.
China is China - Taiwan is Taiwan

Please explain what you mean by "illegally" imposed on Taiwan. How is reclaimation illegal? Did not the UK reclaim HK after the war? France reclaim Vietnam? US reclaim Phillipines? China also recliaming the province of Shandong as well as all cities along the Yangtze from colonial rule? You're reasoning is greatly flawed.
Actually, it is your reasoning that is flawed. What is the difference between Taiwan and all of the cases you mentioned in the above snippet? Give up? The difference is that the Qing Dynasty signed a peace treaty in which it gave up legal sovereignty over Taiwan to Japan. As such, Taiwan was legally the sovereign territory of Japan. Britain never signed a treaty giving up Hong Kong. France never signed a treaty giving up Viet Nam. Similarly, the US didn't give up the Philippines. Those territories were all under wartime occupation. Sovereign title was never transferred to Japan via a peace treaty as Taiwan was.


Qing Dynasty is a foreign dynasty? What? Last I recall from any history sourse the Qing was a very Chinese dynasty. The only foreign powers that "ruled" china are the Europeans that colonized as well as Japan to some extent.
Then why did anti-Manchu agitators make a big deal of the fact that they were "foreigners" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?!?!? The Manchus were the last of the alien dynasties to rule over China, and were the longest-lived. The Liao, Jin, Yuan and Qing were all dynasties in which non-Chinese invaded and ruled a significant chunk or all of China.

Now 1/3 and 1/2 of Taiwan in the 1870's..... The US only "occupied" 1/4 ~ 1/2 of the total area of the US in the mid 1800's to 1900. I don't see how occupational area plays any relevance in terms of authority. Hell the Japanese set up a freaking light house on diaoyu Island and claim the entire chain of islands. Even though Diaoyu Island is the sovergnty of ROC.
The Qing gave up Taiwan in 1895. Prior to that, they didn't even have control over the entire island. In fact, in 1872, Japan questioned China's claim to the eastern part of Taiwan and Japanese Foreign Minister Okubu engaged in an exchage with the Zongli Yamen regarding that very topic. Still, it is rather irrelevant because the treaties trump all other considerations in this matter.

Really? Irrelevant? Accoding to International law, claim of territory has everything to do with the origination of those whom arrived there first. You probably need to go back and hit those books a little more if you are an "educator"
Again, your understanding of international law is confused. Treaties are the ultimate authority in international law. Also, if you want to claim that Taiwan belongs to China because the Chinese were there first, you are wrong. The aboriginal peoples were here first.


Minnan if you are knowledgable, are Han, Han is Chinese, really don't get any more Chinese than that. Now as for your false claim of intermixing with aboriginal populations which was completely forbidden both on the "migrant" side and on the aboriginal side.
Well, interesting you brought that up as the subject of my column in Collusion Commentary this week was about the myth of a unified Han ethnicity. It is also in my blog. As for intermixing, your claim has no merit. There were far more males than females settling from China. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there was a considerable amount if mixing going on. Just because it was prohibited, doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Chinese migration to Taiwan was prohibited for most of the 18th century by Imperial edict. However, regional and local officials often ignored such Imperial edicts to relieve overcrowding in their areas. It was prohibited, but it still occurred.


The Qing also surrendered the island of Hong Kong and Kowloon Pennisula to GB, as well as surrendering the Pennisula of Shandong to Germany which ironically was handed over to Japan in 1919. Again, your legalities, as I said earlier, irrelevant technicalities.
Once again, you are mistaken. The Qing surrendered Hong Kong to Britain in the 1840s via a peace treaty. It took a treaty between Britain and China in the 1980s to effect the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997. The situtuation over Shandong was different. That was a concession, not sovereignty. China still had sovereign rule over the territory. The Germans, then the Japanese obtained limited economic rights in the territory. You consider legalities to be irrelevant technicalities. I would expect that from a Chinese who has no respect for the rule of law. After all, China itself is a country with a scant legacy of the rule of law.

Now in particular to International law. Sadly, these laws to not in anyway apply to the ROC anymore, why? Because ROC is not a country. It's not internationally recognized, and thus has not basis for anything under International Treaties. People like you only make it worse as well.
We are talking about Taiwan, not the ROC. The ROC government is illegal. The people of Taiwan have the right under international law to chart their own future, free of harassment from the Chinese or from anybody else.

Again, ROC is not an internationally recognized country. It doesn't matter how many people live there. Finally, face it, it's impossible for China regardless of how powerful it gets to, in anyway, coerce the ROC into it's governing.
The ROC moniker should be changed to what the Taiwanese people want it changed to. The Taiwanese people have the legal right to a plebiscite that it was denied in 1952. They have the right to live in peace without coercion from the Chinese or from anybody else, including the likes of you who would deny the rights of the Taiwanese people under international law.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ludahai said:
There is no evidence at all that the shot was faked. Just like the Chinese to go and claim that it was faked with no evidence. As for mayhem, here in Taichung, mobs of KMT-PFP supporters tried to break through police lines and smashed windows of the local judicial buildings the night of the election. In Kaoshiung, it was worse. A PFP legislator actually mounted a campaign truck and tried to smash through the police barricade guarding the judicial offices down there. For weeks, the KMT-PFP disrupted daily life in downtown Taipei with their protests on Ketegalan Blvd, an area that has two hospitals and a high school!
The gun shot was not faked? You have got to be kidding the evidence of the gun shot being faked is overwhelming. Just to name a few. Nurses interviewed after the incident gave sworn statements that they were told not to leave because something big was going to happen that afternoon. Also the fact that the guy was walking into the hospital and holding his hand after getting shot. People that get shot can not in anyway look the way he did when he was walking into the hospital. If you've ever been shot, you would know that you can not be looking in as good spirits as he was. On the side, why is it that all the evidence just vanished? Don't worry you can debate all you want about how its only "Chinese" that are saying it's bogus, afterall you are neither Chinese nor "Tawianese". Come 2008 when these thugs are ousted from office, all these cases will be resolved and these thugs will be thrown back in jail.



ludahai said:
China is China - Taiwan is Taiwan
Regardless of how you deny it, you can't escape the issue that the island of Taiwan is China.


ludahai said:
Actually, it is your reasoning that is flawed. What is the difference between Taiwan and all of the cases you mentioned in the above snippet? Give up? The difference is that the Qing Dynasty signed a peace treaty in which it gave up legal sovereignty over Taiwan to Japan. As such, Taiwan was legally the sovereign territory of Japan. Britain never signed a treaty giving up Hong Kong. France never signed a treaty giving up Viet Nam. Similarly, the US didn't give up the Philippines. Those territories were all under wartime occupation. Sovereign title was never transferred to Japan via a peace treaty as Taiwan was.
ARe you claiming that the UK did not sign a treaty with Deng Xiaoping in 1983 to return HK to the mainland in 1997 after it's rent of the New Territory expired? Japan did not sign with the nationalist in nanking in 1945 treaties that returned Taiwan to China? Sorry, you need to go back and re-read your history books. You pro-independence are so hungry to look for methods of becoming independent that you are ignoring all the fine prints.



ludahai said:
Then why did anti-Manchu agitators make a big deal of the fact that they were "foreigners" in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?!?!? The Manchus were the last of the alien dynasties to rule over China, and were the longest-lived. The Liao, Jin, Yuan and Qing were all dynasties in which non-Chinese invaded and ruled a significant chunk or all of China.
Liao, Jin never ruled over all of China, but only small portions, plus you are basing the fact that these dynasties are made up of ethnicities that are not han. But are nevertheless Chinese. Just as the fact that foriegn immigrants here to the US are not Native American but are from other ethnicities as well as other nations all together yet they are all now, Americans. Now strictly going along your argument of non-chinese, well the Minnan people and ke-jia people of Taiwan are all han chinese. So by your logic they are not a foreign rule and are thus very much China.

ludahai said:
The Qing gave up Taiwan in 1895. Prior to that, they didn't even have control over the entire island. In fact, in 1872, Japan questioned China's claim to the eastern part of Taiwan and Japanese Foreign Minister Okubu engaged in an exchage with the Zongli Yamen regarding that very topic. Still, it is rather irrelevant because the treaties trump all other considerations in this matter.
No control over the entire island? Again go back and reread your text books that you are supposedly teaching. The Qing did not "give up" Taiwan in 1895, it was part of the cease fire agreement that surrendered Taiwan. prior to that there was thriving infrastructure and economy that the Qing dynasty placed on the island including the very first rail line in all of China.


ludahai said:
Again, your understanding of international law is confused. Treaties are the ultimate authority in international law. Also, if you want to claim that Taiwan belongs to China because the Chinese were there first, you are wrong. The aboriginal peoples were here first.
Aboriginals were hardly representative of a nation. In the same way that the US is now the US and not Native Americans Inc. If this were the case then all non-aboriginal ethnicities in Taiwan should all migrate out as well as those in Japan, Australia and the Americas. Treaties are indeed a top authority only if recognized. The problem with international treaties is that other nations must recognize it. And frankly any nation can pull out from them at anytime they choose to. So treaties are not the ultimate authority. Again you've probably spent too much time reading subjective laws that are applicable to your own personal interests.



ludahai said:
Well, interesting you brought that up as the subject of my column in Collusion Commentary this week was about the myth of a unified Han ethnicity. It is also in my blog. As for intermixing, your claim has no merit. There were far more males than females settling from China. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there was a considerable amount if mixing going on. Just because it was prohibited, doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Chinese migration to Taiwan was prohibited for most of the 18th century by Imperial edict. However, regional and local officials often ignored such Imperial edicts to relieve overcrowding in their areas. It was prohibited, but it still occurred.
You're blog hardly merits an impartial source for any valid argument. Statistical contrast of male to female ratio, again hardly valid. Regional crowding and intermixing of ethnicities. Again hardly conclusive that there was intermixing. All your arguments are flawed and appeal to the ignorant. Unless you show impartial independent studies your claim is baseless. As for my statement that the Minnan people are not, as you claim, mythologically Chinese. I'll simply put it this way, All minnan people have ancestory that can be easily traced to the original kingdoms during the warring period of China in 2500BC.



ludahai said:
Once again, you are mistaken. The Qing surrendered Hong Kong to Britain in the 1840s via a peace treaty. It took a treaty between Britain and China in the 1980s to effect the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997. The situtuation over Shandong was different. That was a concession, not sovereignty. China still had sovereign rule over the territory. The Germans, then the Japanese obtained limited economic rights in the territory. You consider legalities to be irrelevant technicalities. I would expect that from a Chinese who has no respect for the rule of law. After all, China itself is a country with a scant legacy of the rule of law.
Wait, did you just say treaty between GB and CHina in 1980 to return HK? I thought you said it was non-existant in your 3rd statement as quoted above. Then your assumption that I am from the mainland is baseless, and only considering of my stance. Nice attempt to discredit me.


ludahai said:
We are talking about Taiwan, not the ROC. The ROC government is illegal. The people of Taiwan have the right under international law to chart their own future, free of harassment from the Chinese or from anybody else.
Ohhh I see so even after all that bogus you wrote above of claim and so on. You are not ousting the only sovergnty over the Taiwan region including outlieing islands to be an illegal government. So what then of Jingmen? Mazhu? What will happen to those islands? I think you should look up what sovereignty means before you claim the ROC, which even the criminal DPP even claim to be the government of, to mean first.


ludahai said:
The ROC moniker should be changed to what the Taiwanese people want it changed to. The Taiwanese people have the legal right to a plebiscite that it was denied in 1952. They have the right to live in peace without coercion from the Chinese or from anybody else, including the likes of you who would deny the rights of the Taiwanese people under international law.
I think the "Taiwanese" spoke very loudly in that last election, or were you not around. more than half the island voted against the pro-independents, none of this 0.2% margin to steal the presidency non-sense. All those that are in power whom are "pro-independence" are nothing more than power mongering thugs who care for nothing else. They only scream independence because they know it will spark tensions between the majority pre-1948 migrant populice and minority post 1948 populice, the same way as former thug president Lee.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
teacher said:
Taiwan is now seperate from China and the US backs them. The rest is moot. I just love saying moot.
Aie, if only the US had the balls to back them all the way.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
The gun shot was not faked? You have got to be kidding the evidence of the gun shot being faked is overwhelming. .
Most of what you just cited was shown to be false later. The gunman was discovered via CCTV cameras. As for him "walking" into the hospital, it wasn't like he was going into the hospital walking and smiling. However, it was only a graze. It wasn't like a bullet was lodged inside of him. The "evidence" vanished because the only evidence was manufactured by pan-Blue media supporters. The only people who should be thrown in jail are the KMT who illegally oppressed the people with the White Terror, stole property from the Taiwanese people and continue to hold it, and continue to deny the Taiwanese people a referendum on Taiwan's status as demanded by international law.

Regardless of how you deny it, you can't escape the issue that the island of Taiwan is China.
You have no counter for the legal argument I have presented. As we will see, your "argument" is based not on international law, but on emotion.

ARe you claiming that the UK did not sign a treaty with Deng Xiaoping in 1983 to return HK to the mainland in 1997 after it's rent of the New Territory expired? Japan did not sign with the nationalist in nanking in 1945 treaties that returned Taiwan to China? Sorry, you need to go back and re-read your history books. You pro-independence are so hungry to look for methods of becoming independent that you are ignoring all the fine prints.
You obviously are not reading my posts. The UK DID sign a treaty with China in 1983. That was the legal mechanism for the return of the part of Hong Kong ceded in the 1840s to China. However, Japan did NOT sign a treaty with the Nanjing government in 1945! The treaty governing the end of the World War II is the San Francisco Peace Treaty. I am the one hitting the fine points. You are so desparate to suppress the rights of the Taiwanese people that you are not even getting the points of what I am presenting.

Liao, Jin never ruled over all of China, but only small portions, plus you are basing the fact that these dynasties are made up of ethnicities that are not han. But are nevertheless Chinese.
I didn't say that the Liao and Jin ruled over all of China, just a significant chunk of it. Again, please read my posts more carefully so that you don't continue to embarass yourself by completely mischaracterizing what I write. Those ethnicities were NOT Chinese. The Khitan of the Liao were a people of steppe. They were outside the pale of Chinese civilization and the "Han" looked down on the Liao. The same is true of the Jurchen who made up the Jin Dynasty. To say that these ethnic groups were Chinese is historical revisionism of the basest sort.

Just as the fact that foriegn immigrants here to the US are not Native American but are from other ethnicities as well as other nations all together yet they are all now, Americans. Now strictly going along your argument of non-chinese, well the Minnan people and ke-jia people of Taiwan are all han chinese. So by your logic they are not a foreign rule and are thus very much China.
There is no single Han ethnicity. Minnan and Hakka (Kejia) are both separate ethnic identities within the Han family of ethnicities (though some argue that the Hakka are not even Han and they even have separate identification as a minority in China.) The difference between China and the United States is that with the exception of the Blacks, the various ethnic groups CHOSE to move to the United States and to become a part of that country. The ethnic groups of China (Han and non-Han) did not choose to be conquered by Chinese emperors based predominantly in the north.

No control over the entire island? Again go back and reread your text books that you are supposedly teaching. The Qing did not "give up" Taiwan in 1895, it was part of the cease fire agreement that surrendered Taiwan. prior to that there was thriving infrastructure and economy that the Qing dynasty placed on the island including the very first rail line in all of China.
As late as the 1870s, the Japanese made a claim on Eastern Taiwan based on the fact that the Qing did not have administrative control of that part of the island. In the 1870s, it is clear that the mountain regions and most of the east (with the possible exception of what is modern-day Ilan County) was outside the control of the Qing. That "cease-fire" agreement was a legally binding treaty ratified by both China and Japan. The "thriving" infrastructure was largely dismantled in the 1890s due to the corruption of empress dowager Cixi. The Japanese built up Tawan's infrastructure to an extent the Chinese were incapable of. THen, the KMT takes that infrastructure and crates it off to China in 1946 (illegally I might add.)


Treaties are indeed a top authority only if recognized. The problem with international treaties is that other nations must recognize it. And frankly any nation can pull out from them at anytime they choose to. So treaties are not the ultimate authority. Again you've probably spent too much time reading subjective laws that are applicable to your own personal interests.
That is not true about international treaties. The SF Peace Treaty IS recognized, but it doesn't have to be "recognized" internationally to be binding. Unlike you, I have come up with numerous examples to support my point (and there are dozens more to support it.) You, on the other hand, haven't come up with a single example to support your "treaties have to be internationally recognized" theory.

You're blog hardly merits an impartial source for any valid argument. Statistical contrast of male to female ratio, again hardly valid. Regional crowding and intermixing of ethnicities.
My blog simply presents the truth. The fact that you can't accept that indicates your contempt for the rights of the people of Taiwan.

Again hardly conclusive that there was intermixing. All your arguments are flawed and appeal to the ignorant. Unless you show impartial independent studies your claim is baseless.
I highly recommend that you read "Taiwan: A New History" edited by Murray Rubenstein for a good look at Taiwan's history with an unusually large amount of material on pre-1895 Taiwan.

As for my statement that the Minnan people are not, as you claim, mythologically Chinese. I'll simply put it this way, All minnan people have ancestory that can be easily traced to the original kingdoms during the warring period of China in 2500BC.
The Minnan people are from the Southeast of China and maintained fierce independence even until the Tang Dynasty. As for the Warring States period, China at that time was not an empire, but rather there were many states existing primarily on ethno-linguistic lines. It was a conquered (like has been seen in European history on occassion) by a single person who conquered all of those kingdoms. Over time, the local ethnic groups would reassert their own identity at various times(even as late as the 1920s), however, none were as strong as asserting their independence as the Min peoples of the Southeast.

Wait, did you just say treaty between GB and CHina in 1980 to return HK? I thought you said it was non-existant in your 3rd statement as quoted above. Then your assumption that I am from the mainland is baseless, and only considering of my stance. Nice attempt to discredit me.
You are the one who said that I said the treaty was nonexistant. I never said it. What doesn't exist is a legally binding treaty between Japan and China that designates Taiwan as Chinese territory.

Ohhh I see so even after all that bogus you wrote above of claim and so on. You are not ousting the only sovergnty over the Taiwan region including outlieing islands to be an illegal government. So what then of Jingmen? Mazhu? What will happen to those islands? I think you should look up what sovereignty means before you claim the ROC, which even the criminal DPP even claim to be the government of, to mean first.
Those islands rightfully belong to China. I know what sovereignty means. I do, after all, have a master's degree in political science and some training in international law. De jure sovereignty over Taiwan was NEVER transferred over to China (ROC or PRC) following World War II. I have shown you examples of treaties and international practice to prove my point. It is time that you actually put up some defense of your positions here.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I think the "Taiwanese" spoke very loudly in that last election, or were you not around. more than half the island voted against the pro-independents, none of this 0.2% margin to steal the presidency non-sense. All those that are in power whom are "pro-independence" are nothing more than power mongering thugs who care for nothing else. They only scream independence because they know it will spark tensions between the majority pre-1948 migrant populice and minority post 1948 populice, the same way as former thug president Lee.
The DPP didn't "steal" the presidency. Chen Shuibien won a majority of the vote. The National Assembly elections were held shortly after Lien and Soong made their highly publicized trips to China. In that election, the DDP beat the KMT and the TSU even beat up on the PFP! That was a stunning pan-Blue LOSS! This local election had NOTHING to do with China and everything to do with ALLEGED corruption on the part of the DPP. The funny thing is that the KMT has engaged in corruption for decades in Taiwan, and is even widely suspected in vote buying in last weekends elections. Many people I know who voted for the KMT also regard Taiwan as a country. The KMT and the CCP (who you KMT-folk are the lackeys of) both oppose allowing the Taiwanese people to have a referendum on the subject because both know that the Taiwanese people would vote for independence in the plebiscite that should have been granted to them in 1952!

NOW, please actually READ my post before making a reply!
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jfuh said:
Aie, if only the US had the balls to back them all the way.
The US takes it's alliances and treaties very seriously. Why should Taiwan be different? We don't have to invade the mainland to protect Taiwan. Even the Chinese aren't stupid enough to start a Naval battle with us. With all you anti Taiwan independence guys it always come down to the same thing. You claim the US won't honor it's agreements. Wei shenma? A very weak debate indeed.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ludahai said:
Taiwan is NOT a part of China

A. History

The notion that Taiwan is a part of China is taken as a matter of faith among China’s government and most of its citizens. It is also similarly taken as a matter of faith among the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which formerly ruled the islad and still retains a strong presence in local Taiwanese politics. However, rarely is an actual examination taken of the legitimacy and legal veracity of these claims.

The indigenous population of the island is proto-Austronesian peoples who are believed to be the progenitors of the Malayo-Polynesian peoples who have spread through Southeast Asia and as far west as Madagascar and as far east as Hawaii, Easter Island, and perhaps even mainland South America. They had lived in Taiwan in relative isolation, with only limited and infrequent Chinese contacts, as late as the 16th century.

As the 17th century dawned, Taiwan was still out of the realm of China. China had never established governmental authority east of the Pescadores Island chain in the Taiwan Strait. Even that authority was short-lived. In 1624, the Dutch established a trade outpost in the Pescadores. This elicited the opposition of the Ming Chinese government, who ousted the Dutch. The Ming, however, offered no objection to the Dutch using southern Taiwan as an outpost because they conceded that it was outside their jurisdiction.

A half-Japanese pirate, and Ming loyalist, by the name of Koxinga (Jheng Chenggong) led a naval raid on the Dutch settlement at Anping (present-day Tainan) and ousted the Dutch in 1660. However, the Ming Dynasty had fallen nearly two decades earlier and he had no authority from the Ming remnants fighting a losing battle in southwestern China at the time. Thus, it cannot be said that Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan was assumed at that time. Shortly thereafter, the Manchus from a region northeast of China took complete control of the country. In 1683, they added Taiwan to their list of conquests and made it a part of their empire. This is the first time in history that Taiwan and China were a part of the same political entity, and the reality is that both were conquered and occupied by an outside power, the Manchus.

Now, we fast forward to the 1880s. The Manchus still controlled both China and Taiwan and attempted to make Taiwan more integrated with their empire. The fact is that most of Taiwan still lay outside of their control as late as the 1870s as the east coast and the mountain areas were outside their jurisdiction. Taiwan was made a province of the Qing Dynasty in 1886 and they made a short-lived effort to modernize the island. However, the corrupt empress dowager, Cixi, put a stop to it. Regardless, it did not matter as the fate of Taiwan would be decided far from its shores. China managed to get itself into a war with Japan, a war that Japan was itching for, but a war that China provoked and was completely ill-prepared for. The cause was intervention in Korea. The resulting Treaty of Shimonoseki transferred sovereignty of Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity, meaning forever.

Taiwan became a part of the Japanese empire. Japan tried to turn Taiwan into an integral part of the country. Taiwan’s economy and educational system were developed to an extent not seen in other territories occupied by Japan. Sure, there were Japanese atrocities in Taiwan, especially against the aboriginal population who resisted Japanese rule. However, on balance, Japanese rule over Taiwan was relatively benign, even to the extent that a limited degree of self-rule was introduced in the 1930s.

Japan invaded China in 1937, beginning the Asian phase of what became World War II. A variety of documents emerged from this war what will be addressed later in this essay. However, virtually all of China’s claims that Taiwan belongs to it stem from this eight-year conflict. Japan was defeated by the Allied powers (which included China) in 1945. KMT forces from China came to Taiwan to accept Japan’s surrender on behalf of the Allied powers. The San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed in 1951 (taking effect the following year) which formally ended the war in the Pacific.

B. China’s claim

As mentioned in the above section, China’s claims to Taiwan mostly stem from World War II and the agreements and treaties that were signed as a result of the conflict. The notion that Taiwan is a part of China rests on four agreements and a basic theory of international law known as “state succession.”

American President Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Churchill and Republic of China Generalissimo Chiang Kaishek (Jiang Jhongjheng) met in Cairo, Egypt in November, 1943. The Cairo Declaration was a joint declaration that the territories “stolen” by Japan are to be returned to China following the end of the war. Taiwan was one of the territories referenced.

Less than two years later, after the war in Europe was concluded, there was a meeting near Berlin including the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union. They reaffirmed the content of the Cairo Declaration in that meeting and demanded Japan’s unconditional surrender.

Japanese representatives signed an Instrument of Surrender on September 2, 1945 in which they stated an acceptance to accept the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation. Japanese and American military commanders were the only signatories.

Finally, a bilateral treaty was signed between the Republic of China government (by then in exile in Taiwan) and Japan in 1952. In it, Japan signified that it had “returned” Taiwan to the Republic of China. This document is used by the KMT to bolster its claim that Taiwan is a part of China.

This document is NOT used by the PRC, however. In fact, they do not even recognize its legitimacy. They use another rationale to support their claim. They claim that Taiwan was “returned” to China on either September 2, 1945 (with the signing of the Instrument of Surrender) or on October 25, 1945 when KMT troops accepted Japan’s surrender in Taiwan. Theoretically, as Taiwan was a part of China when the Communist Party won the civil war in 1949, and under the successor state theory, all agreements signed by the previous government (including boundaries) are binding on the successor government.

C. Examination of International Law on State-to-State Transfer of Territory

However, when these claims are illuminated under the light of international law, their argument is shown to be built on shifting sands.

According to international law, there is only one mechanism by which territory can be transferred from one state to another: a legally ratified and binding peace treaty. This is confirmed by state practice, the leading source of international law in the pre-World War II era.

The Treaty of Shimonoseki, the very treaty in which Taiwan was transferred to Japanese control in the first place, includes a specific mention of that transfer. Article two of that treaty provided for the transfer of Taiwan to Japan. The transfer is specifically referenced as is the beneficiary power.

The Versailles Treaty ended World War I and was signed in Paris in 1919. In this treaty, territory transfers and new boundaries were specifically spelled out. All territorial transfers were specifically referenced with both the surrendering power and beneficiary being specifically referenced at all points in the document.

Japan completely defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Japan already occupied territory that it was granted by the Treaty of Portsmouth (N.H.) in 1905. However, all of the territories to be transferred as well as the beneficiary (Japan) are specifically mentioned in the document, although common sense would inform someone that it was not necessary.

The 1848 Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo was signed by the United States and Mexico when the former had already occupied a significant amount of territory of the later in a war that was begun when Mexican troops crossed into U.S. territory. Regardless, Mexican territory that was transferred to the United States was specifically spelled out in the treaty.

The 1898 Treaty of Paris concluded the Spanish-American War. At the conclusion of the war, the U.S. physically occupied Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Cuba, all Spanish colonies at the onset of the war. This treaty is very useful in pointing out the power of the mechanism to transfer territory from one state to another. On the one hand, the transfer of the Philippines and Puerto Rico to American sovereignty is specifically mentioned in the treaty. However, there is no such mention of Cuba being designated as being U.S. territory. Consequently, shortly thereafter, Cuba was granted independence rather than being incorporated as a U.S. territory as were Puerto Rico and the Philippines.

There are countless more examples where these came from, but the point has been sufficiently made that territory can only be transferred from one state to another through the peace treaty.
For what it is worth, I believe that the US needs to come to the aid of Taiwan if China were to attack militarily. It seems the dictatorship in China is seeking to bully Taiwan and to crush the newly born democracy while preventing democracy in the mainland.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
jfuh said:
Aie, if only the US had the balls to back them all the way.
I would have to agree. The US needs to back Taiwan all the way. However, I think with the current Bush Adminstration, if Taiwan is attacked, Bush will aid Taiwan with direct US military involvement. The question of US commitment to Taiwan comes murkier with any proceeding adminstrations after the Bush Adminstration. But certainly, I think the US should plan for a war in the Taiwanese strait, monitor Chinese expenditures closely and adjust US military expenditures accordingly to make the military option for Chinese leaders less favorable. I have to agree with the Bush Adminstration's nuclear policy in that area as well where the US could deploy nuclear weapons in Asia in the event of "surprising military developments" a reference to China. Not, that I am a war monger or want such weapons need to be used. But I think the US needs a clear, concise open policy regarding Taiwan to bring the Chinese leaders to the negotiating table so that their is not threat to Taiwanese democracy.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
TimmyBoy said:
I would have to agree. The US needs to back Taiwan all the way. However, I think with the current Bush Adminstration, if Taiwan is attacked, Bush will aid Taiwan with direct US military involvement. The question of US commitment to Taiwan comes murkier with any proceeding adminstrations after the Bush Adminstration. But certainly, I think the US should plan for a war in the Taiwanese strait, monitor Chinese expenditures closely and adjust US military expenditures accordingly to make the military option for Chinese leaders less favorable. I have to agree with the Bush Adminstration's nuclear policy in that area as well where the US could deploy nuclear weapons in Asia in the event of "surprising military developments" a reference to China. Not, that I am a war monger or want such weapons need to be used. But I think the US needs a clear, concise open policy regarding Taiwan to bring the Chinese leaders to the negotiating table so that their is not threat to Taiwanese democracy.
The US has spoke very clearly about this. It would not support unilateral action from either side. Meaning if idots in Taiwan such as the DPP or "green" side continue on thier arcane rants of pro-independance and take actual steps as such, were the mainland commies (just for kicks I still call them commies) to invade the island, the US will not go in militarily.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
The US has spoke very clearly about this. It would not support unilateral action from either side. Meaning if idots in Taiwan such as the DPP or "green" side continue on thier arcane rants of pro-independance and take actual steps as such, were the mainland commies (just for kicks I still call them commies) to invade the island, the US will not go in militarily.
Actually, if you read between the lines, it isn't as clear as you believe it to be. President Bush has made it clear that no change should take place without the consent of the Taiwanese people. He did call for the status quo, but his statements on the matter have been far more pro-Taiwan than those of his predescessors. The fact is that China has no legal claim to Taiwan and if China did invade, it would be on the wrong side of international law. U.S. intervention would depend on some extent to who was president. If it is President Hillary, she won't lift a finger for Taiwan. However, if it is a Republican President or a Democrat with balls (though there are fewer and fewer of them), then the Chinese will invade Taiwan at its on risk.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ludahai said:
Actually, if you read between the lines, it isn't as clear as you believe it to be. President Bush has made it clear that no change should take place without the consent of the Taiwanese people. He did call for the status quo, but his statements on the matter have been far more pro-Taiwan than those of his predescessors. The fact is that China has no legal claim to Taiwan and if China did invade, it would be on the wrong side of international law. U.S. intervention would depend on some extent to who was president. If it is President Hillary, she won't lift a finger for Taiwan. However, if it is a Republican President or a Democrat with balls (though there are fewer and fewer of them), then the Chinese will invade Taiwan at its on risk.
I am almost certain Bush would aid Taiwan and I would support any US defense of Taiwan.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ludahai said:
Actually, if you read between the lines, it isn't as clear as you believe it to be. President Bush has made it clear that no change should take place without the consent of the Taiwanese people. He did call for the status quo, but his statements on the matter have been far more pro-Taiwan than those of his predescessors. The fact is that China has no legal claim to Taiwan and if China did invade, it would be on the wrong side of international law. U.S. intervention would depend on some extent to who was president. If it is President Hillary, she won't lift a finger for Taiwan. However, if it is a Republican President or a Democrat with balls (though there are fewer and fewer of them), then the Chinese will invade Taiwan at its on risk.
This is exactly the sort of propaganda that pro-independence people say in order to push for thier election/re-election. No, this only applies to the province being invaded unilaterally by the mainland without conscent by the local populice for unification.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
This is exactly the sort of propaganda that pro-independence people say in order to push for thier election/re-election. No, this only applies to the province being invaded unilaterally by the mainland without conscent by the local populice for unification.
1. Taiwan is NOT a province of China.

2. You are not very good at reading between the lines of politicians remarks, are you?
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ludahai said:
1. Taiwan is NOT a province of China.

2. You are not very good at reading between the lines of politicians remarks, are you?
You are not very sane are you? Any knowledgeable person would know what all this pro-independence non-sense is about. Power, nothing more. As a foreigner there are many aspects of being Chinese that you don't understand.
Taiwan is a province, and it is a province of the ROC which is China whether you agree or disagree it doesn't matter. It's like Quebec saying they are not Canadian, only different.
Read between lines of politicians. I don't need to either. I know enough that all politicians are liars, particularily in Taiwan. The only difference is some lie more than others. In Taiwan again it just so happens that nearly all pro-independent politicians allied with the current pres. are nothing more than corrupt thugs.
So if those are the kind of people that you support, well that says a lot about you. If you can not see that? Well then you are much more insance then I thought, or it just may be attributed that you have not acculturated enough to the region to which it is then understandable.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
You are not very sane are you? Any knowledgeable person would know what all this pro-independence non-sense is about. Power, nothing more. As a foreigner there are many aspects of being Chinese that you don't understand.
I think you are the one who needs to look in the mirror. You support thugs who oppressed the people of this country for decades! They caused all kinds of mayhem last year when they lost the election. Every day, they use their majority in the Legislative Yuan to work AGAINST Taiwan's best interests. The KMT is the ultimate power seeker in Taiwan. They will cheat, lie, steal and use "Black Gold" politics to get it.

Taiwan is a province, and it is a province of the ROC which is China whether you agree or disagree it doesn't matter. It's like Quebec saying they are not Canadian, only different.
Quebec was given to British Canada in a legally binding peace treaty signed after the Seven Years' War. There is no legally binding peace treaty by which Taiwan was given to China.

Read between lines of politicians. I don't need to either. I know enough that all politicians are liars, particularily in Taiwan. The only difference is some lie more than others. In Taiwan again it just so happens that nearly all pro-independent politicians allied with the current pres. are nothing more than corrupt thugs.
Are you also saying that pan-Blue politicians are also liars, or only the green ones. Talking about corrupt thugs, there have been more documented scandals and corrpution with pan-Blues than there ever will be with Pan-Greens. LaFayette bring any memories?


So if those are the kind of people that you support, well that says a lot about you. If you can not see that? Well then you are much more insance then I thought, or it just may be attributed that you have not acculturated enough to the region to which it is then understandable.
You support crooks and thugs that denied freedom to the Taiwanese people, continue to work to deny them the right to determine their own future, and refuse to return their ill gotten gains during the White Terror to the people of Taiwan. They continue to deny 2-28 and the severity of their crimes against the Taiwanese people. If YOU support these thugs, it says a lot about yourself. However, since I presume you are a HsinJhuMin 新住民, I am not really surprised. Your lot benefited from the advantages of the White Terror era and would like to get them back.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ludahai said:
I think you are the one who needs to look in the mirror. You support thugs who oppressed the people of this country for decades! They caused all kinds of mayhem last year when they lost the election. Every day, they use their majority in the Legislative Yuan to work AGAINST Taiwan's best interests. The KMT is the ultimate power seeker in Taiwan. They will cheat, lie, steal and use "Black Gold" politics to get it.
You mean when the DPP "stole" the election by a 0.2% margin. You make it sound as if no other country causes mayham when an election is so close, Florida 2000, sound familiar? YOu also speak as if you know what's best for Taiwan? Or is it that you're simply saying that all pan green decisions are pro-taiwan? Cheat, lie, steal, and I'll add two more, blackmail and fear tactics. Sound familiar? That's the pan green for you. Anyone can mudsling anyone else, it's only relevant when it's true, ie all pan green have been in jail and not only for political imprisonment.

ludahai said:
Quebec was given to British Canada in a legally binding peace treaty signed after the Seven Years' War. There is no legally binding peace treaty by which Taiwan was given to China.
And who was it that gave quebec to the British? I don't believe that any native american tribe ever signed any treaty to say, here, take our land, it's yours now. In the same way, why need Taiwan to be claimed to be itself?

ludahai said:
Are you also saying that pan-Blue politicians are also liars, or only the green ones. Talking about corrupt thugs, there have been more documented scandals and corrpution with pan-Blues than there ever will be with Pan-Greens. LaFayette bring any memories?
Perhaps you have difficulty reading. I said all politicians are liars. Interesting that you would bring up LaFayette. What I find intriguing about LaFayette, is that there has been no break through about it since the pan green took over. I remember a certain Chen who vowed to get to the bottom of what happened do the officer who was assasinated during the LaFayette purchases. Yet nothing happened, in fact all those formerly blue (Lee) are now green. Funny how they shift power so easily. Now you might say well hey, Lian and James Song were formerly blue and still blue today. However none of the current day pan-blues were ever in the inner circle of Lee during the LaFayette days. They were just toted around for the support of the former generation of mainlanders.


ludahai said:
You support crooks and thugs that denied freedom to the Taiwanese people, continue to work to deny them the right to determine their own future, and refuse to return their ill gotten gains during the White Terror to the people of Taiwan. They continue to deny 2-28 and the severity of their crimes against the Taiwanese people. If YOU support these thugs, it says a lot about yourself. However, since I presume you are a HsinJhuMin 新住民, I am not really surprised. Your lot benefited from the advantages of the White Terror era and would like to get them back.
Don't you for a single moment dare assume of my background. I'm a 5th generation islander of Minnan descent. My family lost many family members both during the initial resistance against Japanese occupation and during the white scare. Several of my uncles were thrown into prison and tortured at the hands of Chiang Kai Shik's military. So don't you, a foriegner that retains your foriegn citizenship dare for a single moment lecture me about the rights of us people's of Taiwan. Just who do you think you are? You travel over here and tell us what's wrong what's right when France is facing racial rioting, Cheny/Bush Inc. is going forth with a 6th crusade against the holy lands not to mention an identity crisis of secularism. You who will have your country of citizenship bail you out at the moment that any conflict were to arrise between the mainland and Taiwan. Who are you to judge me and say that I'm here to suppress my own people. I served a two year tour on the island of Xiao jing men. Perhaps you being landlocked in Taichung and so arrogant with your pro-indepence has no idea of where xiao-jing-men is. Look on a map of the Jing men area and you will find a small island that's right between the island and the mainland, only 5km from the mainland. You can literally snipe a person through a tripod if you wanted to. So don't you dare question who I am when you are nothing but a foreigner that has no idea what's going on, nor what it means to be Chinese. Say what you want think what you want with all your technicalities and flawed arguments. I'm proud to be Chinese, and I love my home Taiwan.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
You mean when the DPP "stole" the election by a 0.2% margin.
How can you say the DPP stole the election by 0.228 (ironic number when you think about it) when they won more votes than the KMT candidate did?

You make it sound as if no other country causes mayham when an election is so close, Florida 2000, sound familiar?
The mayhem caused by Democrats in Florida when they lost was NOTHING compared to what the KMT did. I didn't see any Democrat elected officials in Florida mounting trucks trying to break through police lines like a PFP legislator did in Kaohsiung. I did't see Democrats try to vandalize and break into a courthouse to destroy ballots as they tried to here in Taichung. I didn't see Democrats demonstrate nonstop for weeks in the vicinity of a hospital and high school for weeks as the KMT did in Taipei. Those poor high school seniors were preparing for the most important test of their lives when the KMT was there protesting. I am not a Democrat and in general I despise them, but their behavior was world better than the behavior of the pan-Blues in the KMT and PFP was in the days and weeks following Chen's victory last year.

YOu also speak as if you know what's best for Taiwan? Or is it that you're simply saying that all pan green decisions are pro-taiwan? Cheat, lie, steal, and I'll add two more, blackmail and fear tactics. Sound familiar? That's the pan green for you. Anyone can mudsling anyone else, it's only relevant when it's true, ie all pan green have been in jail and not only for political imprisonment.
The KMT has played fear tactics as well as anyone. Vote for us and we can have peace with China. Vote for them and we will have war. Sound familiar? The KMT has compared Chen to Hitler. Sound familiar? The KMT has compared Chen to bin Laden and Saddam! Sound familiar? The KMT even used images of the World Trade Center burning on 9/11 in their anti-Chen propoganda in last year's presidential campaign! If anyone should be in jail, it is the PFP legislator who led the charge against the police line in Kaohsiung last year. It is Lien Chan who incited his supporters to riot in the aftermath of the election loss he sufferred. It is all of the pan-Blues who bought votes in this recent election a couple of weeks ago. Those are the people who should be in jail. The KMT who were involved in the repression of the people in Taiwan for decades should all be in jail!

And who was it that gave quebec to the British? I don't believe that any native american tribe ever signed any treaty to say, here, take our land, it's yours now. In the same way, why need Taiwan to be claimed to be itself?
Sadly, the Indian tribes were not recognized as states and therefore were not considered to be sovereign over the land. Heck, when the Europeans came, they didn't even consider the land their own, rather, they felt that the land was to be shared. However, the British didn't take Quebec from the Indians. The French surrendered Quebec in a legally bonding treaty following the Seven Years' War (the North American theater was known as the French and Indian War.) As for Taiwan, as I said, Japan was the legal sovereign over Taiwan from 1895 to 1952. When Japan gave up sovereignty, it was not assigned to another power. Thus, according to Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, the people of Taiwan should have been granted the right of self-determination. Something that the criminals in the KMT wouldn't allow.

Perhaps you have difficulty reading. I said all politicians are liars.
Considering all of the problems you have had comprehending the legal points I have brought you, you shouldn't criticize anyone for having difficulty reading. I was simply seeking clarification.

Interesting that you would bring up LaFayette. What I find intriguing about LaFayette, is that there has been no break through about it since the pan green took over. I remember a certain Chen who vowed to get to the bottom of what happened do the officer who was assasinated during the LaFayette purchases. Yet nothing happened, in fact all those formerly blue (Lee) are now green.
The Blues in the legislature have done everything they can to BLOCK the investigation. Those who have been inplicated thus far are live long pan-Blue loyalists! The Pan-Blue have been using their majority in the legislature to prevent further developments.

Funny how they shift power so easily. Now you might say well hey, Lian and James Song were formerly blue and still blue today. However none of the current day pan-blues were ever in the inner circle of Lee during the LaFayette days. They were just toted around for the support of the former generation of mainlanders.
None of the LEADERS (except James Soong who was the governor of "Taiwan Province" while Lee was President and used his position to milk the taxpayers of countless sums of money) perhaps, but enough of the important bureaucrats who benefited from such scandals are still in the pan blue ranks and will likely return to the administration in the event of a Ma Yingjiu administration if the win the election in 2008.

Don't you for a single moment dare assume of my background. I'm a 5th generation islander of Minnan descent. My family lost many family members both during the initial resistance against Japanese occupation and during the white scare. Several of my uncles were thrown into prison and tortured at the hands of Chiang Kai Shik's military. So don't you, a foriegner that retains your foriegn citizenship dare for a single moment lecture me about the rights of us people's of Taiwan.
Why don't I have a right to defend the right's of Taiwan's people? You don't want to defend your own rights, but many in Taiwan DO want their rights! In an English language forum, most of them aren't able to present that. Also, as a scholar, I have the academic right to look at the legal status of the sitution and to argue and advocate for the law to be carried out, as it was NOT in the case of Taiwan. You support the side that CONTINUES to deny the Taiwanese people their rights. All I have advocated is for an internationally guaranteed referendum as is the right of the Taiwanese people given the current legal status of the island. You are on the side who would deny this legal right to the Taiwanese people.

Just who do you think you are? You travel over here and tell us what's wrong what's right when France is facing racial rioting, Cheny/Bush Inc. is going forth with a 6th crusade against the holy lands not to mention an identity crisis of secularism.
I haven't simply travelled to Taiwan, I LIVE in Taiwan. Taiwan is my home. My wife is Taiwanese and we are raising two daughters here. I also have a stake in what happens here. Just because you and your racist attitude sets in (a typical reaction from KMT people by the way), it doesn't change the fact that Taiwan is my home and most people here accept me. Generally, it is KMT racists like yourself who seem to think that because I am not "Chinese" I don't have a right to have an opinion regarding Taiwan and its status vis a vis China.

You who will have your country of citizenship bail you out at the moment that any conflict were to arrise between the mainland and Taiwan. Who are you to judge me and say that I'm here to suppress my own people. I served a two year tour on the island of Xiao jing men. Perhaps you being landlocked in Taichung and so arrogant with your pro-indepence has no idea of where xiao-jing-men is.
The only reason I don't have Taiwanese citizenship at this time is due to the racist policies put in place by the KMT! I know exactly where the islands of Kinmen are! In fact, they legally belong to China, NOT to Taiwan! Now YOU are the one making assumptions. If you don't want others making assumptions of you, perhaps you shouldn't go around making assumptions about the knowledge of other people, especially considering the lack of knowledge you have shown regarding basic principles of international law.

Look on a map of the Jing men area and you will find a small island that's right between the island and the mainland, only 5km from the mainland. You can literally snipe a person through a tripod if you wanted to. So don't you dare question who I am when you are nothing but a foreigner that has no idea what's going on, nor what it means to be Chinese. Say what you want think what you want with all your technicalities and flawed arguments. I'm proud to be Chinese, and I love my home Taiwan.
Again, I know the situation. I did my master's thesis on the legal and political ramifications of the relationship, both historical and present-day. I am more aware of this than most Taiwanese, as most are willing to concede once I get into a discussion with them on the historical and legal merits. Most don't even know what the San Francisco Peace Treaty is because the KMT has not permitted it to be presented in Taiwanese history textbooks and the pan-Blue media never refers to it. The KMT is so bankrupt in their ideas, they have to completely ignore important historical events in order to bolster their position.

Remember one thing, what I am advocating is the legal right of the Taiwanese people to determine their own future through a referendum. THis is somethign that the KMT has denied for decades, and continues to advocate against. Taiwanese are legally entitled to this right and to have it guaranteed internationally without undue coercion from China. The KMT and China are on the wrong side of the law on this. I am willing to accept the verdict of a majority of the Taiwanese people. Are you?
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ludahai said:
How can you say the DPP stole the election by 0.228 (ironic number when you think about it) when they won more votes than the KMT candidate did?
Simple much of the votes were cast in favor of the DPP because of the gunshot on 3/19 2004. That gunshot sparked the many anti-mainlander sentiments of many islanders. It was nothing more than a political show made my Chen and his collegues.

ludahai said:
The mayhem caused by Democrats in Florida when they lost was NOTHING compared to what the KMT did. I didn't see any Democrat elected officials in Florida mounting trucks trying to break through police lines like a PFP legislator did in Kaohsiung. I did't see Democrats try to vandalize and break into a courthouse to destroy ballots as they tried to here in Taichung. I didn't see Democrats demonstrate nonstop for weeks in the vicinity of a hospital and high school for weeks as the KMT did in Taipei. Those poor high school seniors were preparing for the most important test of their lives when the KMT was there protesting. I am not a Democrat and in general I despise them, but their behavior was world better than the behavior of the pan-Blues in the KMT and PFP was in the days and weeks following Chen's victory last year.
Of course your beloved DPP had never done anything of the sort, nor do they ever done anything like that either. So what, like I said all politicians are lying cheating money moguls. In taiwan this is particularily evident. I don't think that you can deny, unless you have your head in the clouds, that the DPP are exceptionally violent whenever they loose or they "feel"injustice. I know prominently in the south of the island violence is everywhere when people loose. That's just because they want the attention. This attention though is not limited to political means alone. The DPP is notorious for thier countless vandalizing acts. I don't know why you site thier acts when it is prevelent on both sides and hardly constitutes any valid argument.


ludahai said:
The KMT has played fear tactics as well as anyone. Vote for us and we can have peace with China. Vote for them and we will have war. Sound familiar? The KMT has compared Chen to Hitler. Sound familiar? The KMT has compared Chen to bin Laden and Saddam! Sound familiar? The KMT even used images of the World Trade Center burning on 9/11 in their anti-Chen propoganda in last year's presidential campaign! If anyone should be in jail, it is the PFP legislator who led the charge against the police line in Kaohsiung last year. It is Lien Chan who incited his supporters to riot in the aftermath of the election loss he sufferred. It is all of the pan-Blues who bought votes in this recent election a couple of weeks ago. Those are the people who should be in jail. The KMT who were involved in the repression of the people in Taiwan for decades should all be in jail!
The simple difference is that nearly all members of the DPP have been in Jail before and as I stated for reasons other than simple political imprisonment. You continue to site these acts of violenece that I've said already are on both sides not just one side. Again irrelevent.

ludahai said:
Sadly, the Indian tribes were not recognized as states and therefore were not considered to be sovereign over the land. Heck, when the Europeans came, they didn't even consider the land their own, rather, they felt that the land was to be shared. However, the British didn't take Quebec from the Indians. The French surrendered Quebec in a legally bonding treaty following the Seven Years' War (the North American theater was known as the French and Indian War.) As for Taiwan, as I said, Japan was the legal sovereign over Taiwan from 1895 to 1952. When Japan gave up sovereignty, it was not assigned to another power. Thus, according to Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, the people of Taiwan should have been granted the right of self-determination. Something that the criminals in the KMT wouldn't allow.
YEs of course, and the French recieved the land willingly from the indians? There was a treaty that enede the French Indian war surrendering the land to the french to give to the British?
The Qing government, as well as those of all the Chinese peoples of the time had always considered to be at War with Japan. Though not Internationally recognized (same as the indian's were not recognized as a sovereign state), it does not justify that Taiwan was China. As for your article two, interesting, I don't see anything in article two that mentions Taiwan. It does mention in statement 6 for the hope that all non-member states would adhere to Article 1 and 2. However, I'm surprised that you of all people with your master's degree and your education seemingly so embeded in law that you missed the most important part. It asks that all states adhere. Taiwan is sadly, internationally recognized as China, not a seperate state. Hence it has no rights or recognition under the UN charter. Hmm there's that word again recognition. I'm not going to argue that your knowledge of international law or law is vastly superior to mine. which is why I'm still researching to respond to your former articles. However it is noteable that many of your historical knowledge is vastly flawed and erred. Not to mention in academic Ivory tower. From the makeovelian realist perspective. International law is meaningless without the recognition and enforcement of a powerful entity. Just the same way that the US is now able to say **** off to the rest of the world. Something the fundamentalist Cheny Inc republicans do very well at. In fact it is also these same people who say **** off to any international law. just thought I'd bring that into the picture.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
Simple much of the votes were cast in favor of the DPP because of the gunshot on 3/19 2004. That gunshot sparked the many anti-mainlander sentiments of many islanders. It was nothing more than a political show made my Chen and his collegues.
Do you have proof that this was a political show by President Chen? Of course you don't. For KMT thugs, accusations are the only "proof" you need.

Of course your beloved DPP had never done anything of the sort, nor do they ever done anything like that either. So what, like I said all politicians are lying cheating money moguls. In taiwan this is particularily evident. I don't think that you can deny, unless you have your head in the clouds, that the DPP are exceptionally violent whenever they loose or they "feel"injustice. I know prominently in the south of the island violence is everywhere when people loose. That's just because they want the attention. This attention though is not limited to political means alone. The DPP is notorious for thier countless vandalizing acts. I don't know why you site thier acts when it is prevelent on both sides and hardly constitutes any valid argument.
When the Pan Greens lost the legislative election, there wasn't a single reported case of violence, either in the pan-Green or pan-Blue media. Similarly, in the most recent election, there were no reports of post-election violence in the wake of the pan-Blue victory. Last year, when the pan-Greens won, there was significant violence in Kaohsiung, Taichung, and especially in Taipei. Four years prior, when the pan-Blues lost for the first time, they also engaged in violence. You CLAIM that there is violence on both sides, but that simply isn't the case. Even if you can report a case or two of isolated violence, that is NOTHING compared to the mass violence that the KMT has engaged in.

The simple difference is that nearly all members of the DPP have been in Jail before and as I stated for reasons other than simple political imprisonment. You continue to site these acts of violenece that I've said already are on both sides not just one side. Again irrelevent.
Yeah, they were in jail for daring to suggest that Taiwan be a democracy!

YEs of course, and the French recieved the land willingly from the indians? There was a treaty that enede the
Were you meaning to ask a question here? Yes, there was a treaty. In the treaty, it SPECIFICALLY mentions that all French territory in North America (Except a handful of French held islands in the Caribbean) were turned over to the British.

The Qing government, as well as those of all the Chinese peoples of the time had always considered to be at War with Japan. Though not Internationally recognized (same as the indian's were not recognized as a sovereign state), it does not justify that Taiwan was China.
Your meaning is unclear here. I am not suggesting that Taiwan is China, I am suggesting that Taiwan is Taiwan and China is China.

As for your article two, interesting, I don't see anything in article two that mentions Taiwan. It does mention in statement 6 for the hope that all non-member states would adhere to Article 1 and 2.
Sorry, I mispoke. It is article one where self-determination is expressed as a purpose of the United Nations. As I said before, as Taiwan's status following World War II was "undetermined", the only way in accordance with the charter of the United Nations is to ascertain what the will of the people of Taiwan would be. The only way to ensure that would be to have a plebiscite. As I said before, there was no legally binding peace treaty that gave Taiwan to China following the war. Put two and two together, you get four. In this case, the clear right of the Taiwanese people to chart their own future.

However, I'm surprised that you of all people with your master's degree and your education seemingly so embeded in law that you missed the most important part. It asks that all states adhere. Taiwan is sadly, internationally recognized as China, not a seperate state. Hence it has no rights or recognition under the UN charter.
Not true. Article one mentions "self determination of peoples", it is not a reference to "states." As I said, as the KMT regime in Taiwan was unlawful, it was illegally preventing the Taiwanese people from expressing their will regarding the future of their country. Your rhetoric fails due to the primary fact that there is no case for Chinese soverengty over the island and you have presented nothing to invalidate the arguments I made in the first two posts in this thread.

Hmm there's that word again recognition. I'm not going to argue that your knowledge of international law or law is vastly superior to mine. which is why I'm still researching to respond to your former articles. However it is noteable that many of your historical knowledge is vastly flawed and erred.
How is my historical knowledge vastly flawed? As I said, the important points here are. 1) The Qing Dynasty signed away its rights to Taiwan in 1895. 2) Following World War II, the SF Peace Treaty provided for Japan to surrender its claim over Taiwan, but there was no provision for its being handed over to China, as is required by public international law. Please explain the flaws.

Not to mention in academic Ivory tower. From the makeovelian realist perspective. International law is meaningless without the recognition and enforcement of a powerful entity. Just the same way that the US is now able to say **** off to the rest of the world. Something the fundamentalist Cheny Inc republicans do very well at. In fact it is also these same people who say **** off to any international law. just thought I'd bring that into the picture.
As for Cheney and Bush and international law, the invasion of Iraq was perfectly legal as was the invasion of Afghanistan, but that is a topic for another discussion. Also,this is completely irrevelent to Taiwan, no matter how much of a "makeover" you seem to want to put on the situation. You seem to relish the fact that your boys in the KMT got away with a gross violation of the rights of the Taiwanese people for decades. It is a shame that someone like yourself would collaborate with those who spent decades brutalizing the people of Taiwan and denied them one of the most basic rights in the United Nations charter: self determination.
 
Top Bottom