- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
jfuh said:The lack of understanding is that you can not admit that the referendum was utterly defeated because Chen could not get enough support for his agenda. It's just that simple. The rules are set, you want to play, you follow by the rules. I was pissed that Chen got elected, but hey, the rules are set the way they are.
Once again, the referendum wasn't defeated. It was non-binding. About 90% of people who voted voted in favor, but only 45% of the electorate voted.
Not on his pro-independence ideology. We don't exactly want war you know.
So, Taiwan should just wait and in the future, when China orders Taiwan to join it or there will be war, you will lead the "Join Communist China for Peace" brigades?
Did the US sign a treaty with the Native americans to aquire any part of the east coast? Did any colony sign any treaty with the Native Americans to take over thier land?
The U.S. signed a treaty with Britain, the internationally recognized sovereign over the territory. Tough fact of life, but in the international law of that era, only states were recognized as having sovereign authority and the Indian tribes were not recognized as states.
Again more proof your partisanship blinds your judgement.
Cairo and Postdam are far more then just memos of understanding by heads of government. The declarations were accepted by Japan in its surrender. Those documents clearly state that Taiwan was to be returned to Chinese sovereignty at the end of World War II.
That is EXACTLY what Cairo and Potsdam were. They were nonbinding. As for the Instrument of Surrender, who signed it? GENERALS. Not elected leaders and they sure as heck were not ratified treaties. Certainly does NOT meet the requirement of a ratified peace treaty being necessary for the transfer of soveregnty.
Did the SF treaty include or not include the nullification of 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki?
No it did not.
If it didn't then by your own guidlines the treaty of Taipei is completely valid. The treaty of Shimonoseki is the only international treaty that binds authority of Japan over Taiwan.
You don't get it, do you. Japan did indeed gain sovereignty over Taiwan through the Treaty of Shimonoseki, but LOST it in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco. That was ratified and in effect BEFORE the Treaty of Taipei (which China doesn't recognize) was even signed. You CAN'T assign sovereignty over a territory that you no longer have sovereignty over. For your argument to hold water, Japan would still have to have de jure sovereignty over Taiwan when the treaty was signed in 1952. It clearly did not as per the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
But then seeing as no representative from neither the ROC nor PRC was present at the SF signing because of recognition of who is China. As such there was no official peace treaty between ROC and Japan and as such, 1945 was officially a ceasefire between the two nations.
Irrelevant. Japan can sign a treaty with whomever they like. As Taiwan was their sovereign territory, the presence or absense of Chinese delegates is quite irrelevant. They could have signed a treaty with the Philippines if they wanted to and it would have been perfectly valid.
THe Treaty of Taipei thus officially ended the war between Japan and China.
True, but Taiwan's disposition had already occurred. Japan no longer had sovereignty over the island. Thus, any provision involving sovereignty over the island is null and void as Japan had no standing.
You have absolutely no understanding of this but your partisanship.
It's fun how you always bring up the SF treaty but never bring up the Treaty of Taipei.
The Treaty of Taipei is completely irrelevant. Funny how your KMT boys want to keep the San Francisco Peace Treaty out of Taiwanese history textbooks.
As the ROC government did not ratify the terms of the SF Peace treaty, the terms are non-binding and cannot alter the validity of the claims by the ROC.
Wrong. Japan had the right to sign a treaty with anyone they wanted over the sovereignty of Taiwan. The ROC had no standing because it wasn't the de jure sovereign authority over the island, Japan was.
Which is why the Taipei peace treaty was required.
Again, wrong. Japan gave up its sovereign authority over Taiwan in the SFPT. It no longer had standing to sign documents regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan.
The proclamation of Taiwan retrocession in 1945 by the ROC was entirely uncontested. By international laws, which you hold so high over your head, had another party been sovereign over Taiwan, that party would have had a period of years in which to protest, and its failure to do so represents cession of rights.
Doesn't quite work that way. Japan still had de jure sovereignty and the ROC was administering the island ON BEHALF of the Allies. The Taiwanese people weren't given the opportunity to speak. In case you don't remember the bloody history of the KMT - 2/28 and the White Terror kept most people silent.
That was my question. Yes what relevance do medial portrayals have over how the administration really is? I'll cite you an old proverb: "Actions speak louder then words"
And President CHen has disappointed me on many fronts.
Actually it's that I don't care for the difference in your flags when the agendas are similar.
But one is the DPP flag and the other is the flag of the World Taiwanese Congress. That you couldn't tell the different between the two is telling that you are perhaps more ignorant about things here than you want people to believe. It is obvious that you don't know much about basic international law.
Why do I not want the nut heads to declare independence or even hold such a referendum? ARe you kidding? Because I do not want the PLA to start launching a full blown assault on the island that's why, you want to bet money down on this? How much you want to bet that if the island regardless of pass or not pass, simply declared to hold a referendum on declaration of independence that the PLA is going to start shooting over missles and sending in the red stars?
So, once again, ten or fifteen years from now, when Red China demands unification or war, will you be on the "Unify with China for Peace" bandwagon too?
Secondly, Taiwan is China, you know, aka The Republic of China.
THat is completely absurd. The only islands that the ROC has legal de jure sovereignty over are Matsu and Kinmen and the other handful of offshore islands that are formally part of Fujian Province.