China unlikely to resolve Taiwan problem

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

I have read a lot of postings on the forumosa.com forum about the status of Taiwan vis-a-vis China. Obviously, the Chinese officials actively promote the idea that Taiwan belongs to China.

But the fact is, if Taiwan did actually belong to China, why would they have to be so active in propagandizing the fact?? So . . . . . . the fact that Chinese officials spend so much time talking about the fact that Taiwan belongs to them, could lead us to believe that in reality the opposite is true.

(Of course, I don’t deny that the PRC would be interested in a military takeover of Taiwan, but that is a separate issue. What I am discussing now is “Whether or not Taiwan actually belongs to the PRC”.)

Again . . . . . . we have seen many arguments advanced on both sides (yes and no) in the forumosa.com forums . . . . . . . but looking over the historical record from the early 1970’s to the present . . . . . . there is one thing missing . . . . . . . . and I think it is very important.

And that is —
To my knowledge, the PRC has never advanced any serious court challenges over Taiwanese property . . . . . . . .

To my mind, the obvious place to do this (or to start to do this) would be in the USA, since the USA has a well developed court system. That the PRC has “deep pockets” we don’t doubt . . . . . .

Consider:
(1) After the USA broke diplomatic relations with the ROC, and recognized the PRC . . . . . . well according to the “successor government theory” . . . . . . the PRC should be able to claim ROC assets . . . . . . . . but the PRC never offered any such legal challenges in the USA, or anywhere else . . . . . . . .
(2) The PRC could currently offer various legal challenges to the ownership of the internet country designation of “.tw” . . . . . . . . and claim that as a Province of the PRC, the ownership should be theirs . . . . . or they should actually have full title to the rights to such a designation, or whatever . . . . . . . . .
(3) When artwork or other items from Taiwan is touring abroad, you don’t see the PRC trying to seize the items . . . . . . . . with the stated reason that those items are PRC property, etc., etc. . . . . . . . .

AND I CAN’T HELP THINKING that
the reason the PRC has never offered any such legal challenges (or similar ones) to assert their legal claim over Taiwanese property and things . . . . . . . . . is because they have been advised by very high paid legal counsel (in western countries) that they would lose . . . . . . . .

AND THE REASON THEY WOULD LOSE is obvious . . . . . . . .
because the PRC claims of ownership over Taiwan are a sham, and would never hold up in any court in any advanced nation (outside of China) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Certainly, there is no precedent in international law to say that the Cairo Declaration or Potsdam Declaration or Japanese Surrender Documents are adequate grounds to transfer the sovereignty of Taiwan to CHINA . . . . . . . . and the post WWII treaties certainly didn’t award “Formosa and the Pescadores” to CHINA . . . . . . . . . . so . . . . . . you figure it out . . . . . . . .

My conclusion is that outside of the military invasion option, the PRC will never be able to assert its ownership claim over Taiwan . . . . . . . . because such a claim is [i]invalid[/i] . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

Apply Occam’s razor – If the PRC believes beyond a shadow of a doubt that Taiwan is a part of China, then legal action would be superfluous. The rest of the world believes the ‘one-China’ principle. China’s hysterics are for the benefit of Taiwan, not the rest of the world.

3

I can’t agree that it would be superfluous . . . . . . . how many man hours have been wasted arguing over this issue in the past thirty or more years ??? !!

Certainly … by channeling that energy into more productive activities … China could stimulate domestic consumption … raise the national standard of living … etc., etc.

4

I was optimistic about the Taiwan “issue” until I met a chappy from the gong an ju in Dongguan last weekend.

They believe its theirs. No ifs buts or court action needed. Occam’s razor is the right approach.

HG

5

Good points.

quote=“Hartzell” After the USA broke diplomatic relations with the ROC, and recognized the PRC . . . . . . well according to the “successor government theory” . . . . . . the PRC should be able to claim ROC assets . . . . . . . . but the PRC never offered any such legal challenges in the USA, or anywhere else . . . . . . . .
[/quote]
I think I read in Jimmy Shin’s (the last ROC ambassador to the US) propaganda/biography that the embassy/TECO mansion in DC was transferred in a rush to a private, US registered non-profit company (which I guess was TECO). As I’m sure you know, though, that alone wouldn’t prevent the PRC from trying to make a claim on the property in US courts. There are plenty of cases in which property transfers are declared null and void by US courts. The problem for the PRC, as you point out, is that this would probably not be such a case. They’d lose, they know they’d lose, and to avoid the chance of losing face, they’ll never try it.

6

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]I was optomistic about the Taiwan “issue” until I met a chappy from the gong an ju in Dongguan last weekend.

They believe its theirs. No ifs buts or court action needed. Occam’s razor is right the right approach.

HG[/quote]
But HGC, for every mainlander I’ve met who has that attitude, I’ve met one who couldn’t care less. I’ve even met a few who flat out said that Taiwan should declare independence tomorrow (and that was in Dongguan, btw). A lot of mainlanders are brainwashed, but not all of them. Surprisingly, one of the mainlanders I knew who thought Taiwan should declare independence was the daughter of of a PLA doctor who was stationed in Xinjiang for the past thirty years. She grew up in Urumqi. She was completely unlike any Xinjiang Hanren I had ever met before. She would relate all kinds of fucked up stories her dad told her. Even though she still took a paternalistic attitude, she was quite ashamed of a lot of the things the Chinese have done in Xinjiang. She said her dad felt so upset about some of the shit he saw that he has tried to commit suicide twice.

7

I also agree with this position.

If the PRC were to argue the opposite, then the argument would lend credence that the actions of the KMT in Taiwan conveys legitimacy and sovereignty. By not making this argument, they can argue that the Taiwan government would have the burden of proof that it is sovereign. Whether that is a winning legal strategy in international court is suspect and probably moot.

The PRC will at some point in time, perhaps even in my lifetime, have to physically invade Taiwan. The reasons are simple:
(1) China has been historically an imperialistic nation. Its lands have been gained through conquest and wars. There is no reason to think it will not resort to force to claim what it has always considered their land.
(2) By forgoing claims that Taiwan is a part of China, it would be sending a very dangerous message to its “autonomous” regious like Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Tibet etc, and places like Hong Kong.

8

Then they should do something about it …

I think that Hartzell’s argument is sound. After all … why should the PRC just depend on ONE STRATEGY for asserting their ownership claims over Taiwan ??? As stated, they certainly have “deep pockets” … and they can afford to hire the best legal help available on the globe … but they don’t …

As Sherlock Holmes said: "What is missing, but could reasonably be expected to be there, may be more important and significant than what is there … "

Well, anyway, I guess he said something like that.

9

Considering it to be yours does not make it yours.

According to the historical record, China ceded “Formosa and the Pescadores” to Japan in 1895.

And there is no historical record of these areas having been ceded back to China. (This fact has been discussed in detail in many threads on this website.)

I think the legal argument is sound. Taiwan does not belong to China in any way shape or form, and the PRC officials know it.

Arguments such as “Taiwan historically belonged to China” are not worth a dead ground-hog. Alaska used to belong to Russia. Louisiana used to belong to France. So what? Ceded territory is ceded territory.

10

International legal recourse is as meaningful as the toilet paper you use every day. :stinkyface:

The PRC has it right, the only thing that matters on the international front are: (1) through the barrel of a gun and (2) economic sanctions.

Since economic sanctions against China are as likely to succeed as a snowball in hell is to survive, the only thing left is via the barrel of a gun. The only nation who can take China on is the US. With the US and the rest of the world throwing money at/to/for China, that’s not bloody likely is it?

No, China is very smart to play the waiting game; it’s the only game they know they can win. Who needs to fool around with international law?

11

Considering it to be yours does not make it yours.

According to the historical record, China ceded “Formosa and the Pescadores” to Japan in 1895.

And there is no historical record of these areas having been ceded back to China. (This fact has been discussed in detail in many threads on this website.)

I think the legal argument is sound. Taiwan does not belong to China in any way shape or form, and the PRC officials know it.

Arguments such as “Taiwan historically belonged to China” are not worth a dead ground-hog. Alaska used to belong to Russia. Louisiana used to belong to France. So what? Ceded territory is ceded territory.[/quote]

This makes sense only if you believe that China cares about or believes it is subject to the same international law as other countries. Since it doesn’t on either point, they don’t care what treaty it signed or didn’t sign. It simply has no effect or force. IOW, it’s the same typical characteristic of the “Chinese” - what they say and what they think/believe are not always the same.

12

Folks, I can get just as involved as the rest of you in these discussions about why Taiwan is or isn’t independent, but there is just one simple reason why Taiwan/the ROC enjoys de facto independence and sovereignty. It has nothing to do with this treaty or that treaty or this interpretation of international law or what language this group or that group speaks. It ultimately has nothing to do with property claims that have never been attempted in court or who ceded what to whom and when. The ultimate reason for why the ROC still enjoys de facto independence and sovereignty over Taiwan and a few other islands is the quiet yet clear threat of brute, uninhibitted military force from the US. That threat has been effective for the past 55 years, and it will continue to be effective for the foreseeable future. Court cases and old treaties aren’t what’s keeping the PRC off Taiwan. It’s the US 7th fleet and every other US military asset that could be surged toward Taiwan in the event of a war. Every other argument is just academic.

13

I disagree. Time is also working against them. The political winds in Taiwan are not blowing in the PRC’s favor. I think their’s a very good chance that they’ll get too itchy and make their move before they can do it decisively. Only time will prove which one of us is right.

14

I disagree. Time is also working against them. The political winds in Taiwan are not blowing in the PRC’s favor. I think their’s a very good chance that they’ll get too itchy and make their move before they can do it decisively. Only time will prove which one of us is right.[/quote]

Taiwan should calculate the timing of its “formal” declaration of independence/sovereignty by changing its constitution right before the next Presidential elections. It would be close enough to the 2008 Beijing Olympics to really put the PRC between a rock and a hard place.

The dilemma is:

Is the Olympics as a stage for China’s “coming of age” in the international world more important than its claims of rights to Taiwan?

Heh. :smiling_imp:

15

The only incident I can think of that would come close to a legal challenge would be the PRC demanding all ROC assets and properties following any nation’s switch of recognition from the ROC to the PRC. Taiwan’s sovereignty survived the test for the most part with most countries telling China to f**k off. Japan did allow the PRC to win some properties. The fact that the ROC was allowed to keep foreign held assets is a very key indicator to the ROC’s sovereign status in the eyes of the world.

16

lsieh,

Or the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics could be started with medium range fireworks over the ROC. 2 birds with one stone.

17

You seem to have forgotten that the United States does not consider Taiwan to be a sovereign independence country.

The United States is not in favor of Taiwan independence.

18

You seem to have forgotten that the United States does not consider Taiwan to be a sovereign independence country.

The United States is not in favor of Taiwan independence.[/quote]
Alright, you little pedant. Where in my post did I say that the US officially considers Taiwan or the ROC as a sovereign or independent country? You are extremely obnoxious. Every argument you post here is based on contrived definitions of “sovereign” and “independent.” “Sovereign” simply means self -governing and in control of one’s own affairs. Sovereignty and recognition are two separate things and you are muddying the waters by mixing the two. As far as administration is concerned, Taiwan has been separate from the mainland for over a hundred years. Regardless of what you call it, Taiwan and the other islands governed from Taipei are an independent entity from the PRC. Are you capable of making any argument without resorting to semantic games and using unaccepted meanings of words? It doesn’t matter if the US desires to see the areas governed from Taipei become officially independent. The fact of the matter is that US protection ensures the de facto independence and sovereignty of these areas.

19

Sorry Jive. Quick interrupt.

Back there about the Dongguan copper; just dented my optimism really. I have met oodles of mainlanders - working with a team of 'em here in hongkers right now. I’m also up into Shenzhen whenever I get a chance, not to mention my former teachers and so on in Oz. Summing them all up I would have to say the Chinese government have down an excellent job in switching people’s attention from the deteriorating legitimacy of the Yanan spirit to blind xenophobic nationalism. Ugly stuff when you run into it.

BYW, you still in Dongguan? We should catch up. I’ll be sure not to bring the gong an.

HG

20

Indeed. Imagine if the US changed its mind tomorrow. Would certainly put a different complexion on things.