China unlikely to resolve Taiwan problem

Politics Taiwan Politics
21

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.[/quote]

[quote] “Sovereign” simply means self -governing and in control of one’s own affairs.[/quote] — that is what you think it means, but as Falcon points out, your logic is faulty. You are unable to distinguish between “effective territorial control” and “sovereignty”. All of your arguments fall apart due to the failure to make this distinction.

[quote]The fact of the matter is that US protection ensures the de facto independence and sovereignty of these areas.[/quote] But unfortunately, in order to be truely sovereign, one must have not only defacto aspects, but dejure aspects as well. Taiwan’s defacto territorial control is not supported by dejure arguments (on the international level), so Taiwan is not a sovereign entity.

[quote]Regardless of what you call it, Taiwan and the other islands governed from Taipei are an independent entity from the PRC. [/quote] No one is arguing this point.

22

Possession is nine tenths of the law.

23

Possession is nine tenths of the law.[/quote]
Yes, and it is that missing one-tenth that proves without a doubt that Taiwan is not a sovereign nation. Sorry. You lose.

24

Possession is nine tenths of the law.[/quote]
Yes, and it is that missing one-tenth that proves without a doubt that Taiwan is not a sovereign nation. Sorry. You lose.[/quote]
The jury is not yet even convened on the case of that one tenth. “You lose” is just premature wishful thinking. Meanwhile, another day is added to the length of time that Taiwan has gone without interference from China.

25

I think Beijing might adopt a more magnanimous position on Taiwan if not for Jiang Zemin. Here`s an article from the Taipei Times;

Jiang Desperately Clinging To Power

taipeitimes.com/News/edit/ar … 2003181026

26

I think this argument confuses de jure with recognition. Taiwan is sovereign though not currently recognized by most countries.

27

I think this argument confuses de jure with recognition. Taiwan is sovereign though not currently recognized by most countries.[/quote]

As used by Kairos, it is the same thing. “Recognized in accordance to international law” - de jure. This part is a necessary condition for sovereignty. Since Taiwan’s sovereignty is not supported at the international level, it is therefore not sovereign. That’s the argument.

On the other hand, what many people have been arguing for here is a kind of “de facto” sovereignty which can be described as being in fact or reality despite not being officially or legally established. But this part is a bit more complicated because there is subtle differences between what is “effective territorial control” and “sovereignty” and having former doesn’t mean the latter without additional considerations.

28

I think that theres an argument to be made that not being internationally recognized doesnt necessarily mean that it doesn`t have de jure sovereignty. As a previous poster pointed out, Beijing would probably lose if it was to try and claim Taiwan in a court of law.

29

I really think it depends on who’s court of law the case is tried in.

30

Name an example of a sovereign country that is not recognized by “most” of the nations of the world.
It seems that the proof of sovereignty is in the number of nations that recognize it.

31

Name an example of a sovereign country that is not recognized by “most” of the nations of the world.
It seems that the proof of sovereignty is in the number of nations that recognize it.[/quote]

I suppose that would be Taiwan :eh: :laughing:

32

The former Taliban regime was recognized by only three countries. North Korea until recently didnt have diplomatic relations with many Western countries. The former apartheid era govt of South Africa withdrew from the UN and most international organizations. There are other examples if you wanted to research it. A country most certainly can be sovereign without recognition.

33

However, the situation is different with Taiwan. The sovereignty of Taiwan was formerly held by Japan … the ROC came here after WWII as an occupying power … (International Law says: Occupation does not transfer sovereignty … ) and in the peace treaties after WWII, the sovereignty of Taiwan was not transferred to the ROC …

Hence, the ROC is not a sovereign nation. Case closed.

34

Okay here the problem I have with the premise of this thread.

By all accounts the Japanese surrendered to the KMT after the end of WWII. The Japanese were not order to surrender to the Communist faction in China at that time.

So I don’t see how sovereignty of Taiwan and surrounding islands are an issue. The Japanese surrendered to the KMT, the KMT controlled ROC.

35

[quote=“ac_dropout”]Okay here the problem I have with the premise of this thread.

By all accounts the Japanese surrendered to the KMT after the end of WWII. The Japanese were not order to surrender to the Communist faction in China at that time.

So I don’t see how sovereignty of Taiwan and surrounding islands are an issue. The Japanese surrendered to the KMT, the KMT controlled ROC.[/quote]
OK, my friend. I will educate you. It is a matter of (1) disposition rights, (2) the law of agency, (3) military occupation.

Who liberated Taiwan? Was it the ROC? No. From July 7, 1937 to August 15, 1945 … there is no record of any attacks by ROC military forces, and certainly no damage caused by ROC military forces, on or against Japanese forces in Formosa and the Pescadores.

Who carried out the attacks against Japanese forces in Formosa and the Pescadores? The US military. And who issued the General Order for the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek (CKS) to come to Taiwan and accept the surrender of Japanese military forces? It was Douglas MacArthur, the head of the United States Military Government (USMG)…

Hence, at this point (September 2, 1945), let’s ask a question: Who has disposition rights over Formosa and the Pescadores based on the right of “conquest”? Hence …Who is the principal occupying power?

The answer is: USMG.

The representatives of CKS accepted the surrender of Japanese military forces on October 25, 1945, on behalf of USMG. It is the law of agency. Do the ROC military forces gain “ownership” (i.e. sovereignty) over Formosa and the Pescadores based on this? No … occupation does not transfer sovereignty.

“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.” That is the definition of “military occupation.”

USMG is the principal occupying power. United States Military Government is in effect in Formosa and the Pescadores beginning October 25, 1945. What is the relationship created here? It is a fiduciary relationship – The sovereignty of an area under military occupation is held in trust by the principal occupying power as interim status.

“Military government continues until legally supplanted.” That is the rule regarding military government.

In Formosa and the Pescadores, when did United States Military Government end? It hasn’t … and this is easily verified. What is the US government view of Taiwan today? The US government considers Taiwan a non-sovereign nation.

But, you say … Taiwan has (1) defined territory, (2) permanent population, (3) government, (4) ability to have relations with other states … so it appears quite “eligible” for sovereignty …

Conclusion: The sovereignty of Taiwan is currently held by the USA. That is the only conclusion which fits all the facts …

(a) In the early 1970’s, how could Nixon and Kissinger conclude the Shanghai Communique, stating that “… The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan …” and yet the people of TAiwan were given no say in the matter?

(b) Taiwan appears to be an independent sovereign country, but actually it isn’t.

© The Taiwan Relations Act is a domestic law of the USA.

(d) The USA promotes freedom and democracy as part of its international relations strategy, and yet insists that Taiwan should negotiate with the PRC (a communist country) for eventual unification.

(e) Taiwan’s status in the WTO is as a separate customs territory … a status deriving directly from the law of war and military occupation.

(f) The USA stresses that the Chinese on both sides of the Strait agree that Taiwan is a part of China … (but in fact the USA has never formally recognized PRC sovereignty over Taiwan) … and then the US government says if China attacks Taiwan, the USA will come to the aid of Taiwan …

(g) Despite the ROC’s democratization over the past ten years, it is still not being admitted to the UN, and is still not regarded by the world community as a country …

CONCLUSIONS:
(1) Taiwan remains under US administrative authority.
(2) The USA is holding Taiwan’s sovereignty in trust, and has put Taiwan on a “flight-path” for eventual unification with the PRC. This entire situation has arisen from the law of war, or more specifically from the law of occupation.
(3) October 25, 1945, was not Taiwan Retrocession Day. The ROC military forces are an occupying power (a “subsidiary occupying power”) exercising the delegated administrative authority of USMG. The ROC cannot claim any benefits from this arrangement, hence they cannot claim (under international law) any ownership of Formosa and the Pescadores.
(4) The USA wants Taiwan to go to the bargaining table with the PRC … (but it is clear to the Taiwanese that Taiwan would lose out in any negotiations) … and that is what the US wants to see at this point … United States Military Government in Formosa and the Pescadores will end when Taiwan agrees to become part of the PRC … “military government continues until legally supplanted” is the rule … (as mentioned above) …
(5) The only hope for Taiwan now is to demand their US Constitutional rights … See atimes.com/atimes/China/FA31Ad05.html

36

:notworthy:

37

That

38

You are really grasping at straws with this wild theory !!! Congratulations … you should be given some kind of award.

By the way … why don’t you take your arguments to Europe and try to convince all those countries that Taiwan is a sovereign nation???

Of course … they won’t buy it … and so you continue to waste our time in these forums by advancing your groundless theories and speculations instead of admitting the truth …

I just wanted to make a point that the ROC does not have sovereignty over Taiwan and surrounding islands, and the lack of sovereignty is recognized by the world community.

Nothing you can say will change the facts.

Taiwan is a non independent and non sovereign country, and that is the conclusion of the international community. If you don’t like it, then take your theories and rationale to the United Nations and argue with them.

39

Falcon has offered a number of interesting legal arguments to support his/her analysis. Moreover, Falcon has added a listing of items (a) through (g) which are seemingly contradictory facts, but which all fit together based on the point of view presented, and therefore add further weight …

By contrast, ac_dropout has offered nothing which would support his analysis, except for the tired rhetoric which we have heard from similar supporters of the ROC for the last thirty years …

In my view, ac_dropout needs to think about these issues more clearly, and offer something new … I also agree that people of ac_dropout’s orientation should take their arguments and analysis directly to the United Nations …

(and please don’t contact us again until the UN has agreed to your points of view … )

OTHERWISE, the facts remain that the world community does not regard Taiwan as a sovereign independent nation, because Taiwan is not a sovereign independent nation.

40

Taichungmafia:

[quote]The former Taliban regime