Anyone ever tell her, “You’re so cute when you’re mad”?
Someone should photoshop her into an S&M outfit.
If it were up to me, I’d rather not see her face, anywhere.
One of the reasons why the DPP wouldn’t do that is, technically, Zheng Liwen isn’t wrong. Taiwan has not established a country yet, and the KMT and the ROC government in exile annexed Taiwan illegally, when all they were only given the right to administration before a former peace treaty with Japan. Taiwan’s sovereignty will only be resolved by self-determination of the Taiwanese people. That referendum has not taken place yet due to many historic and present reasons, one of it being China threatening to invade Taiwan if the people of Taiwan decides to establish their own country.
Now, that of course wasn’t and still isn’t the KMT’s official position, which is that Taiwan is a country whose name is the ROC; therefore Zheng Liwen’s statement violates the KMT’s own rhetoric. However, Zheng’s statement is also a false cause fallacy because if she wants to claim that Taiwan has never been a country, that would mean the ROC never had sovereignty over Taiwan, and therefore the PRC doesn’t get to claim Taiwan by being the successor to the ROC.
Or she means the ROC is not Taiwan, that Taiwan is part of the ROC, therefore Taiwan is not a country. Also, that the ROC and PRC are the same country, as the civil war was never resolved. Technically that is the legal position isn’t it?
The defacto reality though is Taiwan is a country.
I personally hope she sticks around. She may be the biggest gift to the DPP since Hung Hsiu-chu.
If that doesn’t pan out, I’d hope for any descendent of Lien Chan (連戰) to step in and help out. 
Guy
It’s not the legal position because technically the true legal position is Taiwan’s sovereignty is undetermined because the ROC government in exile illegally annexed the island while Taiwan was merely under Allied administration prior to a former treaty with Japan.
What you described is the propaganda that the ROC government in exile has been pushing. The PRC government’s official position, and their own propaganda is that the ROC government ceased to exist in 1949. Also, the KMT is delusional that the PRC will be fine with their claim that ROC still exists.
I get that argument, one where only Taiwan and its colonial past is taken into account, and this is probably the most logical way to move beyond China’s claim.
But if that is the case, then Taiwan in the absence of the ROC has no claim to the islands off fujian or the islands in the South China Sea.
Self-determination following the Japanese relinquishment only works for Taiwan and Penghu.
Kimmen and Matsu residents should get their own vote to decide their own furure.
During the Japanese era, most of the islands they occupied in the South China Sea were placed under Taiwan’s administration.
That is not where the ROCs claim for those islands originates… Japan also occuppied large parts of the mainland in that period too.
They were never placed under Taiwan’s administration, they were under Japanese administration from Taiwan. Taiwan was a part of Japan.
Japan likely administered much of South East Asia from Singapore too… doesn’t mean those countries belong to Singapore.
Japan placed the Spratly Islands under the administration of Kaohsiung (Takao shū) on March 30 of 1939 under the Order of Taiwan Prefecture No. 31:
The Spartly Islands were called Shinnan islands (新南群島) by the Japanese at the time.
So the Spartly Islands was a part of Taiwan when Japan renounced its claim to Taiwan, and the future of the islands is pending self-determination of the Taiwanese people.
No, because you can’t keep spoils of war. Japan annexed the spratlys, placing it under Japanese administration in Taiwan that really isn’t incorporating it into the territory of Taiwan is it? If it is then your argument re ROC illegaling annexing Taiwan falls apart.
Japan also renounced ownership of spratlys in the Treaty of San Francisco separate to Taiwan.
Article 2(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.
If they were considered an integral part of Taiwan why the need for a separate provision in the treaty?
If Taiwan was to one day claim a need for self-determination to right a past wrong re sovereignty. Then Taiwan could only ethically do so with Taiwan and Penghu, any attempt at that stage to include areas gained by either Japan or the ROC would run against the spirit of such a move.
You can if it’s in a treaty. Russia kept all the territory that it took from the Qing government as spoils of war. However, that does not apply to the Spratly Islands because prior to Japan claiming those islands, no one officially claimed the Spratly islands. This topic has been discussed in China's nine-dashed line (which is actually Taiwan's eleven-dashed line)
There is no treaty that recognized Chinese claims over the Spratly islands, just a maybe concede by the French on the Paracel islands on behalf of Vietnam.
However, the Japanese basically took over most of the atolls by the 1920s, and the French drove the Japanese away from the Spratly islands in 1933. Then WW2 happened, all the islands were under Japanese control, and most of them were placed under the administration of the Takao (Kaohsiung) City.
Basically only the Japanese and the French made actual claims on the Spratly Islands before the war.
Official post-war status is:
The KMT was instructed by General Order No. 1 to takeover Taiping Island from the Japanese, as a result, its international status is actually exactly the same as Taiwan, not to mention it was placed under the administration of Kaohsiung in the Japanese era. Technically it is a territory trusted to the Allied Powers, which operated under the rules of the UN post war.
Regardless,
Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled back in 2016 that none of the “islands” in the South China Sea are actual islands, but just reefs, shoals, and atolls, they can’t be claimed as territories, and the EEZ can’t be allied to any of them.
So if international law was to be observed, the entire area is international waters. If we are to go by international law, it’s either that, or the Treaty of San Francisco, which would place the Spratly Islands under the administration of Taiwan.
I think you need to reread the treaty.
The treaty says Formosa and the Pescadores. and the Spratly was under the administration of Taiwan prior to the war.
Were under japanese administration in Taiwan.
Please quote were it says that.
The Timeline of the Prohibition
1928 (The Kellogg-Briand Pact): Officially known as the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, this treaty saw signatory states promise not to use war to resolve international disputes. It served as the first major global framework to weaken the legal basis for conquest.
1932 (The Stimson Doctrine): Enunciated by U.S. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson following the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, this policy declared that the U.S. would not legally recognize any territorial changes enacted by force. This non-recognition principle was quickly adopted by the League of Nations.
1933 (The Montevideo Convention): Signed by nations in the Americas, Article 11 of this treaty explicitly established that signatories would not recognize territorial acquisitions achieved by force.
1945 (The UN Charter): The final, definitive ban was codified in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits member states from using threats or military force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
1970 (UN Declaration on Friendly Relations): The UN General Assembly explicitly crystallized this rule by stating that the territory of a state cannot be the object of military occupation or acquisition by another state, and that no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.
Modern Legal StatusToday, the prohibition of the forcible acquisition of territory is considered a jus cogens norm (a peremptory, non-negotiable principle of international law). This means any unilateral annexation or treaty signed under military coercion is considered legally void under global frameworks, and third-party states are legally obligated not to recognize the conquest.If you are researching a specific historical or modern territorial conflict, please let me know. I can provide details on how international courts or UN resolutions applied these non-recognition laws to that exact case.
You can’t claim on one hand to not have self determination and call for referendum.
Then on the other hand claim the prizes of your former imperial rulers.
It is a completely contradictory and unethical stance.
Why does that matter? Kaohsiong, Lanyu, and Turtle islands, were also under Japanese administration in Taiwan, does that mean they are not included in the definition of Formosa in the Treaty of San Francisco? If it was a part of Taiwan when Japan gave up it claim over Taiwan, that territory shares the same fate as Taiwan.
The Treaty of San Francisco only mentions the Spratlys once and I’ve already quoted that article.