If China swallows up Taiwan in the next few years, if their passport really do turn from green to red, whose fault will it be?
It will be Taiwanese’ own fault.
Perhaps you might walk us through the imagined steps required that would allow for this scenario to actually happen?
Also, I have a similar hypothetical for you. If Taiwan rejects the notion of one China, pushes for de jure independence, modifies its constitution and China feels compelled to invade and everyones passport turns from green to red, whose fault will it be?
One of these scenarios seems a lot more plausible than the other to me. But please, do explain how China can absorb Taiwan and change the passports from green to red, without putting this to the electorate. Something I am quite certain that the electorate would not agree to,
If the moon blows up, whose fault will it be?
1 Like
Yeah, that’s really similar to a scenario that even the former US Secretary of State is openly worried about.
Well…I was obviously exaggerating my point. I just don’t think this is something that is even remotely possible in the next few years…or even the next couple of decades.
If Taiwan swallows up China in the next few years, if their passport really do turn from red to green, whose fault will it be?
1 Like
Obama’s
Chiang Kai-shek, Chiang Ching-kuo, the US for allowing Chiang to illegally occupy the island in the first place because it needed Chiang as leverage against communist China. Those 3 are the main causes for Taiwan to be stuck in its current situation. The Taiwanese people, DPP, Lee Teng-hui and other green leaning parties are also to blame for not seizing the moment when time was right back in 1996.
If I swallow a fly while eating at a restaurant, and my face turns from pink to green, whose fault will it be?
Chiang Kai-shek, Chiang Ching-kuo (fixed that for you), the US for allowing Chiang to illegally occupy the island in the first place because it needed Chiang as leverage against communist China. Those 3 are the main causes for Taiwan to be stuck in its current situation. The Taiwanese people, DPP, Lee Teng-hui and other green leaning parties are also to blame for not seizing the moment when time was right back in 1996.[/quote]
You had me until the word illegally. I got into a dustup with everyone’s favorite expat commentator over this once and he just couldn’t see my point.
Yes, there is a lot of stuff to indicate that the ROC taking-over of Taiwan was not legal, but we are not lawyers. We cannot see a bit of evidence and cry “guilty!” without knowing everything there is to know about international precedent and relevant laws and treaties etc. etc. etc. It’s the same reason we can’t say “I am certain this man is guilty of theft” and take justice into our own hands.
You collect evidence, you make a case before an expert, that expert decides. So while we can assert that Chiang’s occupation of Taiwan was illegal, we really don’t have the chops to determine whether we are right or wrong in that assertion.
Try telling this to this crazies at the Taiwan (Civil) Government, though.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]
You had me until the word illegally. I got into a dustup with everyone’s favorite expat commentator over this once and he just couldn’t see my point.
Yes, there is a lot of stuff to indicate that the ROC taking-over of Taiwan was not legal, but we are not lawyers. We cannot see a bit of evidence and cry “guilty!” without knowing everything there is to know about international precedent and relevant laws and treaties etc. etc. etc. It’s the same reason we can’t say “I am certain this man is guilty of theft” and take justice into our own hands.
You collect evidence, you make a case before an expert, that expert decides. So while we can assert that Chiang’s occupation of Taiwan was illegal, we really don’t have the chops to determine whether we are right or wrong in that assertion.
Try telling this to this crazies at the Taiwan (Civil) Government, though.[/quote]
A DA can charge someone as doing something illegal, and it’s up to the court to decide, but during that time the DA can continue to maintain that he believe the action of that person is illegal. In this case, I think anyone can point out that ROC’s actions were illegal and non-conforming to post-war practices of other allied nations and was against the UN Charter. ROC was behaving a colonial much like the Japanese in Taiwan as well as Vietnam. If they had their ways in Vietnam, Chiang probably would have annexed it as well. ROC’s actions was illegal in Vietnam, and it is illegal as well here in Taiwan. Just because ROC later had full control over the island doesn’t change that fact.
Obama’s[/quote]
Thanks Obama.
You should swallow a spider to catch that fly.
Else perhaps you’ll die.
You should swallow a spider to catch that fly.
Else perhaps you’ll die.[/quote]
A few weeks ago I went to a new Vietnamese restaurant, and my co-worker discovered a roach in his the soup of his pho (we all ordered pho). When confronted, the restaurant owner give us a 20% discount…
See, that’s my point. It’s not a fact that the ROC illegally occupied Taiwan, it’s your opinion. Your opinion is based on facts, but it is not a fact in and of itself.
PS, there is a very good argument that the entire Louisiana purchase was illegal, but since nobody has actually reviewed the deal in a court of law, it remains valid.
See, that’s my point. It’s not a fact that the ROC illegally occupied Taiwan, it’s your opinion. Your opinion is based on facts, but it is not a fact in and of itself.
PS, there is a very good argument that the entire Louisiana purchase was illegal, but since nobody has actually reviewed the deal in a court of law, it remains valid.[/quote]
I would argue if the Axis had won World War 2 and there never were trials for the war crimes committed by the the Axis, those actions would still be illegal with or without a trial.
Let me ask you this, then, which laws, exactly, were violated?
UN Charter Chapter 6 Article 73, Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Chapter 7 Article 75, International Trusteeship System
The United Nations shall establish under its authority an international trusteeship system for the administration and supervision of such territories as may be placed thereunder by subsequent individual agreements. These territories are hereinafter referred to as trust territories.
Article 76
[quote]The basic objectives of the trusteeship system, in accordance with the Purposes of the United Nations laid down in Article 1 of the present Charter, shall be:
a. to further international peace and security;
b. to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement;
c. to encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion, and to encourage recognition of the interdependence of the peoples of the world; and
d. to ensure equal treatment in social, economic, and commercial matters for all Members of the United Nations and their nationals, and also equal treatment for the latter in the administration of justice, without prejudice to the attainment of the foregoing objectives and subject to the provisions of Article 80.[/quote]
Article 77
The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
a. territories now held under mandate;
b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
Article 81
The trusteeship agreement shall in each case include the terms under which the trust territory will be administered and designate the authority which will exercise the administration of the trust territory. Such authority, hereinafter called the administering authority, may be one or more states or the Organization itself.
Not an expert in the area. Somewhere in the charter made it clear that inhabitant of the trust territories should not be taxed or drafted by the trustee. At least that’s how it worked for all territories trusted to the US.
The thing is, the ROC doesn’t see its ownership of Taiwan as a trusteeship. And I would add that at the time, a very large number of people were looking forward to Guangfu (even though that changed, and quickly). The fact that Taiwanese representatives were sent to the national assembly and/or Legislative Yuan (I can’t keep these two apart) after 1945 makes Taiwan’s status somewhat different than a non-governing territory.
i’m not an expert, either, and that’s exactly my point. There are arguments on both sides.