If China swallows Taiwan, whose fault will it be?

Can you tell me what the arguments are on the other side that are not full of factual errors? I have never heard the case made without reference to how the Treaty Of SF transfered sovereignty when it did no such thing. Or how the Cairo Declaration was some kind of binding legal agreement when it too was no such thing.

Seriously. I have never heard the other side make their case without these delusions. I remember Ma once saying that the TOSF clearly returned the Senkakus to the ROC. Okay, I thought let’s look at it. Nope, not a single reference to those islands. To other islands, yes, but not those.

It is only when challenged on this that the other side comes up with ingenuous arguments for why treaties aren’t clear, etc, etc. If they were honest from the start then I might be more willing to listen. But it always feel like they are pulling a fast one, and then when they are shown their facts are suspect, they retreat to obfuscations. That’s not honest. If you know your international law then you know your case is unusual (where else is sovereignty exchanged obliquely) in which case you know you have to make that oblique case from the start.

Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter

I think we’ve done this dance before, and it was inconclusive. I don’t see why the Potsdam and Cairo declarations are not binding in the absence of anything to the contrary.

the UN didn’t exist in 1945 when the KMT initially garrisoned Taiwan, did it? Formed in October 1945, and the UN charters you speak of must perforce have been later than that.

doesn’t give the KMT legal status in Taiwan, though. the whole idea of ROC having a valid claim over all territories it lost to the PRC is just stupid, of course.

But it didn’t lose Taiwan to the PRC. The Qing government consented to give Taiwan to Japan (even though it was under duress to do so). The ROC’s claim to Taiwan is that the ROC is the successor state to the Qing empire; any land belonging to the Qing government is automatically transferred to the ROC government.

The ROC (retroactively) didn’t recognize the Treaty of Shimenoseki as valid, meaning that from its perspective, Taiwan was part of China even between 1895 and 1945, but invading Japanese forces had actual control.

It’s a pretty grandiose claim, but I don’t see any fact-based argument that Taiwan is NOT legally part of the ROC that is objectively stronger. They are both valid arguments, and I am in no position to make a decision.

But the fact that the people of Taiwan use NTD, vote for their government, have shenfenzheng, and use ROC passports I think makes the point rather moot. Regardless of the legality back then, it’s clear that most Taiwanese people identify with the current governmental system.

That would also be against international law. Taiwan’s sovereignty was given to Japan “forever” in the treaty of Shimonoseki. It is in black and white and ROC has no power to nullify it. Therefore Taiwan is in fact a former enemy territory without sovereign claims, and according to the charter deserves a trusteeship. ROC only entered Vietnam and Taiwan because it was designated as the trustee by Ally command.

It is also due to Shimonoseki and Japan not specifying which country it will give Taiwan’s sovereignty up to in the SF treaty that puts Taiwan in its current quagmire.

People in Taiwan were looking forward to democracy, liberty and self-determination, which was why the joy of the end of Japanese colonialism also ended so quickly. If all Taiwanese wanted was to be a part of China, they would not have been so disillusioned. Had it been the US taking over, Taiwanese would be equally as joyful.

By the way, many of those such statements about Taiwanese’ eagerness to be ruled by the ROC is like making claims that Taiwanese now are longing for the PRC’s governance because there are some people waving PRC flags at the airport when RPC officials visits.

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]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.[/quote]

That is like saying PRC allowed Dalai Lama to be a part of whatever council, so RPC had the rightful claim to Tibet. Many of those elected to goto the national assembly later were murdered in the 228 massacre.

But it didn’t lose Taiwan to the PRC. The Qing government consented to give Taiwan to Japan (even though it was under duress to do so). The ROC’s claim to Taiwan is that the ROC is the successor state to the Qing empire; any land belonging to the Qing government is automatically transferred to the ROC government.

The ROC (retroactively) didn’t recognize the Treaty of Shimenoseki as valid, meaning that from its perspective, Taiwan was part of China even between 1895 and 1945, but invading Japanese forces had actual control.
[/quote]

Bullshit. Taiwan was Japanese, as fair and square as any bloody treaty can make it so. “Retrospectively not recognising a treaty” is absolute wanker material, a completely lunatic approach. Oh, Chiang Kai Shek? Yes, that’s a good description.

But it didn’t lose Taiwan to the PRC. The Qing government consented to give Taiwan to Japan (even though it was under duress to do so). The ROC’s claim to Taiwan is that the ROC is the successor state to the Qing empire; any land belonging to the Qing government is automatically transferred to the ROC government.

The ROC (retroactively) didn’t recognize the Treaty of Shimenoseki as valid, meaning that from its perspective, Taiwan was part of China even between 1895 and 1945, but invading Japanese forces had actual control.
[/quote]

This is why the RoC claims to Taiwan really make no sense. Treaties like Shimonseki and SF can be unilaterally dismissed, but non-binding declarations like Potsdam and Cairo must be respected? It’s absolute nonsense from a legal perspective.

That said, the fact that the RoC is the de-facto government of Taiwan and has been for 70 years obviously trumps the legality of the situation.

The practical legitimacy, and hence survival, of an armed organization on Taiwan depends on whether it is considered a friend or a foe by the U.S., militarily.

Then there is the China issue.

Cairo will be carried out only after China (more specifically the Chinese military) becomes an allied of the United States once again.
Cairo will not be carried out as long as this requirement is not fulfilled.

Once China becomes absorbed into the US alliance, then China will be granted unification with Taiwan. Japan and other SEA countries will have no objection to this either. With the military framework in place, Taiwan will likely form a union with China, since Taiwan can still secede from China again without any problem, if it wishes to do so some time after union. Why? Again, being in the same military framework (US alliance) guarantees peaceful cession.

As long as China is not an allied of the US, China will not be granted Taiwan.

Cairo huh? yeah Cairo only if China is loyal to the US. Otherwise, no Cairo.

But it didn’t lose Taiwan to the PRC. The Qing government consented to give Taiwan to Japan (even though it was under duress to do so). The ROC’s claim to Taiwan is that the ROC is the successor state to the Qing empire; any land belonging to the Qing government is automatically transferred to the ROC government.

The ROC (retroactively) didn’t recognize the Treaty of Shimenoseki as valid, meaning that from its perspective, Taiwan was part of China even between 1895 and 1945, but invading Japanese forces had actual control.
[/quote]

This is why the RoC claims to Taiwan really make no sense. Treaties like Shimonseki and SF can be unilaterally dismissed, but non-binding declarations like Potsdam and Cairo must be respected? It’s absolute nonsense from a legal perspective.

That said, the fact that the RoC is the de-facto government of Taiwan and has been for 70 years obviously trumps the legality of the situation.[/quote]

I really don’t get these legal arguments. As everyone else here, I’m no expert, but from what I’ve read, it’s not all that complex.

1895- Treaty of Shimenoseki- Cedes Taiwan, Penghu and some other territories to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty as condition to end the first Sino-Japanese War

1943- Cairo Declaration- Not an internationally-recognized legal document, but a statement of goals for post-World War II organizations. States explicitly that upon a Japanese surrender, Formosa (Taiwan) will be restored to the Republic of China.

July 1945- Potsdam Declaration- States the terms of a Japanese surrender. Cites the terms of the 1943 Cairo Declaration.

Sept 1945- Japanese Instrument of Surrender- The Japanese accept and sign the Instrument of Surrender and officially accepts the terms of the Potsdam Declaration and, therefore, accepts the terms of the Cairo Declaration. This cedes sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC, thereby negating that term in the Treaty of Shimenoseki.

1951- Treaty of San Francisco- Reaffirms that according to the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Japan no longer has rights to Taiwan. Due to disagreements on which government (PRC vs. ROC) should represent “China,” neither is invited to take part and the document fails to specify who Japan has ceded the territory of Taiwan to.

You don’t have to dismiss Shimenoseki and San Francisco to argue that Taiwan has been ceded to the ROC. The terms of Shimenoseki that deal with Taiwan were clearly overturned as terms of Japan’s surrender at the close of WWII. San Francisco avoids the subject all together. There’s no reason to dismiss it because it doesn’t address the sovereignty of Taiwan. Only two internationally recognized documents deal directly with the issue and both explicitly state that the territory of Taiwan will be ceded to the “Republic of China.”

if signing the surrender means all the things in the Potsdam Declaration and Cairo Declaration becomes legally binding, what is the darn need for Treaty of San Francisco and Treaty of Taipei?

That’s nice except for letters of intent are not legally binding. And both the US and the ROC statements after the war make it clear that no transfer of sovereignty occurred. Did you get that? BOTH the US and the ROC acknowledged after the war, after the Treaty of San Francisco that no transfer of sovereignty took place. The US has also consistently said in the decades since that the status of Taiwan is undetermined.

There is also the simple matter that Taiwan’s sovereignty was not up to anyone to give away. Taiwan was treated like booty in the Cairo Declaration which is again international law. ROC claims that Japan had stolen it were nonsense. As peger said, the Treaty of Shimonoseki is considered invalid but a declaration, what the US has referred to as a press release, is inviolable. Oh please.

In any case, you see, my position is consistent with current US policy that the status of Taiwan is undetermined. Your position is at odds with that. Any thoughts?

As for the opinions of experts, hah fucking hah. There was just the spectacle last week of an international law expert claiming that it would be illegal for the US or Japan to defend Taiwan as they both recognize that China has sovereignty over Taiwan. When it was made clear to him that no, they don’t, he just dug in. Incredible. I guess they don’t have google for academics.

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]…The ROC (retroactively) didn’t recognize the Treaty of Shimenoseki as valid, meaning that from its perspective, Taiwan was part of China even between 1895 and 1945, but invading Japanese forces had actual control.
[/quote]

I forget the exact term, but once the Treaty of Shimenoseki was signed it became international law. One party cannot retroactively null the contract as it is no longer their legal right to do so.

Taiwan’s status as Japanese territory could not legally be nulled by any Chinese government. From what I have read, the clauses of the treaty that dealt with cession of territory had been fulfilled. So there was no turning back the clock.

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Taiwanguy”]

Sept 1945- Japanese Instrument of Surrender- The Japanese accept and sign the Instrument of Surrender and officially accepts the terms of the Potsdam Declaration and, therefore, accepts the terms of the Cairo Declaration. This cedes sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC, thereby negating that term in the Treaty of Shimenoseki.
[/quote]

if signing the surrender means all the things in the Potsdam Declaration and Cairo Declaration becomes legally binding, what is the darn need for Treaty of San Francisco and Treaty of Taipei?[/quote]

To clarify? To expound? To work out and specify details? It did so on a number of issues…just not the Taiwan point. Even then, Taiwan was a hot spot that no one wanted to take a stand on.

I could conversely ask that what’s the point of signing the Instrument of Surrender if it is meaningless and has no legal implications?

Listen, I’m not trying to say that the book is shut here and that there exists conclusive evidence that sovereignty of Taiwan was transferred to the ROC government. I AM saying that there is a lack of conclusive evidence for either side. You were the one that started going on about how the ROC illegally occupied Taiwan. I don’t see how anyone can say that with any certainty. At worst (if you think only the T of SF is legally binding), the issue of Taiwan ownership is a gray area. At best (if you think the CD, the PD, and the I of JS are legally binding), Taiwan was clearly ceded to the ROC.

I will say this, though. I can’t believe that anyone would bring up the Treaty of Shimonoseki in a discussion of Taiwan’s sovereignty right now. It has clearly been negated. All of the WWII declarations and treaties clearly state that Japan has ceded the territory of Taiwan.

You can’t bind a third part, in this case Japan, with a declaration it did not take part in. Both Cairo and Potsdam are mere letters of intent. Their provisions needed to be ratified. That’s why you need the actual treaty.

You guys have had the wool pulled over your eyes by fancy legal arguments by people who still believe Mongolia is part of their territory.

signing the surrender means Japan surrenders without condition as required by the Potsdam declaration, further points to be discussed in following treaties.

[quote=“Taiwanguy”] At best (if you think the CD, the PD, and the I of JS are legally binding), Taiwan was clearly ceded to the ROC.
[/quote]

So why does the US say that the status of Taiwan is undetermined? Come on. Tell us how the US is wrong?

Because China invaded Korea on Jun 27, 1950, China was not considered worthy of being granted Taiwan, despite what was initially verbally promised in Cairo.

Article 25 of the SFPT, signed Sep 8, 1951 specifies that “…the present Treaty shall not confer any rights, titles or benefits on any State which is not an Allied Power as herein defined; nor shall any right, title or interest of Japan be deemed to be diminished or prejudiced by any provision of the Treaty in favour of a State which is not an Allied Power as so defined.”

It follows that: the premise that China is an ally no longer exists, therefore the original promise based on that premise is cancelled.

If you understand the SFPT, you understand the dynamics of this issue known as “the Taiwan Problem.”

[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“Taiwanguy”] At best (if you think the CD, the PD, and the I of JS are legally binding), Taiwan was clearly ceded to the ROC.
[/quote]

So why does the US say that the status of Taiwan is undetermined? Come on. Tell us how the US is wrong?[/quote]

Because the US does not want to commit itself to choose a side?

Its all an exercise of mental masturbation. China doesn’t give a shit about what treaty was signed and by who or what the UN says or thinks, they claim the right to Taiwan and throw out the Cairo declaration or some other treaty that keeps the Taiwan independence guys arguing till they are blue in the face, but really they don’t give a shit, they claim its theirs and you can take your arguments and shove them where the sun dont shine. The KMT is the same. The USA want as little to do with it as possible, basically “you guys sort it out”

The Taiwan independence crowd talks of illegal occupation, fine, if that gives you a woody and talking like a North Korean that feels the need to inject expletives related to the KMT every time they or one of their leaders is mentioned, whatever rocks your boat. There's just one more step before going full retard, never refer to the KMT simply as the KMT, refer to their supporters as KMT'tards. 

Has anyone explained how China will absorb Taiwan and make the peoples passports turn from green to red? Step1 closer ties with china, ok, im with you there, step n , passports turn from green to red. ok. Anyone care to fill in the middle bit?