If Taiwan belongs to the US, can the US give it to PRC as a gift or as debt payment?

There were(or are?) a bunch of crazies who suggested that Taiwan belongs
to the US, as a result of World War Two. I never bought that argument,
but I recently had a wacky idea: Why not?

The US can then give Taiwan to China as a gift. Or as debt payment to
completely wipe off everything that the US owes China. China will be
stupid to object, as it benefits them politically, militarily and financially.
Such a move will keep the communist regime in power for an extra 50
years, at least. They also don’t need to spend as much on their military
with regards to preparing an invasion of Taiwan. With the US wiping
clean its debts, China can continue to have a financially stable US to
buy more Chinese manufactured goods, making China even richer.
Problem solved.

Come to think of it, those crazies have an excellent idea! Even the
former Taiwanese president CSB supported this idea. Ok… time to
give Taiwan back to its rightful owner, the US of A!

I did mention that I had a wacky idea, right? :roflmao:

Found a picture of these people… I must say, as an American, I fully
support their idea.(but for the reason I described above)

One: “IF” Taiwan belongs to the US. There are strong arguments that Taiwan should not belong to the ROC, though none of them have been established to be conclusive. All they are is arguments at this stage. The argument that Taiwan is part of the US is much weaker, and the people behind the Taiwan Civil Government are thinly veiled ethnocentrists and chauvinists who openly advocate denying citizenship to anyone whose parents weren’t in Taiwan prior to World War II. I personally feel they constitute a fraud ring, as they ask for your personal information and money to issue completely invalid “ID cards” and “license plates” that aren’t recognized by anyone.

Two: Let’s say it’s established that Taiwan rightfully belongs to the US. It would be stupid on the part of the US to give away a democratic, free territory that blocks China’s naval and air access to the Western Pacific. If the White House were serious about its “Pivot to Asia” (it’s not), Taiwan would be one of its most important friends as it seeks to contain China. Stability across the strait is paramount to US interests – giving Taiwan to China would not encourage stability, but rather the possibility of backlash against the government and a violent suppression in response. It would be 228 all over again.

Plus, even if it were a US territory, what would give Washington the right to “give it away?” The people would certainly have a voice in the matter! The only people who can give away Taiwan are… the Taiwanese voters.

Also what is this debt you are talking about? Please do yourself a favour and educate yourself on what it is that China holds, why they hold it, and why this is not akin to the US being in debt to China.

This is a pretty good and comprehensible overview:
investopedia.com/articles/in … -bonds.asp

well it’s not so wacky. Let’s develop your idea further.

In what currency would you like to settle this transaction?
Suppose you’ve worked out a monetary value, a net worth of Ilha Formosa and the accompanied maritime exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Would you prefer China’s stockpile of Gold? RMB? or USD?

Exchange rate could vary up to 30%.In what currency would you like to settle this transaction?

Not without a plebiscite.

Does anybody know why a plebiscite is needed? I’d like to know what part of US laws is applicable to cede US territory to a foreign power.

If US tries to sell Taiwan to China without first incorporating Taiwan into US, it will not work, because Article 25 of the US Treaty with Japan (1951) prohibits “conferring any right and title to a non-allied power herein defined.” Japan has veto power, despite not having right. To get around this, US will have to pay Japan handsomely first to terminate the Treaty. That money Japan will probably use towards beefing up its defence with laser and space technologies.

[quote=“sofun”]Does anybody know why a plebiscite is needed? I’d like to know what part of US laws is applicable to cede US territory to a foreign power.

If US tries to sell Taiwan to China without first incorporating Taiwan into US, it will not work, because Article 25 of the US Treaty with Japan (1951) prohibits “conferring any right and title to a non-allied power herein defined.” Japan has veto power, despite not having right. To get around this, US will have to pay Japan handsomely first to terminate the Treaty. That money Japan will probably use towards beefing up its defence with laser and space technologies.[/quote]

For the purpose of the treaties… How is China a non-allied power?
China is one of the allies. (the PRC, as a successor state to the ROC
is still China) Just like Russia one of the allied powers, even as a
successor state to the USSR.

[quote=“Vilnius”][quote=“sofun”]Does anybody know why a plebiscite is needed? I’d like to know what part of US laws is applicable to cede US territory to a foreign power.

If US tries to sell Taiwan to China without first incorporating Taiwan into US, it will not work, because Article 25 of the US Treaty with Japan (1951) prohibits “conferring any right and title to a non-allied power herein defined.” Japan has veto power, despite not having right. To get around this, US will have to pay Japan handsomely first to terminate the Treaty. That money Japan will probably use towards beefing up its defence with laser and space technologies.[/quote]

For the purpose of the treaties… How is China a non-allied power?
China is one of the allies. (the PRC, as a successor state to the ROC
is still China) Just like Russia one of the allied powers, even as a
successor state to the USSR.[/quote]
Treaty. Not treaties.

Well, China dropped the ball by invading Korea before the war legally ended(with the signing of a treaty to settle grudges and dispute. That’s why people go to war, to settle things), killing a lot of Murican GIs and allies in the process of grabbing war loot. It’s a conscious choice the Chinese made.

Hence understandably, in the Treaty of Peace, US removed China from the list of allied powers. And no right and title will be conferred to China. That’s a contract US signed with 48 nations. Senate-ratified law of the land.

But hey, what do you expect? China turned and killed Muricans. What kind of ally would you call that?

So you have this big business deal coming up, where you and a group of partners will buy out another company, carve it up into pieces and swallow it.

The night before signing, you slept with your partner’s wife, who happens to be the mastermind of this plan and who has the real leverage against the company being carved up. He caught you pants down.

What do you expect? huh?

[quote=“sofun”]So you have this big business deal coming up, where you and a group of partners will buy out another company, carve it up into pieces and swallow it.

The night before signing, you slept with your partner’s wife, who happens to be the mastermind of this plan and who has the real leverage against the company being carved up. He caught you pants down.

What do you expect? huh?[/quote]

are we still talking about paleontology or have move moved on to scientology? :astonished:

We’re talking business, nah-meen. You need an accountant and a lawyer to walk you through the fine print.

The only way for Taiwan to be under USMG’s jurisdiction would be for Taiwan-US to be in a trusted and trustee relationship. As such it would have to follow Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 of UN’s charter. The people of Taiwan ultimately has the say through self-determination.

The only way for Taiwan to be under USMG’s jurisdiction would be for Taiwan-US to be in a trusted and trustee relationship. As such it would have to follow Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 of UN’s charter. The people of Taiwan ultimately has the say through self-determination.[/quote]

As long as the US can get China onboard, I don’t see a problem.
Did the people of Hong Kong have any say when UK handed them
on a silver platter to the communists?

Even though Hong Kongers were promised that they would rule themselves (港人治港、高度自治), in the end they were so worried that there was a big emigration wave ahead of the handover. Still, I never heard of any protests are activists really trying to derail that from happening. I guess they figured they were just going from one colonial power to another?

There have been positives and negatives for HK since then, but the transfer was most certainly non-democratic. I would hope the US would not impose that sort of treatment on a people who are used to electing their own leader and very much opposed to becoming part of China.

The only way for Taiwan to be under USMG’s jurisdiction would be for Taiwan-US to be in a trusted and trustee relationship. As such it would have to follow Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 of UN’s charter. The people of Taiwan ultimately has the say through self-determination.[/quote]

As long as the US can get China onboard, I don’t see a problem.
Did the people of Hong Kong have any say when UK handed them
on a silver platter to the communists?[/quote]

If the Taiwanese insist on “having a say”, what kind of mechanism do you propose to stifle that kind of having a say? The Taiwanese will go ahead with having a say anyway whether you like it or not.

So, When you work out a deal with China, you want to make sure China puts up a deposit up front and US is not obligated to doing such and such. Otherwise you’re really getting nothing out of the deal, or potentially loose money. Take the deposit first and worry about the rest later. Let Japan handle it.

Sounds like a plan.

“Giving” Taiwan to China would be meaningless - how is China going to enforce its “ownership?”

Make Taiwan pay taxes? What if Taiwan refuses?

[quote=“PeregrineFalcon”]“Giving” Taiwan to China would be meaningless - how is China going to enforce its “ownership?”

Make Taiwan pay taxes? What if Taiwan refuses?[/quote]

That’d be China’s problem - buyer’s responsibility. US as a reseller should word the contract carefully so as not to be held accountable for anything.

[quote=“Vilnius”]

As long as the US can get China onboard, I don’t see a problem.
Did the people of Hong Kong have any say when UK handed them
on a silver platter to the communists?[/quote]

The situation is not at all alike between Hong Kong back then and Taiwan. China specifically ceded Hong Kong permanently to the UK (only New Territories was on loan for 100 years.) So as long as the UK was willing to return Hong Kong to China, there’s not many problems there.

Taiwan on the other hand was permanently ceded to Japan. Post war Japan only gave up it’s sovereignty but did not turn it over to anyone else, which means the Allied powers was and still is responsible for Taiwan and has to follow UN charter and resolutions regarding post war ex-Japanese colonies.

[quote=“hansioux”]
The situation is not at all alike between Hong Kong back then and Taiwan…[/quote]

His point is, China and US could still go ahead with a deal. They call it “grand bargaining” in geopolitics.

[quote=“sofun”][quote=“hansioux”]
The situation is not at all alike between Hong Kong back then and Taiwan…[/quote]

His point is, China and US could still go ahead with a deal. They call it “grand bargaining” in geopolitics.[/quote]

and I am saying that while it’s ok for the UK to do that to Hong Kong, the difference in Taiwan’s status would mean violating the UN charter and resolution if the US is to go ahead with such a deal.