I came across a series of video on youtube: youtube.com/watch?v=jcTOhhKX … re=related
There are about 20 videos. Please start watching Part I and follow the order, otherwise it won’t make sense.
Here I paraphrase the author’s argument roughly:
ROC is an government in exile in Formosa, allowed by the US Military Government, but has no right to the sovereignty of Formosa. US is the principle occupying power and ROC is the agent of USMG. In 1952 Japan “renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadore.” (San Fransico Peace Treaty. Article 2b.) No Chinese governments was not invited to the SFPT.
This makes sense because Tibetan government in exile in India does not have sovereignty of the piece of land in India.
After watching this series I realized why Taiwan is often referred to as being in a state of political limbo.
I believe Richard Hartzell and DOCTOR! Roger Lin have been petitioning the courts in Andorra to recognize Taiwan as a territory of Gibraltar. You should ask him.
Have they?[/quote]
Well, it was courts in some country. Can’t remember exactly. Maybe not Andorra. Anyway, they told him to take a flying fuck at the moon, I DO remember that much.
Well, it’s kind of like this… If a 5 year old kid lets his friend use his bike and never asks for it back until they are both 50 years old - at which time it’s a valuable vintage piece, it’s probably not going to happen. In other words, as they say ‘possession is 9/10th’s of the law’.
So, now the island belongs to the Republic of China, which is in theory the government of all China but in reality now only administering Taiwan due to a legal glitch. The ROC is not actually the real “China” that the world knows but an alternate reality of what China would be if it was free and democratic, which indeed it will be someday after Ma Ying-Jeou’s lifetime. Fortunately, the real China recognizes the rule of law, and has therefore stationed nearly 1,000 lawyers across the strait from Taiwan to litigate its claim to the island, which was wrested from its grip by devious foreign barbarians. China also had the astute foresight to make it illegal for Taiwan to secede from China in the event Green blowhards came to power in the chaotic democratic environment existing today despite disapproval by Jackie Chan. Got it? In summary, this case has somehow been ruled by the US government as a political clusterfuck rather than a legal issue. So, the bottom line is if you don’t like it - get a lawyer.
I remember someone once made an arguement that since ROC has controlled Taiwan continuously for some 60 years now it would be able to claim some sort of “squatter’s right” in Taiwan.
I’m more interested in examining the history than betting on what the US judge is going to rule on this matter.
So, CKS was ordered by MacArthur to go to Taiwan to accept Japanese surrender.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there was no legal basis on which a KMT general could convert Japanese nationals to Chinese nationals. Consider for example, the US-Iraq war. When US defeated Iraq and occupied Iraq, Iraqi did not become US nationals. It’s unthinkable if at war, the winning country could convert local population’s nationality without even a treaty that ceded that piece of land to the winning country. If what I’m saying makes sense, then what happened in the 228 massacre was actually Chinese army killing Japanese AFTER Japan had surrendered.
I just don’t understand that how occupying a territory can be confused with acquiring sovereignty.
Can’t we just say you are wrong and be done with it.
In Peng Min-Ming’s book, right after the war he was so proud to tell American soldiers that he was not Japanese, but Chinese. He walked right up to Kerr and said “I’m not Japanese, I’m Chinese.” But Kerr didn’t have translator around, and didn’t understand Peng Min-Ming, so gave him a bible.
Simple, people like Peng Min-Ming told the Americans they were Chinese. The USA having the worst foriegn policy in East Asia, didn’t disagree.
The only reason the San Francisco and Taipei peace treaties did not specify who should assume sovereignty over Taiwan is due to the disagreement between the ROC and PRC over who was the legitimate government of China. However, the ROC did in fact assume sovereignty over Taiwan, and retains sovereignty to this day. Lu thinks that Ma should “admit the ROC has no say over Taiwan”, the woman is quite clearly insane.
Have you read the Lin v U.S. thread? In his links he outlines the treaty and what he believes it means for Taiwan. That’s one theory. The problem is that it’s one among many – there are lots of arguments that can be made as to Taiwan’s status. For instance, China could probably argue that Japan’s initial taking of Taiwan was illegal, and, thus any successive interest would be invalid. Or, you could argue that even if an interest in the U.S. was created, it was disposed of when they allowed the ROC to take control of the island, or, you could argue that it was disposed of when the U.S. recognized the PRC as sovereign of China (including Taiwan), or, you could simply argue that whatever interest they had has lapsed.
At any rate, it makes for an interesting discussion, but it’s largely a useless exercise. Practicalities are going to ultimately determine Taiwan’s status, and if/when the parties get ready to determine the legalities, they’ll write a new treaty that tries to reflect the reality of the situation.
[quote=“redandy”]Have you read the Lin v U.S. thread? In his links he outlines the treaty and what he believes it means for Taiwan. That’s one theory. The problem is that it’s one among many – there are lots of arguments that can be made as to Taiwan’s status. For instance, China could probably argue that Japan’s initial taking of Taiwan was illegal, and, thus any successive interest would be invalid. Or, you could argue that even if an interest in the U.S. was created, it was disposed of when they allowed the ROC to take control of the island, or, you could argue that it was disposed of when the U.S. recognized the PRC as sovereign of China (including Taiwan), or, you could simply argue that whatever interest they had has lapsed.
At any rate, it makes for an interesting discussion, but it’s largely a useless exercise. Practicalities are going to ultimately determine Taiwan’s status, and if/when the parties get ready to determine the legalities, they’ll write a new treaty that tries to reflect the reality of the situation.[/quote]
International law is heavily politicized, it simply doesn’t exist as some kind of dispassionate body of law that can be used to “objectively” rule on international disputes. The idea that the transfer of sovereignty requires some clear written record is also patently absurd.
Taiwan was ceded to Japan by the Qing, after the war it was returned to the recognised successor state (ROC). No state ever questioned the legitimacy of this. The issue only came after the KMT lost the mainland and retreated to Taiwan, and subsequent peace treaties avoided direct mention of who Taiwan should be returned to because of the conflict between the ROC and PRC.
Now…the ROC has sovereignty over Taiwan, this is disputed by the PRC. Hartzell and Lin wasted a lot of time.
[quote]International law is heavily politicized, it simply doesn’t exist as some kind of dispassionate body of law that can be used to “objectively” rule on international disputes. The idea that the transfer of sovereignty requires some clear written record is also patently absurd.
[/quote]
This is essentially what I’m saying. Anyone can bring their theory of why X owns Taiwan to the table and see if they can get others to recognize it. I was just tossing out a few possible arguments that may or may not be “right” legally or historically. My point is that there isn’t a consensus, and that ultimately practicalities will rule the day.
This is essentially what I’m saying. Anyone can bring their theory of why X owns Taiwan to the table and see if they can get others to recognize it. I was just tossing out a few possible arguments that may or may not be “right” legally or historically. My point is that there isn’t a consensus, and that ultimately practicalities will rule the day.[/quote]
Agreed. Interesting that people are willing to waste so much time preparing court cases for things like this though, or that Annette Lu holds press conferences claiming that the “ROC has no say over Taiwan”.
Historically Taiwan was returned to the ROC when the Japanese surrendered. The San Francisco Peace Treaty was not signed until 6 years later. Clearly the ROC has had continuous sovereignty over Taiwan since 1945. The only other entity to claim sovereignty is the PRC.
