Heres the short and simple answer to the OP’s question:
YES
Will the US claim it? So long as China continue to have the US hanging by a thread, no.
[quote=“lincolnunit”]Heres the short and simple answer to the OP’s question:
YES
Will the US claim it? So long as China continue to have the US hanging by a thread, no.[/quote]
Taiwan is ROC territory, and has been since 1945. The claim that it is “legally US territory” is a strange fantasy.
[quote=“Mawvellous”][quote=“lincolnunit”]Heres the short and simple answer to the OP’s question:
YES
Will the US claim it? So long as China continue to have the US hanging by a thread, no.[/quote]
Taiwan is ROC territory, and has been since 1945. The claim that it is “legally US territory” is a strange fantasy.[/quote]
Question was a matter of legality not practibility
its not really a strange fantasy if you look into it more: see Roger Lin v. USA
The court tossed out the case on grounds that it was a legal fantasy to use the US court system to resolve a territorial conflict between ROC and PRC, which they claim was a matter for the US executive branch to consider.
Is Lin going to try to run this case up to the supreme court now?
Was the Treaty of Shimoneski (1895) an illegal treaty?
[quote=“lincolnunit”][quote=“Mawvellous”][quote=“lincolnunit”]Heres the short and simple answer to the OP’s question:
YES
Will the US claim it? So long as China continue to have the US hanging by a thread, no.[/quote]
Taiwan is ROC territory, and has been since 1945. The claim that it is “legally US territory” is a strange fantasy.[/quote]
Question was a matter of legality not practibility
its not really a strange fantasy if you look into it more: see Roger Lin v. USA[/quote]
That’s what i’m trying to discuss with the people here to clarify what exactly happened. (Whether Lin goes to court is another issue, and doesn’t change what happened.) Because everything I knew about 1945 to the early 50s were taught by KMT textbook in the 90s. I feel cheated.
[quote=“Mawvellous”]
…after the war it was returned to the recognised successor state (ROC). No state ever questioned the legitimacy of this…[/quote]
By “it”, you mean formosa’s sovereignty right?
yeah that’s what I was taught. But after watching those videos i began to wonder:
According to which Treaty was it(Formosa sovereignty) returned to ROC? And if such treaty exists, was it returned by Japn to ROC, by US to ROC? If Japan signed SFPT in 1951, renouncing the “right, title, and claim,” it has lost it already. How could Japn renounce something it had already lost?
It is all about “saving face”. The KMT needed to sign that document to prove it “owned” Taiwan, because the SFPT mentions 0 about the Republic of China.
If you want to learn more, just go to ask Academia Sinica President. According to her, she discovered a lot of stuff in the Taipei Treaty, and was instructed by Ma to “tell stories”…
So you guys really believe that the omission of ROC was not because of the civil war, but because they wanted Republic of Taiwan?
Fantasy Island…
[quote=“ac_dropout”]So you guys really believe that the omission of ROC was not because of the civil war, but because they wanted Republic of Taiwan?
Fantasy Island…[/quote]
What forums either than fmosa you read? Because sometimes I get the idea you come here and post stuff that either you are getting them from somewhere else, or you live in a fantasy world…
I said the ROC needed to be in a treaty, to justify “ownership of the land”.
The Treaty of Taipei was later scrapped by Japan, when they recognized the PRC, so it’s validity is quite disputable.
All the nations deferred the conflict for PRC and ROC to decide to decide of China, which is why there is ambiguity in the various treaties and agreement after WWII.
The diliberate ambiguity was not put there so that Republic of Taiwan could be establisted on Taiwan. PRC and ROC have been very clear on that point.
The military intervention after 228 was the result from the 1st attempt by nativist to wrestle power from ROC.
Even when the DPP was in the presidential office they went through all the motions of acknowledging they were leading ROC.
Here the conflict I see. The nativist hate Taiwanese that are US citizens involved in Taiwanese politics. So are they saying with these filings they wish to create a whole island of ac_dropout. Because from my perspective once the whole island is full of US citizens, chances are they will more or less see things from my perspective within 1 generation of being Asian American… 
:loco:
who is talking about the Republic of Taiwan?
We are talking about the validity of treaties and Taiwan’s legal status. The Republic of Taiwan would PROBABLY be a less legal quagmire, but I doubt it has any pratical possibility.
As for the legality of the Republic of China ownership of Taiwan, that is pretty disputed already, and that is what we are talking about.
So please, come up with a legal and valid (and by valid I mean that one of the parts didn’t drop it) document that proves Taiwan is owned by the Republic of China.
Well I have a deed that shows ownership of proptery in ROC province of Taiwan. God knows I’m not about to give up my deed, nor am I going to pay for a reprinting of my deed to say ROT.
The cost of renaming huge, the political benefits questionable. PRC has quite a bit of leverage with the US now. If Taiwan was US territory, the US could give it to the PRC with little Taiwan could do about it. They screwed over Taiwan for the PRC in 1979, they can do it again.
Given that US is lacking money right now. And ROC still has a huge cash reserve. What sane person would want to be part of the US right now? USA will suck Taiwan dry and spit it out when it was done, the left overs for citizens of ROT or PRC or who ever wanted it at that time.
Oh, I have no idea. I was just putting that forward as part of the myriad of plausible arguments that can be made about Taiwan’s legal status. It wouldn’t surprise me too much, though if China put forth some such argument, don’t they pretty much look on all the treaties of that era as uneven and a result of force/duress and thereby invalid?
I would like to know post-war treaties, where one part looses badly, and still is treated “equally”…
The Unequal treaties are a farce from the Chinese to hide the fact that they lost a bunch of wars against the invaders… and peace cost a bit…
[quote]I would like to know post-war treaties, where one part looses badly, and still is treated “equally”…
The Unequal treaties are a farce from the Chinese to hide the fact that they lost a bunch of wars against the invaders… and peace cost a bit…[/quote]
Again, I’m not advocating this theory. My only point was that there are a lot of theories on the topic, no consensus as to which is correct, and no court that all would recognize as having the power to decide the issue.
who is talking about the Republic of Taiwan?
We are talking about the validity of treaties and Taiwan’s legal status. The Republic of Taiwan would PROBABLY be a less legal quagmire, but I doubt it has any pratical possibility.
As for the legality of the Republic of China ownership of Taiwan, that is pretty disputed already, and that is what we are talking about.
So please, come up with a legal and valid (and by valid I mean that one of the parts didn’t drop it) document that proves Taiwan is owned by the Republic of China.[/quote]
You don’t need a “legal document” to show that the ROC has sovereignty over Taiwan. That is not how international law works. The blindingly obvious fact is that the ROC assumed sovereignty over Taiwan when the Japanese surrendered in 1945.
ROC sovereignty is only disputed by the PRC. I doubt you support the PRC claim.
You forgot the TI nutters. Plenty of Taiwan independence supporters also dispute ROC sovereignty.
[quote=“Mawvellous”]
You don’t need a “legal document” to show…[/quote]
Well, what you’re proposing sounds like what people in prehistoric period did. I thought legal documents exist for a good purpose, no?
[quote=“ABC”]
You forgot the TI nutters. Plenty of Taiwan independence supporters also dispute ROC sovereignty.[/quote]
That is true. I was referring to other states.