Local English media views on Taiwan Independence

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

I have noticed in reading through various Forums on this website that among our posters are many editors and reporters from the local English language media in Taiwan.

I would like to address some questions to these people, and particularly in regard to the subject of Taiwan Independence, for those media which are Pro Taiwan Independence.

In my impression, it is the Chinese language Liberty Times and its sister newspaper Taipei Times which pitch the Taiwan Independence angle most strongly, but I would welcome input from personnel employed in other newspapers or media as well.

Specifically, I want to ask – When the US Department of State personnel repeat over and over that “We do not support independence for Taiwan” … and then in your newspaper reportage and editorials you continue to proclaim that "Taiwan is an independent and sovereign nation … " Do you perhaps see a contradiction here? and more on that specific angle … Have you ever though of trying to resolve the contradiction?

I have had email correspondence with some British people, and I have often found the level of their analysis of international political issues to be quite above average. On this entire issue of the “Pro Independence Taiwanese press” making continual claims that “Taiwan is an independent and sovereign nation” … and the fact that the US State Department clearly disagrees, a British fellow rather pointedly said to me: "Why don’t the Washington, D.C. correspondents for these newspapers just ask the US State Department — (for example):

Our newspaper’s basic editorial position is that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign nation. Referring to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, Taiwan fits all the criteria. You people at the US State Department say “No.” OK, give us a full explanation [color=red]WHY[/color].

In other words, how can the “Pro Taiwan Independence press” hope to convince any large numbers of its readers of the appropriateness of its agenda when the readership is constantly bombarded by contradictory signals — the media stressing Taiwan’s current, supposed de-facto independence, and the officials in Washington, D.C. denying it … ?

Couldn’t you accomplish more if you could get your facts straight? Couldn’t some basic research, and some pointed inquiries with the US government officials get this straightened out?

                  • *- - * - - * - - *
                    On another related item, which you may find displeasing –
                    The point of view of the “Pro Taiwan Independence crowd” seems to be (please correct me if I am wrong) that the SOVEREIGNTY of Taiwan somehow “disappeared” sometime after WWII. In other words, the Qing Dynasty held the SOVEREIGNTY of Taiwan, and then ceded it to Japan in 1895. After 1895, Japan held the SOVEREIGNTY of Taiwan. In mid October 1945 the representatives of CKS came to Taiwan, and then they held surrender ceremonies on October 25, 1945, whereupon they proclaimed “Taiwan Retrocession Day.”

At that point in time obviously, the ROC was recognized as the legitimate government of China. The post war peace treaty (often called the San Francisco Peace Treaty, if my memory serves me correctly) did not award the sovereignty of “Formosa and the Pescadores” to the ROC. In 1972, Kissinger and Nixon made an agreement with the PRC that it was the sole legitimate government of China, and that (effectively speaking) Taiwan should at some future point be “unified” with the PRC, based on anticipated discussions between the officials on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Today, the majority of the world community does not consider the “Republic of China on Taiwan” to be a sovereign country. So what I am asking is: Where is the rationale for saying that the sovereignty has disappeared? This seems to me to be the underlying premise of the arguments of the “Pro Taiwan Independence Camp” … since Taiwan is not a “sovereign nation” now, as viewed by the world community, so we want to undertake various actions in order to become a sovereign nation …

However, have you stopped to consider that there is no basis in international law for this kind of assumption? As stated above, the Qing Dynasty held the SOVEREIGNTY of Taiwan, and then ceded it to Japan in 1895. After 1895, Japan held the SOVEREIGNTY of Taiwan. In mid October 1945 the representatives of CKS came to Taiwan, and then they held surrender ceremonies on October 25, 1945, whereupon they proclaimed “Taiwan Retrocession Day.” But in fact, under international law, Japan held the SOVEREIGNTY of Taiwan up until April 28, 1952, which is the date of the coming into effect of the post war peace treaty (often called the San Francisco Peace Treaty, if my memory serves me correctly), and that treaty did not award the sovereignty of “Formosa and the Pescadores” to the ROC.

So, by saying (or promoting the viewpoint) that people in Taiwan need to undertake various actions in order to become a sovereign nation … you are in effect saying that the SOVEREIGNTY of Taiwan has somehow disappeared, dried up, or been lost, and you want to (perhaps) create a new SOVEREIGNTY for Taiwan … ?? Or what exactly is it that you “Pro Taiwan Independence media” are trying to do???

If you would care to read through the relevant legal decisions regarding the subject of SOVEREIGNTY, from various international tribunals, and tribunals of leading world countries, you will find that SOVEREIGNTY is perpetual … it does not disappear, dry up, or become lost !!! and especially when you consider that from the 1890’s to the present, Taiwan has at all times had a “permanent population” and “defined territory” – two major components of SOVEREIGNTY, as defined in international law.

Hence, the logical conclusion is that the SOVEREIGNTY of Taiwan (formerly held by the Qing, later held by Japan) is somewhere … and I want to ask the question Have you ever considered this angle?

Doesn’t the fact that “In 1972, Kissinger and Nixon made an agreement with the PRC that it was the sole legitimate government of China, and that (effectively speaking) Taiwan should at some future point be “unified” with the PRC, based on anticipated discussions between the officials on both sides of the Taiwan Strait” … suggest something to you?

2

Here’s my oft repeated 2 bits about the San Francisco peace treaty. When Japan renounced it’s sovreignty, it didn’t specifically mention Taiwan being retroceeded to the Republic of China. It only stated that it was renouncing it’s sovreignty over the island. HOWEVER, this is where my interpretation and that of the Taidu quisling separatists part ways. Since the separatists are so eager to follow the minutae letter of the treaty, then it should also be noted that the San Francisco treaty also does not explicitly state that Taiwan does not belong to the RoC, it simply doesn’t mention it, leaving the issue of Taiwan’s sovreignty up to debate. However, here is where the Cairo declaration, Potsdam, the Japanese instrument of surrender aboard the Missouri and the surrender on Taiwan come into effect. All of these expressly state Taiwan would be returned to the Republic of China. The Taidu claim that sovreignty was transfered directly to the people of Taiwan is based on rather nebulous claims. The oft-cited Montevideo convention was a response to perceived U.S. imperialism in South America and the signatories were only the U.S. and South American states. Only 20 signatories and all of them in Latin America does not make this some sort of internationally accepted precedent. It is simply not relevant to the Taiwan issue.

The other explanation for independence is some rather nebulous U.N. guidelines. In either case, the case that Taiwan was retroceeded back to the Republic of China is simply stronger and has precedence over either abstract U.N. guidelines or a convention that was signed a world away that was only relevant to Latin America.

3

Personally, my view on it has nothing to do with the past, with treaties, or any of that. Other nations have grown apart from countries they were previously part of, and eventually declared independence. As far as I see it, this is the process Taiwan is going through now; sure, at present there is no legal basis for considering Taiwan a seperate country, nor is it officially seperate yet. But it seems, at least to my relatively uneducated mind, to be in the process of becoming officially seperate.

4

My interpretation is that Japan gave ROC the privilege of defining Japanese Sovereignty when they signed the Instrument of Surrender after WWII, not the other way around.

And if we look at the Taipei Treaty obviously Japan recognized ROC sovereignty of the Greater Taiwan Islands.

But Taidu supporters living in bizzaro world talk about Taiwan’s situation like kids playing “opposite-day.”

5

Unfortunately for you, AC, not all “Taidu supporters” do live in bizarro world, and not all (re)unificationists live in the real world. There are idiots on both sides.

6

Funny enough I had a good laugh in the taxi to work this morning over the TT’s butchering a sub-heading in order to add a completely un-necessary “the country” to it.

7

You can only give what you have to someone else. Only Japan, Taiwans’ colonial master at the time, could give Taiwan to someone else. Of course, the way for countries to give territories to others is by treaty. A treaty is what legitimizes it, whether it’s fair or unfair. All those Cairo and Potsdam declarations amounted to people who didn’t have Taiwan at the time saying: “We would like to do this and this to Taiwan if and when we have it …” But when the time came to do what they said, they didn’t do it. No Chinese representative was even a part of the San Fancisco Treaty. WHY? Can you say that what you said previously still counts after you didn’t do what you said?

Again, the claim that sovereignty was transferred directly to the people of Taiwan. I don’t know where you heard this from, but surely whoever said this didn’t know what he’s talking about.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]My interpretation is that Japan gave ROC the privilege of defining Japanese Sovereignty when they signed the Instrument of Surrender after WWII, not the other way around.

And if we look at the Taipei Treaty obviously Japan recognized ROC sovereignty of the Greater Taiwan Islands.
[/quote]

Instrument of Surrender is just what it is. It did not designate any trasfer of any terrority. It’s a document ending the war, not one that divides the spoils. “Taiwan WOULD BE …” Well, it doesn’t count unless it’s carried out.

As for the Taipei Treaty, how can you give something to anyone after you’ve given it to some else earlier? Come on, it’s a matter of simple logic. Japan ceded Taiwan in the San Francisco Treaty. It did not say to whom Taiwan was ceded, but in any case Japan no longer had Taiwan after SFT. How could a treaty signed by Japan AFTERWARDS with a party who was not even a party at the SFT be legal or even logical? Can Japan give something TWICE to different people? Can anyone?

8

Disappearing sovereignty is akin to the “lost car keys.” They aren’t gone; you just can’t find them.

Self-determination is the operative phrase here, I think.
There is also a lesson in the formation and “sovereignty” of the DPP. To say that Chiang Jin-guo “allowed the opposition party to be formed,” would be to take credit for a task not done. The party existed long before Chiang recognized it officially.
I think independence-minded people simply want to call a spade a spade. And if possible, let the people vote on it. Is that so bizarre to allow the population to make up its own mind as to its future? Should the people here say, “Golly, Colin Powell says we are not a sovereign nation, so it must be so”?
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…you know the rest.

As to Hartzell’s question (or one of them), some reporters can’t find their asshole with both hands; some are just lazy with no incentive; and some are just not trained.

As to Hex’s “the TT’s butchering a sub-heading in order to add a completely un-necessary “the country” to it,” you are really thinking that the English media here is a finely tuned racing machine. I am 100 percent sure that it was added to fill in the space, not for anything political.

9

I would agree with Wolf: not all terminological inexactitudes here (or anywhere) are the result of bias, or even evidence of having thought on the subject. I am all in favour of papers having editorial lines if there is some substance in the arguments they put forward. The TT prattles on about Taiwan being independent. We know that already. The question is, have you read anything in it about how they are going to deal with American deliberate ambiguity and Chinese belligerence? I haven’t. But I’ve talked to DPP people who have umpteen interesting theories on how they’re going to deal with the US and China.

I don’t want to bash the TT any further. I enjoy reading it every day, and I don’t mean just to laugh at it.(!) There were several good articles in it today including a hilarious letter from a George Bush supporter about freedom, civilisation, and apple pie.

10

By signing the Instrument of Surrender Japan basically agreed to the Potsdam Declaration, which has a statement pertaining to Japan’s sovereignty.

So it was not to transfer territory. The Instrument of Surrender affirmed Japan had no rights in determining their sovereignty anymore. That right was given to ROC and the allies.

Simple, neither ROC nor PRC signed the piece of paper in San Francisco, for obvious political realities of the time. So it was necessary to have a Taipei Treaty which only reaffirmed the Instrument of Surrender, that Japan recognized ROC dictating to Japan what area’s Japan had sovereignty over and what areas ROC had sovereignty over.

11

AC, I admire your immunity to logic. Since I’ve jumped into this fray I’ll state my arguments one more time anyway.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]
By signing the Instrument of Surrender Japan basically agreed to the Potsdam Declaration, which has a statement pertaining to Japan’s sovereignty.[/quote]

By signing the Instrument of Surrender, Japan agreed to – guess what – the Instrument of Surrender. Anything beyond that is your wishful thinking.

Sorry, “we” in the Potsdam declaration wasn’t just ROC. It’s the allies. Too bad the ROC was excluded from the alllies side in the real action.

Sorry, Japan couldn’t give Taiwan to anyone after it had already given up ownership. You can’t give something you no longer have. The Taipei Treaty doesn’t hold water. It would have been a little more credible if it had been signed by the US (one of the real winners in the war) and the ROC (an appendix to the winners living on US aid).

12

The first paragraph states explicitly

[quote]"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provision set forth in the declaration issued by the head of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Unions of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.
"[/quote]
Which means Japan gave up soveriegnty for China to decide.

Yeah, but Great Britian doesn’t legally exist anymore. So it is just up to the ROC and USA to figure out the mess.

That was not the purpose of the Taipei Treaty, it was to recognize the soveignty of Greater Taiwan under ROC soveriegnty as an addendum of SF treaty, ROC did not participate in. This was 6 years after the war and 2 years after the KMT retreat to Taiwan.

No kidding the Japanese voided the thing in 1972 to recognize those upstarts in PRC. Mama was right, can’t trust 'em.

You mean like those soveriegnty treaties sighed with the American Indians. Fork tongue devils they be. :unamused:

Anyways this whole issue is to distract from the fact the Strait Issue is an issue between PRC and ROC. The world was dragging its feet because they were waiting on PRC to swallow up ROC shortly after 1949. But we show them all. Power to the Land of Bubble Tea.

13

Do the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland know this?

14

Tetsuo,

My error there is a Grande Bretagne (Great Britain) in France, and a little British island of the French coast. :slight_smile:

But UK is the proper legal shortening of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There was a mighty roit in the Shetlands when tourist started running around mislabelling people as British.

Sure I’ve taken up more absurd positions before on forumosa. Since Great Britain is no longer the properly accepted term for the UK, what ramification does that hold with all international treaties pertaining to the Strait Issue.

15

[quote=“ac_dropout”]Tetsuo,

My error there is a Grande Bretagne (Great Britain) in France, and a little British island of the French coast. :slight_smile:

But UK is the proper legal shortening of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There was a mighty roit in the Shetlands when tourist started running around mislabelling people as British.

Sure I’ve taken up more absurd positions before on forumosa. Since Great Britain is no longer the properly accepted term for the UK, what ramification does that hold with all international treaties pertaining to the Strait Issue.[/quote]

Well, the niceties of geography and politics are seldom fully understood except by those who have an intimate involvement or an important reason to know. But…

What you’ve written is bollocks! Legally, historically and geographically.

16

Hate to say it, but AC’s right you know… tee hee

17

There is no treaty where Japan gave sovereignty of Taiwan and the Pescadores to the ROC. The Instrument of Surrender and the two Declarations dont alter Taiwans sovereignty. The ultimate document dealing with Taiwan`s sovereignty is the SFPT. It most certainly does not transfer sovereignty to the ROC. Thus, Taiwan remains an unincorporated territory of the victorious US until such time as Washington is ready to hand her over to Beijing.

18

How can the SFPT decide ROC sovereignty if neither ROC nor PRC signed it?

Does the USA States Department agree with the view that Greater Taiwan region is an unincorporated territory of the USA? Isn’t it an undemocratic move if Taiwan imposes itself unilaterally to the USA, when it hasn’t even paid taxes to the USA in quite some time? Conversely isn

19

What planet are you on?The ROC nor the PRC didn`t have sovereignty over Taiwan either before nor after the SFPT was promulgated.

As for the rest of your post, I personally believe Washington wants all the perks of holding Taiwans sovereignty without the responsibilities. Theres a growing organization which seeks to change that.

20

Sorry AC, I missed this question in your last post. The Taipei Treaty states that the Chinese national inhabitants of Taiwan and the Pescadores are ROC nationals. It most certainly DOES NOT state that the territory is owned by or given to the ROC. It doesn`t contradict the SFPT.