In the Taipei Treaty Japan recognizes ROC soveriengty over the Greater Taiwan islands.
Japan could not give up the Island since 6 years earlier they signed the Instrument of Surrender which explicitly stated Japan only had soveriegnty over Greater Japan islands. ROC determined that for Japan already you see.
Not to be nit picky, but aren’t you Canadian. Why are you so interested in spending my USA tax dollars? Shouldn’t you try to request Taiwan be part of Canada?
Isn’t Taichungmafia the anti-Chinese woman? Yes and I do agree with her the Taipei treaty is meaningless seeing that it was cancelled on 1972, which means that the Shimonoseki treaty was reactived and Taiwan is once again legally independent from China!
Shirley, the mafia in Taizhong are equal opportunity employers.
And I would have to disagree. Canadians have the right to love Chinese women as any other foreigners.
But on a more serious not even the cancellation of the Taipei Treaty has significance in the sovereignty of Taiwan. The Taipei Treaty was canceled when Japan formally recognized PRC as the rightful government of “One China.” So even the Japanese government doesn’t there is One China and Taiwan is part of that China.
How about we approach this from a different angle for consideration, the view that President Chen has been advocating.
Being that the ROC government controls only Taiwan, Mazu, Jinmen and Penghu, and that the PRC government clearly controls mainland China, and seeing as this arrangement has been true for over 50 years now:
What is wrong with saying “Taiwan (and some outlying isalnds) make up the ROC, and the PRC is a seperate and independent country?”
Obviously there are important legal issues here, not the least of which is the territory specified in the ROC constitution. But my own view is that the actual status-quo is Taiwan and China are in a “one side, one country” situation, even if it’s entirely the result of a civil war. I think the world should stop ignoring that reality. For too long, both the PRC and ROC were insisting the world swallow a bunch of hooey.
Getting more on topic, I know a guy who works at the Taipei Times who has been displead with the pro-green tilt the paper has increasingly taken over the last several years. He linked me to an editorial by the Editor-in-Chief who basically defended the slant as a reasonable action for a newspaper to take. I believe his main argument was that the paper had a particular outlook and worldview, and that it was not only acceptable but even expected and important for the paper to promote that outlook. Then again, I dont’ recall many details and don’t know where the link would be.
I always thought the Taipei Times was a pro-Taidu paper even before the green alliance. You mean the Taipei Times was once a pro-KMT paper?
I’m sorry for not being clear. As I understand it (and I could be wrong), several years ago, the Taipei Times’ owners put increased pressure on the people in charge of running the paper, and I believe they (the owners) did a shake up of the top management. Previously, the Taipei Times had strived to be more balanced coverage, but the owners didn’t like it and found the management resistant to change, so they switched the managers/editors.
The Taidu camp wants to be able to proclaim Taidu as soon as possible, and have the U.S. back them up. The U.S. wishes they wouldn’t. I don’t see how this could be anything other than a contradiction. It’s not as though they don’t understand each other.
As for the legal stuff, sovereignty can be won through revolution, and lost through conquest.
“Self-Determination” is notoriously vague about which groups of people get to determine themselves. Can hippies in Amsterdam have the right for their slums to be an independent country, on the basis of common culture and territory? Here are a few cases analogous to Taiwan’s, for your consideration and comparative analysis:
The Republic of Transdniestria–a breakaway region of Moldova consisting of ethnic Russians who didn’t want Moldova to break away from the USSR. Backed by criminal gangs, basically.
The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus–its denizens consider it to be an independent country defended by Turkey; other countries consider it to be a part of Cyprus occupied by Turkey.
Kosovo–a separately administered (thanks to genocide and war), ethnic Albanian region of Serbia. Backed by NATO.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia–ethnically distinct, separately governed regions which Georgia thinks are a part of Georgia, but has no control over. They are backed by Russia.
These are regions which are already functioning as independent states, though unrecognized. (Perhaps Taiwan could pick up a few diplomatic allies here.) They are not to be confused with the numerous territories which are not in control of their own affairs, but whose people obviously wish they could be.
I suggest understanding the development of sovereignty and nationalism first. Try Bennedict Anderson’s book Imagined Communities…
It’s funny how many people base their arguments on what these treaties don’t say rather than on what they do say. And it seems that one’s political stance has a real effect on the ‘validity’ of certain treaties or other similar documents.
Seems like Hartzell has a new job writing for the Times. Remember a couple of days ago when the Times had the article on Ma Ying-jeou discussing the Cairo Declaration with the following headline:
“The Cabinet gives Ma a history class”
DOCTORED HISTORY: The mayor, following KMT practice, confused a press release for an international treaty so the rest of the Cabinet had to correct him"
And this blatant editorial is not only run as a straight news story, it’s on the front page. So the Times feels the Cairo Declaration is completely irrelevant and no more than a glorified press release. Fine, it’s your opinion, but don’t try to pass it off as news.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Times decides “Chinese Nationalist Party” isn’t to their liking and changes it to “Traitorous Zealot Gang” or something and begins referring to the mayor as “Chinese Syncophant Ma Ying-jeou”.
Maoman, was there some salient point from this book that you thought I should know about, or was this just your way of saying “go and study”?
A sense of national identity as an anthropologist might discern (assuming such to be clear-cut and nonnegotiable, which is especially hazardous in the case of Taiwan) doesn’t mean that the group in question has the right to sovereignty–even if they really, really want to. International law primarily recognizes power. A state which cannot defend itself, has no right to be a state. You could make an argument based on ethics, I suppose, but then there’s no settling questions like that.
OK how about this:
Where the heck do you pay tax (IF you’re paying?)
Taipei or Beijing?
OR gawd forbid Bushington, DC?
I suspect Taishang are paying taxes both to Taipei and Beijing for the privilege of conducting cross strait commerce.
They may even be paying taxes to countries they export their products to as well.