Pardon my funny thot about Taiwan Independence

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

According to the history I know…

China was under the Qing government. Then KMT leader Sun Yat Sun removed the Qing dynasty and China was supposedly under KMT (since no Qing dynasty anymore).

Then Communist Party Mao chased the new government KMT into Taiwan… but never eradicated KMT.

According to the ‘fact’ that Taiwan is part of China…

Then…

Logically speaking…

KMT should be the government of China operating in Taiwan?

Then… Communist Party is the rebel? LOL~ :laughing:

No offence. Just a joke. If you don’t find it funny, then my apology.

If I am not wrong, initially, KMT did sit in UN to represent Republic of China. China became a Republic because of KMT’s Sun Yat Sen.

Maybe I miss out some historical facts… So I may stand to be corrected.

2

You are missing out the entire part of Japanese governance.

3

I can only consider Japanese occupation of part of China, and not taking Taiwan as a separate issue.

From what I know, KMT remained the only Chinese administration after Qing dynasty for China, and was then driven to Taiwan which was part of China.

However, the world represented by the UN eventually recognized the Communist Party as the state representative of China, thereby unseating KMT from UN.

Which is, strictly speaking… if KMT had never surrendered to Communist Party, that means KMT is currently the actual government of China. Japan is not Chinese…

This is of course ‘by right’. But in real, Mao had used military might to occupy mainland China while leaving Taiwan untouched to KMT. Unless the world helps KMT to ‘retake’ China, China is currently under Communist Party.

Theoretically speaking, KMT should be still under ‘war’ with Communist Party. LOL~

Of course, international laws is often ‘no laws’, only guns and bullets.

4

It was not an occupation. Taiwan was legal Japanese territory. No one disputed that. Japan didn’t have sovereignty over a little bit of China, it held sovereignty over Taiwan.

Borders are not set in stone. The modern PRC wants to lay claim to the greatest expanse of territory ever held by something that can vaguely be called China. There is no reason the rest of the world needs to accept this claim.

Hence Taiwan was not part of China when the ROC was formed and there is no reason to believe it an integral part.

5

During the Shang Dynasty there were rumors of islands off the coast of what is now Fujian (Fujian wasn’t part of China at the time of the Shang Dynasty). It turned out these rumored islands were in fact what is known today as Penghu. From that point on Taiwan has been an ancient and inseparable part of China. When China started trading with the savages in Taiwan proper during the Han Dynasty they heard rumors of distant islands known today as the Diaoyutai island chain. From that point on the Diaoyutai islands became an ancient and inseparable part of China. Therefore, both Taiwan and the Diaoyutai islands were and always will be an inseparable part of China from the very beginnings of Chinese civilization, and this very fact cannot possibly change no matter what. China must assert its rightful claims and bring back Taiwan and the Diaoyutai islands to Mother China’s arms that always loved and rightful owned these islands.

6

Various Corrections and/or Notes could be made to your overall “summary.”

(1) The 1895 treaty was a transfer of sovereignty to Japan.
(2) After the 1895 treaty came into effect, the relationship of Japan to Taiwan was not “military occupation.”
(3) The Oct. 25, 1945, Japanese surrender ceremonies marked a beginning of the military occupation of Japanese Taiwan.
(4) There was no transfer of sovereignty on Oct. 25, 1945. That date cannot be correctly construed as “Taiwan Retrocession Day.”
(5) Japan held sovereignty over Taiwan until the treaty came into effect on April 28, 1952.
(6) Hence, when the ROC central government organs moved to occupied Taiwan in Dec. 1949, that was a move “outside of China’s national territory.”
(7) The ROC has been a government in exile since Dec. 1949. It is neither the legitimate government of Taiwan nor of mainland China.

7

[quote=“Hartzell”]Various Corrections and/or Notes could be made to your overall “summary.”

(1) The 1895 treaty was a transfer of sovereignty to Japan.
(2) After the 1895 treaty came into effect, the relationship of Japan to Taiwan was not “military occupation.”
[/quote]

Indeed, the transfer was agreed and signed upon ‘in perpetuity’ .

That means forever.

The US, as victors over Japan, and the UN as a new body created out of the mess of WWII had power, but even so, lack legitimacy in proclaiming who owns, or has sovereignty over whatever territory. Otherwise, they may have just given Burma to India, or made Singapore a province of Malaysia.

They handed Taiwan to the KMT as a convenience, and in order to maintain an unsinkable aircraft carrier off the coast of China.

The idea that Taiwan was part of China and that the KMT government of Taiwan was the true and legitimate government of China was just a lie of the foreign devil.

The KMT can only exist today as a democratically elected party in a multi-party state under the mandate and jurisdiction of the people of Taiwan.

China is a one-party state under the jurisdiction of the PRC.

8

Hi! Let me suggest the case in Chinese…

我相信各位是指马关条约，亦当年李鸿章在中国被日本侵略后为了妥协（反正夺不回来了）而签署的割让协议书。
在此我先提醒各位……
1990年，伊拉克进攻科威特，占据科威特并建立过渡性政府。当时联合国已经存在生效。
1895年，满清政府割让台湾澎湖给日本，但当年联合国还未成立。
在清朝干掉明朝后，请问前朝的礼制协议清朝是否一律承认？
在元朝成立后，前朝的体制和各种协议又有需要承认？
在汉朝建立后，诸侯分封，几时管秦朝的领土割让制定或是周朝的诸国领地和吞并的权限？
都没有。
只有一条，中国是属于中国人的。
既然如此，当孙中山推翻了封建的满清，消灭了朝廷，建立了共和，请问清朝和日本甚至列强的蛮横侵占有必要承认吗？
请问，明朝的尚方宝剑到了清朝有用吗？那么明朝的免死金牌到了共和受到承认吗？

必须注意的是，在联合国成立以前，各国都没有所谓的国际条约。也就是，谁的拳头大谁说话。所以努尔哈赤能统一女真，进而进取中原。这些都不是条约可以约制的。
也就是说，日本当年侵占台湾，虽有条约，但当时是清朝政府的‘免死金牌’，到了孙中山的共和政府，在1945年前，根本就没有所谓的国际法可遵守。因为当时日本遵守的是自己的拳头比较厉害，而不是条约。
条约只是个幌子。我们都清楚马关条约是什么回事。根本就不是条约，说难听点儿，是慈禧怕日本毁了清朝为了保住清朝而息事宁人的愚蠢。

中国不是属于清朝的，中国在共和后是属于中国人的。共和也不可能向封建妥协，更不可能承认清朝光绪辱国之举。

说到伊拉克侵略科威特，这时期是有国际公约的。这时期各联合国成员都谴责伊拉克。科威特复国了。因为科威特是属于科威特人的。所谓的主权其实在1945年后有了国际条约后在成员国中才有‘合约’的真正意义。
在1895年，基本上是个病人和一头豺狼的信口雌黄。这条‘主权转移公约’当时有哪几个国家承认？根本就无法承认。后来国民党和日侵略者对抗，这马关条约正式被撕毁，如同当年‘温顺’的努尔哈赤破长城取崇祯一样。

所以，要说国际条约，我个人只承认1945年后签署的条约。

然而1945年后的联合国条约清楚生命，各国必须尊重各国的主权，不得侵占干涉。这是二战后各成员国立国之本。‘国’从nation和country被state给代替了。

所以，马关条约，我是不会承认的。因为根本不合法。特别是不合孙中山先生的‘法’。孙中山也是为了救国而起兵反清的。国民党怎么可能承认那马关条约？难道马关条约的主权转了出去，台湾澎湖的居民都成了日本族？

所谓的主权，除了领土其实还包括‘人’。有人才有国。台湾自清朝康熙后就是中国的一部分，在明朝时期也已经是中国人的‘家’。

既然国民党退到了台湾，如今共产党统治中国大陆……

你们说，一个中国，一个民族，一个未被彻底灭掉的‘前朝’就出现了两个政府。一个就是孙中山灭清后如今龟缩在台湾的国民党，一个就是把国民党赶到台湾的共产党。也就是说，只要国民党不投降，国民党依然是那个灭了清朝共和了中国的政权。

我这样说，有错吗？

要是孙中山还在的话，面对共产党，他恐怕会说……“革命还未成功，同志还须努力。”

他希望的中国是共和国，还是其他？

9

[quote=“Charlie Phillips”][quote=“Hartzell”]Various Corrections and/or Notes could be made to your overall “summary.”

(1) The 1895 treaty was a transfer of sovereignty to Japan.
(2) After the 1895 treaty came into effect, the relationship of Japan to Taiwan was not “military occupation.”
[/quote]

Indeed, the transfer was agreed and signed upon ‘in perpetuity’ .

That means forever.

The US, as victors over Japan, and the UN as a new body created out of the mess of WWII had power, but even so, lack legitimacy in proclaiming who owns, or has sovereignty over whatever territory. Otherwise, they may have just given Burma to India, or made Singapore a province of Malaysia.

They handed Taiwan to the KMT as a convenience, and in order to maintain an unsinkable aircraft carrier off the coast of China.

The idea that Taiwan was part of China and that the KMT government of Taiwan was the true and legitimate government of China was just a lie of the foreign devil.

The KMT can only exist today as a democratically elected party in a multi-party state under the mandate and jurisdiction of the people of Taiwan.

China is a one-party state under the jurisdiction of the PRC.[/quote]

That is provided the Qing dynasty could be perpetually around.

Say… if you sign an agreement with me that you will perpetually give me your money… what if you die because a robber takes over your money? You expect I to ask the robber to honor the agreement? :laughing:

Put it this way… If you are keeping my son, that we agree that you will let me have a look at him every week once… but you are killed by a robber and he gains the key to the room you locked my son in… do you think I’d say… OK, let’s turn away and leave.

Taiwan is not money to Chinese… Taiwan is related to Chinese ‘by blood’. It is NEVER the sovereignty of Japan. Japan merely used raw force to snatch your son away, locked him up, force you to declare your son is his… but in actual fact, the son is forever yours.

10

[quote=“Mucha Man”]It was not an occupation. Taiwan was legal Japanese territory. No one disputed that. Japan didn’t have sovereignty over a little bit of China, it held sovereignty over Taiwan.
[/quote]

Territory acceded under military threat may be likened to a contract signed with a gun to your head. “I made him an offer he don’t refuse.”

It’s not the same as a contract signed in good faith. Imperial Japan was a brutal invading force in the entire Western Pacific. Nobody has to acknowledge their sovereign claims past or present if they were based on treaties or other legal instruments arising from military coercion.

Except that lawyers still have to deal with the legal mess.

11

[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Muzha Man”]It was not an occupation. Taiwan was legal Japanese territory. No one disputed that. Japan didn’t have sovereignty over a little bit of China, it held sovereignty over Taiwan.
[/quote]

Territory acceded under military threat may be likened to a contract signed with a gun to your head. “I made him an offer he don’t refuse.”

It’s not the same as a contract signed in good faith. Imperial Japan was a brutal invading force in the entire Western Pacific. Nobody has to acknowledge their sovereign claims past or present if they were based on treaties or other legal instruments arising from military coercion.

Except that lawyers still have to deal with the legal mess.[/quote]

Actually there is no legal mess.

Prior to 1945 when the UN was formed, there was no international laws that even if you want to have an ICJ hearing, was that possible?

Even if Qing dynasty granted the entire China to Japan and went back to 关外, China will still not be Japan’s. Especially when Chinese Sun Yat Sun had ‘occupied’ China by replacing Qing dynasty. The Republic cannot (even now) recognize that 1895 treaty because in the current context based on UN Charters, Taiwan is a sovereign concern, you cannot occupy or snatch and interfere by military or papers. Supposedly if Xi Jin Ping were to sign a treaty to surrender China to Japan to get very rich, can he? While the UN Charters allows treaties to be signed and recognized, such a treaty surrendering China to Japan will be against the state interest and will never be acceptable. The premier merely represents China but China is owned by all the mainland Chinese.

Treason is against state constitution via any way, and applicable to the top most leadership.

Similarly, in today’s context, when Iraq ‘owned’ Kuwait, it’s legally unacceptable. The state Kuwait belongs to the people of Kuwait. Therefore, whether the Taiwan of Kuwait or the entire Kuwait was taken by any method, in today’s context, Iraq had no rights to form a government.

There is no need to recognize the 1895 treaty, because it was illegal. Taiwan back then was already a province of China with Chinese citizens on it. It was another form of ‘invasion’ hence the treaty should never be recognized. And neither will the Father of Republic China, Mr Sun, recognize that piece of crap. It was precisely due to Qing dynasty’s weaknesses and refusal to see this happen that KMT’s Sun started a revolution. Anyone in China may blur blur recognize the treaty, but not KMT Taiwan.

In short, given today’s context, Taiwan and Diaoyu Islands are part of China… the problem is, China has two governments… One is KMT and one is Communist Party.

Let put it in extreme case, IF Communist Party leadership suddenly all die, the government representing China in UN will be KMT now base in Taiwan.

Which is, Communist Party has to find a way to make KMT surrenders, or to occupy Taiwan and totally wipe out ‘the other government’.

If before the UN, Communist Party and KMT can still be considered as 南北朝 type of situation, but in today’s context, there is only ONE seat for China in the UN.

That’s just how funny things are…

12

Iraq acquired Kuwait through direct military actions against the sovereignty of the nation. Japan acquired Taiwan by China agreeing in a treaty to give Taiwan away. The acquisition is very legal even back then. Without the UN there were still international recognized rules regarding conducts when it comes to treaties.

The only reason Japan had to use military force upon landing in Taiwan was because Taiwan declared independence and formed the Republic of Formosa. It was the independent Taiwan’s military and mercenaries fighting the Japanese. So at that moment Taiwan was no longer part of China. Technically it ceased to be a part of China the moment the treaty went into effect, so it was an internal rebellion rather than an invasion.

13

No, you are simply wrong. It was legal.

Your analogies earlier are equally wrong. It doesn’t matter that the Qing dissolved. Once you cede territory by treaty that fact becomes an international relation and not simply an agreement between two parties: hence one country cannot unilaterally declare the treaty void. It is analogous to selling your house. Your grandchildren cannot later declare the sale illegal because they realized you were desperate for money at the time.

Btw, you do realize that Taiwan was acquired by both the Ming and Qing by force? First against the Dutch and later as against Koxinga.

Consistency, logic, fairness, and a non-victim centered view of Chinese history all argue you are entirely wrong to say Japan did not acquire Taiwan legally.

14

I believe it would be possible to do that (at least under UK jurisdiction) if it turned out that three thugs with short necks and large guns had been arranging the contract and completion.

15

[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Muzha Man”]It was not an occupation. Taiwan was legal Japanese territory. No one disputed that. Japan didn’t have sovereignty over a little bit of China, it held sovereignty over Taiwan.
[/quote]

Territory acceded under military threat may be likened to a contract signed with a gun to your head. “I made him an offer he don’t refuse.”

It’s not the same as a contract signed in good faith. Imperial Japan was a brutal invading force in the entire Western Pacific. Nobody has to acknowledge their sovereign claims past or present if they were based on treaties or other legal instruments arising from military coercion.

Except that lawyers still have to deal with the legal mess.[/quote]

Interesting. Do you plan to redefine all borders now with that little insight? How about Canada to start? Or South America? Or Africa?

Or for that matter what is China going to give up? Most of the south was taken by military force followed by forced cultural assimilation. How about Tibet? Xinjiang? The northern border with Russia? The Korean Autonomous Prefecture (which Koreans claim)?

How about we redefine European territory based on some imaginary previous lines that are pure and honest.

Come on Big John, you aren’t this daft. :unamused:

16

I believe it would be possible to do that (at least under UK jurisdiction) if it turned out that three thugs with short necks and large guns had been arranging the contract and completion.[/quote]

Well, first of all the grandchildren still can’t unilaterally declare the sale void. It is legal until the courts intervene and make a decision in their favor.

In any case, military conquest is not like that. It’s is recognized as a legitimate way to acquire territory (though not really anymore). Everyone did it. Including China. But only China then whined later that it’s ceded territories were illegally obtained.

Hey China, give back Tibet and we can talk.

17

[quote=“finley”]
I believe it would be possible to do that (at least under UK jurisdiction) if it turned out that three thugs with short necks and large guns had been arranging the contract and completion.[/quote]

In Taiwan’s case, it wasn’t Japan thugging Qing China. Japan was thugging Korea and Qing China decided they can put a stop to Japan’s influence in Korea. Qing also thought their newly bought navy ships is going to kick the Japanese’s rear end, not realizing the Japanese have far better training and modern naval combat experiences.

In the end, the first sino-japanese war was a war of two Asian powers fought on Korean soil and waters, and China lost and ceded Taiwan. If there were any thugs, I think Qing and Japan were equally thuggish.

18

[quote=“hansioux”]Iraq acquired Kuwait through direct military actions against the sovereignty of the nation. Japan acquired Taiwan by China agreeing in a treaty to give Taiwan away. The acquisition is very legal even back then. Without the UN there were still international recognized rules regarding conducts when it comes to treaties.

The only reason Japan had to use military force upon landing in Taiwan was because Taiwan declared independence and formed the Republic of Formosa. It was the independent Taiwan’s military and mercenaries fighting the Japanese. So at that moment Taiwan was no longer part of China. Technically it ceased to be a part of China the moment the treaty went into effect, so it was an internal rebellion rather than an invasion.[/quote]

Before anything, may I know Taiwan’s KMT’s origin? :laughing:

I mean if we talk so much and the legality is still recognized based on emptiness…

I am laying claim on Taiwan because my ancestors were the first family in Taiwan, and that was way way back before China discovered Taiwan. No international laws, please recognize my sovereign rights. My ancestors never signed a treaty surrendering Taiwan… It was occupied, so Taiwan doesn’t belongs to Japan or Taiwan or China, it belongs to me. LOL~

19

No, you are simply wrong. It was legal.

Your analogies earlier are equally wrong. It doesn’t matter that the Qing dissolved. Once you cede territory by treaty that fact becomes an international relation and not simply an agreement between two parties: hence one country cannot unilaterally declare the treaty void. It is analogous to selling your house. Your grandchildren cannot later declare the sale illegal because they realized you were desperate for money at the time.

Btw, you do realize that Taiwan was acquired by both the Ming and Qing by force? First against the Dutch and later as against Koxinga.

Consistency, logic, fairness, and a non-victim centered view of Chinese history all argue you are entirely wrong to say Japan did not acquire Taiwan legally.[/quote]

Then tell me which laws… WHOSE laws the treaty was based on?

You are telling me it’s legal… Then please show me the laws.

By force from Dutch? May I know where was the chaps from Holland before that?

You say I am entirely wrong, then please tell me which laws are you basing the treaty on? And also tell me Taiwan residents are not Chinese but Japanese?

Do you really understand what is sovereignty, and what is ‘legal’? :laughing:

20

[quote=“sincityhenry”]Then tell me which laws… WHOSE laws the treaty was based on?

You are telling me it’s legal… Then please show me the laws.

You say I am entirely wrong, then please tell me which laws are you basing the treaty on? And also tell me Taiwan residents are not Chinese but Japanese?[/quote]

Yawn. Hartzel can cite the conventions but the onus is on you to explain why an internationally recognize transfer of sovereignty was not legal.

You might want to ask where the Chinese were. Taiwan was overwhelmingly aboriginal when the Dutch first arrived and in subsequent centuries most native land was stolen by force or tricker. Funny how you accept the acquisition of land from aboriginals by force as legal but not the acquisition of land from Chinese.

Again, you either accept that prior to the 20th century, acquisition of territory by force was legal and accepted or you don’t. If you don’t then you have no claim to say Taiwan belongs to anyone but the aboriginal population.