Pardon my funny thot about Taiwan Independence

Politics Taiwan Politics
21

[quote=“Mucha Man”][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.[/quote]

Because I do not recognize any international dealings before the UN Charters exist, and before States exist. No state, no legal basis.

Of course I recognize violence wars and the results, but I can’t base ‘legal’ acquisition requiring international recognition before international laws and states exist, I define the ‘state’ as UN registered states.

Just to put it like this, if there is a ‘treaty’ signed before UN claiming that USA’s veto power can be denied, you think that got legal basis, hmm?

22

Why not just make things simple? In 400 years the only government that seemed to be “welcomed” by the locals were Koxinga and his gang of merrymakers. By locals I mean the existing Han population. I doubt the natives were as overjoyed about the Dutch getting replaced by Koxinga as the Chinese were. Koxinga soon died, but the rest of his lot ran things on Taiwan for more than 20 years before the Qing finally took over the reigns. So in 400 years Taiwan has had about 23 of those years free from whom many would call “occupiers”. Many Taiwanese were happy when the Japanese were forced to leave and welcomed the KMT’s arrival. That sentiment lasted about a day or 2. After the end of martial law in 1987 it gets less simple. But all this talk about legality and sovereignty is argued and controlled by the ROC and foreign governments, not the Taiwanese population. Sadly, it’s something they’re long accustomed to.

23

Also, if you look at old maps of Taiwan most of the island was ‘savage territory’. The qing government only had control over parts of the island at most. taiwanpedia.culture.tw/en/content?ID=3582
culture.teldap.tw/culture/images … 08/9/3.jpg

[quote]The boundaries of the entire island of Taiwan are marked by different colors in atlas to distinguish old borders from new, e.g. the Taiwan Han-Savage Boundary Map uses red lines to mark the old boundaries, and blue lines to mark the new. Subsequently, although different colors were also used to represent savage territory, the habit of using red lines to indicate the invisible savage territory arose; Tuniu was a physical boundary on earth, and the red line was the mark of the boundary on the map; the two together are called “Tuniu Red Line.” This marked not only the physical border between the Han and the savages, it was also a border of cultures and ways of life.
[/quote]
Right up to the end of the 19th century ‘East of the pecked line is inhabited by Savages’
nrch.moc.gov.tw/ccahome/getImage … 0001-w.jpg (Savage Territory)
laijohn.com/Mackay/MGL-map/Formosa.htm (map of the whole island)

How convenient it was in those days to write off ancient and distinct tribes into the catch-all ‘Savages’ and steal their land by force.

The aborigines of Taiwan seemed to have had legally recognized territorial areas by the Qing. Therefore it is the aborigines who seem to have lost the most and the most rights to their ancestral land.

Anyway, nobody would be having these ridiculous debates except that one of the world’s new superpowers would rather squash Taiwan than let the people who live here decide on their own destiny.

24

[quote=“sincityhenry”]…Because I do not recognize any international dealings before the UN Charters exist, and before States exist. No state, no legal basis.

Of course I recognize violence wars and the results, but I can’t base ‘legal’ acquisition requiring international recognition before international laws and states exist, I define the ‘state’ as UN registered states. [/quote]

How convenient for your argument. :unamused:

25

I know. I was simply making the point that international law basically boils down to “Ug say this bit between tree and rock belong to Ug now. Grrrrr. Any questions?”. You’d think, a few millennia after that particular legal formulation was devised, people would be talking about moving things along a bit. Holding up international law as an example of “legality” is a bit like holding up your neighbour’s severed head as an example of successful conflict resolution.

26

[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“sincityhenry”]…Because I do not recognize any international dealings before the UN Charters exist, and before States exist. No state, no legal basis.

Of course I recognize violence wars and the results, but I can’t base ‘legal’ acquisition requiring international recognition before international laws and states exist, I define the ‘state’ as UN registered states. [/quote]

How convenient for your argument. :unamused:[/quote]

Because if you want to tell me you legally own the house given by your dad, then I need you to show me the laws.

If you claim you have custody rights of even your son, I need to see the laws.

You can’t just go around telling people you have legal basis as a Taiwanese before Taiwan even exists or when there were no such laws! LOL~

You are like telling me I am a Singapore citizen, so my grand-grandfather was… when Singapore didn’t even exist during his time.

Now you are telling me the ‘treaty’ has legal basis, so I am telling you simply, if there were such ‘legal treaty’ saying the USA will be denied Veto in UN, which legal basis will it be based on?

After a big round, it’s really convenient to simply ask you, where exactly is your legal basis for a legal claim?

27

[quote=“sincityhenry”][quote=“Muzha Man”][quote=“sincityhenry”]…Because I do not recognize any international dealings before the UN Charters exist, and before States exist. No state, no legal basis.

Of course I recognize violence wars and the results, but I can’t base ‘legal’ acquisition requiring international recognition before international laws and states exist, I define the ‘state’ as UN registered states. [/quote]

How convenient for your argument. :unamused:[/quote]

Because if you want to tell me you legally own the house given by your dad, then I need you to show me the laws.

If you claim you have custody rights of even your son, I need to see the laws.

You can’t just go around telling people you have legal basis as a Taiwanese before Taiwan even exists or when there were no such laws! LOL~

You are like telling me I am a Singapore citizen, so my grand-grandfather was… when Singapore didn’t even exist during his time.

OH Yeah??? Well, I can show you the legal papers showing I own my house, but if i don’t pay my taxes it will get taken away from me. What’s up with that?

Now you are telling me the ‘treaty’ has legal basis, so I am telling you simply, if there were such ‘legal treaty’ saying the USA will be denied Veto in UN, which legal basis will it be based on?

After a big round, it’s really convenient to simply ask you, where exactly is your legal basis for a legal claim?[/quote]

Oh Yeah??? Well, I can show the the legal papers proving I own my house, but If I don’t pay my taxes the government will take it from me. What’s up with that?

28

Just so I can follow… please advise as to what your legal claim is and on what basis it rests.

Please use clear and simple language. I’m slow. :blush:

Thanks!

29

Lolz, mentally ill line of reasoning.

30

Son snatched away? More like, “I’ll give you my son if you let me keep my house”

31

[quote=“sincityhenry”]

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~[/quote]

First Homo sapien family in Taiwan were here 30,000 years ago, known as 左鎮人 (Zuo-Zheng Ren，tsó-tín lâng), I doubt your family was in Taiwan 30,000 years ago, and yes, 30,000 years ago, there were no international laws.

32

The Dutch were instructed by Ming to take Taiwan, since Ming considered it terra nullius.

The Dutch invaded Penghu, which Ming considered its own territory, though Ming did not have effective control over Penghu. Dutch had Penghu for the first time in 1604, then they were there for 2 whole years since 1622. By the time Ming noticed that the islands were taken by the Dutch, they could not drive them out of the islands. Ming then begged powerful pirates to take on the Dutch, and still the Dutch was not defeated. Finally Ming told the Dutch that Penghu is considered part of Ming, but Taiwan isn’t so the Dutch can goto Taiwan.

That’s why the Dutch left Penghu and headed for Taiwan in 1624. Since it was terra nullius, the Dutch acquired sovereignty by going through a bunch of steps with the aboriginals which back then were considered appropriate international law.

33

You mean like planting a flag, muttering some mumbo-jumbo, handing out booze and mirrors and iron nails, then getting a ‘chief’ to sign X on the dotted line. Hey presto, all of Taiwan is now yours. Until you get your arse booted out again a couple of years later.

34

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“sincityhenry”]

By force from Dutch? May I know where was the chaps from Holland before that?
[/quote]

The Dutch were instructed by Ming to take Taiwan, since Ming considered it terra nullius.

The Dutch invaded Penghu, which Ming considered its own territory, though Ming did not have effective control over Penghu. Dutch had Penghu for the first time in 1604, then they were there for 2 whole years since 1622. By the time Ming noticed that the islands were taken by the Dutch, they could not drive them out of the islands. Ming then begged powerful pirates to take on the Dutch, and still the Dutch was not defeated. Finally Ming told the Dutch that Penghu is considered part of Ming, but Taiwan isn’t so the Dutch can goto Taiwan.

That’s why the Dutch left Penghu and headed for Taiwan in 1624. Since it was terra nullius, the Dutch acquired sovereignty by going through a bunch of steps with the aboriginals which back then were considered appropriate international law.[/quote]

I don’t understand why the Netherlands doesn’t do more to get Taiwan back. Why not petition the UN at least? They were the first “legitimate” governing body in Taiwan and were overrun by outlaws without justification or due process. If anyone should have issue with the legality of Taiwan’s status it should be them

35

[quote=“sincityhenry”][quote=“Muzha Man”][quote=“sincityhenry”]…Because I do not recognize any international dealings before the UN Charters exist, and before States exist. No state, no legal basis.

Of course I recognize violence wars and the results, but I can’t base ‘legal’ acquisition requiring international recognition before international laws and states exist, I define the ‘state’ as UN registered states. [/quote]

How convenient for your argument. :unamused:[/quote]

Because if you want to tell me you legally own the house given by your dad, then I need you to show me the laws.

If you claim you have custody rights of even your son, I need to see the law?[/quote]

No, you only need to see his birth certificate. Or for a house the deed.

Japan likewise had only to show a treaty which of course it had.

Anyway you have shown you’re arguments rest on a racial definition of soveieignty so I am through with this.

36

I don’t know how exactly how the Dutch did it. But judging by “Spaniards in Taiwan” the Spanish went through a pretty lengthy process. I also don’t think either the Dutch or Spanish considered they had control over the entire island. They expand by repeating the process on a tribe by tribe bases. But yes, I agree it was mostly a show. But since Aboriginals were not considered to have statehood, therefore no actual sovereignty, it was the least the Europeans could do.

Come to think of it, since Tainan was the capital of Dutch Taiwan (until they were driven out and then moved to Taipei and Tamsui), it is perfectly appropriate that the team color of the Tainan’s professional baseball team, Tainan Lions, is orange.

Anyway, I think the Dutch gave up their claim when they willingly gave up their position in Northern Taiwan.

37

[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“sincityhenry”][quote=“Muzha Man”][quote=“sincityhenry”]…Because I do not recognize any international dealings before the UN Charters exist, and before States exist. No state, no legal basis.

Of course I recognize violence wars and the results, but I can’t base ‘legal’ acquisition requiring international recognition before international laws and states exist, I define the ‘state’ as UN registered states. [/quote]

How convenient for your argument. :unamused:[/quote]

Because if you want to tell me you legally own the house given by your dad, then I need you to show me the laws.

If you claim you have custody rights of even your son, I need to see the law?[/quote]

No, you only need to see his birth certificate. Or for a house the deed.

Japan likewise had only to show a treaty which of course it had.

Anyway you have shown you’re arguments rest on a racial definition of soveieignty so I am through with this.[/quote]

Not really. I am arguing based on civilization. Before there is this thing called UN, there is no such thing as registered state.

Say, Taiwan wants to be independent? But UN won’t recognize it as a state.

You DO know that birth cert and house deed or even ID and such are all LEGAL docs based on a valid legislation.

And show me hence the laws?

Or are you going to claim that house in USA is yours when you are in Taiwan and Taiwan allows you to draft your deed?

You can’t.

Please show me the legal basis of this ‘deed’ or contract. I can’t base the validity of this deed or treaty based on your view that it is logical and fair and whatsoever UNLESS you are God or the supreme commander of the universe.

I think this is self-explanatory.

38

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“sincityhenry”]

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~[/quote]

First Homo sapien family in Taiwan were here 30,000 years ago, known as 左鎮人 (Zuo-Zheng Ren，tsó-tín lâng), I doubt your family was in Taiwan 30,000 years ago, and yes, 30,000 years ago, there were no international laws.[/quote]

Good you know there wasn’t international laws. LOL~

39

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“sincityhenry”]

By force from Dutch? May I know where was the chaps from Holland before that?
[/quote]

The Dutch were instructed by Ming to take Taiwan, since Ming considered it terra nullius.

The Dutch invaded Penghu, which Ming considered its own territory, though Ming did not have effective control over Penghu. Dutch had Penghu for the first time in 1604, then they were there for 2 whole years since 1622. By the time Ming noticed that the islands were taken by the Dutch, they could not drive them out of the islands. Ming then begged powerful pirates to take on the Dutch, and still the Dutch was not defeated. Finally Ming told the Dutch that Penghu is considered part of Ming, but Taiwan isn’t so the Dutch can goto Taiwan.

That’s why the Dutch left Penghu and headed for Taiwan in 1624. Since it was terra nullius, the Dutch acquired sovereignty by going through a bunch of steps with the aboriginals which back then were considered appropriate international law.[/quote]

May I hence safely say then that Taiwan was eventually taken by Ming at a time when there was no international laws, hence the Ming remnant, as how Han was taken by Jin and Yuan was taken by Ming, set up a government in Taiwan? Then the Qing dynasty took Taiwan?

Which is, if we are not going to say that the dinosaurs occupied China, or Qin dynasty was the first ruler of China, we can safely dismissed Dutch from this history for the relevance of today’s sovereign concerns.

Which is, please note… we are talking about today’s sovereign concern.

From what I know, Qing dynasty was hence overthrown by Sun Yat Sun’s KMT. The 1895 treaty would hence be dismissed as redundant, also because it had and has no international legal basis.

Let cite a simple example…

Just before Ming chased Yuan dynasty to its end, assuming Yuan dynasty signed a treaty to give 99% of China to Mongolia, when Ming Zhu Yuan Zhang ended Yuan dynasty, do ANY of you think that Ming Emperor Zhu would need to honor the treaty by Yuan and Mongolia and give 99% of China to Mongolia? When Qing dynasty was about to be chased to its finish by KMT, do ANY of you think President of Republic of China would recognize the crap treaty between Qing dynasty and Japan?

Basically, since there were natives of Taiwan when the Dutch discovered Taiwan, we also cannot say the Dutch owned Taiwan. In the course of history, Ming dynasty took over Taiwan, then lost to Qing dynasty. Taiwan had become a part of China with Chinese inhabiting the island. Then the Japanese wanted to claim Taiwan hence the Chinese on the island… by forcing Qing dynasty to sign a treaty… which would be illegal.

Please note this… UN has a Human Right Commission from 1946 and later replaced it with a Human Rights Council. The reason why I brought this up is because… during the 1895 treaty, the parties involved were Qing dynasty and Japan. In fact, the reality is, Qing dynasty was operating like a mega family business. There was no real human rights. China was like a very big farm, the peasants were labors to this huge family business. So Qing dynasty merely ‘offered’ a piece of the farm to protect the family business… when however, China belonged to the Chinese.

What I still want to say is this…

  1. Sun Yat Sun’s KMT (which ends up the KMT of Taiwan now) will never recognize that treaty. It was precisely to save China that Sun started a revolution. And by then, Taiwan had officially been a province of China… hence the people of China.
  2. Before 1945, such a treaty by a disposed ‘ancient’ authority has no international legal basis, nor any remaining kins who might have opportunity to reach the throne in 1895 has any valid claim to state administrative powers. This treaty is effectively a waste paper in today’s context. Yes, it is part of history, no it’s has no legal basis. So we cannot make use of this treaty to declare Japan owns the sovereignty of Taiwan because there is only sovereignty of China and Japan. Japan either conquered China or, as with the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, spit out Taiwan.
  3. Even in the event that Taiwan revolted and drove off Japan, KMT which was started by Sun Yat Sen and gang was an administration of China. Therefore, Taiwan is still part of China. Before Communist Party was seated in the UN for China, KMT took the seat to represent China. Hence, we cannot now say that Taiwan is not part of China, because even KMT itself is part of China.

As far as international laws and relations is concern, there is only one China… BUT there are two governments.

Besides, if China has veto power, when will Taiwan’s application to UN as a registered state be recognized?

We have to recognize that when KMT took over Taiwan, Taiwan was NEVER a Japan’s sovereign concern. And KMT’s origin is simply a part of China.

40

What is a registered state?

Are you arguing that statehood depends upon UN recognition or some registration at the UN? :ponder: