Pro-Unification

Hey what about Japan in all this, I mean Japan had control last. Or was it the Americans…hmmmmmmmmmm

Yeah we could go back to the 1895 to the Ming dynasty as a reference for China.

Or how about the Spanish.

Then there was the famous Koxinga, now there was another ‘Republic of China’
Or Dutch.
I think the French passed through Penghu, or was it the Brits.

Got a couple of aboriginals knocking around a lot longer than anybody. How about the Polynesian republic of Taiwan?

Of course we could say that India and Ireland belong to the UK cos they were occupied for 700 to 150 years respectively. Wait a second, didn’t Denmark used to control Sweden and Norway. Those Danes better get going, I mean they all speak similar languages don’t they?

I seem to recall Spain and Portugal were once united? Somebody better get quick ‘retaking’ the motherland’.

I believe China would aim to get a government similar to that of Singapore. I know Singapore has received delegates from China that were there to study their government model. Singapore were more than happy to show-off.

It would certainly be better than what China got now, but it also comes with limitations on the press and a one-party rule. (Although Singapore is officially Democratic, those who know what’s going on there would disagree).

We’ll see if China can get there. If it does, Taiwan’s chances of independence will shrink. If it stumbles and becomes another Russia, Taiwan will get the opportunity it needs.

The comparison to Singapore and China is ludicrous. China is a continent-sized state of over 1.2 billion; Singapore is a dot on the map of under 3 million. Singapore is a city that is relatively compact and small enough in geographic size that it can be easily regulated by its mayor/president Lee Kuan Yew. One fundamental rule of government that can be easily empirically tested by observation is that the smaller the state, the easier to manage, and vice versa. One might as well say that the U.S.A. ought to be run just like the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

I never wrote it’s a good idea to copy Singapore. It is a very different country in most aspects. I simply stated that I know that China has been looking at Singapore’s government as a model.

And although the two countries are very different in size, it doesn’t mean that they have nothing in common. Even if it’s something as simple as controlling the media.

Just a little update on some basic historic facts for Alleycat:
In 1895 China ceded Taiwan “in perpetuity” to Japan as stated in the Treaty of Shimonoseki - an “unequal treaty” as may be, but all treaties at the end of a war are “unequal”.
What you are referring to was the so-called “Cairo Declaration” of 1943, something like a conference press release of doubtable legal value. Anyhow, the Allies promised that “Formosa and the Pescadores” “shall be restored to the Republic of China” and not simply “China” as always misrepresented by PRC.
However, no formal restoration of sovereignty took place. The KMT accepted the capitulation of Japanese troops on Taiwan on behalf (!) of the Allied Command in Tokyo (McArthur).
In the Peace Treaty of San Francisco in 1952 Japan finally renounced sovereignty over Taiwan. Nowhere is stated however, where sovereignty over Taiwan was supposed to be transferred to.
Hence: the PRC’s claim to Taiwan is ridiculous and mainly serves domestic purposes (as in all authoritarian regimes, see KMT rule and the “recovery of the mainland”!), the ROC’s claim to Taiwan is at least doubtful, sovereignty over Taiwan is sort of hovering in the air.

So, there’s only one conclusion: Sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese people and to nobody else!
It’s up to them to decide, and it’s about time that Western countries gradually do away with that nonsense called “One-China-policy”!

Sorry . . . . but you have not considered military law in general, or the law of war in particular.

Under such circumstances as you have stated in the San Francisco Treaty, which appears to be a “limbo cession,” the sovereignty of the area in question will be held in trust by the principal occupying power. Whether or not the administrative authority for the occupation is actually delegated to another co-belligerent is inconsequential.

For that status to be ended . . . . . requires some sort of formal action, which would ideally be a superceding legal act of some sort.

“The law of war”…I like that: “You’ve violated a Law of War, I am going to make war upon you for that!” :wink:

Alleycat,

I’m glad you said unification and not re-unification. It makes things much more clear. It would be somehting of a first to have these two countires unifed, no?

Chou

well Marky, I don’t know to what kind of law you are referring to. We are talking here of aspects of international law.
If your guideline is the law of the jungle then just say so and we’ll end this senseless discussion.
If you’d like to know more details about international agreements on Taiwan, simply go to

taiwandocuments.org/summary.htm

, no need for me to elaborate more on this subject.
Apart from all the complex details of international agreements, we all know that Taiwan’s system has been transformed, it has full democratic legitimacy on all government levels, so all agreements in favour of the KMT “Republic of China” are not all that significant anymore as the population can decide for herself.
Come on, nobody is seriously saying that there is any legitimacy to coerce the Taiwanese to accept the rule of another autocratic state if they can decide for themselves! That’s utter bullshit!
Anyway, why don’t you simply go to the website stated above.

Alleycat maybe able to read Forumosa just now, but today probably cannot get to news.BBC.co.UK/2/hi/Asia-pacific/3105948.stm.

Censorship is a little variable as they experiment. At one time you could read all of Segue except for the human rights section. If you tried to go there your internet connection dissappeared for 10 minutes, or until you logged off and got a new IP.

Of course I can. I’m back ON Taiwan, province of China.

[quote=“German_TW_friend”]However, no formal restoration of sovereignty took place. The KMT accepted the capitulation of Japanese troops on Taiwan on behalf (!) of the Allied Command in Tokyo (McArthur).
In the Peace Treaty of San Francisco in 1952 Japan finally renounced sovereignty over Taiwan. Nowhere is stated however, where sovereignty over Taiwan was supposed to be transferred to.[/quote]

A lot of things in international law are not covered by formal documents – states make claims and, over time, they become accepted or not accepted by the international community. There have been a whole lot of maps that have been redrawn on the basis of claims (and the subsequent enforcement of those claims) without so much as a receipt changing hands. Countries have arisen and been destroyed, merged, absorbed, or otherwise wiped out with not even a scribbled-on cocktail napkin. The Ming only left behind a bunch of royal corpses for the incoming Qing, so it is important not to worry so much about the paperwork. :unamused:

The KMT’s ROC was once the recognized power in China – despite problems with warlordism, it was synonymous with China for a while. Now, promises may have been made about Taiwan and some Japanese soldiers may have surrendered themselves to the U.S. – but the basics were accomplished and the ROC established sovereignty over Taiwan. Receipt or no from the Japanese, Taiwan went back under the umbrella of “Chinese” territories.

Going back to custom and practice, both sides have gotten by with the “one China” concept for decades – shoring up a concept that now would have to be broken by an explicit claim by the Taiwanese (“We are an independent Taiwan!”) or an explicit disavowal by the PRC (“We don’t care about Taiwan anymore!”). If Taiwan makes a declaration, it would need to defend that claim – China would probably try to stake its claim (to the territory of this island) via its military, but it is possible that Taiwan might catch China at a particularly weak moment if its attention is put onto some sort of massive disaster of Three Gorges proportions. Even then, I wouldn’t count on it working. :?

I think we have to look at this from a cultural perspective too.

Let’s look at the British empire which at is base was Great Britain. Ireland was controlled by forced Act of Union in 1803 or so and parliament transferred to London. Scotland before then. This was simply accepted under the principle of force wins. Scotland was more incorporated into the UK because of similar religion and destruction of highlanders. If you read the papers from those times you will see many arguments that because those countries had english settlers etc. it made sense for them to be part of the UK. Of course northern ireland is the legacy but someday maybe the EU federal state will limit this problem.
Large parts of Canada were full of english settlers but they were ceded independence. Australia too. Does this mean because they were once part of the british empire and had british descendants that UK has any claim on them. Of course not.

Taiwan is similar. Although a large part of Taiwan has chinese ancestry what does thim say about being part of China. Nothing! It has no relation whatsoever. Taiwanese have developed without doubt their own culture in Taiwan. They have their own local traditions. There is a hakka, hokkien and aborigine population that has been mixed up pretty well. The main and resurgent language is Hokkien, not even mandarin.
The people are openminded in general. They have unique local religions. They have had at least 100 years of other influences rather than from China. Even when China had dominion over Taiwan it’s influence was very weak. The locals controlled administration. The Japanese and other foreigners used to come here in regular raiding parties and do whatever they liked.

The principle of self determination must be upheld.

If the world can’t accept the issue of self determination for cases like Taiwan because of bullying from powerful countries than that is pretty sad. I say they should build the bomb and fuck the chinese.

If Taiwan’s part of China, then the US is part of Great Britain…

[quote=“headhonchoII”]Large parts of Canada were full of English settlers but they were ceded independence. Australia too. Does this mean because they were once part of the British empire and had British descendants that UK has any claim on them. Of course not.

Taiwan is similar. [/quote]

The precise problem is that Taiwan has neither declared independence nor been granted it. The U.S. exists because it declared independence and then defended itself (twice!) against pansy-assed crumpet-eaters. Canada and Australia exist independently because, frankly, they were too far away for the U.K. to really rule anyways – and so they were granted independence.

Currently, Taiwan and China (no matter how much they each grumble about the status quo not being ideal) both exist under the “one China” principle. If Taiwan wants to be independent, it will need to declare itself independent – or China will have to give up its claims.

I think it’s more like Great Britain is part of the US.

Think about it:
Large empire with two territories A and B.
War between X (old government) and Y (new government)
X is left with territory A
Y assumes control of territory B (but never held territory A)
How can Y claim territory A?

A = Taiwan/England
B = China/America
X = ROC govt/British crown
Y = Commies/American revolutionaries

Another thing.

Independence from who? The PRC? But Taiwan was never part of the PRC. I’m sure there’s a lot of countries out there that have never declared their independence form the PRC. Maybe Taiwan shoudl declare it’s independence from Japan (serious suggestion - how would that annoy anyone).

Brian

Yeah, I know, the declaring of independence and stuff…I just liked my post, even if it is not realistic…=)

Historically speaking, isn’t the Mainland more a part of Taiwan, than Taiwan is a part of the Mainland? The commies did usurp the power in Mainland and KMT had to flee to Taiwan, not the other way around…
And didn’t Taiwan give up the one China policy some time ago?

[quote=“mesheel”]Historically speaking, isn’t the Mainland more a part of Taiwan, than Taiwan is a part of the Mainland? The commies did usurp the power in Mainland and KMT had to flee to Taiwan, not the other way around…
And didn’t Taiwan give up the one China policy some time ago?[/quote]

The KMT fled to Taiwan, which does repeat an interesting history of this island being a place of refuge for the last die-hards of failed regimes to hide out. The Ming dynasty’s Koxinga slipped over here to hide out from the Qing, which succeeded for a little while. However, during the 4 years between retrocession and the collapse of the KMT government, there was enough time of exercizing sovereignty over Taiwan by China that there is no real doubt that Taiwan was pulled back within the fold. Basically, the “one China” policy means that Taiwan has been run by a “Chinese” government for the past 54 years.

Once upon a time, the KMT ideas to retake the Mainland looked good on paper (lots of the best weapons from the US, plenty of $$, still a couple million troops), even if anybody with a lick of sense knew that CKS and his crusty little crew was completely unwelcome to the average Mainland Chinese (and not even all that welcome in Taiwan, as well). Point being that most of the Western world at least figured that the KMT had some shot of reclaiming China from the communists. The communists figured they had a reasonable shot at someday reclaiming Taiwan. Both maintained the concept of “one China” to keep things going.

While Taiwan has renounced its claims to the Mainland, the Mainland has not reciprocated on this point. Both governments maintain the “one China” concept. Today, the “one China” policy basically amounts to Taiwan desiring a freezing of the relationship at the current situation and China keeping up a very steady stream of propaganda that Taiwan has got to reunify one of these days.

Which they just try to make everyone believe in order to justify their claim on Taiwan…

Isn’t the ROC renunciation of it’s claim to sovereignty over the Mainland effectively a declaration of independence? (BTW When was that and how was it done?)

I know that sounds silly, but think about it.

Seeing as Taiwan was never part of the PRC there is absolutely no need to declare independence from them. Japan renounced sovereignty over Taiwan, so there’s no need to declare independence from them. So the only thing that meant that Taiwan was not ‘independent’ was the fact that the Taiwanese government, the ROC still claimed to govern both Taiwan and China. By renouncing their claim over China they were saying that the two are separate territories, thus Taiwan is independent.

Brian