There was no legal handover – there was no legal retrocession… Japan never ceded Taiwan to China (ROC or PRC)
There was no legal handover – there was no legal retrocession… Japan never ceded Taiwan to China (ROC or PRC)[/quote]
October 25 1945.
Keeping with the earlier context of invasion / occupation, the fact that [quote]General Rikichi Andō, governor-general of Taiwan and commander-in-chief of all Japanese forces on the island, signed an instrument of surrender and handed it over to General Chen Yi of the Kuomintang (KMT) military to complete the official turnover [/quote], it’s plain to see that there was no invasion and occupation of an abandoned colonial nation as in Indonesia / East Timor.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocession_Day
Maybe you can make a point on legal technicalities that it wasn’t legitimate but that should really have been done at the time or soon after. Six decades later and it doesn’t really matter. Even if all your points on sovereignty were proven true, nothing would change. The people of Taiwan are already in control of their country and destiny, and have built a free and open society. That’s not going to change.
[quote=“ludahai”]
It is true that the large Western powers regularly cave to China, but the small states that are Taiwan’s diplomatic allies have far less to lose in alienating Beijing --[/quote]
These states recognize the Republic of China, not Taiwan. Are you now suggesting that the ROC asks one of its few remaining diplomatic allies to put a case before the ICJ claiming that almost all of its national territory is illegally occupied?
You also ignore the fact that the ROC still has 23 diplomatic allies mostly because of US support. Most of the ROC’s diplomatic allies are closely aligned with the US. Without US support, they are not going to do anything to upset the status quo.
So Douglas MacArthur and the newspapers of the time don’t count. Instead we’re using a special definition of occupation, peculiar to this thread.
And I take it that this whatchamacallit (wouldn’t want to use that “O” word) was not forceful in your view; that is, that it did not involve the use of force. All those Chinese soldiers were just hanging out here. Maybe they were on R & R or something.
What relevant clauses? What are the actual clauses you want to interpret? What part of the SFPT are you unclear about that you want the court to interpret? Don’t sidestep the question by saying “relevant clauses”. You can’t go to a court uttering those two words without saying exactly what part of the treaty you want to interpret. So what are the relevant clauses you’re talking about?[/quote]
Read the post linked earlier in this thread… the details are there… your questions have all been answered already[/quote]
I assume this is the clause you’re talking about: “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.”
I’m not sure why you won’t say it. Maybe it’s because the clause just means Taiwan wasn’t transferred and you can’t interpret that as Taiwan independence. But let’s say for the sake of argument, the ICJ looks at that phrase and says “ok, Taiwan shall have self-determination.” This would be the best case scenario for you, right? One that me and other posters have repeatedly pointed out is entirely implausible for a slew of reasons. But that’s just say that’s what happens, Taiwan is “granted” self-determination. Then what? Taiwan already has self-determination, one fact that I have also repeatedly pointed out. This isn’t going to change anything. What Taiwan lack is recognition, a political matter entirely at the discretion of each country and not something you can get in a court.
So why go to the ICJ(or attempt or do so) if nothing is going to change? It would be an entirely pointless political excercise. I think you know this as well as I do. Furthermore, despite saying many times you want to bring the case to the ICJ, I don’t think you even know what the case is, which is why you fudge, sidestep and somehow still claim you’ve answered when you really haven’t, the very simple and basic question of what exactly is the legal issue you want the court to consider. I think you’re just thinking that if somehow Taiwan gets to the ICJ, it’ll return a verdict that’ll somehow transform Taiwan into an de-jure independent country, as if lack of an ICJ ruling is what prevents Taiwan’s recognition from most countries.
But then maybe I have to consider the DPP is known for doing pointless political excercises in the past such trying to join the UN, changing names, or abolishing the Unification council. Just don’t think the ICJ will go along with this charade. It doesn’t get in political fights, it doesn’t even accept cases that are political in nature.
They weren’t pointless at all but reflected popular opinion (though of course blues had to disagree just to be disagreeable) and modern realities. For pointless changes look to the KMT insisting that government workers use the term “mainland china” instead of just the sensible and rational “china” that was used under the DPP. Consider their attempts to bring back irrelevant Confucian studies into the high school curriculum, or their absurd and ugly designation “Taiwanese culture with Chinese characteristics” as opposed to the simple “Taiwanese culture.” The DPP were and are by far the more modern party and consider citizenship to be based on identity with Taiwan and not blood as the KMT under Ma do.
So Douglas MacArthur and the newspapers of the time don’t count. Instead we’re using a special definition of occupation, peculiar to this thread.
And I take it that this whatchamacallit (wouldn’t want to use that “O” word) was not forceful in your view; that is, that it did not involve the use of force. All those Chinese soldiers were just hanging out here. Maybe they were on R & R or something.[/quote]
My use of the word is in relation to ludahai’s claims about East Timor and Western Sahara. Perhaps I should have chosen a better word, but I’m merely trying to make the point that the situation in Taiwan was substantially different to the Indonesian invasion / annexation / occupation of East Timor. The ROC’s arrival in Taiwan was in a vastly different nature than Indonesia’s arrival in East Timor and that’s the context it should be understood under for purposes of this discussion.
There was no legal handover – there was no legal retrocession… Japan never ceded Taiwan to China (ROC or PRC)[/quote]
October 25 1945.
Keeping with the earlier context of invasion / occupation, the fact that [quote]General Rikichi Andō, governor-general of Taiwan and commander-in-chief of all Japanese forces on the island, signed an instrument of surrender and handed it over to General Chen Yi of the Kuomintang (KMT) military to complete the official turnover [/quote], it’s plain to see that there was no invasion and occupation of an abandoned colonial nation as in Indonesia / East Timor.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocession_Day
Maybe you can make a point on legal technicalities that it wasn’t legitimate but that should really have been done at the time or soon after. Six decades later and it doesn’t really matter. Even if all your points on sovereignty were proven true, nothing would change. The people of Taiwan are already in control of their country and destiny, and have built a free and open society. That’s not going to change.[/quote]
You do understand that an Instrument of Surrender is NOT a treaty, right?
There was no legal handover – there was no legal retrocession… Japan never ceded Taiwan to China (ROC or PRC)[/quote]
October 25 1945.
Keeping with the earlier context of invasion / occupation, the fact that [quote]General Rikichi Andō, governor-general of Taiwan and commander-in-chief of all Japanese forces on the island, signed an instrument of surrender and handed it over to General Chen Yi of the Kuomintang (KMT) military to complete the official turnover [/quote], it’s plain to see that there was no invasion and occupation of an abandoned colonial nation as in Indonesia / East Timor.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocession_Day
Maybe you can make a point on legal technicalities that it wasn’t legitimate but that should really have been done at the time or soon after. Six decades later and it doesn’t really matter. Even if all your points on sovereignty were proven true, nothing would change. The people of Taiwan are already in control of their country and destiny, and have built a free and open society. That’s not going to change.[/quote]
You do understand that an Instrument of Surrender is NOT a treaty, right?[/quote]
But it was a legal handover which is the point we’re discussing.
The Hague Conventions/Hague Regulations of 1907 specify that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.”
Oct. 25, 1945, marked the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan territory. Here is a reference from a recent report by the Congressional Research Service – taiwanbasic.com/congress/crs-sinojapan.htm
Of note is that Taiwan remained as sovereign Japanese territory until Japan renounced all right, claim, and title in the San Francisco Peace Treaty which came into force on April 28, 1952. Consequently, when the ROC moved its central government to occupied Taiwan in December 1949, it was moving to non-Chinese territory. By moving to non-Chinese territory it immediately became a government in exile.
The Hague Conventions/Hague Regulations of 1907 specify that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.”
Oct. 25, 1945, marked the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan territory. Here is a reference from a recent report by the Congressional Research Service – taiwanbasic.com/congress/crs-sinojapan.htm
Of note is that Taiwan remained as sovereign Japanese territory until Japan renounced all right, claim, and title in the San Francisco Peace Treaty which came into force on April 28, 1952. Consequently, when the ROC moved its central government to occupied Taiwan in December 1949, it was moving to non-Chinese territory. By moving to non-Chinese territory it immediately became a government in exile.[/quote]
But it wasn’t an invasion which is the whole point we’re discussing. Japan surrendered and basically handed things over to the ROC. In the case of East Timor (which is what these points stem from) Indonesia invaded ET. The former colonial govt (Portugal) didn’t hand ET over to Indonesia, and in fact, opposed the occupation. For it to be the same, Japan would have had to have left Taiwan, then Taiwan declare independence and only then the ROC stage a military invasion and occupation. That wasn’t what happened, which makes the situation in Taiwan completely different to the situation in East Timor. Which is the whole point of the last few pages of discussion between myself and ludahai.
Whether you take the point as 1945 or 1952, the situation is the same.
The Hague Conventions/Hague Regulations of 1907 specify that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.” There is nothing in the circumstances of Taiwan in the 1941 to 1945 period which would deny the applicability of this definition to the situation of Oct. 25, 1945 (the Japanese surrender ceremonies).
Oct. 25, 1945, marked the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan territory. Here is a reference from a recent report by the Congressional Research Service – taiwanbasic.com/congress/crs-sinojapan.htm
The “invasion” (or more properly “military attacks”) against Taiwan were all conducted by US military forces. The military forces of the USSR, France, England, Australia, N.Z., India, didn’t participate. Nor did the military forces of the ROC participate. Hence, the United States has the right and the obligation to occupy Taiwan. The San Francisco Peace Treaty recognizes the USA as “the principal occupying power” in Art. 23(a). The scope of applicability of this status is given by Article 4(b) which discusses United States Military Government jurisdiction.
The ROC’s status in Taiwan as of Oct. 25, 1945 is as “a subordinate occupying power.”
I have a question for you Hartzell. If Taiwan belongs to the US, then what should the US do with it? Clearly there’s no reason to continue the proxy occupation. What do you think the US should do with Taiwan?
This should settle the matter of Taiwan’s status once and for all. After reading this, you should be able to say with supreme confidence, “I have no clue”:
[quote]Nixon: I noticed in the Washington daily news summary, the editorial, they made it to be critical of the fact that there was no mention of the Taiwan Independence Movement.
Nixon: What in the hell is the Taiwanese Independence Movement all about?
Kissinger: It’s not a significant movement now. It’s violently opposed by both the Chinese Governments. Chiang Kai-shek had locked up the leader of the Taiwanese Independence Movement [Peng Ming-min], and he’s now in this country as an exile.
Nixon: I know.
Kissinger: . . . . But I noticed somebody must be feeding that because The New York Times, which never used to give a damn about Taiwan, had an editorial about that last week too.
Nixon: On the independence movement…
Kissinger: Yeah.
Nixon: . . . . That’s so goddamn— have you ever heard of the Taiwan Independence Movement?
Kissinger: No.
Haldeman: No. Not enough to matter.
Kissinger: I can’t speculate.
Nixon: But we haven’t, the other thing, I didn’t see anything in the State Department papers indicating that we ought to support the Taiwan Independence Movement.
Kissinger: Absolutely not.
Nixon: Did we?
Kissinger: No.
Nixon: There’s some kind of flap on it. Did [Secretary of State William P.] Rogers raise that in his—
Kissinger: No. Well, they raised it at—
Nixon: At the end?
Nixon: . . . . What did he say . . . ?
Kissinger: . . . . At the end he did raise it among 500 other nit-picks.
Nixon: What 500?
Kissinger: Well, 18, 15. But in this catalog of nit-picks there was the Taiwan Independence Movement. But our formulation doesn’t even preclude, it states it has to be settled by the Chinese themselves. Naturally the Taiwanese are Chinese.
Nixon: Are Chinese.
Kissinger: If they want to secede, that’s their business.
Nixon: Our private understanding is that—
Kissinger: That we won’t encourage it.
Nixon: We won’t encourage it, that’s all.
Kissinger: We didn’t say we will oppose it either.
Nixon: We didn’t say we will discourage it either.
Kissinger: We didn’t say we’d oppose it. We said we will give it no support. And that’s been our position. We have never given it any support.[/quote]–“Conversation Among President Nixon, his Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger), and his Chief of Staff (Haldeman),” March 13, [color=#000080]1972[/color], in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XVII, China, 1969–1972, Document 212
[quote]Chairman Mao: It’s better for it to be in your hands. And if you were to send it back to me now, I would not want it, because it’s not wantable. There are a huge bunch of counter-revolutionaries there. A hundred years hence we will want it (gesturing with his hand), and we are going to fight for it.
Secretary Kissinger: Not a hundred years.
Chairman Mao: (Gesturing with his hand, counting) It is hard to say. Five years, ten, twenty, a hundred years. It’s hard to say. (Points toward the ceiling) And when I go to heaven to see God, I’ll tell him it’s better to have Taiwan under the care of the United States now.[/quote]Conversation between Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Chairman Mao Zedong, among others, October 21, [color=#000080]1975[/color], in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XVIII, China, 1973–1976, Document 124
[quote=“cfimages”]
But it was a legal handover which is the point we’re discussing.[/quote]
but there was no transfer of sovereignty
[quote=“ludahai”][quote=“cfimages”]
But it was a legal handover which is the point we’re discussing.[/quote]
but there was no transfer of sovereignty[/quote]
So?
So . . . . . .
So the ROC exercises a very large degree of “effective territorial control” over the area of Taiwan, but not sovereignty.
[quote=“Hartzell”]So . . . . . .
So the ROC exercises a very large degree of “effective territorial control” over the area of Taiwan, but not sovereignty.[/quote]
Okay, you think the USA is the real owner of Taiwan, I know that. But clearly there’s no reason to continue this proxy occupation any longer, so what do you think the USA should do with Taiwan?
Come on, Hartzell, why won’t you answer the question? If you’re going to all but do a doctoral dissertation on why Taiwan belongs to the US, you can’t not have an answer to the question of “okay, US owns Taiwan, what then?”