This is a common argument, as the Taipei Times points out:
I like your analysis of the situation DB, but have a couple of points for you to ponder.
The ROC military did not defeat the Japanese (did they even fight the Japanese in WW2?). The US allowed ROC officials to accept the surrender of Japanese forces on Taiwan on their behalf as (1) they were too busy with more important things, and (2) to give CKS a little face.
The signing of the SFPT was not even attended by representatives of the ROC, which is odd if they were the beneficiaries.
The SFPT, if giving or confirming the ROC sovereignty over Taiwan, would have had wording to that effect rather than some vague blurb about future dispostion according to UN charter.
The Potsdam Declaration is just that, a declaration. It does not and cannot override a treaty.
It seems to me that with every treaty or declaration or communique, Taiwan’s real status becomes increasingly obfuscated.
I’ve heard the nations of the world compared to the man in the state of nature. The strongest does whatever they want and feel is right and the weakest perish. That is, until they gang together for safety.
let’s say you are in the state of nature you have an apple tree. Somebody comes along and beats you within an inch of your life and says, “tell you what, all I want is the apple tree. I may come and take more from you later, but you give me the apple tree and I will let you go until, let’s say Thursday.”
Sometime on Wednesday a bigger someone (and a couple friends) comes along and beats that guy within an inch of his life. They say, “You have to give back everything you took from any of us. Concerning that apple tree you took from that dude over there, well, we’ll figure out what to do with it later, but you can’t have it. Agree or die.” He agrees.
In the state of nature, what happens to the apple tree? It sits there.
There’s no police in the state of nature. You just have agreements. The agreement that took Taiwan back away from Japan is just as much a gun to the head as the one that took Taiwan from the Qings. Now you and I think our gun to the head is the gun to the head of justice. Vigilante justice, but justice.
Right now the closest thing we have to a “police force” is the UN, and that with all the criticism of that divided world body. There is only the most tenuous of civilizations in this world of nations. Nothing I see says that the analogy with the policeman giving back the property stands when it comes to countries. We’re still at the stage where might makes right, or at least dictates what’s really going to happen.
Does anyone really believe that there will be a “peaceful reunification” between Taiwan and China? Or it is simply that Taiwan will be taken over by China? China doesn’t want to reunify Taiwan. It only wants to take Taiwan back, as China and pan-blue say “Taiwan is a part of China”.
Fine, if you do have wishful thinking about reunification, can you be sure that China still wants to reunify Taiwan in the future? What if China is split into seveal parts someday, due to inner wars or political disruption. What can you do if some provinces want to declare independence?
Why should we bother ourselves? Why can’t we put all our love and care toward our mother Taiwan? Why should we force ourselves to marry a knave who threatens us all the time? Do we really want to be idiots?
[quote=“zeugmite”]I would choose 1. I do not believe in unwanted reunification by force, especially if it can be the case that in independence there will be a truly mutually beneficial relationship with mainland China.
If you want to understand me better, then simply count me as someone who believes it is for all Chinese to agree on a mutually beneficial solution. What I oppose is not so much Taiwan independence, but Taiwan independence in the face of opposition by nearly all mainland Chinese, and the notion that they don’t matter at all.[/quote]
Thanks for answering zeugmite. I am waiting to see what ac says. I think your answer opens up a couple of interesting debates though.
- Why those on the mainland should have any say on the issue?
- The possibility that a secure and independent taiwan might actually be far better for China than continuing the stunted relatioship that exists at the moment even if it leads to eventual union.
All Chinese to agree on a mutually beneficial solution – aside from being the right conclusion from a frank examination of history, this is also the most pragmatic, most sensible, and hence most accepted part of the official policy on the Taiwan straits issue in the vast majority of the countries of the world.
That’s a non-starter. An independent Taiwan could never be secure without continuing or expanding the destabilizing relationship between US/Japan, and the remaining China. A stalemate (you call it a stunted relationship) is obviously now a cooperative equilibrium between US/Japan and China.
All Chinese to agree on a mutually beneficial solution – aside from being the right conclusion from a frank examination of history, this is also the most pragmatic, most sensible, and hence most accepted part of the official policy on the Taiwan straits issue in the vast majority of the countries of the world.
That’s a non-starter. An independent Taiwan could never be secure without continuing or expanding the destabilizing relationship between US/Japan, and the remaining China. A stalemate (you call it a stunted relationship) is obviously now a cooperative equilibrium between US/Japan and China.[/quote]
-
I disagree. Deciding Taiwan’s role in the world whether as a subregion of China or an independent Taiwan is Taiwan’s internal matter that should only be decided by the Taiwanese.
-
An independent Taiwan could never be secure with China threatening it with an invasion. Taiwanese has not shown any aggression throughout history. Perhaps, Taiwan’s independence may destabilize the relationship between US/Japan/China, but it is US/Japan and China’s responsibility for this situation and Taiwan should not be blamed for merely having a voice.
Well, we can disagree. You’ll notice the striking difference in emphasis between the idealistic grandeur of your should’s vs. the practical reality of my is’s.
hahahahahaha…
I don’t recall the last time you uttered a practical thought.
The world is flat.
People should not refuse to accept points of view other than their own.
Since when is X=Y correct just because someone wrote in an equal sign?
False reasoning at its finest.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]. . . . As the Taipei Times points out:
Really? You must have a visa issued by PRC to enter Taiwan then?!
And…when did UN announce the PRC owns Taiwan?
Just curious…
Really? You must have a visa issued by PRC to enter Taiwan then?!
And…when did UN announce the PRC owns Taiwan?
Just curious…[/quote]
Oh pshaw, not this again. You signed up just to cut-and-paste some shit from your TI Bible to refute a banned user from two pages ago?
Really? You must have a visa issued by PRC to enter Taiwan then?!
And…when did UN announce the PRC owns Taiwan?
Just curious…[/quote]
Oh pshaw, not this again. You signed up just to cut-and-paste some shit from your Taiwan independence Bible to refute a banned user from two pages ago?[/quote]
Two pages ago? …sorry didn’t notice…
and is there a “taiwan independence Bible”?!..never heard of it either…
…really…when did UN announce the PRC owns Taiwan? I really never heard of it…I believe UN didn’t annouce the PRC owns Taiwan or not…
All I want to say is that…whoever wants PRC owns Taiwan or the other way…please look at the “fact”.
BTW, no, i didn’t sign up for talking on this forum…but after your post, I wouldn’t think about whether or not I should even bother to talk on any of these forums again…
Thank you…
So Dragonbones has no problem that it was also a treaty that gave Hong Kong back to the PRC? So why does he not complain about that treaty but complains about the Treaty of Shimoneski? They were both written under the same instances.
Could you please elaborate?
Treaties are the only binding law since they make up international law, not declarations or other documents. Treaties are not to be broken.
It was a treaty that gave Hong Kong back to China from the British.
It was a treaty in which China gave away Taiwan in perpetuity.
Both were signed when China was in a disadvantage militarily, ‘under the gun’ so to speak.
So how come the CCP and the majority of its people approve of the first treaty but choose to dismiss the second one? You can’t choose and pick, its a take it or leave it deal.
Break a treaty and risk having everything lost.
Let’s side step Japanese surrender in WWII, the Cario Accord, and the SFPT. Where Japan surrendered Taiwan and for unknown reasons (i.e. Chinese Civil War) the legal entity of China was never named.
In this world, the Taipei Treaty was still broken by Japan unilaterally so that Japan could officially recognize PRC and adhere to the
Hmmmm, do I detect in product_ako the second coming of ac_dropout? Welcome back, dude!
Product Ako, you cannot sweep aside treaties and ignore them which was one of the complaints I wrote in the very statement.
Just like you learn in the first month of International Law 101, treaties if defined by countries instead of government means the government ruling the country at the time, not whoever owns the majority of the country in the future. The government entity that comes anew does not automatically gain the territory in said treaty especially if the existing government in the said treaty still exists.
For example, it was impossible to give Taiwan to the PRC/CCP during the time the Cairo Declaration was written because the PRC/CCP did not exist. Instead the property was handed over to the ROC/KMT which has since fled and controlled Taiwan. If lets say the ROC/KMT ceased to exist and no new governments control Taiwan, then yes it will fall under 2 situations. The first is the people get to decide, and secondly the PRC/CCP then can have a better claim to the island although they’d need to either force or negotiate an agreement with the people of Taiwan first.
Example Two: If America successfully invades China in the future, they do not automatically gain Taiwan especially since there is already an existing government entity on the island.
Let’s stop this farcical line of reasoning now. International Law is oxymoronic. Next!