I think you are going to find some pretty difficult points to make a consistent argument.
Assuming that HK is used as a paradigm for the Strait Issue as you suggested, it becomes apparent that it is inadequate upon closer inspection.
The PRC didn’t exist either when the Treaty of Nanjing or Convention of Beijing of 1898 was agreed upon. In fact, the PRC refuse to recognize the “unfair treaties” and the UK claim of sovereignty on HK.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984, which returned HK to China, was the result of PRC pressuring on the UN since 1972 and broaching the topic with Margaret Thatcher in 1982.
In any case, all I care about is that at the end of WWII, in the Instrument of Surrender signed on the warship USS Mississippi in Tokyo Harbor, Japan was held to return Taiwan to China.
People can argue all day about whatever happened to Taiwan afterwards, but unchanged is Japan’s legal obligation to return Taiwan to China.
People who argue that Taiwan does not belong to China are making a huge accusation against Japan. As big as saying Japan didn’t actually surrender in WWII.
Japan most certainly surrendered and they did renounce all claims to Taiwan, but it was not transferred to the ROC. Without a treaty, Beijings claim to Taiwan doesnt hold water.
[quote=“zeugmite”]In any case, all I care about is that at the end of WWII, in the Instrument of Surrender signed on the warship USS Mississippi in Tokyo Harbor, Japan was held to return Taiwan to China.
People can argue all day about whatever happened to Taiwan afterwards, but unchanged is Japan’s legal obligation to return Taiwan to China.[/quote]
The instrument of surrender is a statement of intent with regard to “territorial cession” issues. It does not create any legal obligation in regard to any territorial cession, since that matter will be handled in the post-war peace treaty.
MOREOVER, regardless of whether the instrument of surrender creates a “legal obligation,” or if it is just to be regarded as a “statement of intent,” all clauses and wordage therein are clearly predicated on the REPUBLIC OF CHINA maintaining its LEGAL POSITION as the defacto and dejure government of China.
When the ROC went into exile on Taiwan, it clearly forfeited any rights for Japan (or the Allies) to carry through with their original “promises.”
Hence, in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced sovereignty over Taiwan, but it was not given to the ROC.
With no “international title” to Formosa and the Pescadores, the ROC on Taiwan is of course a non-sovereign entity.
The ROC is now reduced to a label, the DPP party holds sovereignty. The GIO is correct, its merely your ability to interpret English correctly without twisting it, that is under question.
As for the other points, I think the other guys like TaiChungMafia has sufficiently refuted your rather weak points. Just because, as you point out, that the PRC chooses to bury its head in sand and deny things, it doesn’t make the world flat.
Well you are totally within your rights to have that opinion. However, Hartzell and Taizhongmafia legal analysis concludes that the sovereignty of Taiwan still resides with the USMG (US military government.)
They view ROC as a government with administrative rights over Taiwan, not sovereignty. Sort of like the PRC view of UK government on HK prior to the hand over.
In their view the final word on ROC, Taiwan sovereignty, and perhaps de jure independence, resides with the USA. Neither the people of Taiwan, nor the ROC government, nor the PRC government have sovereignty over Taiwan. A very colonial interpretation of events up to present. However, the implications on the Strait Issues are not without merit if used in the proper political climate.
Other than that you are correct this discussion is quite academic in nature.
The only thing farcical is claiming that declarations can override a treaty.[/quote]
Yet there is one thing that overrides all of the above. That is years, centuries of history and tradition. Since there has been a Taiwan, it has been a part of China. You cannot wipe out 400 years of history with the stroke of a pen. The people of Taiwan speak and read Chinese and follow Chinese traditions. They are not Japanese and not Americans.
The only thing farcical is claiming that declarations can override a treaty.[/quote]
Yet there is one thing that overrides all of the above. That is years, centuries of history and tradition. Since there has been a Taiwan, it has been a part of China. You cannot wipe out 400 years of history with the stroke of a pen. The people of Taiwan speak and read Chinese and follow Chinese traditions. They are not Japanese and not Americans.[/quote]
You cannot ignore all the history before that with the stroke of a pen either.
Since there has been a ‘Taiwan nation’ it was never a part of China nor totally owned the Qing dynasty, credit for that goes to the Japanese, the first nation to totally conquer Taiwan. Unlike the Qing rule which suffered uprisings and rebellions every 3 and 5 years the Japanese rule was much more thoughtful, comparitively peaceful, and much more productive. If you think that Taiwan’s rule by China goes credit to the Qing dynasty (which has nothing to do with China of today) which couldn’t even properly manage the island, even less conquer all of it, is one of the weakest arguments I’ve ever heard. Taiwan was a backwater assignment for Qing officials and they left the island whenever they could. Yet this weak argument is used again and again. Keep in mind the Qing dynasty was formed after the Manchurians invaded China. Are you a Manchu?
As for culture? there are starck differences. The funniest one to me is that I don’t really see that many Taiwanese people who name their little toy pets Dragon or Big Lion or something other embarrasingly over-exagerative name. You get names like ‘Cookie’.
Even Taiwanese phreakers are different, unlike Chinese phreakers that like to put pictures of Deng Xiaoping, sweeping armies, and other violent fare the Taiwanese phreakers put Hello Kitty and Batzmaru.
In our Chinese factories the workers just do a job and finish it lack luster. I mean I’ve never ridden a bike that split in half until we built a factory in China.
In Taiwan quality is king and the bikes there are considerably better even though we use the same manufacturing equipment.
I think the biggest difference in culture is Quantity versus Quality. China definitely prefers the former.
I see, the customary naming of pets is the self-evident cultural difference for the case in favor Taiwan Independence.
So you also claim that Qing Dynasty did not control the greater Taiwan territory, but yet had sovereignty to give the territory to Japan in an “unfair” treaty to Japan after the first Sino-China conflict.
T.I.ers make it sound like whoever can suppress Taiwanese and make them obedient get their support. That is the kind of sick morals that typify T.I.ers.
[quote=“product_ako”]I see, the customary naming of pets is the self-evident cultural difference for the case in favor Taiwan Independence.
So you also claim that Qing Dynasty did not control the greater Taiwan territory, but yet had sovereignty to give the territory to Japan in an “unfair” treaty to Japan after the first Sino-China conflict.
1684: April, Taiwan is made a prefecture of Fujian to prevent the island from falling into foreign hands again. Shih Lang cites sulfur as a strategic commodity to retain the island.
Besides this, Penghu was administered even long before that.
When will T.I.ers stop shitting? Does the T.I.er understand what a prefecture of Fujian is?
T.I.ers make it sound like whoever can suppress Taiwanese and make them obedient get their support. That is the kind of sick morals that typify T.I.ers.[/quote]
I never said that I supported Japanese rule over Taiwan, I merely compared it to that of the Qing. This is the kind of sick twisted nature of interpretation and ill-logic that typify ‘Pan-Reds’.
The Qing empire was just one of several foreign conquerors of Taiwan. Youre also right that the Qing hold over Taiwan was tenuous at best until the Sino-French war. The annexation extremists line that "Taiwan was part of China since ancient times" is just ludicrous. It doesnt matter anyway because the sovereignty of Taiwan was not transferred to the ROC after WW2.
Could you please find the post where I made this statement?
If you read my post I use the term “rebellions.” I never alluded to your claim of 1 single rebellion.
Could you please find my post that makes the claim “since ancient times?”
If you believe Taiwan is USMG territory, then USA historical standards apply. 212 years in American history is considered ancient.
If you believe Taiwan to be ROC territory, then Chinese historical standards apply. The cut off point between ancient and modern history is first Opium War. It is clearly stated in ROC syllabus for college entrance exams.
Anyways if you would not confuse my posit with those of Zeugmite, Rabbit Moon, Out of Chaos or cmdjing, it would make the discussion more fruitful.
It makes people precieve you as somewhat off center.
See, if T.I.ers were credible people, and they had problem with “Taiwan was a part of China since ancient times,” the intellectually honest thing to say would be: while China had very early connections with Taiwan, especially Penghu, it was not until the age of European colonization in Asia that the main island of Taiwan was settled in earnest and gradually brought under central administration.
It would not be to say, “Taiwan has never been a part of China” which is more disingenuous than “Taiwan was a part of China since ancient times” and shows T.I.ers to be more unscrupolous with history than the CCP, and weak cowards for not being able to defend their ideology without lies.