Self-determination is a fruit of independence. If Taiwan requires a “certain degree of independence” in order to decide if it wants to be independent, it will never be independent. Independence is never given or presented or guaranteed; it’s sought after and taken, even seized. Self-determination of a dependent state is a joke.
Independence can’t be granted or given any more than liberty or freedom. These are things that must be earned and chosen. They are not de facto. They are not gifts. They certainly aren’t the norm. People are not born with freedom, liberty, or independence. They are born into an environment that may or may not be free, with liberty and independence.
It doesn’t matter how elegant your reasoning is, because there are a few things you cannot evade:
China cares not a whit about Taiwanese people.
China cares not a whit about its own people.
People are not disqualified from certain political rights just because they haven’t bled for them, unless you subscribe to the rule of the jungle.
Too many Taiwanese have bled for “disqualification” to be relevant anyway.
You imply Taiwanese are not even entitled to choose their future because their will is not triumphant; this reasoning paves the way for a justification of fascism and defends the ability of a vicious autocracy to eliminate opposition using whatever means necessary.
(Edit: You also seem to have little regard for the laws that exist here which would protect Taiwanese from being subjected to a Chinese-style administration, including those that authorize the use of force in event of attack from outside. And, for all its problems, the Taiwanese have a functioning constitution, even if the blue camp still look upon it as just an expendable political tool.)
Pan-blue hallucinations featuring a resurgent “Republic of China” are maintained by an aberrant psychology in which people can say and do outrageously contemptuous things damaging to the confidence of a democracy and never, ever be held accountable. You, sadly, are an apologist for this state of affairs, if you will forgive me for saying so. In any case, for you to so casually refuse Taiwanese even the right to choose any direction reveals such hostility and quiet but calculated ruthlessness toward them that in the end I am left terribly unsettled by your words.
The PRC’s claim as a “successor government” to the ROC is quite firmly based on the recognition of October 25, 1945, as “Taiwan Retrocession Day.”
The ROC’s claim to legitimacy as a “sovereign nation” in the world community is quite firmly based on the recognition of October 25, 1945, as “Taiwan Retrocession Day.”
But both are wrong. If the beginning of the “belligerent occupation” of Formosa and the Pescadores, (well before the post-war peace treaty was drafted, signed, and ratified), can be interpreted as completing a transfer of sovereignty, then Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was fully legal, and other countries have no right to interfere. In other words, the invasion and military occupation of Kuwait transferred the sovereignty of that area to Iraq …
The problem is that international law (in the post-Napoleonic period) clearly holds that “military occupation does not transfer sovereignty.” Hence, without a doubt October 25, 1945, is not “Taiwan Retrocession Day.”
With this realization, the claims of the PRC over “holding the sovereignty of Taiwan,” as the successor goverment to the ROC quickly drop away.
At the same time, the claims of the ROC to “holding the sovereignty of Taiwan” also quickly drop away …
The PRC’s claim as a “successor government” to the ROC is quite firmly based on the recognition of October 25, 1945, as “Taiwan Retrocession Day.”
The ROC’s claim to legitimacy as a “sovereign nation” in the world community is quite firmly based on the recognition of October 25, 1945, as “Taiwan Retrocession Day.”
But both are wrong. If the beginning of the “belligerent occupation” of Formosa and the Pescadores, (well before the post-war peace treaty was drafted, signed, and ratified), can be interpreted as completing a transfer of sovereignty, then Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was fully legal, and other countries have no right to interfere. In other words, the invasion and military occupation of Kuwait transferred the sovereignty of that area to Iraq …
The problem is that international law (in the post-Napoleonic period) clearly holds that “military occupation does not transfer sovereignty.” Hence, without a doubt October 25, 1945, is not “Taiwan Retrocession Day.”
With this realization, the claims of the PRC over “holding the sovereignty of Taiwan,” as the successor goverment to the ROC quickly drop away.
At the same time, the claims of the ROC to “holding the sovereignty of Taiwan” also quickly drop away …
This is indisputably correct.[/quote]
Mr. Hartzell - I read your reply here and your column in the Dec 7 Epoch Times but I am left with a question: Was there a transfer of sovereignty in 1895 when the Qing Dynasty ceded Taiwan to Japan?
The 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed by the Chinese representatives to the peace conference, and ratified by the Qing Emperor … it is 100% valid, and recognized by the world community as being valid.
It was recognized by the ROC as being valid when the ROC was founded in 1912 !!! At that time the ROC fully recognized that “Formosa and the Pescadores” were not part of China.
As to various later pronouncements in the late 1930’s or early 1940’s as to the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki being “cancelled” … that is fine but it doesn’t affect any “territorial cession” or “war reparations” provisions, because those provisions no longer have any continuing validity. In other words, the cancellation of any international treaty only affects those provisions or clauses that have a “continuing validity” at the time of the cancellation …
Many scholars have pointed this out. For example, in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s when the Chinese government announced the unilateral cancellation of the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, did they demand that the war reparations paid to Japan at that time be refunded to China? No, they didn’t … Why? Because “completed clauses” of an international treaty are not subject to retroactive cancellation !!! That is why, and everyone knows that.
“Formosa and the Pescadores” were ceded to Japan, and fully recognized as so by the Qing Emperor, and by the ROC when it was founded in 1912 !!! Any arguments to the contrary are pure nonsense.
Because at the request of the USA, ROC was not allow to ask for war reparation, so not to embarrass the USA on the world stage that their allies in China lost control of the mainland.
Which lead the to Treaty of Taipei, where Japan acknowledged ROC soveriegnty of Taiwan. Due to the fact USA did not want to be embarrassed during the Treaty of SF and acknowledge the fact the USA lost mainland China to the communist.
Any interpretation of this period of history must take into account Cold War motivation and events that was the backdrop of the period.
My Countrymen,
It is true that many want independence and I myself have sometimes dreamed of a great Taiwan-ming-guo. But until that one day we must realize that Mainland China remains one of the world’s most dangerous powers. We can never surrender, but from the chaos I have seen and the divisions of political alignment in Taiwan itself, I fear that Taiwan will rip itself apart. I fear that we are on the course of the China’s of old where division led to their defeats. Unite, People of Taiwan, and work hard to gradually ease ourselves to independence. If we remain valuable enough, other countries will also hear our voice. Innovation is the main hope and unity is the strength from which our nation must rise to the peaceful and independent ROT (Republic of Taiwan) or what have you that we all have dreamt for.
–The Defender Duke
The Treaty of Taipei was a companion to the SFPT and reinforced its terms and nowhere does it contradict the SFPT which gives the USA disposition rights over Taiwan. The ROC is a govt-in-exile exercising effective territorial control over an area(Taiwan) which it doesn`t hold sovereignty and the ToT certainly supports that fact.
The Treaty of Taipei was a companion to the SFPT and reinforced its terms and nowhere does it contradict the SFPT which gives the USA disposition rights over Taiwan. The ROC is a govt-in-exile exercising effective territorial control over an area(Taiwan) which it doesn`t hold sovereignty and the ToT certainly supports that fact.[/quote]
The Treaty of Tapei was cancelled by Japan. It means nothing to Taiwan. Only the Shimonoseki Treaty gave Taiwan and Korean the right to Independence
What does Hartzell’s or anyone else’s “logic” have to do with Taiwan and its present situation? Quote whatever treaty you want if it makes you feel good but the fact of the matter is-
THE WORLD DOES NOT CARE ABOUT TAIWAN
The UN does not recognize Taiwan.
China will never allow Taiwan to become independant.
The USA only supports peaceful REUNIFICATION, not seperation.
“But… but… but… it states in this treaty that…”
THE WORLD DOES NOT CARE ABOUT TAIWAN
Pointing out semantic differences in documents that are decades old will not change the present situation.
[quote=“Masaotakashi”]If the world does not care about Taiwan, then why do foreign corporations do business in our country?
If the world does not care about Taiwan, why are we on the world news?
If the world does not care about Taiwan, why did the US pass the Taiwan Relations Act?
If the world does not care about Taiwan, why does China want it?
If the world does not care about Taiwan, why does Japan want to help us?[/quote]
Corporations take advantage of Taiwan because they can. It has nothing to do with “caring about the people”.
The United States and China skillfully use Taiwan to further their own interests. The Taiwan Relations Act allows the US to profit from the sale of weapons. I have to admit, China and the US really put on a good show scaring the Taiwanese population into thinking they have to buy more and more weapons while at the same time Taiwan invests heavily in the mainland.
The last time I saw Taiwan in the news, here in the United States, was footage footage showing two Taiwanese politicians slapping each other.
Why does China want it? Its already China’s, at least according to the folks at the United Nations.
Why does Japan want to help you? Japan does not want to help you. Japan only wants to protect its interests. The safety and concerns of the Taiwanese people are not on their list.
east asia most certainly cares about taiwan. japan and south korea care about taiwan as far as the situation affects chinese militarization. and, of course, china cares about taiwan…they care enough to point 500 missles at it.
europe couldn’t give a shit about the rest of the world so european apathy about taiwan is par for the course. on the other hand, what has been the biggest news coming out of europe with regards to foreign policy lately? lifting the arms embargo on china. but what’s holding them back? the us position that any arms sold to china might be used against the us in case of war over taiwan. so europe HAS to care about taiwan.
“the world” certainly cares more about taiwan than, say, spain.
so you are very wrong. taiwan commands a disproportinately large amount of attention from the rest of the world relative to its size…BECAUSE of its amgibuous political situation.
[quote=“pres_dabien”]
4. Why does China want it? Its already China’s, at least according to the folks at the United Nations.[/quote]
according to the folks at the united nations, the people’s republic of china did not exist in the 50’s and 60’s and the whole of china was ruled by the kmt from taipei.
[quote=“Defender Duck”]My Countrymen,
[/quote]
Uh, why do you presume that we are all of the same nationality as you?
A blusterous statement that assumes that the PRC is somehow omnipotent. Unfortunately for the mainlanders, they are not the only factor that influences the future of Taiwan.
This seems to be the kind of statement one would hear from a 13 year old observer of cross-strait politics. The only thing the US supports is whatever it deems as being in line with US interests. You seem to be as painfully ignorant of this as those who would declare independence tomorrow if elected to office. For the past few decades, the US has seen maintainance of the status quo as the best way to protect its interests. That is not likely to change overnight.
Do either of you two have anything new to add to the forum, or are you just here to blow hot air? You would do well to browse the threads a bit before posting the same tired (and lame, I might add) arguments that other members have made ad nauseum in the past. They were not new or interesting when they made them. They are doubly boring when you recycle them and post them as if they are something original.
I end to agree. China is developing weapons intended to take on the US. China has deployed nuclear missiles capable of hitting the US. Yes, a strategic competitor all right.
The EU aroms embargo is still in place and should not be lifted, however the French are dying for the arms trade $$$$$ to be had.
Honestly, even you should know that it takes more time to develop something than it does to buy something. You fork over some cash, and after a few months, you have a Sukhoi SU 30 Flanker. You try to develop a modern jet fighter, spend 15 years and have little to show for it.
