It has everything to do with Taiwans present situation and her future. It proves who curently holds Taiwans sovereignty. Despite your belief that the “world doesn`t care about Taiwan”, the PRC will never legally hold the sovereignty of Taiwan without a treaty. This is why the Taiwanese need to seek their US Constitutional rights.
And by what treaty does the PRC hold Tibet? Or the British, Northern Ireland? I think it’s probably Treaty No. 7.62.
They are going to use that same treaty to retake our nation even though it contradicts all of the provisions in the Shimonoseki Treaty 
Taiwans sovereignty was transferred to Japan via treaty and the USA got disposition rights over Taiwan via the SFPT. The only thing that can legally transfer the sovereignty of Taiwan to China is a treaty. Certainly an invasion wont legally transfer Taiwan`s sovereignty to China as Hartzell correctly pointed out.
Taiwans sovereignty was transferred to Japan via treaty and the USA got disposition rights over Taiwan via the SFPT. The only thing that can legally transfer the sovereignty of Taiwan to China is a treaty. Certainly an invasion wont legally transfer Taiwan`s sovereignty to China as Hartzell correctly pointed out.[/quote]
Does that [i]really[/i] matter? Grow up. Take whichever treaty Hartzell can pull up along with 20NT and go to your local 7/11…which do you think will get you a cold Coke? That should show you how much the treaty is worth.
Yes it does matter, it is international law.
International law without a strong enforcer is just text on paper. It is ultimately up to the big players to make the calls, and in this multilateral rivalry we have today means they will place self-interest above anything else.
Strength without the rule of law is thuggery. No treaty=no legal transfer of Taiwan`s sovereignty. Simple
Strength without the rule of law is thuggery. No treaty=no legal transfer of Taiwan`s sovereignty. Simple[/quote]
Welcome to the real world.
I think this will be one of the few times I agree with Comrade Stalin, but these legal obfuscation is bordering on ridiculous. All of the extraneous and might I add, pointless and stupid, interpretations of Taiwan’s retrocession to China are moot. Empty legalism is completly worthless, even more so when it is in fact erroneous. For all the infatuation with the San Francisco peace treaty, none of the self-styled legal experts seem to be interested in the context with which it was drafted, or even signatories. This essay does a fairly thorough job in detailing some of the failings of the treaty gainfo.org/SFPT/aJustPeace.htm .Since you people are so pre-occupied with legal formalism, I would like to postulate that China’s “occupation” of Tibet is perfectly legal as legitimacy is derived from the seventeen point agreementt. Some would argue that such an agreement is non binding because it was signed under duress, but then again, Shimonoseki was signed under similar circumstances when China lost the war to the Japanese aggressors. If you consider China’s occupation of Tibet to be illegitimate, in the same vein the treaty of Shimonoseki was never legitimate to begin with and thus Qing China is the rightful owner. Thus the PRC which is the successor of the RoC which priorly succeeded the Qing dynasty is the legitimate suzreign of Taiwan.
In any case, the core issue today is not the legitimacy of the Republic of China’s claim to Taiwan(which it is :raspberry: ) but rather how to peacefully conclude the legacy of the Chinese civil war, which has been muddied by the emergence of an independent Taiwanese identity. All the scraps of paper in the world won’t matter here in the least bit, because this issue is firmly driven by machtpolitik.
Some would argue that the very nature of rule of law is flawed if it works in favor of the PRC. That the natural order of the world cannot tolerate the peaceful rise of a non-democratic nation.
Even the convulted nature of in which TI tries to put an argument together for their cause is being strained by the reality of the world and how the major power nations have realigned their interest.
In the past, it was simply by sheer military force to determine the fate of a group of people and their land. A treaty would be drawn up by two regimes to trade people and land. This was why people fought for their freedom or became colonized and enslaved.
Do you think that the fate of twenty-three million Taiwanese and their land should be determined by a treaty today? Should the treaties in the past still valid against the will of the people of Taiwan? Of course it is not.
It is still the military force that counts. Be able to protect themselves is the only way for the Taiwanese to preserve their freedom, democracy, equality, and justice for all.
There are many who doubt the “peaceful rise” bs. I for one. If they truly were looking to rise peacefully, there would not be any need for an anti-secession law. There would also be no need to spend the third largest percentage of GDP of any country in the world to modernize the PLA when the money is needed for so many other things…like improving the lives of the 70% of the population that has not truly felt a windfall from the changing economy. China’s peaceful rise is compromised by the actions of its government.
In short: the “world” you are referring to has a right to be wary.
Actually, an anti-secession law is quite peaceful, considering what other options could be used and has been used in the past.
Compare to USA’s “pre-emption” military policy, an anti-secession law is quite mild.
You see even if they succeed in passing the law and we in ROC disagree, no blood is shed, no livelihood is lost, and no life is lost. It is in the realm of a “shadow game” of what we accept as Cross Strait politics.
To understand the desire for this, one only needs to look to how much China spend on defense during the last dynasty prior to the invasion of 8 nations. China for the most part has always practiced diplomacy with neighboring countries; it has been for the most part outside forces trying to invade China for the past few thousand years.
As USA, India, and Russia increase their ability to do war, so must China to keep regional stability.
The masses are usually wrong. A flaw most leaders in a republic use to maintain power.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]
The masses are usually wrong.[/quote]
Which is why Gulags and laogai are ever so useful.
laogai.org/news/index.php
loc.gov/exhibits/archives/gula.html
Of course they practiced diplomacy…but it was not out of a desire to be good peacekeepers. 
In the Chinese world order, they were the center. There was no need to conquer inferior peoples. Times have changed!
Your argument does, however have flaws…many…including the several invasions of Vietnam (not referring to recent history), the retaking of the area around Yunnan province which was an independent kingdom for a few hundred years, the obsession of several Tang emperors with taking Korea, etc. As to the peaceful intentions of the Chinese people, I have personally spoken to a fair share who openly speak of taking the world. Blow out all the hot air you want, but I will believe in China’s peaceful intentions when their government gives me a reason to believe.
As for the peaceful anti-secession law:
thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/ … 9Jp01.html
Paragraphs 1 and 2:
The Chinese government, increasingly exasperated at Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian’s moves towards formal independence from the mainland, has taken to encouraging high-ranking military sources to leak specific plans for an invasion of the breakaway island province.
This follows in the wake of proposed anti-secession legislation before the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee that is designed to provide the legal framework for reining in a recalcitrant province by force if necessary. The legislation is expected to be acted upon when the full NPC convenes in March.
This is old news, literally and figuratively. Peaceful rising? Peaceful intentions? Only if the capitulation comes at the end of a gun.
tomtom taiwan,
Vietnam invasion was a test of USSR-Vietnam relations. Since USSR also wanted to practice their own “China Containment” policy. PRC invaded and left Vietnam only to show USSR was not serious with their new “Whatever it takes” policy to defend Vietnam policy.
It was the period of time with PRC and USSR relationship was strained over various issue, which the USA took advantage of later on, when USA “tried oh so hard” to keep ROC in the UN.
Relatively speaking if you look to Mongolia and Tibet, PRC has been quite peaceful in the way they have advertising their intention towards Taiwan. One can still debate and legislate laws in a peaceful manner. If Taiwan was truly at the “end of a barrel of a gun,” ROC would have signed another Unequal Treaty by now.
AC,
You did not read my post carefully. I specifically said that I was not referring to modern history. :raspberry:
I was referring to Dai Viet, the Vietnamese kingdom that had been conquered by China but won its independence in the 10th century (Song Dynasty). I am referring 1) To the original Chinese occupation. 2) To the massive attack the Song prepared to take back the region. Here, the Tran Dynasty forestalled them by destroying their border posts across the Chinese border before the Chinese armies could attack. When the Song did finally attack, it was a disaster.
So the Song were not exactly completely peace loving.
And, as I pointed out, neither were the Tang.
Please brush up on your history, AC.
Vietnam is not really a great example of an Independent Nation State for Taiwan to follow. Even in the context of pre-Opium War history.
For starters Vietnam never got to far way from Chinese culture. Only the Ly monarchs called their country Dai Viet. But everything else was still called Annam, the Chinese name for the area.
Even after when Champa and Vietnam were able survive the Mongolian (Yuen) dynasty, the succeeding Tran Dynasty, basically handed over Vietnam to China, in return for helping the Tran to suppress revolts in their own country.
The point being there is a historical reason for why PRC wishes Taiwan islands to be under their sphere of influence. If you want to blueprint for independence of Taiwan, might I recommend Singapore history.
Basically have the larger group reject us and kick us out of the union after they accepted us.
LOLOLOL…I C. You can’t respond to the point at hand, so you create another.
The point was that China is not necessarily a peace-loving country. (Remember your “Peaceful Rising” comments???) Their long history is marked by wars…many of which they initiated. Who was using Vietnam as an example of Taiwan’s situation?
Unlike you, I don’t evade the point so easily.
Sorry, AC, your argument, as I said before is still full of holes, no matter what tangents you want to introduce.