The transferring of the title of Taiwan

Politics Taiwan Politics
241

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

Re: Your #7 - From the Juridical Yearbook, the footnote on use of the terms “Taiwan” vs. “Taiwan Province of China” reads: "The designations employed do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or of its authorities.”
I find it odd that the same footnote isn’t used when indicating “Taiwan Province of China”, as NOT doing so indicates that the UN DOES in fact “imply the expression of an opinion on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of a country, territory or area.” Seems to be a rather two-faced opinion expressed in this matter. :ponder: especially considering your other statements that indicate the PRC and ROC are on equal footing with respect to being the “State of China”, wherein “China” means the combination of the territories of the Mainland and Taiwan.[/quote]

On the definitions of government and State, the ROC and the PRC are on equal footing. However, in the quest for government recognition, there is no such thing as ‘equal footing’ for two competing regimes. Recall the axiom that a State can have only one legitimate central government. One either beats, or is beaten by, the other. The ROC beat the PRC in the UN prior to 1972; after that, it was the other way around. The UN has been so explicit in its position regarding the status of Taiwan in #3 of the quoted text. I think it is not obliged to maintain a neutral position on this matter; the footnote is only meant to alert others that the wording by the diplomatic allies of the ROC does not reflect the opinion of the UN.[/quote]

“However, in the quest for government recognition, there is no such thing as ‘equal footing’ for two competing regimes. Recall the axiom that a State can have only one legitimate central government. One either beats, or is beaten by, the other.”
I see this statement conflicting with established fact. Please explain why there are two recognized Koreas during their Civil War, two Sudans, Indonesia and East Timor, bits and pieces of Czechoslovakia, and a whole host of recognized countries of the former USSR.
Why no “One Sudan” policy, “One Korea” policy, “One Soviet Union” policy, etc.?

Why is there an unfair discrimination against the Taiwanese people built into UN “policies” by holding to a “One China (to include Taiwan)” policy, when maintaining such precludes any peaceful resolution to a long-standing conflict?

242

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]
On the definitions of government and State, the ROC and the PRC are on equal footing . . . . . [/quote]
When the ROC moved its central government to Taiwan in December 1949, Taiwan was still sovereign Japanese territory.

By moving out of national Chinese territory, the ROC immediately became a government in exile.

There has been no change in this status to date. The ROC in Taiwan remains as a government in exile, in addition to its original status (beginning Oct. 25, 1945) as a subordinate occupying power.

243

Mr. Ma YJ (President of ROC in Exile) has tried to fan the fire in the Senkaku Islands. Is he under the secret order of US government to do so? Or is he trying to enlist China to stop the US from taking over Taiwan? Things are getting interesting. As a Taiwanese proverb says, bring your stool closer to the stage to see the good show.

244

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

“However, in the quest for government recognition, there is no such thing as ‘equal footing’ for two competing regimes. Recall the axiom that a State can have only one legitimate central government. One either beats, or is beaten by, the other.”
I see this statement conflicting with established fact. Please explain why there are two recognized Koreas during their Civil War, two Sudans, Indonesia and East Timor, bits and pieces of Czechoslovakia, and a whole host of recognized countries of the former USSR.
Why no “One Sudan” policy, “One Korea” policy, “One Soviet Union” policy, etc.?

Why is there an unfair discrimination against the Taiwanese people built into UN “policies” by holding to a “One China (to include Taiwan)” policy, when maintaining such precludes any peaceful resolution to a long-standing conflict?[/quote]

The cases of the two Sudans and Indonesia vis-a-vis East Timor resulted from the different character of the civil wars.
South Sudan strived for independence from Sudan, just as East Timor did from Indonesia . They did not aim to gain control of all Sudan, or all Indonesia. Therefore, their cases are not only those of government recognition, but also state recognition.

North Korea and South Korea are interesting. Like the ROC and the PRC, both claim sovereignty over all of the Korean Peninsula and thus should be considered as two governments of the State of Korea. However, this stance changed unilaterally in 1991, when SK was seeking a UN seat. The following news source shows that NK preferred that unification take place prior to entry into the UN, whereas SK preferred otherwise:

[quote=“South Korea Plans to Seek UN Membership.” South Korea says it intends to seek UN membership before the General Assembly opens its 46th annual session, according to recently appointed South Korean ambassador to the UN, Chang Hee Roe. (910407) ]

North Korea has been consistently opposed to separate U.N. admission of the two Koreas. The communist regime in Pyongyang wants reunification of the two parts before they enter the United Nations as a single delegation.

Addressing the continued opposition by North Korea on the U.N. membership issue, the memorandum stated, “The Republic of Korea, exercising its sovereign right, will take the necessary step toward its membership before the opening of the 46th session of the General Assembly.”

“In seeking U.N. membership, the Republic of Korea reiterates its earnest hope that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will also join the United Nations, either together with the south, or at a time the north deems appropriate,” the memorandum said.

The memorandum also said, "Furthermore, the Republic of Korea holds the view that the parallel membership of both Koreas in the United Nations is entirely without prejudice to the ultimate objective of Korea’s reunification

fas.org/news/skorea/1991/910407-rok-usia.htm.[/quote]

Since UN membership can be granted only to sovereign States, SK’s move was considered as an act of seeking separate Statehood of SK and NK, amounting to seeking State recognition. Afterwards, NK reluctantly joined the UN, in response to its growing diplomatic isolation.

Why is the UN subscribed to the One-China policy? Becauste it was the result of the resolution, which is binding within the UN. Also, it emanated from nowhere other than the ROC itself, which had denied any idea of dual recognition (one State with two seats) for the State of China. The diplomatic allies of the PRC also maintain the policy. How could it ever be possible for the ROC to enter the UN without support from the Member States which are diplomatic allies of the PRC, including the US, Japan, the UK, etc.?

245

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

“However, in the quest for government recognition, there is no such thing as ‘equal footing’ for two competing regimes. Recall the axiom that a State can have only one legitimate central government. One either beats, or is beaten by, the other.”
I see this statement conflicting with established fact. Please explain why there are two recognized Koreas during their Civil War, two Sudans, Indonesia and East Timor, bits and pieces of Czechoslovakia, and a whole host of recognized countries of the former USSR.
Why no “One Sudan” policy, “One Korea” policy, “One Soviet Union” policy, etc.?

Why is there an unfair discrimination against the Taiwanese people built into UN “policies” by holding to a “One China (to include Taiwan)” policy, when maintaining such precludes any peaceful resolution to a long-standing conflict?[/quote]

The cases of the two Sudans and Indonesia vis-a-vis East Timor resulted from the different character of the civil wars.
South Sudan strived for independence from Sudan, just as East Timor did from Indonesia . They did not aim to gain control all of Sudan, or all of Indonesia. Therefore, their cases are not only those of government recognition, but also state recognition.

North Korea and South Korea are interesting. Like the ROC and the PRC, both claim sovereignty over all of the Korean Peninsula and thus should be considered as two governments of the State of Korea. However, this stance changed unilaterally in 1991, when SK was seeking a UN seat. The following news source shows that NK preferred that unification take place prior to entry into the UN, whereas SK preferred otherwise:

[quote=“South Korea Plans to Seek UN Membership.” South Korea says it intends to seek UN membership before the General Assembly opens its 46th annual session, according to recently appointed South Korean ambassador to the UN, Chang Hee Roe. (910407) ]

North Korea has been consistently opposed to separate U.N. admission of the two Koreas. The communist regime in Pyongyang wants reunification of the two parts before they enter the United Nations as a single delegation.

Addressing the continued opposition by North Korea on the U.N. membership issue, the memorandum stated, “The Republic of Korea, exercising its sovereign right, will take the necessary step toward its membership before the opening of the 46th session of the General Assembly.”

“In seeking U.N. membership, the Republic of Korea reiterates its earnest hope that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will also join the United Nations, either together with the south, or at a time the north deems appropriate,” the memorandum said.

The memorandum also said, "Furthermore, the Republic of Korea holds the view that the parallel membership of both Koreas in the United Nations is entirely without prejudice to the ultimate objective of Korea’s reunification

fas.org/news/skorea/1991/910407-rok-usia.htm.[/quote]

Since UN membership can be granted only to sovereign States, SK’s move was considered as an act of seeking separate Statehood of SK and NK, amounting to seeking State recognition. Afterwards, NK reluctantly joined the UN, in response to its growing diplomatic isolation.

Why is the UN subscribed to the One-China policy? Becauste it was the result of the resolution, which is binding within the UN. Also, it emanted from nowhere other than the ROC itself, which had denied any idea of dual recognition (one State with two seats) for the State of China. The diplomatic allies of the PRC also maintain the policy. How could it ever be possible for the ROC to enter the UN without support from the Member States which are diplomatic allies of the PRC, including the US, Japan, the UK, etc.?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

You do understand that the ROC position in regards to a “One China” in no way reflects that of the people of Taiwan. Yes? Indeed, at NO time during the entire 60 years of ROC oppression of the people of Taiwan, were the people ever allowed to vote on the issue, somewhat like they weren’t allowed to vote on becoming a target during WW2 by having the Japanese use the island as a giant unsinkable aircraft carrier. This ROC activity can easily be classified as military occupation, denial of self-determination, and theft of property and territory of a neutral party.

The ROC government under the KMT has always been nuts in regards to this issue, and it still is.

246

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

“However, in the quest for government recognition, there is no such thing as ‘equal footing’ for two competing regimes. Recall the axiom that a State can have only one legitimate central government. One either beats, or is beaten by, the other.”
I see this statement conflicting with established fact. Please explain why there are two recognized Koreas during their Civil War, two Sudans, Indonesia and East Timor, bits and pieces of Czechoslovakia, and a whole host of recognized countries of the former USSR.
Why no “One Sudan” policy, “One Korea” policy, “One Soviet Union” policy, etc.?

Why is there an unfair discrimination against the Taiwanese people built into UN “policies” by holding to a “One China (to include Taiwan)” policy, when maintaining such precludes any peaceful resolution to a long-standing conflict?[/quote]

The cases of the two Sudans and Indonesia vis-a-vis East Timor resulted from the different character of the civil wars.
South Sudan strived for independence from Sudan, just as East Timor did from Indonesia . They did not aim to gain control all of Sudan, or all of Indonesia. Therefore, their cases are not only those of government recognition, but also state recognition.

North Korea and South Korea are interesting. Like the ROC and the PRC, both claim sovereignty over all of the Korean Peninsula and thus should be considered as two governments of the State of Korea. However, this stance changed unilaterally in 1991, when SK was seeking a UN seat. The following news source shows that NK preferred that unification take place prior to entry into the UN, whereas SK preferred otherwise:

[quote=“South Korea Plans to Seek UN Membership.” South Korea says it intends to seek UN membership before the General Assembly opens its 46th annual session, according to recently appointed South Korean ambassador to the UN, Chang Hee Roe. (910407) ]

North Korea has been consistently opposed to separate U.N. admission of the two Koreas. The communist regime in Pyongyang wants reunification of the two parts before they enter the United Nations as a single delegation.

Addressing the continued opposition by North Korea on the U.N. membership issue, the memorandum stated, “The Republic of Korea, exercising its sovereign right, will take the necessary step toward its membership before the opening of the 46th session of the General Assembly.”

“In seeking U.N. membership, the Republic of Korea reiterates its earnest hope that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will also join the United Nations, either together with the south, or at a time the north deems appropriate,” the memorandum said.

The memorandum also said, "Furthermore, the Republic of Korea holds the view that the parallel membership of both Koreas in the United Nations is entirely without prejudice to the ultimate objective of Korea’s reunification

fas.org/news/skorea/1991/910407-rok-usia.htm.[/quote]

Since UN membership can be granted only to sovereign States, SK’s move was considered as an act of seeking separate Statehood of SK and NK, amounting to seeking State recognition. Afterwards, NK reluctantly joined the UN, in response to its growing diplomatic isolation.

Why is the UN subscribed to the One-China policy? Becauste it was the result of the resolution, which is binding within the UN. Also, it emanted from nowhere other than the ROC itself, which had denied any idea of dual recognition (one State with two seats) for the State of China. The diplomatic allies of the PRC also maintain the policy. How could it ever be possible for the ROC to enter the UN without support from the Member States which are diplomatic allies of the PRC, including the US, Japan, the UK, etc.?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

You do understand that the ROC position in regards to a “One China” in no way reflects that of the people of Taiwan. Yes? Indeed, at NO time during the entire 60 years of ROC oppression of the people of Taiwan, were the people ever allowed to vote on the issue, somewhat like they weren’t allowed to vote on becoming a target during WW2 by having the Japanese use the island as a giant unsinkable aircraft carrier. This ROC activity can easily be classified as military occupation, denial of self-determination, and theft of property and territory of a neutral party.

The ROC government under the KMT has always been nuts in regards to this issue, and it still is.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

The people of Taiwan’s sentiments toward One China are different than two decades ago.
The election of the KMT government by the people shows they have voted on this issue.

247

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]
The people of Taiwan’s sentiments toward One China are different than two decades ago.
The election of the KMT government by the people shows they have voted on this issue.[/quote]

:ohreally:
That statement is completely false, and you know it.
NO VOTE ON BECOMING “PART OF CHINA” WAS EVER OFFERED AND COMFIRMED.
You can try to infer anything you want about captured people voting to select someone to speak with the hostage takers, but it does NOT mean they endorsed the captors’ actions in any way whatsoever. :no-no:

You are trying to say a lion freely volunteers to be in the zoo, just because he eats the food he is offered there.

Get off it.

248

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]
The people of Taiwan’s sentiments toward One China are different than two decades ago.
The election of the KMT government by the people shows they have voted on this issue.[/quote]

:ohreally:
That statement is completely false, and you know it.
NO VOTE ON BECOMING “PART OF CHINA” WAS EVER OFFERED AND COMFIRMED.
You can try to infer anything you want about captured people voting to select someone to speak with the hostage takers, but it does NOT mean they endorsed the captors’ actions in any way whatsoever. :no-no:

You are trying to say a lion freely volunteers to be in the zoo, just because he eats the food he is offered there.

Get off it.[/quote]

Since Mr. Ma openly adheres to the 1992 consensus, his voters, being well aware of it, are taken as agreeing to, or at least, acquiescing in, the policy wherein Taiwan and the Mainland belong to the State of China.

249

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“TaiwanTeacher”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]
The people of Taiwan’s sentiments toward One China are different than two decades ago.
The election of the KMT government by the people shows they have voted on this issue.[/quote]

:ohreally:
That statement is completely false, and you know it.
NO VOTE ON BECOMING “PART OF CHINA” WAS EVER OFFERED AND COMFIRMED.
You can try to infer anything you want about captured people voting to select someone to speak with the hostage takers, but it does NOT mean they endorsed the captors’ actions in any way whatsoever. :no-no:

You are trying to say a lion freely volunteers to be in the zoo, just because he eats the food he is offered there.

Get off it.[/quote]

Since Mr. Ma openly adheres to the 1992 consensus, his voters, being well aware of it, are taken as agreeing to, or at least, acquiescing in, the policy wherein Taiwan and the Mainland belong to the State of China.[/quote]

Sure… And the American voters who elected Mr. Bush all voted to start a war in Iraq.
Now, Mr. Ma has already shown several times that what he promised to do after being elected was a total lie.
You cannot state that the people of Taiwan freely endorse a lying cheating scoundrel. How could they know he would do such things?

I still have hope for him, but then again… I’m a lover not a fighter, and a fool to boot.
You, on the other hand, have all your senses about you, yet choose to use them to hurt the innocent for your profit and egocentrism.
Which is more honorable?

250

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“TaiwanTeacher”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]
The people of Taiwan’s sentiments toward One China are different than two decades ago.
The election of the KMT government by the people shows they have voted on this issue.[/quote]

:ohreally:
That statement is completely false, and you know it.
NO VOTE ON BECOMING “PART OF CHINA” WAS EVER OFFERED AND COMFIRMED.
You can try to infer anything you want about captured people voting to select someone to speak with the hostage takers, but it does NOT mean they endorsed the captors’ actions in any way whatsoever. :no-no:

You are trying to say a lion freely volunteers to be in the zoo, just because he eats the food he is offered there.

Get off it.[/quote]

Since Mr. Ma openly adheres to the 1992 consensus, his voters, being well aware of it, are taken as agreeing to, or at least, acquiescing in, the policy wherein Taiwan and the Mainland belong to the State of China.[/quote]

Sure… And the American voters who elected Mr. Bush all voted to start a war in Iraq.
Now, Mr. Ma has already shown several times that what he promised to do after being elected was a total lie.
You cannot state that the people of Taiwan freely endorse a lying cheating scoundrel. How could they know he would do such things?

I still have hope for him, but then again… I’m a lover not a fighter, and a fool to boot.
You, on the other hand, have all your senses about you, yet choose to use them to hurt the innocent for your profit and egocentrism.
Which is more honorable?[/quote]

Your analogy from Mr. Bush does not work at all, because to start a war in Iraq had not been his constant policy prior to getting elected.
On the other hand, the KMT is always known to be pro-unification, so the voters should be held responsible for electing Mr. Ma as President, and therefore taken as agreeing to, or acquiescing in, the 1992 consensus. The KMT’s tendecy toward One China is so obvious that the voters cannot ignore it.

251

Ma has repeatedly said “不 統 不 獨 不 武” - no unification, no independence, no military conflict. That sounds like the status quo to me. As for the 92 consensus, those on the Mainland and KMT don’t even agree what it is. KMT states it means there is one china but the two sides have different interpretation of what that china is, while PRC leaves out the 2nd part. Bottom line is that KMT voters don’t necessarily support the idea of Taiwan being a province of PRC (and few probably do).

252

Ma has repeatedly said “不 統 不 獨 不 武” - no unification, no independence, no military conflict. That sounds like the status quo to me. As for the 92 consensus, those on the Mainland and KMT don’t even agree what it is. KMT states it means there is one china but the two sides have different interpretation of what that china is, while PRC leaves out the 2nd part. Bottom line is that KMT voters don’t necessarily support the idea of Taiwan being a province of PRC (and few probably do).[/quote]

Ma actually said, "no unification, no independence, no military conflict AT THE PRESENT TIME’. He or the KMT never denies Taiwan is de jure part of the State of China. That’s what the consensus is about: both sides belong to the State of China.

Actually, the PRC’s stand is just a manifestation of KMT’s version of the 1992 consensus, since it allows the ROC or the PRC to interpret what that ‘China’ is, a matter again having to do with the representation of China, similar to the issue surrounding UN resolution #2758. It follows that the PRC can claim to represent all of China (including Taiwan). Moreover, the PRC does not take issue with Mr. Ma’s claim that the Republic of China is a sovereign State. That can be taken as a sign that even the PRC accepts, or tolerates, the KMT’s version of the 1992 consensus.

Still, the PRC’s acceptance is merely provisional, as its goal remains to unify China de facto and de jure under the banner of the PRC.

253

[quote=“Hartzell”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]
On the definitions of government and State, the ROC and the PRC are on equal footing . . . . . [/quote]
When the ROC moved its central government to Taiwan in December 1949, Taiwan was still sovereign Japanese territory.

By moving out of national Chinese territory, the ROC immediately became a government in exile.

There has been no change in this status to date. The ROC in Taiwan remains as a government in exile, in addition to its original status (beginning Oct. 25, 1945) as a subordinate occupying power.[/quote]

Depending on which theory to adopt, the ROC may or may not be a government-in-exile.

I’m still waiting for you to produce conclusive evidence that the US is the ‘principal occupying power’ over Taiwan.

254

In regards to Principal Occupying Power…

The Occupying Power
[b]The terminology of “the occupying power” as spoken of in the laws of war is most properly rendered as “the principal occupying power,” or alternatively as “the (principal) occupying power.” This is because the law of agency is always available.

Explanatory Notes: When the administrative authority for the military occupation of particular areas is delegated to other troops, a “principal – agent” relationship is in effect.

The conqueror is the principal occupying power[/b]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_government

The Hague Conventions of 1907 further clarified and supplemented these customary laws. Specifically “Laws and Customs of War on Land” (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: “Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State.”[6] The first two articles of that section state:
[Ref: Art. 23.To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war.]
Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
[Ref. Art. 44. A belligerent is forbidden to force the inhabitants of territory occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about its means of defense.]
[Ref. Art. 45. It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.]
avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century … .asp#iart4

In 1949 these laws governing belligerent occupation of an enemy state’s territory were further extended by the adoption of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Much of GCIV is relevant to protected persons in occupied territories and Section III: Occupied territories is a specific section covering the issue.

Article 6 restricts the length of time that most of GCIV applies:
The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2. In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations. In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.
GCIV emphasised an important change in international law. The United Nations Charter (June 26, 1945) had prohibited war of aggression (See articles 1.1, 2.3, 2.4) and GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains which could be made through war by stating:
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Article 49 prohibits the forced mass movement of people out of or into occupied state’s territory:
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. … The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Protocol I (1977): “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts” has additional articles which cover military occupation but many countries including the U.S. are not signatory to this additional protocol.

In the situation of a territorial cession as the result of war, the specification of a “receiving country” in the peace treaty merely means that the country in question is authorized by the international community to establish civil government in the territory. The military government of the principal occupying power will continue past the point in time when the peace treaty comes into force, until it is legally supplanted.

“Military government continues until legally supplanted” is the rule, as stated in Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, 3rd edition 1914.

Due to the ROC having never engaged in any military action against Taiwan, they had no more right to take it for their own territory than they would have any right to claiming Germany. The US Forces stood as “conqueror” of Taiwan territory.
I suggest that a principal-agent relationship was established in 1945, with the “Allied Forces” as principal, and the ROC as agent. By violating the Hague Conventions of 1907 (notably Art 45), the ROC’s actions constituted acts of war on territory belonging to Japan and against Japanese citizens, and placed the remaining Allied Forces (as Principal) in the position of defending the rights of these Japanese citizens against a party (the ROC) which had reneged on the terms of General Order #1 and overstepped the authority legally alotted to them under applicable international conventions.

General Order #1
a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16° north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._1
Take note that “Formosa” is listed separately as it was NOT considered to be a part of China any more than French Ino-China was, or else the wording would have been: "… forces within China (including Formosa, but excluding Manchuria)…

255

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]In regards to Principal Occupying Power…

Due to the ROC having never engaged in any military action against Taiwan, they had no more right to take it for their own territory than they would have any right to claiming Germany. The US Forces stood as “conqueror” of Taiwan territory.
I suggest that a principal-agent relationship was established in 1945, with the “Allied Forces” as principal, and the ROC as agent. By violating the Hague Conventions of 1907 (notably Art 45), the ROC’s actions constituted acts of war on territory belonging to Japan and against Japanese citizens, and placed the remaining Allied Forces (as Principal) in the position of defending the rights of these Japanese citizens against a party (the ROC) which had reneged on the terms of General Order #1 and overstepped the authority legally alotted to them under applicable international conventions.[/quote]

Being a ‘conqueror’ is not equal to being an occupying power:

Occupation = Invasion plus taking firm possession of the enemy territory [color=#8080FF]for the purpose of holding it[/color]. FM 27-10, Para. 352a.
(Law of War Handbook, p.148)

Since the US has expressly denied any such intention to occupy Taiwan, it cannot be the said occupying power. Note that the wording ‘for the purpose of holding it’ presupposes intention on the part of the occupier. Denial of such an intention disqualifies a State from the position of occupying power.

Also consider:

(1)Invasion: Invasion continues for as long as resistance is met. If no resistance is met, the state of invasion continues only until the invader takes firm control of the area, with an intention of holding it. Invasion is not necessarily occupation, but invasion usually precedes occupation. FM 27-10, Para. 352a. Invasion may be either resisted or unresisted.
(a) Resisted v. Unresisted Invasion. Occupation “presupposes” a hostile invasion -However, a “hostile” invasion may be either resisted or unresisted.
(ibid.)

The US did invade Taiwan, but this fact did not automatically turn it into the said occupying power.
Also, note that the Chinese nationalist army’s arrival can be regarded as an act of invasion, if we follow the following definition:

Invasion is not occupation; it is the mere penetration into enemy territory…
(Law of Belligerent Occupation, p. 25)

Since no one would deny the Chinese nationalist army penetrated Taiwan, their arrival can be regarded as an act of invasion. Also, the Chinese nationalist government had every intention to keep Taiwan, thus qualifying as an occupying power.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
General Order #1
a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16° north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._1
Take note that “Formosa” is listed separately as it was NOT considered to be a part of China any more than French Ino-China was, or else the wording would have been: "… forces within China (including Formosa, but excluding Manchuria)…[/quote]

True, Taiwan was then part of Pacific Theater. And Taiwan was not part of China at that time. However, the surrender ceremony was called 中國戰區台灣省受降典禮, litereally, surrender ceremony of the Taiwan Province, China Theater.

256

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]In regards to Principal Occupying Power…

Due to the ROC having never engaged in any military action against Taiwan, they had no more right to take it for their own territory than they would have any right to claiming Germany. The US Forces stood as “conqueror” of Taiwan territory.
I suggest that a principal-agent relationship was established in 1945, with the “Allied Forces” as principal, and the ROC as agent. By violating the Hague Conventions of 1907 (notably Art 45), the ROC’s actions constituted acts of war on territory belonging to Japan and against Japanese citizens, and placed the remaining Allied Forces (as Principal) in the position of defending the rights of these Japanese citizens against a party (the ROC) which had reneged on the terms of General Order #1 and overstepped the authority legally alotted to them under applicable international conventions.[/quote]

Being a ‘conqueror’ is not equal to being an occupying power:

Occupation = Invasion plus taking firm possession of the enemy territory [color=#8080FF]for the purpose of holding it[/color]. FM 27-10, Para. 352a.
(Law of War Handbook, p.148)

Since the US has expressly denied any such intention to occupy Taiwan, it cannot be the said occupying power. Note that the wording ‘for the purpose of holding it’ presupposes intention on the part of the occupier. Denial of such an intention disqualifies a State from the position of occupying power.

Also consider:

(1)Invasion: Invasion continues for as long as resistance is met. If no resistance is met, the state of invasion continues only until the invader takes firm control of the area, with an intention of holding it. Invasion is not necessarily occupation, but invasion usually precedes occupation. FM 27-10, Para. 352a. Invasion may be either resisted or unresisted.
(a) Resisted v. Unresisted Invasion. Occupation “presupposes” a hostile invasion -However, a “hostile” invasion may be either resisted or unresisted.
(ibid.)

The US did invade Taiwan, but this fact did not automatically turn it into the said occupying power.
Also, note that the Chinese nationalist army’s arrival can be regarded as an act of invasion, if we follow the following definition:

Invasion is not occupation; it is the mere penetration into enemy territory…
(Law of Belligerent Occupation, p. 25)

Since no one would deny the Chinese nationalist army penetrated Taiwan, their arrival can be regarded as an act of invasion.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
General Order #1
a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16° north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._1
Take note that “Formosa” is listed separately as it was NOT considered to be a part of China any more than French Ino-China was, or else the wording would have been: "… forces within China (including Formosa, but excluding Manchuria)…[/quote]

True, Taiwan was then part of Pacific Theater. And Taiwan was not part of China at that time. However, the surrender ceremony was called 中國戰區台灣省受降典禮, litereally, surrender ceremony of the Taiwan Province, China Theater.[/quote]

The territory of Japan was “attacked, invaded, and firmly occupied with an intention to hold it” by ALLIED FORCES. The ALLIED FORCES constituted the Principal Occupying Power, with Commanders of US, UK, Soviet, and ROC forcs acting as AGENTS to receive the surrender of Japanese forces within their assigned areas. Does the ROC title for the surrender ceremony allow for the term to be applied as “Surrender of Japanese forces of the Taiwan Prefecture” in compliance with the directive of the Supreme Allied Commander?
OR…
Did the ROC overstep its authority in Oct '45 by enacting a transfer of territory (an illegal annexation) and declaring its populace to be citizens with allegiance to China (in violation of the Hague Conventions)? I say they did. In effect, they started another war on the defenseless people of Taiwan after the war against Japan was completed.
Remember… Taiwan was part of Japanese Territory PRIOR to hostilies breaking out. It remained so for years afterwards.

257

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]In regards to Principal Occupying Power…

Due to the ROC having never engaged in any military action against Taiwan, they had no more right to take it for their own territory than they would have any right to claiming Germany. The US Forces stood as “conqueror” of Taiwan territory.
I suggest that a principal-agent relationship was established in 1945, with the “Allied Forces” as principal, and the ROC as agent. By violating the Hague Conventions of 1907 (notably Art 45), the ROC’s actions constituted acts of war on territory belonging to Japan and against Japanese citizens, and placed the remaining Allied Forces (as Principal) in the position of defending the rights of these Japanese citizens against a party (the ROC) which had reneged on the terms of General Order #1 and overstepped the authority legally alotted to them under applicable international conventions.[/quote]

Being a ‘conqueror’ is not equal to being an occupying power:

Occupation = Invasion plus taking firm possession of the enemy territory [color=#8080FF]for the purpose of holding it[/color]. FM 27-10, Para. 352a.
(Law of War Handbook, p.148)

Since the US has expressly denied any such intention to occupy Taiwan, it cannot be the said occupying power. Note that the wording ‘for the purpose of holding it’ presupposes intention on the part of the occupier. Denial of such an intention disqualifies a State from the position of occupying power.

Also consider:

(1)Invasion: Invasion continues for as long as resistance is met. If no resistance is met, the state of invasion continues only until the invader takes firm control of the area, with an intention of holding it. Invasion is not necessarily occupation, but invasion usually precedes occupation. FM 27-10, Para. 352a. Invasion may be either resisted or unresisted.
(a) Resisted v. Unresisted Invasion. Occupation “presupposes” a hostile invasion -However, a “hostile” invasion may be either resisted or unresisted.
(ibid.)

The US did invade Taiwan, but this fact did not automatically turn it into the said occupying power.
Also, note that the Chinese nationalist army’s arrival can be regarded as an act of invasion, if we follow the following definition:

Invasion is not occupation; it is the mere penetration into enemy territory…
(Law of Belligerent Occupation, p. 25)

Since no one would deny the Chinese nationalist army penetrated Taiwan, their arrival can be regarded as an act of invasion.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
General Order #1
a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16° north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._1
Take note that “Formosa” is listed separately as it was NOT considered to be a part of China any more than French Ino-China was, or else the wording would have been: "… forces within China (including Formosa, but excluding Manchuria)…[/quote]

True, Taiwan was then part of Pacific Theater. And Taiwan was not part of China at that time. However, the surrender ceremony was called 中國戰區台灣省受降典禮, litereally, surrender ceremony of the Taiwan Province, China Theater.[/quote]

The territory of Japan was “attacked, invaded, and firmly occupied with an intention to hold it” by ALLIED FORCES. The ALLIED FORCES constituted the Principal Occupying Power, with Commanders of US, UK, Soviet, and ROC forcs acting as AGENTS to receive the surrender of Japanese forces within their assigned areas. Does the ROC title for the surrender ceremony allow for the term to be applied as “Surrender of Japanese forces of the Taiwan Prefecture” in compliance with the directive of the Supreme Allied Commander?
OR…
Did the ROC overstep its authority in Oct '45 by enacting a transfer of territory (an illegal annexation) and declaring its populace to be citizens with allegiance to China (in violation of the Hague Conventions)? I say they did.
Remember… Taiwan was part of Japanese Territory PRIOR to hostilies breaking out. It remained so for years afterwards.[/quote]

You have to look into the definitions I provided. The US has officially (through its attorney) asserted that it is not the ‘principal occupying power’ over Taiwan. In other words, it has no intention to keep Taiwan. This fact disqualifies the US from being ‘principal occupying power’. As for the Allied Forces, none of them (except China, of course) has expressed the faintest intention to keep Taiwan. How could they have been the principal occupying power?

By the way, the term ‘principal occupying power’ occurs in the SFPT, and it refers to the US, which was the principal occupying power over Japan, not Taiwan, as the attorney asserted.

Also, recall that on the self-determinatin theory, there was no problem with ‘annexing’ Taiwan. This would be a problem only for the occupation theory.

258

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
General Order #1
a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16° north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._1
Take note that “Formosa” is listed separately as it was NOT considered to be a part of China any more than French Ino-China was, or else the wording would have been: "… forces within China (including Formosa, but excluding Manchuria)…

The territory of Japan was “attacked, invaded, and firmly occupied with an intention to hold it” by ALLIED FORCES. The ALLIED FORCES constituted the Principal Occupying Power, with Commanders of US, UK, Soviet, and ROC forcs acting as AGENTS to receive the surrender of Japanese forces within their assigned areas. Does the ROC title for the surrender ceremony allow for the term to be applied as “Surrender of Japanese forces of the Taiwan Prefecture” in compliance with the directive of the Supreme Allied Commander?
OR…
Did the ROC overstep its authority in Oct '45 by enacting a transfer of territory (an illegal annexation) and declaring its populace to be citizens with allegiance to China (in violation of the Hague Conventions)? I say they did.
Remember… Taiwan was part of Japanese Territory PRIOR to hostilies breaking out. It remained so for years afterwards.[/quote]

You have to look into the definitions I provided. The US has officially (through its attorney) asserted that it is not the ‘principal occupying power’ over Taiwan. In other words, it has no intention to keep Taiwan. This fact disqualifies the US from being ‘principal occupying power’. As for the Allied Forces, none of them has expressed the faintest intention to keep Taiwan. How could they have been the principal occupying power?

Also, recall that on the self-determinatin theory, there was no problem with ‘annexing’ Taiwan. This would be a proble only for the occupation theory.[/quote]

I NEVER stated that the US was the “Princical Occupying Power”, only that they had the only forces that attacked Taiwan PRIOR to the end of hostilities, which might qualify them as “conqueror”.
I gather you choose to ignore my position by arguing a moot point about the ROC being the “principal”, and not in any way providing evidence to discount the basis for my position.
Are you truly trying to now suggest that the ROC defeated Japan all by itself, and could claim any part of its territory they so chose to do?
I see this as a disgustingly ungrateful position you are taking in trying to lend support to the ROC’s violations of international laws which were in effect at that time.

READ IT AGAIN, PLEASE. The “Allied Forces” were the Principal Occupying Power, with the ROC acting as agent on Taiwan. There is no difference between the ROC’s duties and priviledges on Taiwan than there was for any other agent receiving surrender of Japanese forces elsewhere on territory that was NOT (yet) theirs to have.

259

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
General Order #1
a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16° north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._1
Take note that “Formosa” is listed separately as it was NOT considered to be a part of China any more than French Ino-China was, or else the wording would have been: "… forces within China (including Formosa, but excluding Manchuria)…

The territory of Japan was “attacked, invaded, and firmly occupied with an intention to hold it” by ALLIED FORCES. The ALLIED FORCES constituted the Principal Occupying Power, with Commanders of US, UK, Soviet, and ROC forcs acting as AGENTS to receive the surrender of Japanese forces within their assigned areas. Does the ROC title for the surrender ceremony allow for the term to be applied as “Surrender of Japanese forces of the Taiwan Prefecture” in compliance with the directive of the Supreme Allied Commander?
OR…
Did the ROC overstep its authority in Oct '45 by enacting a transfer of territory (an illegal annexation) and declaring its populace to be citizens with allegiance to China (in violation of the Hague Conventions)? I say they did.
Remember… Taiwan was part of Japanese Territory PRIOR to hostilies breaking out. It remained so for years afterwards.[/quote]

You have to look into the definitions I provided. The US has officially (through its attorney) asserted that it is not the ‘principal occupying power’ over Taiwan. In other words, it has no intention to keep Taiwan. This fact disqualifies the US from being ‘principal occupying power’. As for the Allied Forces, none of them has expressed the faintest intention to keep Taiwan. How could they have been the principal occupying power?

Also, recall that on the self-determinatin theory, there was no problem with ‘annexing’ Taiwan. This would be a proble only for the occupation theory.[/quote]

I NEVER stated that the US was the “Princical Occupying Power”, only that they had the only forces that attacked Taiwan PRIOR to the end of hostilities, which might qualify them as “conqueror”.
I gather you choose to ignore my position by arguing a moot point about the ROC being the “principal”.
Are you truly trying to now suggest that the ROC defeated Japan all by itself, and could claim any part of its territory they so chose to do?
I see this as a truly ungrateful position you are taking in trying to lend support to the ROC’s violations of international laws which were in effect at that time.

READ IT AGAIN, PLEASE. The “Allied Forces” were the Principal Occupying Power, with the ROC acting as agent on Taiwan. Thee is no difference between the ROC’s duties and priviledges on Taiwan than there was for any other agnet recieving surrender of Japanese forces elsewhere on terriory that was NOT (yet) theirs to have.[/quote]

It is you who should read it again; the San Francisco Peace Treaty denies the Allied Forces as any kind of ‘Pirncipal Occupying Power’; only the US was; however, even if it was the case, the US was principal occupying power over Japan.

For the Allied Forces to qualify as Principal Occupying Power over Taiwan, every one of them, including, the US, UK, etc. must have the intention to keep Taiwan in the name of the Allied Forces. I gather you choose to ignore this very important keyword; please produce evidence that the Allied Forces had such an intention.

260

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]

It is you who should read it again; the San Francisco Peace Treaty denies the Allied Forces as any kind of ‘Pirncipal Occupying Power’; only the US was; however, even if it was the case, the US was principal occupying power over Japan.[/quote]

Fine. If you want to go with that statement made in 1951, then that means the ROC, being a member of the Allied Forces and acting under the directives of the Supreme Commander, could NOT have been a “Principal Occupying Power” either. They must have been an Invader, making war on the people here…

You admit the ROC “invaded Taiwan” yet I gather you chose to overlook this item as well:
Hague Conventions of 1907
Art. 45. It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.

Your continued and typically Mainland Chinese adherence to the rule that “laws only apply when they are in my favor (and that of the aggressor nation’s authoritarian government which I support)” is becoming a bit overbearing, and is blatantly obvious in its miscarriage of justice.