The transferring of the title of Taiwan

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”][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.[/quote]

The Chinese nationalist government was only directed to accept Japanese surrender in Taiwan, but not to occupy Taiwan in the name of the USA or the Allied Forces whatsoever. Actually, the Allied Forces did not object to its occupying Taiwan either.

Was coming to Taiwan to accept Japanese surrender equal to coming to occupy Taiwan in the name of the US or the Allied Forces? NO.

Again, you choose to ignore the very important keyword INTENTION; please produce evidence that the Allied Forces as a whole had such an intention to qualify as occupying power over Taiwan. The only country that had such an intention was China.

Let me put it in this way:

  1. The SFPT denies the Allied Forces as any kind of ‘principal occupying power’.

  2. The said treaty affirms the US as ‘Principal Occupying Power’.

  3. The US attorney asserted that the US was the principal occupying power over Japan, not Taiwan.

But…

Nothing in the above precludes the possibility that the ROC was THE occupying power over Taiwan. You have to go back to the very definitions of occupation and invasion.

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

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.

Which country did show the intention to occupy Taiwan? The Republic of China!

Which country invaded Taiwan (besides the USA)? The Republic of China!
(Recall that invasion is the mere penetration into enemy territory.)

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

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.[/quote]

Overlooked? Well, I think the answer has been provided throughout this thread, so I didn’t bother to give it again. Anyway, here’s the answer:

On the self-determination theory, there would be no violation of the Hague Convention whatsoever; on this theory, the people of Taiwan joined the ROC by their own will. It has to be admitted, though, that the issue of conflict between self-determination and the nominal sovereignty ofJapan over Taiwan remains. Whether one outranks the other is an interesting issue. However, if we examine the situation more closely, we can see that there was no compulsion of any sort in 1945; the people of Taiwan willingly joined the ROC, by activly participating in the local elections. The 2.4 million voters were not ‘compelled’ to do that. Thus no violation of Art. 45 of the Hague Conventions.

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

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.[/quote]

Overlooked? Well, I think the answer has been provided throughout this thread, so I didn’t bother to give it again. Anyway, here’s the answer:

On the self-determination theory, there would be no violation of the Hague Convention whatsoever; on this theory, the people of Taiwan joined the ROC by their own will. It has to be admitted, though, that the issue of conflict between self-determination and the nominal sovereignty ofJapan over Taiwan remains. Whether one outranks the other is an interesting issue. However, if we examine the situation more closely, we can see that there was no compulsion of any sort in 1945; the people of Taiwan willingly joined the ROC, by activly participating in the local elections. The 2.4 million voters were not ‘compelled’ to do that. Thus no violation of Art. 45 of the Hague Conventions.[/quote]

You have an interesting definition of “compel”.
Please explain how 2.4 million citizens of Japan on Japanese soil had become Chinese citizens who were “allowed” to vote.
I say that they were presumed to BE Chinese citizens by the ROC, and the territory already claimed without any authority to do so. The vote was imposed in an attempt to add validity to this presumption. As no other option was ever offered for the Taiwanese to express their will, and the populace was not fully informed that participation in electing persons to speak on their behalf with the leadership of an “invading military force” might make them stateless and landless persons, this does not constitute an act of “self-determination”. Rather, it is an act of self-preservation conducted under duress. They were compelled to participate in an illegal election.

I offer you a simple choice:
I see you are starving, and I control the means of food production and distribution.
Now, you can consume food laced with fast-acting Poison A (containing dissent) or slow-acting Poison B (containing complacency) to survive for now, but you will ultimately not survive either without an antidote, and I presently hold an antidote for only one of them.
I see that you have selected Poison B by expression of your free will. We take note of your decision to follow my ‘leadership’ in this matter. Here is another ration of food.
Let’s just give it some time, and we shall see how things turn out…
Those who continue to cooperate further will (eventually) qualify to receive the antidote for Poison B, if I can develop one.
The antidote for Poison A’s cruel effects was available. It’s labelled “White Terror”.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

You have an interesting definition of “compel”.
Please explain how 2.4 million citizens of Japan on Japanese soil had become Chinese citizens who were “allowed” to vote.
I say that they were presumed to BE Chinese citizens by the ROC, and the territory already claimed without any authority to do so.[/quote]

The ROC, eager to take back Taiwan, presumed them to be Chinese citizens. That’s true. If the peopple of Taiwan had not consented to it, there would have been a problem. Since neither Japan nor the people of Taiwan objected to it, I see no problem with it. The incorporation of Taiwan into the ROC required not only actions by the ROC, but also actions by the people of Taiwan. Lacking actions by either party would not have resuled in the incorporation.

As for whether the ROC ‘had any authority’ to do so, the matter had to be settled by considering three parties: ROC, the people of Taiwan, and Japan. Since Japan was then the original sovereign, it would have the authority to make the decision. What did it do? Japan acquiesced in the ROC’s takeover, in much the same as a State acquired title to a land via prescription. Such a State had no ‘authority to do so’, but if no relevant party objected to this act, then its takeover could be legitimized. This is one of the arguments Japan put forward to defend its sovereignty over the Senkakus. It claims that even if China was the sovereign of those islands prior to 1895, China effectively lost its sovereignty because it did not object to Japan’s incorporation.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
The vote was imposed in an attempt to add validity to this presumption. As no other option was ever offered for the Taiwanese to express their will, and the populace was not fully informed that participation in electing persons to speak on their behalf with the leadership of an “invading military force” might make them stateless and landless persons, this does not constitute an act of “self-determination”. Rather, it is an act of self-preservation conducted under duress. They were compelled to participate in an illegal election.[/quote]

No other option offered to the Taiwanese? It was the people of Taiwan themselves, no the the ROC, who should provide other options. At that time, there was no record at all of the people of Taiwan forming a civil government. If they really had wanted to form ‘the Nation of Taiwan’, they could have done that in the manner their ancestors had established the ‘Democratic Nation of Taiwan’ in 1895, in the face of Japanese takeover.

Instead, records available only show people actively participated in the elections in 1945; there was no coercion or duress whatsoever. If you think they were compelled to vote under ‘duress’, the burden of proof lies on you.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

I offer you a simple choice:
I see you are starving, and I control the means of food production and distribution.
Now, you can consume food laced with fast-acting Poison A (containing dissent) or slow-acting Poison B (containing complacency) to survive for now, but you will ultimately not survive either without an antidote, and I presently hold an antidote for only one of them.
I see that you have selected Poison B by expression of your free will. We take note of your decision to follow my ‘leadership’ in this matter. Here is another ration of food.
Let’s just give it some time, and we shall see how things turn out…
Those who continue to cooperate further will (eventually) qualify to receive the antidote for Poison B, if I can develop one.
The antidote for Poison A’s cruel effects was available. It’s labelled “White Terror”.[/quote]

Yet this starving person has another choice; he can find food for himself, without accepting any choice containing Poison A or B. Can he complain that the giver of food only offers poisonous food? Why can’t this starving person produce food for himself, when under the same conditions his ancestors have done the same? In fact, if he finds food for himself, he won’t even need to make the choice between Poison A and Poison B.

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

You have an interesting definition of “compel”.
Please explain how 2.4 million citizens of Japan on Japanese soil had become Chinese citizens who were “allowed” to vote.
I say that they were presumed to BE Chinese citizens by the ROC, and the territory already claimed without any authority to do so.[/quote]

The ROC, eager to take back Taiwan, presumed them to be Chinese citizens. That’s true. If the peopple of Taiwan had not consented to it, there would have been a problem. Since neither Japan nor the people of Taiwan objected to it, I see no problem with it. The incorporation of Taiwan into the ROC required not only actions by the ROC, but also actions by the people of Taiwan. Lacking actions by either party would not have resuled in the incorporation.

As for whether the ROC ‘had any authority’ to do so, the matter had to be settled by considering three parties: ROC, the people of Taiwan, and Japan. Since Japan was then the original sovereign, it would have the authority to make the decision. What did it do? Japan acquiesced in the ROC’s takeover, in much the same as a State acquired title to a land via prescription. Such a State had no ‘authority to do so’, but if no relevant party objected it, then its takeover could be legitimized. This is one the arguments Japan put forward to defend its sovereignty over the Senkakus. It claims that even if China was the sovereign of those islands prior to 1895, China effectively lost its sovereignty because it did not object to Japan’s incorporation.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
The vote was imposed in an attempt to add validity to this presumption. As no other option was ever offered for the Taiwanese to express their will, and the populace was not fully informed that participation in electing persons to speak on their behalf with the leadership of an “invading military force” might make them stateless and landless persons, this does not constitute an act of “self-determination”. Rather, it is an act of self-preservation conducted under duress. They were compelled to participate in an illegal election.[/quote]

No other option offered to the Taiwanese? It was the people of Taiwan themselves, no the the ROC, who should provide other options. At that time, there was no record at all of the people of Taiwan forming a civil government. If they really had wanted to form ‘the Nation of Taiwan’, they could have done that in the manner their ancestors had established the ‘Democratic Nation of Taiwan’ in 1895, in the face of Japanese takeover.

Instead, records available only show people actively participated in the elections in 1945; there was no coercion or duress whatsoever. If you think they were compelled to vote under ‘duress’, the burden of proof lies on you.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

I offer you a simple choice:
I see you are starving, and I control the means of food production and distribution.
Now, you can consume food laced with fast-acting Poison A (containing dissent) or slow-acting Poison B (containing complacency) to survive for now, but you will ultimately not survive either without an antidote, and I presently hold an antidote for only one of them.
I see that you have selected Poison B by expression of your free will. We take note of your decision to follow my ‘leadership’ in this matter. Here is another ration of food.
Let’s just give it some time, and we shall see how things turn out…
Those who continue to cooperate further will (eventually) qualify to receive the antidote for Poison B, if I can develop one.
The antidote for Poison A’s cruel effects was available. It’s labelled “White Terror”.[/quote]

Yet this starving person has another choice; he can find food for himself, without accepting any choice containing Poison A or B. Can he complain that the giver of food only offers poisonous food? Why can’t this starving person produce food for himself, when under the same conditions his ancestors have done the same? In fact, if he finds food for himself, he won’t even need to make the choice between Poison A and Poison B.[/quote]

You missed the part “I control the means of food production and distibution.”

You have also conveniently overlooked what I shall refer to as “conscientious objectors” who did NOT vote, refusing to be a part of the group who were pre-emptively labelled “ROC citizens” (An ROC act in violation of the Hague Conventions) or simply not being allowed to participate because they were against the ROC takeover. Let’s guestimate that amount… 6.9 million Taiwanese in '45; normal demographic places ~33% under voting age; = 4.6 million voting age consituents. This gives me 2.2 million who abstained from voting, to your 2.4 million who presumably freely expressed the desire to be ROC citizens, although they had no choice to vote for their own government, and had little access to food, work, or transportation that was not already under the control of the puppet people pushing a ballot in their faces. One might also wish to determine what percentage of the Taiwanese could even READ a ballot (I’d love to see a copy; were they written in Japanese?), or even understand the meaning of it. Might anyone from the ROC have “assisted” the Taiwanese in filling them out to the ROC’s satisfaction? We won’t even consider how much vote buying and fraud went on (oh my!), especially in light of the KMT being famous for engaging in such activities ever since it took over, continuing up to the last election. :ponder: No track record of criminal behavior there, eh? :whistle:

Regarding a Taiwanese Civil government: Per instructions of the Allied Command, Japanese civil servants were to remain at their posts until relieved by agents of the “occupying forces” or designated persons from the resident population. It was NOT intended that they were to be supplanted by the immediate installation of an unauthorized Provincial Government created by an agent only pretending to be acting on behalf of the Allied Forces. The ROC came up with that violation on their own.

Furthermore, the Japanese could not possibly object to the goings on in Taiwan, as their government had surrendered unconditionally.

Do you truly believe that the ROC firmly adhered to International Laws until such time as they could legally transfer sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC, or does the evidence that they invaded in force and stole the territory while they were supposed to be protecting the people there now seem a bit overwhelming?

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
You missed the part “I control the means of food production and distibution.” [/quote]

No. I believe that is another mis-analogy of yours. In 1945, the ROC could not prevent any attempt by the Taiwanese to form a civil government, any more than the Japanese could prevent the founding of the Democratic Nation of Taiwan in 1895. The choice always remains with the people of Taiwan. The difference between Taiwan in 1945 and 1895 was simply that the people chose to form a government of their own in 1895, though not in 1945.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
You have also conveniently overlooked what I shall refer to as “conscientious objectors” who did NOT vote, refusing to be a part of the group who were pre-emptively labelled “ROC citizens” (An ROC act in violation of the Hague Conventions) or simply not being allowed to participate because they were against the ROC takeover. Let’s guestimate that amount… 6.9 million Taiwanese in '45; normal demographic places ~33% under voting age; = 4.6 million voting age consituents. This gives me 2.2 million who abstained from voting, to your 2.4 million who presumably freely expressed the desire to be ROC citizens, although they had no choice to vote for their own government, and had little access to food, work, or transportation that was not already under the control of the puppet people pushing a ballot in their faces.[/quote]

The so-called conscientious objecters cannot invalidate the elections; there are always people who refuse to vote as a form of protest against the corrupt election system in Taiwan, but that does not invalidate the results of the elections. Also, it is difficult to ascertain why they did not vote. Were they too old to go to the ballot booth? Or were they indifferent to the results of the elections (like some young people these days)? Failure to object is taken as tacit consent to the results of the elections, just as Japan’s claim over the Senkakus could not be invalidated just because China claimed to be a ‘conscientious objector’ when it failed to contest a claim by Japan in time . Also, It is wishful thinking to assume that they were ‘conscientious objectors’ who refused to be ROC citizens, and again, the burden of proof lies with the person who makes such an assumption.

Btw, the 6.9 million actually included Japanese officials and their familiies. The accurate figure should be 6.56 million. Also, in 1940 the figure was 6.08 million. This shows that birth rates were exceedingly high at that time, and there were much fewer qualified voting-age consituents in 1945 than you might expect.

www2.pccu.edu.tw/CRUCTE/Hs-geogr … og_4_2.htm

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
One might also wish to determine what percentage of the Taiwanese could even READ a ballot (I’d love to see a copy; were they written in Japanese?), or even understand the meaning of it. Might anyone from the ROC have “assisted” the Taiwanese in filling them out to the ROC’s satisfaction? We won’t even consider how much vote buying and fraud went on (oh my!), especially in light of the KMT being famous for engaging in such activities ever since it took over, continuing up to the last election. :ponder: No track record of criminal behavior there, eh? :whistle: [/quote]

Han Chinese studies during the period of Japanese rule were not prohibited. The book entitled The General History of Taiwan, authored by the grandfather of Zhan Lian, was written in Chinese and published in that period and even prefaced by one Japanese official at that time. This means that the people could read in written Chinese, a fact supported by writers born during the period, such as Zhuo Liu Wu.

It is very interesting to note that you’ve raised some doubts about the legitimacy of the voting processes in exactly the same way the ROC government cast doubts on the plebiscite held in Mongolia; there was suspicion that most people in Outer Mongolia were illiterate, and the Russians ‘assisted’ the Mongols in filling the form to the satisfaction of the Soviet Union. But so what? As soon as the process was complete, Mongolia became a sovereign State. The ROC cannot contest the result.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
Regarding a Taiwanese Civil government: Per instructions of the Allied Command, Japanese civil servants were to remain at their posts until relieved by agents of the “occupying forces” or designated persons from the resident population. It was NOT intended that they were to be supplanted by the immediate installation of an unauthorized Provincial Government created by an agent only pretending to be acting on behalf of the Allied Forces. The ROC came up with that violation on their own.[/quote]

Which Allied Command was that? And which Allied Command prohibited the installation of a provisional Provincial Government? In fact, I’d say the government was permitted by the Instrument of Surrender (1945), in which Japan promised to carry out the terms of the Potsdam Proclamation and which took effect on the day it was signed.

Also, even if Japanese civil servants were demanded to ‘remain at their posts’, that hardly applied to the civilians of Taiwan at that time. Only the ‘real’ Japanese officials were subject to the demand (probably issued from the highest official at that time).

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
Furthermore, the Japanese could not possibly object to the goings on in Taiwan, as their government had surrendered unconditionally.[/quote]

If Japan could not object to the events going on in Taiwan, how come you imply the people of Taiwan did not have the opportunity to form a civil government of their own? The opposite is more probable: if Japan could not control Taiwan at that time, it was a great opportunity for the people of Taiwan to declare independence, etc. But obviously they let this opportunity go.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
Do you truly believe that the ROC firmly adhered to International Laws until such time as they could legally transfer sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC, or does the evidence that they invaded in force and stole the territory while they were supposed to be protecting the people there now seem a bit overwhelming?[/quote]

The answer depends on whether you buy the self-determination account.

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
Do you truly believe that the ROC firmly adhered to International Laws until such time as they could legally transfer sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC, or does the evidence that they invaded in force and stole the territory while they were supposed to be protecting the people there now seem a bit overwhelming?[/quote]

The answer depends on whether you buy the self-determination account.[/quote]

I most certainly do NOT buy the “Self-determination account”.

Let’s have a look at this document authored by the US Ambassaor to China;

"This memorandum was sent by Mr. John Leighton Stuart, United States Ambassador to China, to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, Chairman of the National Government of the Republic of China, informing him of the situation in Taiwan.

Memorandum on the Situation in Taiwan

April 18, 1947

Background

The Formosan Chinese greeted the surrender of Japanese authority to the Chinese with immense enthusiasm on October 25, 1945. After fifty years under Japanese control and intensive economic development they welcomed a return to China, which they had idealized as the “Mother Country”. The richness of the island and the relatively light population pressure had made rapid economic and social developments possible. Agriculture, food processing and light industry in the best years produced an overseas trade valued at U.S. $225,000,000. To improve Taiwan’s economic value the Japanese had raised the general standard of living. Public health standards were high and literacy widely spread among the masses. Formosans had come to place a high value on orderly procedures in the courts and on the orderly enforcement and observance of government regulations, for they found order both profitable and necessary in a complex and semi-industrialized economy.

With the removal of the Japanese the Formosans looked forward to a return to profitable trade and an expansion of their already established industries, with the markets of China ready to receive all that they could produce. The surpluses which had always gone to Japan would now, they thought, go to China. They expected to return to control of the properties taken from them by the Japanese through fifty years and expected a larger share in the management of their own enterprises. Under pressure of the Japanese overlords who were alien to Taiwan, they had developed an island-wide sense of social solidarity. They were free of all internal political strife. The Japanese had rigorously excluded all Communist influence and activity, and had indeed filled the people with fear, dislike and distrust of Communist doctrines. They revered the Generalissimo, be1ieved the Three people’s Principles meant new opportunities, and looked forward expectantly to participation In the Central Government. The year 1946 was one of increasing disappointment. Though the majority of petty officials, clerks and office boys of the new Administration were Formosans, they were virtually excluded from all important government offices and from important administrative posts. The legal necessity to place all confiscated Japanese properties and enterprises under Government control led to the creation of syndicates and combines in every field in which the Japanese had had an interest. Though the Government owns (and must heavily subsidize) these companies, the salaried and privileged administrators are in a position to squeeze freely. It is alleged that raw and finished materials and agricultural products find their way into the hands of unscrupulous officials for their use in private trading and smuggling Judging from Taiwan’s former capacity to produce and the fact that its enterprises continue, qualified Formosans estimate that published records show only one-tenth of actual receipts. As an example, it is alleged by persons formerly connected with the Department of Agriculture and Forestry that fishing boats were withdrawn from their normal bases in 1940 and were used for smuggling in the interest of the authorities concerned.

Formosans have been virtually excluded from the higher levels of economic administration. These persistent allegations of corruption lead them to place responsibility on members of the Government who appear and reappear in lucrative posts as Commissioners, members of Committees, and Directors in a manner which concentrates full control of the total economy in the hands of a clique close to the Governor.

There was a progressive decline in Formosan economic enterprise, especially where there was competition with ex-Japanese interest. Unemployment among Formosans has progressively increased, either through direct discharge (frequently to make room for unqualified newcomers) or by the suspension or abolition of various established enterprises which failed to be profitable under the new management. Whereas about 50,000 Formosans had been employed normally in industrial work, by January 1947 UNRRA officials estimated that less than 5,000 were so employed. Whereas the top government officials created a Taiwan Industrial and Mining Enterprises Syndicate with a capital of two billion Taiwan yen, in which the Commissioners and their associates play leading roles, the Department of Mining and Industry announced an appropriation of only eight million Taiwan yen for loans in aid of private (i. e. Formosan) Industrial enterprises after June 1946…

Three governmental acts

Against this background of increasing economic and social dislocation three governmental acts in January and February appear to have crystallized Formosan resentment toward economic policies and toward individuals in the Government.

(1) Throughout 1946 Formosans sought permission to elect city mayors and Hsien magistrates, in order to ensure themselves of some direct control over local police and over economic functions and public services. The announcement of China’s new Constitution was greeted with relief. Prominent Formosan leaders counseled that demands for local elections could wait until the Constitution would become effective at the end of 1947. In early January, however, the Governor General announced that although the Constitution would be effective on the mainland on December 25, 1947, it would be impossible for the Government to allow local elections of mayors and magistrates in Formosa until December 1949. This had an effect which stirred political discussion to a new pitch. Formosans state that until they can elect their own representatives at all levels of local government they will have no security of person; they cannot control the local police, ensure the enforcement of law nor enjoy security of property."

taiwandocuments.org/228_01.htm

This was the systematic rape and pillaging of the properties and rights of the Formosans.

Moreover, it all began right here…
[i]"The Taiwan Provincial Garrison Command (台灣省警備總司令部) was established on September 1, 1945 at Chongqing, with Chen Yi as its first commanding general. On the same day, the Governor Office of Taiwan Province (zh:台灣省行政長官公署; 1945-09-01—1947-05-16) was formed and headed by Chen Yi as well.

This command’s major responsibilities included the repatriation of all Japanese nationals in Taiwan, transfer of authority over Taiwan to the Republic of China government, and maintenance of law and order."[/i]

This is clearly well before the ROC ever set foot on the island, proving without a doubt that the KMT had no intention of ever allowing “self-determination” to prevail on Formosa (Taiwan).

You say the Formosans filed no protests against the ROC/KMT actions. I declare this to be untrue.

And excert from a little book by George Kerr…
Chapter 10
In January and February, 1946, Dr. Lin Mou-sheng (a Columbia University man) published a series of articles in which he developed the theme that “If in Formosa the Three People’s Principles [of Sun Yat-sen] cannot be carried out, then the future of the Republic of China will indeed be dark.” His blunt comments were timed to reach the attention of an official deputation which the Central Government proposed to send to Formosa for an inspection tour. In time-honored fashion it was announced that these representatives would receive petitions addressed to them by “the People.” The Formosans knew enough of Chinese history to know that this was traditional " window-dressing," something to look well in the historical record; they proposed more incisive action. Public discussion of current issues led quickly to political organization.

On February 2 a Formosan People’s Association came into being, reorganized soon after as the Taiwan Political Reconstruction Association. On March 11, 1946, the newspaper Min Pao (edited by Lin Mou-sheng) published names of its officers and members, a representative cross-section of substantial landholders and professional men. Contrary to later Nationalist charges, this was not a secret, subversive organization but rather a revival, in new form, of the Home Rule Association which had struggled so long to represent Formosan interests under the Japanese administration.

Concurrently there began to appear “Citizens’ Freedom Safe-guarding Committees” which were in effect vigilante units formed by men determined to defend local interests wherever they were threatened by mainland Chinese newcomers. The first Committee appeared at Taipei on March 5, 1946, only five months after the surrender. Others soon appeared throughout the island, letting it be known that they felt they could no longer look to the local police to maintain law and order."

The Government did all that it could to impede the growth of these popular bodies, and a running battle of words filled the press. In this the Min Pao took the lead in a series of editorials entitled “Safeguarding the People’s Freedom” which bitterly commented upon the need to take such measures of selfdefense so soon after “liberation.”

The Formosans were prepared to fight for freedom of expression, so long denied them under Japanese rule, and the mainland Chinese were equally determined to repress criticism. Before the war the Formosan journal Minpo had been suppressed, and five Japanese-language dailies were consolidated and published as the Taiwan Shimpo from 1942 until the Japanese surrender on October 25, 1945. Literate Formosans were starved for a means of expression, and among all the glittering promises rained down in American propaganda pamphlets and broadcast by American stations, none was more attractive than the assurance “freedom of the press” would be theirs."

homepage.usask.ca/~llr130/taiwan … chap10.htm

When your ready, we’ll get on with a discussion of the Chiang-Soong CNRRA corruption and diversion of the UNRRA’s funds and relief aid materials intended to assist post-war Taiwanese (based on a fraudulant claim of ‘need’ presented by the ROC) which began in earnest in late-45:early-46 as just another chapter in the events showing that the ROC intended to starve the Taiwanese into submission. :raspberry:

"The Chinese Government, had, rather, collected a large percentage of the basic food, rice, from the farmers and was hoarding it itself. The farmers had thought that the collection of rice had heralded a continuation of the rationing system by the new government. They did not like this system, but realized its necessity and therefore willingly sold the food to the government at a very low price (which for the most part was never paid to them). But rather than seeing that everyone received supplies of the rice, the Army and the Chinese Government smuggled the rice from the country to China where it brought high returns from the short coastal markets, or hoarded it on Formosa. This created an artificial shortage, raise prices, so that the government then received large sums when the rice was released, and put the food out of the reach of many.

This was the beginning of the aggravation of the problems of Formosa by the Chinese, a process which has continued up to the present."

romanization.com/books/formo … hap08.html

As I said, “I control the means of food production and distribution. You may choose your poison as a ‘free expression of your self-determination’.” :fume:

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

I most certainly do NOT buy the “Self-determination account”.

Formosans have been virtually excluded from the higher levels of economic administration. These persistent allegations of corruption lead them to place responsibility on members of the Government who appear and reappear in lucrative posts as Commissioners, members of Committees, and Directors in a manner which concentrates full control of the total economy in the hands of a clique close to the Governor.

There was a progressive decline in Formosan economic enterprise, especially where there was competition with ex-Japanese interest. Unemployment among Formosans has progressively increased, either through direct discharge (frequently to make room for unqualified newcomers) or by the suspension or abolition of various established enterprises which failed to be profitable under the new management. Whereas about 50,000 Formosans had been employed normally in industrial work, by January 1947 UNRRA officials estimated that less than 5,000 were so employed. Whereas the top government officials created a Taiwan Industrial and Mining Enterprises Syndicate with a capital of two billion Taiwan yen, in which the Commissioners and their associates play leading roles, the Department of Mining and Industry announced an appropriation of only eight million Taiwan yen for loans in aid of private (i. e. Formosan) Industrial enterprises after June 1946…

(1) Throughout 1946 Formosans sought permission to elect city mayors and Hsien (Xian) magistrates, in order to ensure themselves of some direct control over local police and over economic functions and public services. The announcement of China’s new Constitution was greeted with relief. Prominent Formosan leaders counseled that demands for local elections could wait until the Constitution would become effective at the end of 1947. In early January, however, the Governor General announced that although the Constitution would be effective on the mainland on December 25, 1947, it would be impossible for the Government to allow local elections of mayors and magistrates in Formosa until December 1949. This had an effect which stirred political discussion to a new pitch. Formosans state that until they can elect their own representatives at all levels of local government they will have no security of person; they cannot control the local police, ensure the enforcement of law nor enjoy security of property."

taiwandocuments.org/228_01.htm[/quote]

I have never denied the government was rather corrupt at that time.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
Moreover, it all began right here…
[i]"The Taiwan Provincial Garrison Command (台灣省警備總司令部) was established on September 1, 1945 at Chongqing, with Chen Yi as its first commanding general. On the same day, the Governor Office of Taiwan Province (zh:台灣省行政長官公署; 1945-09-01—1947-05-16) was formed and headed by Chen Yi as well.

This command’s major responsibilities included the repatriation of all Japanese nationals in Taiwan, transfer of authority over Taiwan to the Republic of China government, and maintenance of law and order."[/i]

This is clearly well before the ROC ever set foot on the island, proving without a doubt that the KMT had no intention of ever allowing “self-determination” to prevail on Formosa (Taiwan).[/quote]

This only shows that the ROC had the intention to incorporate Taiwan into its territory. But then again, the choice to self-determination remained with the people of Taiwan. You could prove that the KMT had no intention of allowing self-determination ONLY IF a Taiwanese Civil Government had been established, or at least conceived, in 1945 (or, let’s relax it a little bit, 1946) and put down by the ROC government before any election took place.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
You say the Formosans filed no protests against the ROC/KMT actions. I declare this to be untrue.[/quote]

Spare me your strawman, please.
Again, I have never said that the people did not protest against anything. Surely they protested against inequality and corruption, but they did not protest against the incorporation of Taiwan into the ROC. No claim was made for an Independent Taiwan at that time.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

And excert from a little book by George Kerr…
Chapter 10
In January and February, 1946, Dr. Lin Mou-sheng (a Columbia University man) published a series of articles in which he developed the theme that “If in Formosa the Three People’s Principles [of Sun Yat-sen] cannot be carried out, then the future of the Republic of China will indeed be dark.” His blunt comments were timed to reach the attention of an official deputation which the Central Government proposed to send to Formosa for an inspection tour. In time-honored fashion it was announced that these representatives would receive petitions addressed to them by “the People.” The Formosans knew enough of Chinese history to know that this was traditional " window-dressing," something to look well in the historical record; they proposed more incisive action. Public discussion of current issues led quickly to political organization.[/quote]

This looks like an editorial in which the author recommends a few courses of action to the government. It is clear that Dr. Lin had no intention of founding a Taiwan Nation whatsoever, as he still hoped to see the Three People’s Principles carried out in Taiwan.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

On February 2 a Formosan People’s Association came into being, reorganized soon after as the Taiwan Political Reconstruction Association. On March 11, 1946, the newspaper Min Pao (edited by Lin Mou-sheng) published names of its officers and members, a representative cross-section of substantial landholders and professional men. Contrary to later Nationalist charges, this was not a secret, subversive organization but rather a revival, in new form, of the Home Rule Association which had struggled so long to represent Formosan interests under the Japanese administration.

Concurrently there began to appear “Citizens’ Freedom Safe-guarding Committees” which were in effect vigilante units formed by men determined to defend local interests wherever they were threatened by mainland Chinese newcomers. The first Committee appeared at Taipei on March 5, 1946, only five months after the surrender. Others soon appeared throughout the island, letting it be known that they felt they could no longer look to the local police to maintain law and order."[/quote]

As the government was corrupt and not every mainlander was law-abiding, it is understandable that the local people organized such committees to safeguard their own safety. Still, this did not escalate to a demand for Taiwan independence.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

The Government did all that it could to impede the growth of these popular bodies, and a running battle of words filled the press. In this the Min Pao took the lead in a series of editorials entitled “Safeguarding the People’s Freedom” which bitterly commented upon the need to take such measures of selfdefense so soon after “liberation.”

The Formosans were prepared to fight for freedom of expression, so long denied them under Japanese rule, and the mainland Chinese were equally determined to repress criticism. Before the war the Formosan journal Minpo had been suppressed, and five Japanese-language dailies were consolidated and published as the Taiwan Shimpo from 1942 until the Japanese surrender on October 25, 1945. Literate Formosans were starved for a means of expression, and among all the glittering promises rained down in American propaganda pamphlets and broadcast by American stations, none was more attractive than the assurance “freedom of the press” would be theirs."[/quote]

Yes, they fought for freedom of expression. But still, did they fight for an Independent Taiwan at that time? NO.

“As the government was corrupt and not every mainlander was law-abiding, it is understandable that the local people organized such committees to safeguard their own safety. Still, this did not escalate to a demand for Taiwan independence.”

Not entirely true.
The evidence exists that there was a prolonged escalation, beginning early on, of revolt against the invading ROC regime who violated all International Law by claiming a territory that wasn’t theirs. You are attempting to deny these facts by continuously placing time limits on what constitutes revolt and a drive for independence at any particular time, and deciding when and if the Formosans were allowed to recognize they were being lied to, cheated, robbed, starved, and subjected to beatings, arrest, and cruel practices at every turn. In the face of such gross oppression, I believe the Formosans put forward every effort possible to throw off the shackles imposed on them, and THAT constitutes a firm desire for independence. You are being wholy unfair to the Taiwanese. Please take your “One China” concept out of here. The Taiwanese hate your type because, by defending these criminals, you show you are no different than the liars and thieves who arrived in 1945. :fume:

You, sir, are NEVER going to get past the hurdle that the ROC invaded Taiwan with full intent to immediately claim it as theirs and subjugate the residents of the island.
NO “Self-determination” (under your definition) was possible by the unarmed Formosans due to it being forcefully disallowed by the very same criminals whose actions you defend.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]“As the government was corrupt and not every mainlander was law-abiding, it is understandable that the local people organized such committees to safeguard their own safety. Still, this did not escalate to a demand for Taiwan independence.”

Not entirely true.
The evidence exists that there was a prolonged escalation, beginning early on, of revolt against the invading ROC regime who violated all International Law by claiming a territory that wasn’t theirs. You are attempting to deny these facts by continuously placing time limits on what constitutes revolt and a drive for independence at any particular time, and deciding when and if the Formosans were allowed to recognize they were being lied to, cheated, robbed, starved, and subjected to beatings, arrest, and cruel practices at every turn. In the face of such gross oppression, I believe the Formosans put forward every effort possible to throw off the shackles imposed on them, and THAT constitutes a firm desire for independence. You are being wholy unfair to the Taiwanese. Please take your “One China” concept out of here. The Taiwanese hate your type because, by defending these criminals, you show you are no different than the liars and thieves who arrived in 1945. :fume:[/quote]

Not entirely true? Well, you are attempting to make up stories (including your ‘Allied Forces as Principal Occupying Power’, ‘Conscientious objector’, to name but a few).
Now you are claiming that the protests and suchlike escalated to a demand for independence? That’s funny, in view of the fact that it was the Taiwanese people who elected a government adhering to the “One China Principle” in 2012.

NO “Self-determination” (under my definition) was possible due to it being forcefully disallowed? Well, the accusation presupposes that the people attempted to build a Taiwan Nation. But this is downright falisfied. Since there was no such attempt in the first place, how could it have been ‘forcefully disallowed’?

“…in view of the fact that it was the Taiwanese people who elected a government adhering to the “One China Principle”.” :ohreally:

You know as well as I do that the vote was rigged, and massive vote buying and blackmail occurred in exactly the same way as in so many elections of “DaLuRen” KMT officials in Taiwan that has occured for the past 60 years, from the VERY beginning of their arrival. It’s simply what they do. They know of no other way to stay in power.

Have you and your associates been active in defending any more murderers of type associated with the Lafayette Scandal lately? :whistle:

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]"…in view of the fact that it was the Taiwanese people who elected a government adhering to the “One China Principle”." :ohreally:

You know as well as I do that the vote was rigged, and massive vote buying and blackmail occurred in exactly the same way as in so many elections of “DaLuRen” KMT officials in Taiwan that has occured for the past 60 years, from the VERY beginning of their arrival. It’s simply what they do. They know of no other way to stay in power.

Have you and your associates been active in defending any more murderers of type associated with the Lafayette Scandal lately? :whistle:[/quote]

The vote was rigged? I didn’t know that. But I’d like to see you file a lawsuit against the current government. :smiley:

Anyway, if the people can be bought into supporting a ‘One China’ government, this shows that they do not place much value on Taiwan Independence and are willing to acquiesce in the “One China Principle”. All the talk about “the Formosans put forward every effort possible to throw off the shackles imposed on them, and THAT constitutes a firm desire for independence” seems to be nothing but a parody.

Side note: It’s been fun. Family time now. Catch you again tomorrow.

Final comment:
“The vote was rigged? I didn’t know that. But I’d like to see you file a lawsuit against the current government.”

I gather that I have no right to do that, nor do any of my family members (despite my “Taiwan Residency” and their “Taiwan Citizenship”), nor does anyone else on this island, being as how you insist that the “current” government of Taiwan is lawfully the PRC… :loco:
Are you setting your feet upon yet another round of “Mainlanders deny Taiwanese any right to self-determination”? :raspberry:

PEACE.

Live and let live.

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]Side note: It’s been fun. Family time now. Catch you again tomorrow.

Final comment:
“The vote was rigged? I didn’t know that. But I’d like to see you file a lawsuit against the current government.”

I gather that I have no right to do that, nor do any of my family members (despite my “Taiwan Residency” and their “Taiwan Citizenship”), nor does anyone else on this island, being as how you insist that the “current” government of Taiwan is lawfully the PRC… :loco:
Are you setting your feet upon yet another round of “Mainlanders deny Taiwanese any right to self-determination”? :raspberry:

PEACE.

Live and let live.[/quote]

If you could produce evidence that certain individuals bought votes, you could denounce them at court. You’d get a cash prize if they are convicted.
Btw, I do not insist that the current government of Taiwan is lawfully the PRC; I was only saying that in the UN, the PRC is the legitimate government of China (including Taiwan). Outside of the UN, each country is free to recognize which government represents the State of China.

Since there’s no piece of paper good enough to say Taiwan belongs to the ROC according to Japan despite the signing of the Taipei Peace Treaty, then all of China’s central government resources basically belong to Taiwan and mainland China has nothing to say about it because that’s what Japan, the U.S., and the pan Green people want to say.

These discussions have nothing to do with legalities or which peace treaties really count. It’s just “We want all of China’s gold the KMT brought over here to be for Taiwan only and we want to kick out the people who brought it here because there isn’t a piece of paper clear enough to say the land belongs to them.”

The U.S. did a terrific job of trying to make the status of Taiwan as unclear as possible so that it never really belongs to China as the ROC or the PRC despite the fact that ROC has essentially controlled it since 1945.

Anyway, this discussion only exists today because the green Taiwanese and their overseas supporters that don’t want China to get any stronger by taking China’s old central government’s resources and military as their own by talking about these things when in fact it’s basically stealing China’s resources from 1945.

If the ROC government has no business being here, then send the gold and military back to the mainland first and then talk about setting up a new country and constitution. You remember the gold brought over by that bad guy Chiang Kai-Shek back in 1949 right?

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]Side note: It’s been fun. Family time now. Catch you again tomorrow.

Final comment:
“The vote was rigged? I didn’t know that. But I’d like to see you file a lawsuit against the current government.”

I gather that I have no right to do that, nor do any of my family members (despite my “Taiwan Residency” and their “Taiwan Citizenship”), nor does anyone else on this island, being as how you insist that the “current” government of Taiwan is lawfully the PRC… :loco:
Are you setting your feet upon yet another round of “Mainlanders deny Taiwanese any right to self-determination”? :raspberry:

PEACE.

Live and let live.[/quote]

I guess you convenienly overlooked the following:

If the people can be bought into supporting a ‘One China’ government, this shows that they do not place much value on Taiwan Independence and are willing to acquiesce in the “One China Principle”. All the talk about “the Formosans put forward every effort possible to throw off the shackles imposed on them, and THAT constitutes a firm desire for independence” seems to be nothing but a parody.

Also, if quests for freedom of expression, equality, and elimination of corruption, as you said, ‘constitute a firm desire for independence’, then you’re suggesting that these are the necessary conditions of an independent sovereign State. This is blatantly false, as there are authoritarian States that deny their people these rights; nevertheless, they are still States. Every international jurist would laugh off your idea. Looks like this is another story you’ve made up. :roflmao:

[quote=“Betelnut”]

The U.S. did a terrific job of trying to make the status of Taiwan as unclear as possible so that it never really belongs to China as the ROC or the PRC despite the fact that ROC has essentially controlled it since 1945.[/quote]

This was so until the US signed the three communiques with the PRC, I’d say.

The U.S. Department of State has an interesting document which shows that Taiwanese-born applicants to American passports can fill in either Taiwan or China as their birthplace. Since the US expressly denies Taiwan’s statehood, this fact most probably indicates that the US is bound to regard Taiwan as part of China.

state.gov/documents/organization/94675.pdf

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“Betelnut”]

The U.S. did a terrific job of trying to make the status of Taiwan as unclear as possible so that it never really belongs to China as the ROC or the PRC despite the fact that ROC has essentially controlled it since 1945.[/quote]

This was so until the US signed the three communiques with the PRC, I’d say.

The U.S. Department of State has an interesting document which shows that Taiwanese-born applicants to American passports can fill in either Taiwan or China as their birthplace. Since the US expressly denies Taiwan’s statehood, this fact most probably indicates that the US is bound to regard Taiwan as part of China.

state.gov/documents/organization/94675.pdf[/quote]

Oh my… this is rich. LOL :laughing:
Thank you… :bow:

According selections from your US State Department reference…

Top of page 2:

7 FAM 1310 APPENDIX D INTRODUCTION
f. An applicant objecting to listing a country that currently has sovereignty over the actual place of birth may be offered the city of birth only option. (See 7 FAM 1380 Appendix D.)

On Page 39 [dealing with possible entries under “Place of Birth”]
TAIWAN - TWN or CHN - TWAN or CHIN (See 7 FAM 1340 Appendix D)

[Side note: Here is the State Department’s “7 FAM 1340” page:
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7- Consular Affairs
7FAM1160 Page 1 of 1
7 FAM 1340 UNASSIGNED
(CT:CON-257; 05-28-2008)

See: state.gov/documents/organization/86776.pdf
Say what??? That’s a dead end… :unamused: ]

However, your reference, page 4, includes:
7 FAM 1340 APPENDIX D SUCCESSOR STATE ISSUES
(CT:CON-396; 02-09-2012)
a. Passport Applicant Lists a Place of Birth on the Passport Application That Does Not Reflect Current Sovereignty: If there is a question as to what country now has sovereignty over the actual place of birth, or whether that sovereignty is recognized by the United States, the passport authorizing officer should determine the country having present sovereignty and annotate the place of birth on the passport application with the correct place of birth code

… c. United States Does Not Recognize Assertion of Sovereignty: Historically, there are circumstances in which the United States does not recognize the annexation of territory by another country. When this occurs, the Department will provide specific guidance to passport authorizing officers and the 7 FAM 1300 Appendix D will be amended accordingly. Do not enter in the passport the name of any independent country listed as place of birth on a passport application or birthplace evidence whose incorporation into another nation is not recognized by the United States as the country of birth.

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read in a Government document. :loco:
If I write Columbia as place of birth, then the State Department can’t enter it because the independent country Columbia’s “incorporation into another nation has not been recognized by the US”!

In reagrds to Taiwan, was Taiwan a former country that is “recognized as having been incorporated into another nation” for people born between 1895 and 1945??

On Page 44
United States citizens born abroad may list the city or town, rather than the country, of their birth in United States passports when there is an objection to the country listing as established by the Department of State.

Oddly enough, my daughter’s US Passport reads:
Place of birth: TAIWAN
[no “R.O.C.”]

Does this mean that Taiwan is now a “city or town”, or that it is a “country”, or was it a country that was incorporated into another nation? :lick: