Apparently the concern was about the emblem and other symbol being too visible, so they’re going to go with a low-visibility roundel. They’ll still be there. In any case the change is a purely tactical decision and has got nothing to do with ROC being “phased out”.
Apparently the concern was about the emblem and other symbol being too visible, so they’re going to go with a low-visibility roundel. They’ll still be there. In any case the change is a purely tactical decision and has got nothing to do with ROC being “phased out”.[/quote]
If Printessfoot can read Mandarin news, he will know that the last image, where two police badges are put up for comparison, reflects the fact that each police station has the authority to design its own badge. The image is taken from the following news:
tvbs.com.tw/news/news_list.a … 0903121056
It has nothing to do with the US secretly removing the authority of the ROC from Taiwan.
I think you are confused.
Taiwan is not a part of the ROC. The “ROC Constitution” is not the organic law of Taiwan.
The Taipei Times has had numerous editorials on this topic over the years. The following are two examples.
I think you are confused.
Taiwan is not a part of the ROC. The “ROC Constitution” is not the organic law of Taiwan.
The Taipei Times has had numerous editorials on this topic over the years. The following are two examples.
taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003470203
taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003455174[/quote]
Citing the Taipei Times to back up the claim of those diehard DPP supporters is like Soviet Communists citing the Pravda.
True, the San Francisco Peace Treaty does not specify the state to which the sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu should be transferred. But conclusion of a peace treaty is not the only means whereby a Sate can acquire title to a territory. Let me cite a passage in International Law authored by Malcom N. Shaw (2003). Consider p. 211 in particular.
… In 1979 the US recognised the People’s Republic of China as the sole and legitimate government of China.178 Accordingly, Taiwan would appear to be a non-state territorial entity which is capable of acting independently on the international scene, but is[color=#8080BF] most probably de jure part of China[/color]…
If this is not enough, consider the position of the UN in the United Nations Juridicial Yearbook 2010, the source given below:
google.com.tw/url?sa=t&rct=j … iXPXaT-5Lw
…
2. The question of “Taiwan” in the United Nations is regulated by General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) of 25 October 1971 [ . . . ], entitled, “Restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations”. By that resolution, the General Assembly decided to recognize “the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China [as] the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations” and “to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations.”
- Since the adoption of that resolution [color=#4080BF]the United Nations considers “Taiwan” as a province of China with no separate status[/color], and the Secretariat strictly abides by this decision in the exercise of its responsibilities. Thus, since the adoption of this resolution the established practice of the United Nations has been to use the term “[color=#8080BF]Taiwan, Province of China[/color]” when a reference to “Taiwan” is required in United Nations Secretariat documents…
Furthermore, consider what is written about Taiwan in the entry of divided States in the 2009 edition of Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law:
[color=#4040BF]divided States [/color]‘It might seem that on one and the same territory there could exist only one full sovereign state; and that for there to be two or more full sovereign states on one and the same territory is not possible. But in practice sovereignty is sometimes divided. …’: I Oppenheim 565 . While this authority goes on to list five exceptions to this rule ( condominium, the exercise of sovereignty by a foreign power with the consent of the owner-State; a lease ( see lease, international ) or pledge ; a conventional grant in perpetuity; a federal State; and a mandated ( see Mandates System ) or trusteeship territory ( see trust
territory )), no mention is made of the division of China, Germany, Korea, and Vietnam. In each of the last three cases, two States became established on the territory of the former State, each acting in respect of distinct portions of its territory, and each being recognized y certain other States, so that eventually North and South Vietnam and the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, both now unifi ed, became and are now members of the United Nations, while North and South Korea each became members in 1991 in acknowledgement of their enduring division. [color=#8080BF]China is somewhat different, the situation for many years essentially involving which of two competing régimes represented the State of China.[/color] Since 1971 , the Government of the People ’ s Republic of China has represented China at the United Nations and in most other international fora , the former nationalist government now exercising control only over [color=#808000]Taiwan, which, while satisfying the indicia of Statehood, is not universally regarded as a separate State and is not a U.N. member.[/color]
Consider what James Crawford says in The Creation of States in International Law, p. 219 (2nd ed. 2006):
The conclusion must be that [color=#4080BF]Taiwan [/color]is not a State because it still has not unequivocally asserted its separation from China and is[color=#8080BF] not recognized as a State distinct from China.[/color]…
Apparently the concern was about the emblem and other symbol being too visible, so they’re going to go with a low-visibility roundel. They’ll still be there. In any case the change is a purely tactical decision and has got nothing to do with ROC being “phased out”.[/quote]
Yes, you are right. The visibility of the ROC has been made lower in the millitary and the law enforcement. This fits the definition of ‘phasing out’ pretty well, doesn’t it?
I think you are confused.
Taiwan is not a part of the ROC. The “ROC Constitution” is not the organic law of Taiwan.
The Taipei Times has had numerous editorials on this topic over the years. The following are two examples.
taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003470203
taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003455174[/quote]
Don’t take the Taipei Times out of context now. You do know that the pan-green, pro-independence Taipei Times questioned the ROC constitution because they want Taiwan to declare independence(and if this does somehow happen, clearly the constitution of the new Taiwanese state would be similarly illegitimate according to you), and NOT because they agree with the notion that the US holds the title to Taiwan.
But let’s get back to my question. You said that you want the US to terminate the agency arrangement and to handle the administration of Taiwan directly(and thus taking away Taiwan’s de-facto independence). How in the world do you think the US is suppose to do that? Are the US military going to turn to Taiwan next when they are finished in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The national flag of ROC was not raised during YJ Ma’s inauguration ceremony. Instead a meaningless piece of decoration was put on the wall.
The renown symbologist Professor Robert Langdon will agree that when all cases of ROC emblem disappearing from the eye of the public are taken together, they strongly signify that the ROC is being phased out.
Robert Langdon is a fictional character, hardly someone you can use to bolster an argument.
[quote=“bohica”]
How in the world do you think the US is suppose to do that? Are the US military going to turn to Taiwan next when they are finished in Iraq and Afghanistan?[/quote]
General James. L. Jones visited Taiwan last week. During his visit, he called on Mr. Ma and a few cabinet members. I will not be surprised when general Jones is announced as the next governor of Taiwan the end of this year. The best timing for such announcement would be the opening week of the 12th ‘renda’ conference of the Chinese Communist Party. Both Chairman Hu JT and his successor Xu JP will be in a very vulnerable position at that time to do anything about it.
You are clearly an expert on the fictional world. Please come back to live in reality.
Wait, who’s living in reality and who’s not? A military/political takeover of Taiwan by USA - if you think that’s really going to happen… :roflmao: :loco:
[quote=“printlessfoot”]The national flag of ROC was not raised during YJ Ma’s inauguration ceremony. Instead a meaningless piece of decoration was put on the wall.
The renown symbologist Professor Robert Langdon will agree that when all cases of ROC emblem disappearing from the eye of the public are taken together, they strongly signify that the ROC is being phased out.[/quote]
Let’s take a look at a photo of the same room from a different angle.
Ahh, what’s that flag on the wall in the back of the room? Trying to trick people eh?
And who says ROC emblems are disappearing? They are not. The military switching to low-visibility roundel is to avoid painting a bulls-eye for the enemy to see, lots of countries do it and their respective countries are not being “phased out” because of it. And even if you want to say the ROC emblem is disappearing, how does that equate to the US taking over Taiwan? Both you and Hartzell think that not only is ROC being phased out, the US is coming over to administer Taiwan directly, which is just ridiculous.
Hi Bohica, you should realize the self-delusional don’t let reality/facts get in the way of their delusions. No use arguing with them. Just look at other examples such as the ‘flat-earth society’. Of course, if you also think the earth is flat (or that Taiwan will be taken over by the US), then my point is pointless (so to speak).
[quote=“printlessfoot”][quote=“bohica”]
How in the world do you think the US is suppose to do that? Are the US military going to turn to Taiwan next when they are finished in Iraq and Afghanistan?[/quote]
General James. L. Jones visited Taiwan last week. During his visit, he called on Mr. Ma and a few cabinet members. I will not be surprised when general Jones is announced as the next governor of Taiwan the end of this year. The best timing for such announcement would be the opening week of the 12th ‘renda’ conference of the Chinese Communist Party. Both Chairman Hu JT and his successor Xu JP will be in a very vulnerable position at that time to do anything about it.[/quote]
So what happens next when Gen. Jones is indeed announced as the governor of Taiwan? You know, I’m not going to say you’re confused or crazy, I’m just going to try to figure what, according to your logic, is suppose to happen. Is the Taiwanese president suppose to just resign and let Jones take over? Do you know that there was a guy who proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States? Surely there has to be more to this “governor of Taiwan” than just the annoucement.
I am aware of that flag in that old spot.But I am confident that it will not stay there for long.
Since ROC will still exist and will move her governing head quarter to her rightful territory, more likely Quemoy than Mazhu, Mr. Ma will still remain as a president. These are what will come out:
- ROC government will yield the control of Taiwan back to the US.
- ROC will continue the existing discussion on ‘One China’ policy with PROC.
- US will take Taiwan safely out of the above discussion on ‘One China’ policy, whose rhetoric ironically poses a practical threat to the regional peace.
- US will guard Taiwan Strait as an international water and deter any counter-access intention.
- US Navy will use Taiwan as a forward base to implement Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert’s ‘lean forward’ war plan.
Imagine the strategic implicaton when a US nuclear submarine lurks deep outside Hualien in the Pacific and a Pave Paw radar surveying as far as Gobi Desert supplies data link to her skipper 24 hours a day. Won’t that be attractive enough for the US to take back what was hers 60 years ago?
Why would the ROC government do that?
[quote=“printlessfoot”][quote=“bohica”]
How in the world do you think the US is suppose to do that? Are the US military going to turn to Taiwan next when they are finished in Iraq and Afghanistan?[/quote]
General James. L. Jones visited Taiwan last week. During his visit, he called on Mr. Ma and a few cabinet members. I will not be surprised when general Jones is announced as the next governor of Taiwan the end of this year. The best timing for such announcement would be the opening week of the 12th ‘renda’ conference of the Chinese Communist Party. Both Chairman Hu JT and his successor Xu JP will be in a very vulnerable position at that time to do anything about it.[/quote]
As someone who worked in coordinating General Jones’ visit, all I can say is that your conjecture is utter fantasy.
[quote=“Poagao”]
As someone who worked in coordinating General Jones’ visit, all I can say is that your conjecture is utter fantasy.[/quote]
Yes, you are right. I admit it was a wild conjecture of mine. Personally I prefer General Stanley A. McChrystal, who had successful experiences in regime-change and the running of a millitary government in the middle-east to supervise the regime-change on Taiwan.
General Stanley A. McChrystal
You may want to reconsider, I think the guy is confused and/or crazy. Going off the deep end, as they say :loco:
Haha! Ok, then.