The transferring of the title of Taiwan

Politics Taiwan Politics
81

When did they stop? Ma has made the claim since becoming president.[/quote]

Ma only claims that the ROC’s sovereignty extends to Mainland China, which, according to the current 兩岸人民關係條例，excludes Outer Mongolia.

The exclusion of Outer Mongolia from the ROC territory was an executive order when the DPP were in power. In the absence of anything that reverses the order, The Ma administration simply maintains it.

You can find the news below. Xing Yuan Lai, the official in charge of Mainland Affairs, stated that the ROC territory excludes Outer Mongolia.

tw.news.yahoo.com/%E5%9B%BA%E6%9 … tml?_esi=1[/quote]

I can’t access your last link as I am currently in the unfree part of the ROC.

But in any case the 2002 order did not, according to everything I have read, officially exclude Mongolia. The MAC stated directly that this was not official recognition. If this has changed I was unaware of it.

Anyway, I am not interested in splitting hairs. The present government does make grand claims to overseas territory it has no sane claim to based upon the constitution.

82

When did they stop? Ma has made the claim since becoming president.[/quote]

Ma only claims that the ROC’s sovereignty extends to Mainland China, which, according to the current 兩岸人民關係條例，excludes Outer Mongolia.

The exclusion of Outer Mongolia from the ROC territory was an executive order when the DPP were in power. In the absence of anything that reverses the order, The Ma administration simply maintains it.

You can find the news below. Xing Yuan Lai, the official in charge of Mainland Affairs, stated that the ROC territory excludes Outer Mongolia.

tw.news.yahoo.com/%E5%9B%BA%E6%9 … tml?_esi=1[/quote]

I can’t access your last link as I am currently in the unfree part of the ROC.

But in any case the 2002 order did not, according to everything I have read, officially exclude Mongolia. The MAC stated directly that this was not official recognition. If this has changed I was unaware of it.

Anyway, I am not interested in splitting hairs. The present government does make grand claims to overseas territory it has no sane claim to based upon the constitution.[/quote]

what do you mean by ‘official recognition’? Since the Mainland Affairs Council is an official organizaiton, it is the current official position that Outer Mongolia was excluded from the ROC territory. The statement is even posted on the MAC website.

You can watch this video clip:
youtube.com/watch?v=TxwJrcJokTY

83

Read the statements by the MAC in 2002 regarding Mongolia as presented in both the local and foreign media. They hold to a very ambiguous position.

In any case you are right that the MAC currently (May) has been clear that Mongolia is not part of ROC territory. I’ve been away these past few months and missed that.

84

[quote=“Mucha Man”]Read the statements by the MAC in 2002 regarding Mongolia as presented in both the local and foreign media. They hold to a very ambiguous position.

In any case you are right that the MAC currently (May) has been clear that Mongolia is not part of ROC territory. I’ve been away these past few months and missed that.[/quote]

In September, 2002, i.e. several months after the issuing of the statement you’ve mentioned, the MOFA declared that Mongolia was a sovereign state (see the quote below). I think this move clarified the official position of the ROC under the Chen (and the Ma) administration.

tw.news.yahoo.com/%E5%9B%BA%E6%9 … tml?_esi=1
陸委會︰依據官版資料

劉德勳會後補充說，行政院在九十一年發布修正兩岸條例施行細則時，就將該條文施行區域修正為「指中共控制之地區」，不包含外蒙古；外交部也在同年函示，蒙古已為主權獨立國家，且為聯合國會員國之一。陸委會強調，相關單位對於蒙古是否為中華民國領土，已有完整說明，賴幸媛在委員會上的答詢，都是根據政府部門相關資料。

waou.com.mo/see/2012/05/20120523d.htm
陳水扁上臺後，接過李登輝的衣缽，於二零零二年一月三十日籍著修正《兩岸關係條例施行細則》之機，將外蒙古排除在「中國大陸地區」之外。同年九月，台灣當局與蒙古宣佈分別在烏蘭巴托和臺北互設「代表處」。為此，臺灣當局宣佈不再發行「官方」版的《中華民國地圖》，民間如何繪製臺灣地區地圖行政當局將不予幹預。二零零六年一月，「行政院」提請「立法院」三讀通過，正式廢止《蒙古盟部旗組織法》及《管理喇嘛寺廟條例》。

85

When did they stop? Ma has made the claim since becoming president.

Also I am going to challenge your assertion that the ROC could not de-recognize Mongolia. The entire question of the status of Taiwan is conditioned upon China and the Allied Power de-recognizing Japan’s sovereignty over Taiwan as granted in the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

It is clear that de-recognition occurs and is accepted as legitimate under some circumstances.[/quote]

De-recognition of Japanese sovereignty over Taiwan was the result of the Allied Powers declaring war against Japan. (But Japan’s sovereignty over Taiwan did not cease as a result.) It’s not an instance of state recognition, which I am concerned with.

I found the following statement in An Introduction To Public International Law by S. K. Verma, p. 104:

Once the de jure recognition is granted to a State or a government, it cannot be withdrawn unless the State has ceased to exist or the government has been replaced by another authority…

books.google.com.tw/books?id=1oQ … ty&f=false

86

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

Article 4 of the ROC constitution does not mention Taiwan, but it also leaves unmentioned a number of Chinese territories such as Hainan Province.
But no one would say Hainan is not Chinese territory. You fail to notice that the concept of ‘inherent territory’ is never defined. Even the judicial branch does not define it. But the history of the making of the ROC constitution did involve Taiwanese representatives in the National Assembly. Taiwan has since been treated as a province of China.[/quote]

At the time of the transfer/exile of the KMT/ROC government from the mainland to Taipei, there were about 6 million Taiwanese and 2 million ROC “refugees/occupying forces/the people with guns”. Are you suggesting the Taiwanese were fairly represented during some sort of National Assembly procedings used to generate a new ROC Constitution applicable to the island of Taiwan? Perhaps suggesting that the Taiwanse went along willingly in subjecting themselves to Dictator Chiang, the White Terror, and 40 years of Martial Law?[/quote]

the representatives were elected by the people. The nationalist government held local elections in Taiwan, then the elected ‘town council members’ elected the representatives at other levels, who ultimately elected representatives to the National Assembly. Besides, it was the Taiwanese people who welcomed the nationalist government in the beginning and cooperated in these elections.[Say what???] [color=#800040]True, White Terror and 40 years of martial law were nothing they liked, but thats’s well after these elections took place and the constitution came into being[/color].[/quote]

Would you mind running that timeline by me again? My chronology of events is considerably different from those you describe.

The 17 Taiwanese delegates to the National Assembly of 1946, as with all the other delegates, were ‘hand-picked’ by the ROC government. There were no “Nationwide Elections”.

"(T)he KMT-drafted Constitution was adopted by the National Assembly on December 25, 1946, promulgated by the National Government on January 1, 1947, and went into effect on December 25, 1947. "

"On January 10, 1947, Governor Chen Yi announced that [color=#BF0040]the new ROC Constitution would not apply to Taiwan after it went into effect in mainland China on December 25, 1947 as Taiwan was still under military occupation [/color]and also that Taiwanese were politically naive and were not capable of self-governing. Later that year, Chen Yi was dismissed and the Taiwan Provincial Government was established. From March 1947 [immediately following the 228 Incident, and initiating the ensuing massacre of civilians in 1947] until 1987, Taiwan was in a state of [color=#BF0040]martial law[/color] [beginning of White Terror]. Although the constitution provided for regular democratic elections, these were not held in Taiwan until the 1990s.

On April 18, 1948, the National Assembly added to the Constitution the “Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion”. These articles greatly enhanced the power of the president and abolished the two term limit for the president and the vice president. In 1954, the Judicial Yuan ruled that the delegates elected to the National Assembly and Legislative Yuan in 1947 would remain in office until new elections could be held in Mainland China which had come under the control of the Communist Party of China in 1949. [color=#BF0040]This judicial ruling allowed the Kuomintang to rule unchallenged in Taiwan until the 1990s.[/color] In 1991, these members were ordered to resign by a subsequent Judicial Yuan ruling.

Basically, I have:
Oct 25th, 1945 - KMT General Chen Yi accepts surender of Japanese troops and equipment, but goes on to declare this “Taiwan Retrocession Day” making Taiwan “a part of the ROC”.
Nov 1945 to Feb 1947 - KMT ‘carpetbaggers’ under the direction of Chen Yi employ rules of “military occupation” to take over anything and everything they want throughout the island.
Jan 1947 - Chen Yi declares that the new ROC Constitution will NOT apply in Taiwan.
Feb 1947 to April 1947 - Chen Yi wipes out thousands of Taiwanese intellectual and regional leaders.
~June 1947 - Chen Yi is dismissed and returns to the Mainland; Taiwan is effectively still under “military occupation”, although declared to be part of the ROC.
Dec 25th 1947 - The post-war ROC Constitution takes effect.
April 18th 1948 - The ROC Constitution is (again) declared invalid in the Taiwan, as “military occupation” officially becomes “Martial Law”.
1991 - First elections held in Taiwan.

Again I ask, when did this period “[color=#FF0000]well after these election took place and the constitution came into being[/color]” crap to which you are referring actually happen?

87

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

Would you mind running that timeline by me again? My chronology of events is considerably different from those you describe.

The 17 Taiwanese delegates to the National Assembly of 1946, as with all the other delegates, were ‘hand-picked’ by the ROC government. There were no “Nationwide Elections”.

"(T)he KMT-drafted Constitution was adopted by the National Assembly on December 25, 1946, promulgated by the National Government on January 1, 1947, and went into effect on December 25, 1947. "

"On January 10, 1947, Governor Chen Yi announced that [color=#BF0040]the new ROC Constitution would not apply to Taiwan after it went into effect in mainland China on December 25, 1947 as Taiwan was still under military occupation [/color]and also that Taiwanese were politically naive and were not capable of self-governing. Later that year, Chen Yi was dismissed and the Taiwan Provincial Government was established. From March 1947 [immediately following the 228 Incident, and initiating the ensuing massacre of civilians in 1947] until 1987, Taiwan was in a state of [color=#BF0040]martial law[/color] [beginning of White Terror]. Although the constitution provided for regular democratic elections, these were not held in Taiwan until the 1990s.

On April 18, 1948, the National Assembly added to the Constitution the “Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion”. These articles greatly enhanced the power of the president and abolished the two term limit for the president and the vice president. In 1954, the Judicial Yuan ruled that the delegates elected to the National Assembly and Legislative Yuan in 1947 would remain in office until new elections could be held in Mainland China which had come under the control of the Communist Party of China in 1949. [color=#BF0040]This judicial ruling allowed the Kuomintang to rule unchallenged in Taiwan until the 1990s.[/color] In 1991, these members were ordered to resign by a subsequent Judicial Yuan ruling.[/quote]

Hand-picked? No. Have someone translate the followng for you:

省內總計推選出制憲國大代表，計有：省參議會議長黃朝琴、高雄市第一屆商會理事長陳啟清、嘉義女中校長許世賢、省參議會秘書長連震東以及「二二八事件」中死於非命的林連宗、張七郎醫師等共17名社會賢達，前往南京參與制憲工作，這也是台灣人首度「上京」參與國是。隨後於隔年十一月舉行全國性大選，由選民以無記名方式直接選舉3,045位國大代表；再隔一年的元月再選出名立773位立法委員，同時在各省議會間接選舉出監察委員，中華民國家才走上憲政之路迄今。因此，制憲國民大會的召開，真可說是建國百年中極為重要的關鍵日子，而且還有17位台灣制憲國大代表出席參與呢。

pnn.pts.org.tw/main/?p=35474

1946年4月15日舉行的第一屆臺灣省參議員選舉…5月1日，臺灣省參議會成立，世人喻之為臺灣「民主政治的第一聲」。 同一時期在中國，國、共兩黨政權爭奪，根據政治協商會議決議在1946年5月5日召開國民大會，除原有代表外，並增選臺灣、東北代表。國民政府設立各級民意機關，以便臺灣省參議會也能推選代表，趕上參加制憲國大的召開。當時由臺灣省參議員選出的17位國大代表，在總共2050位制憲代表中，僅佔0.8%。 行政長官公署接管臺灣不久，因措施失當，導致爆發二二八事件。

tpa.gov.tw/upfile/www/%E8%AD … 60s/24.htm

The fact that the new Constitution would not apply to Taiwan does not mean that there was no election. As I said, the election was not a direct one. It was rather indirect; the locals elected town council members, who in turn elected provincial council members, who ultimately elected representatives to the National Assembly.
It it to be noted that the ‘Taiwan Provincial Government’ had not yet formed, but its predecessor, called Taiwan Sheng Xingzheng Zhangguan Gongshu (Taiwan Provincial Administrative Official’s Bureau) existed and held the elections.

Since the constitution came into being at the end of 1946 and the infamous 228 incident happened in 1947, the chronological order of my description is correct: White Terror and 40 years of martial law constitution did not begin until after those elections and the completion of the 1946 Constitution.

88

Granted my Mandarin Chinese isn’t all that good, but it looks to me as if the “Taiwan Provincial Senator” (I do not see this person named in your reference; could it be a reference to Chen Yi?) vetted and SELECTED 17 delegates from the candidates put forth by the regions of Taiwan, so that those 17 “Taiwanese” could join 2000+ other KMT delegates in drafting the ROC Constitution. In the end, the Constitution was declared “inapplicable” to Taiwan anyway. So, what was the point of these so called elections? And, I stand by my three months of “still under military occupation” changing into 40 years of Martial law is hardly a close equivalent to your “well after”…

89

You sound like a very thorough historian.
The “elections” in Taiwan certainly appear to be in retrospect to be nothing more than a “pacification measure” taken by the KMT in offering a hollow carrot of democracy to the Taiwanese, one which never actually took effect.
Might you have the demographics of those 17 delegates? Were they pre-WaiShengRen Taiwanese? Did they speak Japanese, Minnan, AND Mandarin?

90

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]You sound like a very thorough historian.
The “elections” in Taiwan certainly appear to be in retrospect to be nothing more than a “pacification measure” taken by the KMT in offering a hollow carrot of democracy to the Taiwanese, one which never actually took effect.
Might you have the demographics of those 17 delegates? Were they pre-WaiShengRen Taiwanese? Did they speak Japanese, Minnan, AND Mandarin?[/quote]

I see you hold onto the fact that the Constitution ‘would not’ apply to Taiwan and think the elections were pointless in Taiwan.
But after all, the same Constitution was very short-lived on the mainland; it was in actual use for less than 5 months. Considering the unstable situation at that time, it is understandable why the Constitution was not applicable to Taiwan; the Japanese were still on the island and had not actually left the island until the signing of the Taipei Treaty in the 1950s. Also, the Communist influence was tangible in Taiwan and the Mainland at that time. Would you question the point of holding the elections on the Mainland as well?

91

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]You sound like a very thorough historian.
The “elections” in Taiwan certainly appear to be in retrospect to be nothing more than a “pacification measure” taken by the KMT in offering a hollow carrot of democracy to the Taiwanese, one which never actually took effect.
Might you have the demographics of those 17 delegates? Were they pre-WaiShengRen Taiwanese? Did they speak Japanese, Minnan, AND Mandarin?[/quote]

I see you hold onto the fact that the Constitution ‘would not’ apply to Taiwan and think the elections were pointless in Taiwan.
But after all, the same Constitution was very short-lived on the mainland; it was in actual use for less than 5 months. Considering the unstable situation at that time, it is understandable why the Constitution was not applicable to Taiwan; the Japanese were still on the island and had not actually left the island until the signing of the Taipei Treaty in the 1950s. Also, the Communist influence was tangible in Taiwan and the Mainland at that time. Would you question the point of holding the elections on the Mainland as well?[/quote]

Yes. I hold onto the “Consititution would not apply” statement. Please tell me of any time when it DID apply?

Of the Pro-KMT Taiwanese who “welcomed the arrival of the Chinese” in 1946, what percentage thought the Chinese were going to promote Taiwan’s independence, after having been brought to the island by the Americans who also removed the Japanese overlords? And, how did THAT turn out for them in 1947? Execution or a quick trip to Ludao prison while the KMT completely pillaged and destroyed the economy of Taiwan?

92

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]You sound like a very thorough historian.
The “elections” in Taiwan certainly appear to be in retrospect to be nothing more than a “pacification measure” taken by the KMT in offering a hollow carrot of democracy to the Taiwanese, one which never actually took effect.
Might you have the demographics of those 17 delegates? Were they pre-WaiShengRen Taiwanese? Did they speak Japanese, Minnan, AND Mandarin?[/quote]

I see you hold onto the fact that the Constitution ‘would not’ apply to Taiwan and think the elections were pointless in Taiwan.
But after all, the same Constitution was very short-lived on the mainland; it was in actual use for less than 5 months. Considering the unstable situation at that time, it is understandable why the Constitution was not applicable to Taiwan; the Japanese were still on the island and had not actually left the island until the signing of the Taipei Treaty in the 1950s. Also, the Communist influence was tangible in Taiwan and the Mainland at that time. Would you question the point of holding the elections on the Mainland as well?[/quote]

Yes. I hold onto the “Consititution would not apply” statement. Please tell me of any time when it DID apply?

Of the Pro-KMT Taiwanese who “welcomed the arrival of the Chinese” in 1946, what percentage thought the Chinese were going to promote Taiwan’s independence, after having been brought to the island by the Americans who also removed the Japanese overlords? And, how did THAT turn out for them in 1947? Execution or a quick trip to Ludao prison while the KMT completely pillaged and destroyed the economy of Taiwan?[/quote]

When it actually applied has nothing to do with the fact that Taiwan was already incorporated into the ROC and the locals participated in the elections.
You can go on and blame the KMT for oppressive rule over the Taiwanese. But as I said, it were the Taiwanese folks who welcomed the nationalist government and helped complete the constitutional basis for the inclusion of Taiwan into the ROC. History is irrevocable. This is fait accompli.

93

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]

When it actually applied has nothing to do with the fact that Taiwan had been incorporated into the ROC and the locals participated in the elections.
You can go on and blame the KMT for oppressive rule over the Taiwanese. But as I said, it were the Taiwanese folks who welcomed the nationalist government and helped complete the constitutional basis for the inclusion of Taiwan into the ROC. History is irrevocable. This is fait accompli.[/quote]

“Fait accompli”? Thus, if I coerced your neighbor into joining me by imprisoning his brother, we entered your house together, shot you, and declared the place to be ours… then I can call the neighbor a willing participant and your death a neccessary and justifiable measure. Furthermore, so long as I eventually turn the property over to my grandson, then all becomes TOTALLY LEGAL. Yes? :loco:

94

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

When it actually applied has nothing to do with the fact that Taiwan had been incorporated into the ROC and the locals participated in the elections.
You can go on and blame the KMT for oppressive rule over the Taiwanese. But as I said, it were the Taiwanese folks who welcomed the nationalist government and helped complete the constitutional basis for the inclusion of Taiwan into the ROC. History is irrevocable. This is fait accompli.[/quote]

“Fait accompli”? Thus, if I coerced your neighbor into joining me by imprisoning his brother, we entered your house together, shot you, and declared the place to be ours… then I can call the neighbor a willing participant and your death a neccessary and justifiable measure. Furthermore, so long as I eventually turn the property over to my grandson, then all becomes TOTALLY LEGAL. Yes? :loco:[/quote]

Wrong analogy. The Taiwanese people welcomed the nationalist government IN THE BEGINNING (at least before the completion of the constitution).
Unless you could show that the Taiwanese people were ‘coerced’ into participating in the elections, your analogy could not work.

95

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

When it actually applied has nothing to do with the fact that Taiwan had been incorporated into the ROC and the locals participated in the elections.
You can go on and blame the KMT for oppressive rule over the Taiwanese. But as I said, it were the Taiwanese folks who welcomed the nationalist government and helped complete the constitutional basis for the inclusion of Taiwan into the ROC. History is irrevocable. This is fait accompli.[/quote]

“Fait accompli”? Thus, if I coerced your neighbor into joining me by imprisoning his brother, we entered your house together, shot you, and declared the place to be ours… then I can call the neighbor a willing participant and your death a neccessary and justifiable measure. Furthermore, so long as I eventually turn the property over to my grandson, then all becomes TOTALLY LEGAL. Yes? :loco:[/quote]

Wrong analogy. The Taiwanese people welcomed the nationalist government IN THE BEGINNING (at least before the completion of the constitution).
Unless you could show that the Taiwanese people were ‘coerced’ into participating in the elections, your analogy could not work.[/quote]

And, what pray tell is “IN THE BEGINNING”? 1946? Before the Taiwanese discovered it was all a ruse?

96

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

When it actually applied has nothing to do with the fact that Taiwan had been incorporated into the ROC and the locals participated in the elections.
You can go on and blame the KMT for oppressive rule over the Taiwanese. But as I said, it were the Taiwanese folks who welcomed the nationalist government and helped complete the constitutional basis for the inclusion of Taiwan into the ROC. History is irrevocable. This is fait accompli.[/quote]

“Fait accompli”? Thus, if I coerced your neighbor into joining me by imprisoning his brother, we entered your house together, shot you, and declared the place to be ours… then I can call the neighbor a willing participant and your death a neccessary and justifiable measure. Furthermore, so long as I eventually turn the property over to my grandson, then all becomes TOTALLY LEGAL. Yes? :loco:[/quote]

Wrong analogy. The Taiwanese people welcomed the nationalist government IN THE BEGINNING (at least before the completion of the constitution).
Unless you could show that the Taiwanese people were ‘coerced’ into participating in the elections, your analogy could not work.[/quote]

And, what pray tell is “IN THE BEGINNING”? 1946? Before the Taiwanese discovered it was all a ruse?[/quote]

Those elections held in Taiwan could have been a ruse, in restrospect. But then again, would you say the elections held on the Mainland were a ruse as well?
Let’s face the fact: there is no such thing as ‘absolute justice’ in the world. The Japanese beat the Chinese to a pulp and ‘coerced’ China to sign the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which transferred Taiwan to Japan. Do you think it would be just to beat someone and force him to write a check to you? The hard fact is, this is LEGAL in International Law! If this is not enough, consider how the Soviets tricked the ROC into signing a treaty whereby the ROC abandoned Outer Mongolia. The ROC fulfilled its treaty obligations, but the Soviets did not. But the ROC could not revoke the de jure recognition of Outer Mongolia. Was the treaty between the Soviet Union and the ROc thus invalid, with the Soviet first breaking its promise? No, Mongolia still remains independent and cannot come back! And all this is totally legal in International law.

97

It still seems to me that you are trying to justify one illegal act after another… based on what? The concept of “military conquest”?
I don’t recall the KMT ever declaring war on the Taiwanese. Did they simply invade the island and forget to inform the people living there?

98

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]It still seems to me that you are trying to justify one illegal act after another… based on what? The concept of “military conquest”?
I don’t recall the KMT ever declaring war on the Taiwanese. Did they simply invade the island and forget to inform the people living there?[/quote]

International law recognizes the validity of the treaties signed between Japan and China, and the Soviet Uninion and China.

There is nothing illegal, even if you could show that the elections were a ruse. But then again, would you say the elections on the mainland were a ruse as well？

The (local) elections were an example of self-determination.

99

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]It still seems to me that you are trying to justify one illegal act after another… based on what? The concept of “military conquest”?
I don’t recall the KMT ever declaring war on the Taiwanese. Did they simply invade the island and forget to inform the people living there?[/quote]

There is nothing illegal, unless you could show that the elections were a ruse. But then again, would you say the elections on the mainland were a ruse as well？

The (local) elections were an example of self-determination.[/quote]

You are making a joke, yes? An example of “self-determination”???
Explain why the Taiwanese delegates represented less than 1% of all delegates to the ROC (a country they didn’t yet offically belong to under international law) and had virtually no say at all in the National Assembly?
Please show me the “self-determination” vote of these representatives of the Taiwanese people and their constituents who decided they should join the ROC. You know, the one that was conducted freely prior to sending them to China as delegates from a “province” that was under military occupation?

I guess the US really missed out on a golden opportunity to have Japan send two elected Senators and some Representatives to the USA to join Congress as delegates from “Japan, the 49th State”. :laughing:

100

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”][quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]It still seems to me that you are trying to justify one illegal act after another… based on what? The concept of “military conquest”?
I don’t recall the KMT ever declaring war on the Taiwanese. Did they simply invade the island and forget to inform the people living there?[/quote]

There is nothing illegal, unless you could show that the elections were a ruse. But then again, would you say the elections on the mainland were a ruse as well？

The (local) elections were an example of self-determination.[/quote]

You are making a joke, yes? An example of “self-determination”???
Explain why the Taiwanese delegates represented less than 1% of all delegates to the ROC (a country they didn’t yet offically belong to under international law) and had virtually no say at all in the National Assembly?
Please show me the “self-determination” vote of these representatives of the Taiwanese people and their constituents who decided they should join the ROC. You know, the one that was conducted freely prior to sending them to China as delegates from a “province”?[/quote]

It’s easy to explain why the Taiwanese delegates represented less than 1% of all delegates of the ROC. This is because Taiwan is too small, both in size and in population.
Taiwan does belong to China under international law. PLease see my earlier posts and refer to the UN Juridicial Yearbook particularly.
For your ease of reference, I repeat the info below:

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.”

  1. 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]…