The transferring of the title of Taiwan

Politics Taiwan Politics
101

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]
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:[/quote]

If the Japanese folks themselves had overthrown their own government after WWII and the US had intended to incorporate Japan into its territory and held local elections the way the ROC did, with the consent of the locals, there would have been nothing illegal for Japan to become the 49th state of the US. But these conditions were not met in Japan. For one thing, the US had no such intention. For another, the Japanese folks did not want to join the USA. Therefore, the right to self-determination was not exercised in the case of Japan.

102

Again, I see you piling one mistruth upon another in an effort to lend legal credence to the initial illegal act of military occupation for the purpose of usurping territory , a territory that had not yet been dispositioned under international law.
Taiwan (Formosa) did NOT belong to China at the end of WW2. It was part of Japan prior to the war. China never attacked it during the war. They attacked it afterwards.

China jumped the gun, occupied the territory by military force, immediately declared it part of ROC territory, and subjected the local citizenry to multiple cruelties for 40 years in attempt to get them to accept KMT dominance. This has led to 60 years of grief for the Taiwanese people.

103

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]Again, I see you piling one mistruth upon another in an effort to lend legal credence to the initial illegal act of military occupation for the purpose of usurping territory , a territory that had not yet been dispositioned under international law.
Taiwan (Formosa) did NOT belong to China at the end of WW2. It was part of Japan prior to the war. China never attacked it during the war. They attacked it afterwards.

China jumped the gun, occupied the territory by military force, immediately declared it part of ROC territory, and subjected the local citizenry to multiple cruelties for 40 years in attempt to get them to accept KMT dominance. This has led to 60 years of grief for the Taiwanese people.[/quote]

Before Japan formally renounced Taiwan, the nature of the ROC occupation was indeed military occupation. I have never denied this.
But if we attach ultimate importance to [color=#8080BF]self-determination [/color](assuming that it is of legal as well as political importance), then the elections simply provded legal grounds for the inclusion of Taiwan into the ROC territory. The only party that could object was Japan. However, since Japan renounced Taiwan, there was no question about the inclusion. That’s why the United Nations and the writers of textbooks on International Law conclude that Taiwan is de jure part of China.

104

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”][quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]Again, I see you piling one mistruth upon another in an effort to lend legal credence to the initial illegal act of military occupation for the purpose of usurping territory , a territory that had not yet been dispositioned under international law.
Taiwan (Formosa) did NOT belong to China at the end of WW2. It was part of Japan prior to the war. China never attacked it during the war. They attacked it afterwards.

China jumped the gun, occupied the territory by military force, immediately declared it part of ROC territory, and subjected the local citizenry to multiple cruelties for 40 years in attempt to get them to accept KMT dominance. This has led to 60 years of grief for the Taiwanese people.[/quote]

Before Japan formally renounced Taiwan, the nature of the ROC occupation was indeed military occupation. I have never denied this.
But if we attach ultimate importance to [color=#8080BF]self-determination [/color](assuming that it is of legal as well as political importance), then the elections simply provded legal grounds for the inclusion of Taiwan into the ROC territory. The only party that could object was Japan. However, since Japan renounced Taiwan, there was no question about the inclusion. That’s why the United Nations and the writers of textbooks on International Law conclude that Taiwan is de jure part of China.[/quote]

In 1945-46, Japan had not yet “renounced Taiwan”… your chronology is in error. This did not take place until 1952, as a result of the SFPT.
Rather, with the end of World War II in 1945, by issuing “Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers General Order No. 1” (August 17th, 1945), the Allies agreed that the Republic of China Army under the Kuomintang would “temporarily occupy Formosa on behalf of the Allied forces.” It only took the ROC about 70 days to violate this command and declare Taiwan “a part of China” on Retrocession Day (Oct 25th).

[color=#BF0000]Are you stating now that this “vote of self-determination to join the ROC” occured within those 70 days? [/color]

It is understandable that Chiang’s forces/government would consider the surrender of Mainland China to equate to a restoring of ROC territory. However, Formosa was NOT part of China prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War (and WW2), and therefore by law could not be included as an “immediate return of Chinese territory”.

105

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]Again, I see you piling one mistruth upon another in an effort to lend legal credence to the initial illegal act of military occupation for the purpose of usurping territory , a territory that had not yet been dispositioned under international law.
Taiwan (Formosa) did NOT belong to China at the end of WW2. It was part of Japan prior to the war. China never attacked it during the war. They attacked it afterwards.

China jumped the gun, occupied the territory by military force, immediately declared it part of ROC territory, and subjected the local citizenry to multiple cruelties for 40 years in attempt to get them to accept KMT dominance. This has led to 60 years of grief for the Taiwanese people.[/quote]

Both the ROC government and the US government might face serious legal action in the near future if they refuse to return the power of self-governing of Formosa back to the Formosans.


Firstly, at the court of International Justice, the ROC governments can be sued the crimes committed on Formosans of the occupied Formosa: murdering, kidnapping, raping, and the looting of private and public properties. At the same court, the US government can be sued for her role in planning and physically assisting the above crimes, and covering up the traces of those crimes.


Secondly, State Department and DoD can be sued for treason at United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

106

[quote=“TaiwanTeacher”]

In 1945-46, Japan had not yet “renounced Taiwan”… your chronology is in error. This did not take place until 1952, as a result of the SFPT.
Rather, with the end of World War II in 1945, by issuing “Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers General Order No. 1” (August 17th, 1945), the Allies agreed that the Republic of China Army under the Kuomintang would “temporarily occupy Formosa on behalf of the Allied forces.” It only took the ROC about 70 days to violate this command and declare Taiwan “a part of China” on Retrocession Day (Oct 25th). Are you stating now that this “vote of self-determination to join the ROC” occured within those 70 days?

It is understandable that Chiang’s forces/government would consider the surrender of Mainland China to equate to a restoring of ROC territory. However, Formosa was NOT part of China prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War (and WW2), and therefore by law could not be included as an “immediate return of Chinese territory”.[/quote]

When did I say Japan renounced Taiwan before 1952? I said that [color=#8080FF]IF [/color]self-determination is of the utmost importance (implying that it could outrank Japan’s sovereignty claim), then Taiwan’s status was determined as part of the Republic of China.

107

@printlessfoot - Let’s tack on “forced conscription of the residents of occupied territory into miltary service”, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

108

Yes and I would also take it from the angle of ‘forced slavery’. US DoD can also be sued for that.

109

that accusation won’t hold if Taiwan became part of the ROC through self-determination. Don’t you know that? Do I need to repeat the point in capitals？
Taiwan became part of the Republic of China through SELF-DETERMINATION; THE TAIWANESE PEOPLPE PARTICIPATED IN THE LOCAL ELECTIONS OF THE ROC.
IF you want to refute the validity of the elections, that’s fine. But your effort will be doomed to fail, as there are records available showing that the Taiwanese peoplpe gladly welcomed the nationalist government in 1945. Also, the 1990’s witnessed the advent of the Additional Clauses of the Constitution, which specify Taiwan as a province of the Republic of China expressly. The people who participated in these additions were ALL elected by the Taiwanese folks,

110

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]

When did I say Japan renounced Taiwan before 1952? I said that IF self-determination is of the utmost importance (so that it could outrank Japan’s sovereignty), then Taiwan’s status was determined as part of the Republic of China.[/quote]

You stated they made a free and uncoerced “self-determination” to be a part of the ROC.

I say that your chronology is in error, and that the occupying forces declared Formosa of be part of the ROC prior to any vote even remotely related to such having taken place. AND, that the military occupation leading to Martial Law, and denial of any Constitutional rights ensued. Prove me wrong.

SHOW ME THE PLEBESCITE THAT OCCURRED IN SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER OF 1945!

111

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

When did I say Japan renounced Taiwan before 1952? I said that IF self-determination is of the utmost importance (so that it could outrank Japan’s sovereignty), then Taiwan’s status was determined as part of the Republic of China.[/quote]

You stated they made a free and uncoerced “self-determination” to do be a part of the ROC.

I say that your chronology is in error, and that the occupying forces declared Formosa of be part of the ROC prior to any vote even remotely related to such having taken place. AND, that the military occupation leading to Martial Law, and denial of any Constitutional rights ensued. Prove me wrong.

SHOW ME THE PLEBESCITE THAT OCCURRED IN SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER OF 1945![/quote]

Yes, I stated that they welcomed the nationalist government. But [color=#8080FF]did I say that happened in 1952[/color]? No! Go back to my earlier posts.

The exercise of self-determination is not limited to plebescite. In the case of Taiwan, this was done through local elections.

112

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

When did I say Japan renounced Taiwan before 1952? I said that IF self-determination is of the utmost importance (so that it could outrank Japan’s sovereignty), then Taiwan’s status was determined as part of the Republic of China.[/quote]

You stated they made a free and uncoerced “self-determination” to do be a part of the ROC.

I say that your chronology is in error, and that the occupying forces declared Formosa of be part of the ROC prior to any vote even remotely related to such having taken place. AND, that the military occupation leading to Martial Law, and denial of any Constitutional rights ensued. Prove me wrong.

SHOW ME THE PLEBESCITE THAT OCCURRED IN SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER OF 1945![/quote]

Yes, I stated that they welcomed the nationalist government. But [color=#8080FF]did I say that happened in 1952[/color]? No! Go back to my earlier posts.

The exercise of self-determination is not limited to plebescite. In the case of Taiwan, this was done through local elections.[/quote]

Again I state, your chronology is in error. The ROC had already declared Formosa to be a part of China and imposed military rule upon the Taiwanese PRIOR to conducting any “free elections”. This is quite obvious to all when one considers that all the Taiwanese were ALLOWED to elect were representatives to the ROC’s National Assembly.

Show me the Taiwan representatives who assembled and voted to join the ROC, prior to the ROC claiming the territory as their own. Your deadline is Oct 25th 1945. After that, all bets are off because the crime was already commited.

113

that accusation won’t hold if Taiwan became part of the ROC through self-determination. [/quote]

If the law suit is filed by Formosans then the so-called self-determination is automatically invalidated.

114

that accusation won’t hold if Taiwan became part of the ROC through self-determination. [/quote]

Again, that both the US and the PRC do not recognize the ROC (as such and such…) automatically invalidates the so-called self-determination.

115

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

When did I say Japan renounced Taiwan before 1952? I said that IF self-determination is of the utmost importance (so that it could outrank Japan’s sovereignty), then Taiwan’s status was determined as part of the Republic of China.[/quote]

You stated they made a free and uncoerced “self-determination” to do be a part of the ROC.

I say that your chronology is in error, and that the occupying forces declared Formosa of be part of the ROC prior to any vote even remotely related to such having taken place. AND, that the military occupation leading to Martial Law, and denial of any Constitutional rights ensued. Prove me wrong.

SHOW ME THE PLEBESCITE THAT OCCURRED IN SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER OF 1945![/quote]

Yes, I stated that they welcomed the nationalist government. But [color=#8080FF]did I say that happened in 1952[/color]? No! Go back to my earlier posts.

The exercise of self-determination is not limited to plebescite. In the case of Taiwan, this was done through local elections.[/quote]

Again I state, your chronology is in error. The ROC had already declared Formosa to be a part of China and imposed military rule upon the Taiwanese PRIOR to conducting any “free elections”. This is quite obvious to all when one considers that all the Taiwanese were ALLOWED to elect were representatives to the ROC’s National Assembly.

Show me the Taiwan representatives who assembled and voted to join the ROC, prior to the ROC claiming the territory as their own. Your deadline is Oct 25th 1945. After that, all bets are off because the crime was already commited.[/quote]

True, the ROC declared Taiwan as part of the ROC territory. And do not forget that this was welcomed by the people at that time. This occupation was indeed prior to any free election that could have taken place. But the number of people who were willing to join the local elections as candidates numbered thousands Would you say this was not done out of free will?

The ROC’s occupation could be considered illegal only if the Taiwanese filed a lawsuit. However, their acceptance of the system and their active participation show that they did this out of their own free will.

1945年，台灣進入中華民國時代，隔年，台灣的台灣省行政長官公署舉行各鄉鎮市市民代表普選。而約有240萬宣誓公民參與選舉。之後該市民代表也間接選舉選出各縣縣參議員，而縣參議員則選出名額為30名的台灣參議員（參選人高達1180人）。

116

that accusation won’t hold if Taiwan became part of the ROC through self-determination. [/quote]

Again, that both the US and the PRC do not recognize the ROC (as such and such…) automatically invalidates the so-called self-determination.[/quote]

Gee… and I thought that “the right to self-determination” was guaranteed by the UN Charter. Silly me.

Aren’t the US and the PRC members of the UN?
Is it possible that one of them simply “forgot to agree to the terms” before they accepted membership on the UN’s Security Council?

117

that accusation won’t hold if Taiwan became part of the ROC through self-determination. [/quote]

Again, that both the US and the PRC do not recognize the ROC (as such and such…) automatically invalidates the so-called self-determination.[/quote]

Gee… and I thought that “the right to self-determination” was guaranteed by the UN Charter. Silly me.

Aren’t the US and the PRC members of the UN?
Is it possible that one of them simply “forgot to agree to the terms” before they accepted membership on the UN’s Security Council?[/quote]

Some people say self-determination is controversial as a means to settle territorial disputes. Textbooks on international law discuss a lot about it.
Its application is restricted in some cases, such as when the sovereign would not abandon a territory. However, in the caseof Taiwan, Japan did not object to the Taiwanese people’s participation in the ROC elections. Application of self-determination was thus possible.

118

[quote=“raymondaliasapollyon”]

True, the ROC declared Taiwan as part of the ROC territory. And do not forget that this was welcomed by the people at that time. This occupation was indeed prior to any free election that could have taken place. But the number of people who were willing to join the local elections as candidates numbered thousands Would you say this was not done out of free will?

The ROC’s occupation could be considered illegal only if the Taiwanese filed a lawsuit. However, their acceptance of the system and their active participation show that they did this out of their own free will.

1945年，台灣進入中華民國時代，隔年，台灣的台灣省行政長官公署舉行各鄉鎮市市民代表普選。而約有240萬宣誓公民參與選舉。之後該市民代表也間接選舉選出各縣縣參議員，而縣參議員則選出名額為30名的台灣參議員（參選人高達1180人）。[/quote]

Excuse me. Your statement has me baffled. Under what legal system were the Taiwanese supposed to file such a lawsuit?
They were denied any legal recourse immediately upon the ROC’s military occupation.

I suggest that: a couple of thousand people volunteering to be puppets of the ROC in exchange for immunity during Military Occupation and Martial Law is hardly a great indicator of “6 Million Taiwanese” supporting an ROC takeover. Anybody ever hear of Quisling?

119

1946: “Hey, people! I can negotiate with these invading mainlanders. Vote for me!”
1947: “Oops. I failed to acquire ANY rights for us. In fact, they have declared that even those listed under the ROC Constitution have been denied to us. But, hey, the election wasn’t a farce at all. Well… enjoy the guns in your face and the loss of your livelihood! And, don’t forget to learn some Mandarin to avoid a beating. I’m headed to Taipei as a legislator and leader of industry! Lucky me!”

120

that accusation won’t hold if Taiwan became part of the ROC through self-determination. [/quote]

Again, that both the US and the PRC do not recognize the ROC (as such and such…) automatically invalidates the so-called self-determination.[/quote]

In the 1940s and 1950s, the ROC was still recognized as the sole representative government of China.