TRA is an US law. English is the only language.[/quote]
Yes, but I have seen copies of it in Chinese, probably translated in Taiwan, so they’re not “official.”[/quote]
Yes, that’s what I meant. You can find the Chinese language translations on AIT’s website ( ait.org.tw/zh/about_ait/tra.asp ).
TRA is an US law. English is the only language.[/quote]
Yes, but I have seen copies of it in Chinese, probably translated in Taiwan, so they’re not “official.” I showed a copy of it on the internet to a mainlander once. That was a highly effective exercise in pissing a mainlander off. He had no idea that the TRA existed.
TNT, you may be thinking of the three communiques. Both Chinese and English would be considered official. I believe that the normal practice when making treaties or communiques is for both sides to agree on the language in both copies before signing.[/quote]
Yes the three communiques.
Refering back to what Maoman said in a post
“accept” vs “acknowledge” - and the difference between the meanings.
Is it possible since there are two versions (Chinese and English) to construe the three communiques in different ways.
From excerpts of the three communiques and TRA pasted here in this forum, there seems a purposeful careful use of the English language to carry the spirit or intent or to imply something without exactly saying it. Therefore is the Chinese version carefully coregraphed to carry the exact spirit or meaning, or could the Chinese have a slightly different take on the three communiques, therefore both sides could have subtle but amouting to different views of that the three communiques are, their functions and obligations for each party.
What version takes precedence
[quote=“TNT”] Is it possible since there are two versions (Chinese and English) to construe the three communiques in different ways.
From excerpts of the three communiques and TRA pasted here in this forum, there seems a purposeful careful use of the English language to carry the spirit or intent or to imply something without exactly saying it. Therefore is the Chinese version carefully coregraphed to carry the exact spirit or meaning, or could the Chinese have a slightly different take on the three communiques, therefore both sides could have subtle but amouting to different views of that the three communiques are, their functions and obligations for each party.
What version takes precedence[/quote]
The Communiques are not agreements, and thus no language governs them.
The Communiques are basically simply statements regarding the positions on various issues held by the Chinese and the US. If you want to know what the US believes, look at the English version. If you want to know what the Chinese think, read the Chinese version.
this may seem like a stupid question but
If these are not agreements, then how is it that the US can switch recognition from the ROC to the PRC, without signing anything with the PRC, saying “we recognize you, and not them”
Was switching recognition a matter of sending a Dear John letter to the ROC?
Well, if you insist that the US is going to be completely straightforward in how it crafts and uses such documents, then there really isn’t any point in our further discussion, as I happen to hold the view that, for the most part, countries enter into such agreements and draft such documents with as much of an effort as possible to promote self-interest and future leverage, both economically and politically.
I want Taiwan to become FULLY INDEPENDENT and not being bullied by China all the time!!!
Long live Taiwan!!!
well…what we want and what we get aren’t always the same. what are you willing to do about it?
Didn’t read the posting rules for international politics, did you Taiwanforever?
[quote]International Politics
This is the place for international political discussion. Politics related to Taiwan & Taiwan-China issues should be posted elsewhere.[/quote]
What a nitwit. 
Taiwanforever hasn’t mentioned what his/her ACTION PLAN is . . . . . . so I will make a suggestion.
I suggest the following – All Taiwanese laws should be changed to respect international legal standards, and in particular to afford reciprocal treatment to foreigners.
In terms of Taiwan’s attempt to gain recognition in the international community, suh a request is quite reasonable and proper.
One basic parameter is the following – in the United States, U.K, most areas of Europe, etc. Taiwanese persons who reside there for a few years are able to obtain full citizenship rights (including full work rights) while at the same time retaining their original nationality.
In Taiwan, many foreigners have lived here for twenty or thirty years or more, and still are unable to obtain such reciprocal treatment.
Clearly, this is unfair.
Think about it . . . . . . . if you asked a selection of North Americans or Europeans in Taiwan: “Do you think the Taiwan government treats you fairly, based on consideration and comparison of how your own government treats Taiwanese persons?”
The typical answer would be: “No.”
Clearly, Taiwan is not gaining friends in the international community by maintaining this kind of attitude and behavior.
And remember . . . . . in order to get accepted as a full member of the international community, Taiwan needs to make a lot of friends internationally!!!
[quote=“Taiwanforever”]I want Taiwan to become FULLY INDEPENDENT and not being bullied by China all the time!!!
Long live Taiwan!!![/quote]
Take it up with the Commy guys in Beijing, perhaps they will listen to you
Isn’t Taiwan FULLY independent now, as we speak?
Yes hence it has got tonnes of non banana republic embassies here, is recognized as the Republic Of Taiwan, is enjoying the rotating seat in the Security Council, has its own embassy in Beijing, and is the only one that has a say in its own destiny
But then again we could argue what is independance?
[quote=“Quest”]I suggest the following – All Taiwanese laws should be changed to respect international legal standards, and in particular to afford reciprocal treatment to foreigners.
…
And remember . . . . . in order to get accepted as a full member of the international community, Taiwan needs to make a lot of friends internationally!!![/quote]
I would then ask the question… How hard is it for the average taiwanese citizen to be allowed into the US, rent an apt, and get a job? Oh and get a job that allows that same person to stay for an extended period of time to get those rights described previously. In relation for foeigners entering here. If reciprocal treatment were to be true, then most of the foreigners wouldn’t be here period. Esp if you apply the HB1 work visa requirements from the US. Don’t know how it is in Europe, but I’d bet it’s similar conditions.
Part of the reciprocal treatment would be having the guts and say that Taiwan is a true country, separate from China, and inviting them into the UN. If another nation won’t officially recognize you, why bother accomodating their citizens to such an extent?
Just a thought.
Wake up . . . . Taiwan is not a country. Gen. MacArthur directed the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek to come to Taiwan and accept the surrender of Japanese troops. That was clearly stated in General Order No. 1 of September 2, 1945.
So, the representatives of CKS come over to Taiwan, take the surrender and announce the day (October 25, 1945) as “Taiwan Retrocession Day” . . . . . however, even up to the present time, such an assertion is not recognized under international law. Moreover, in the peace treaties after the war, the sovereignty of “Formosa and the Pescadores” was not given to the Republic of China.
Meanwhile, in the meantime, i.e. late 1949, the officials of the Republic of China fled to Taiwan (where they were only an “occupying power” and did not possess sovereignty), and set up their government here. That makes them a government-in-exile. The United Nations does not recognize Taiwan as a country, because it is not.
So that should make the United States a gov’t in exile to the United Kingdom? After all, some people were sent there by the UK and others fled. Not exact, but similar.
Of course they fought for their recognition. Which is what Taiwan is trying to do, isn’t it? Back then, there wasn’t a UN or “International Law” to dictate who was a country and who wasnt.
I liked to always point to the fact that if you look at a lot of the products people buy. Those usually will say “Made in Taiwan” And according to most maps, they list Taiwan.
If Taiwan was of a larger geographic size with a larger future market. I don’t think there would be a problem with gaining international recognition as such.
Some products say “Made in H.K.” and some say “Made in Macau”.
So . . . . . according to your logic, those are independent nations?
Let me give you some advice . . . . don’t apply to law school. You don’t have the mental orientation to be able to understand legal issues.
Oh please. Taiwan has a separate government which controls its own territory, enters into international agreements, and is not subject to any higher level of government. I hope we can agree that Taiwan at least has de facto independence.
Obviously, this state of affairs may change in the future. If such threats become immanent, Taiwan’s de jure standing under various formulations of international law, will not be of much help. More promising are the island’s importance to the U.S. and Japanese national interests.
but…then…why must taiwan wait for Uncle Sam to say it is OK for Taiwan to get new submarines? If you and I were Taiwanese we would recognize the immense value submarines would have in protecting taiwan’s national defense from pirates/smugglers. the coast guard would be alot more effective in submarines and just poppin up for surprise inspections. as it is, we know what skippers of contraband bearing vessels do with illegal immigrants to taiwan: throw em overboard.
if taiwan is an independent nation, why does she have but two (2) submarines both US surplus from WW2? the US promise to let here have diesel (antiquidated technology…ever seen submarine movies where the sonar hears everything? diesels are loud) submarines was put PR fluff designed to appease the taiwanese need for weapon and simultaneoulsy let china know the status quo is still intact.
Because just stealing them from the US might be considered uncouth. I think standard practice is for the seller to agree to the sale beforehand.
taiwan can build some of the finest computers in the world.
taiwan can build the world’s tallest building.
taiwan can install a bullet train.
taiwan engineers “got it going on” indeed.
but despite such prowess AND being an island taiwan has yet to build submarines.
curious and curiouser.