Rick Wallace, Tokyo correspondent, From: The Australian July 11, 2012 12:00AM
THE row over the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands is poised to heat up amid reports that the US has confirmed they fall within its joint defence treaty with Japan, amid renewed tension with China.
Formosa(Tawian) and Pescadores(Penghu) fall within this joint defence treaty as well. Why is that? It’s because the Emperor of Japan owns the title to Formosa and Pescadores territories.
[quote=“printlessfoot”]Rick Wallace, Tokyo correspondent, From: The Australian July 11, 2012 12:00AM
THE row over the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands is poised to heat up amid reports that the US has confirmed they fall within its joint defence treaty with Japan, amid renewed tension with China.
Formosa(Tawian) and Pescadores(Penghu) fall within this joint defence treaty as well. Why is that? It’s because the Emperor of Japan owns the title to Formosa and Pescadores territories.[/quote]
Printlessfoot, I thought you said the title to Formosa is owned by USA. Now, you’re saying its Japan? So, which is it? If its Japan, show us an official/legal document that states Formosa (Taiwan) belongs to Japan today (today, not 1945). Or are you just trolling again?
I said that the US is the occupying force of Taiwan since the end of WWII till today. I never said that the US owned the title to Taiwan territory.
It’s Emperor of Japan who owned and still owns the title to Formosa and Pscadores. Why so? It went way back when the Emperor of Qing Dynasty ‘gave’ the west part of Formosa to him in Treaty of Shimonoseki. Later on the Emperor conquered the east part of Formosa. Therefore, the Emperor of Japan owned Formosa.
When the US millitary ocupied Japan the end of the Pacific War, General McArthur suspended the Emperor of Japan’s right to govern Formosa and Pescadores. The US millitary had not abolished the Emperor of Japan’s ownership of those territories because the US had no legal right to do such thing according to the law of war.
printlessfoot sounds like hes allied with the guys that keep harping on that aged topic of taiwan still belonging to the US military as a conquered land, etc etc.
Fact is the United States does NOT want Taiwan being part of the Union.
It shouldve given Taiwan back to Japan , instead of giving it to the KMT’s ROC. The ROC wouldve escaped to Hainan island and today it would be the PRC against Hainan. And Taiwan will be just part of Japan.
[quote=“tommy525”]
It shouldve given Taiwan back to Japan , instead of giving it to the KMT’s ROC. [/quote]
I don’t think it was, Japan ceded all rights to Formosa and the Pescadores in the Treaty of San Francisco. The Japanese even tried to sign it away a second time in the Treaty of Taipei.
Of course, as with anything you sign away, the former is the only one that has legal merit, and no recipient was named for the territory in in the Treaty of San Francisco, which was the former in this case.
well if i had any say back in the day i wouldve given TAiwan back to Japan, whether they wanted it or not.
My foremost desire is that all lands and waters surrounding and in the Pacific Ocean are ruled by law.
What about the SFPT where Japan renounced all rights to Taiwan?
[quote=“bohica”]
What about the SFPT where Japan renounced all rights to Taiwan?[/quote]
It’s like listing your belongings on eBay and you type ‘I don’t want them any more’. Then there is no bidding at all. So you take those things off eBay.
On a side note, if the ROC governbment dares to claim in the future that Taiwan is part of China, Taiwanese should take all collections of Palace Museum to eBay and auction them off.
[quote=“bohica”]
What about the SFPT where Japan renounced all rights to Taiwan?[/quote]
Oh, and you can renounce your wife any time you like but it does not automatically entitle your neighbor Jack Ripper a right to fukc her.
No one is talking about Taiwan being “part of” the Union.
You need to study the laws of war. Occupied territory is not “part of” the occupying country.
[quote=“printlessfoot”][quote=“bohica”]
What about the SFPT where Japan renounced all rights to Taiwan?[/quote]
It’s like listing your belongings on eBay and you type ‘I don’t want them any more’. Then there is no bidding at all. So you take those things off eBay.
On a side note, if the ROC governbment dares to claim in the future that Taiwan is part of China, Taiwanese should take all collections of Palace Museum to eBay and auction them off.[/quote]
This is kind of new. For a long time here people are discussing if Taiwan belongs to the US, and you’re saying Taiwan actually remains part of Japan, despite Japan having renounced Taiwan in the SFPT.
So you’re saying the SFPT is not valid. How so?
Actually, as I recall, the Dutch have a prior claim on the Tainan area. Did they ever sign a treaty giving it to China? Koxinga attacked the Dutch forts and expelled them - a violation of international law.
Of course, the aborigines have a prior claim to most, if not all, of these lands. Did they sign a treaty giving it away to those Chinese immigrants from the mainland who invaded Taiwan in the 17th century? I don’t think so.
Thus, the only legal solution is to expel everyone from Taiwan who is not an aborigine. Send them back to where their ancestors came from. That could be a bit tricky for those Taiwanese who are part aborigine - maybe some body parts will be allowed to remain in Taiwan while the rest is deported.
Not being cynical at all here. We’ve got to respect treaties. The law is the law, no matter how divorced from reality.
Jonathan Swift, in Gulliver’s Travels, trying to explain “lawyers” to the Houyhnhnms:
[quote=“bohica”]
This is kind of new. For a long time here people are discussing if Taiwan belongs to the US, [/quote]
“No one is talking about Taiwan being “part of” the Union.” - Richard Hartzell.
No, I said that the Emperor of Japan still owns the right, claim, and title to Taiwan. You are confused with three legal persons (persona ficta) : 1) The Emperor of Japan, 2) The government of Japan before WWII, and 3) the government of Japan after WWII. Only the first one ever owned and still owns the right, claim, and title to Formosa and Pescadores. Neither the second nor the third legal person does. Japan, or say, Taiwan, China, America likewise, is used on the street for many different things for the sake of convenience. But when we are talking about the ownership of a car, a house, or a piece of land, the owner’s name on the piece of paper should be first recognized as a persona ficta.
The government of Japan established by General McArthur did the renouncement in the SFPT. Unfortunately, it had no valid legal right to do so because it never owned the right, claim, or title to Formosa or Pescadores. Basically, the US found the wrong guy to make the renouncement in the SFPT. It’s like eBay allowing wrongful persons posting things they do not own.
[quote=“printlessfoot”]
The government of Japan established by General McArthur did the renouncement in the SFPT. Unfortunately, it had no valid legal right to do so because it never owned the right, claim, or title to Formosa or Pescadores. Basically, the US found the wrong guy to make the renouncement in the SFPT. It’s like eBay allowing wrongful persons posting things they do not own.[/quote]
The government of Japan was acting on behalf of the Japanese Emperor. Just like it was the government of Japan that originally negotiated and signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki, not the Emperor himself. If the government of Japan was the “wrong guy”, then who the hell is the “right guy”?
Of course the US had the right to do so, Japan lost the war. Otherwise how did Japan acquire Taiwan in the first place?
Aren’t you just nitpicking here? If there’s a distinction to be made between what’s “part of Japan” and “owned by the Emperor”, then tell me how is the US obligated to protect the latter? That’s not in the joint defense treaty, protecting the Emperor’s “right”, “claim”, and “title”.
[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]Actually, as I recall, the Dutch have a prior claim on the Tainan area. Did they ever sign a treaty giving it to China? Koxinga attacked the Dutch forts and expelled them - a violation of international law.
Of course, the aborigines have a prior claim to most, if not all, of these lands. Did they sign a treaty giving it away to those Chinese immigrants from the mainland who invaded Taiwan in the 17th century? I don’t think so.
[/quote]
Koxinga and his father were quiet international. His father had a Christian name, were able to speak a couple of European languages. In fact the Dutch did sign a treaty with Koxinga. Koxinga declared war on the Dutch using mistreatments of Chinese as an excuse. For this reason Koxinga scared the crap out of the Spanish in Manila.
Also the Dutch and the Spanish did manage to justify their taking of Aboriginal lands. They didn’t really have to, but they did it anyway.
So you can wield the guns and say frak international law, but why would the rest of the world allow such things to happen? Especially with China, where they have enough man and economic power to do a lot of damage and worst yet they think they have something to prove.
Anyway, the Japanese and Chinese are now flying military war planes at each other… very tense situation. The US urged restraint, but China told the US to shut up. Well, they put it as “Senkaku island is not an US-China issue”. But with the Japan defence pact, it obviously is an US related issue.
yup after the newly elected Japan prime minister, things are indeed heating up. Maybe we need to have plans if war really break out
You know, I could see Japan wanting to go to war…simply to boost its failing economy (quick and speedy wars are great economic boosters…long, drawn out wars, clearly are not). Dunno if the same can be said for the PRC.
Wow… ya, this treaty counts and the other doesn’t. How many times do we have to hear this argument out of context?
The U.S. doesn’t invite either the PRC or the ROC to the SF Peace Treaty to avoid saying which one is the real China, and then makes Japan sign a separate treaty soon afterwards which quotes the SF Peace Treaty in Taipei with the ROC foreign minister.
If that doesn’t count, then tell Japanese and the U.S. government that their methods defied common sense and don’t count. What were they thinking back then? That a bunch of western academics would pick things apart out of context decades later to justify the theft of the ROC government?
[quote=“Mick”][quote=“tommy525”]
It shouldve given Taiwan back to Japan , instead of giving it to the KMT’s ROC. [/quote]
I don’t think it was, Japan ceded all rights to Formosa and the Pescadores in the Treaty of San Francisco. The Japanese even tried to sign it away a second time in the Treaty of Taipei.
Of course, as with anything you sign away, the former is the only one that has legal merit, and no recipient was named for the territory in in the Treaty of San Francisco, which was the former in this case.[/quote]