Hello, B"H
Does anyone know why the 1954 mutual defense treaty between ROC and the USA was cancelled?
thanks
[quote=“BORUCHV”]Hello, B"H
Does anyone know why the 1954 mutual defense treaty between ROC and the USA was cancelled?
thanks[/quote]
Because the United States of American broke off diplomatic relations with the Republic of China and established them with the People’s Republic of China.
Thanks for the reply, B"H
When the USA cancelled this defense treaty does it mean that the ROC didn’t need protection any more?
The reason for my original question was because I told someone that even the USA cancelled agreements with other countries when it was in their interest, even though it hurt the other country.
Thanks again.
This surprises you? The USA is capable of doing anything that any other coldblooded state entity would do to further its interest, including torture and assassination even among its erstwhile allies. See Ngo Dinh Diem for starters. The ROC has done quite well in comparison to, say, South Vietnam.
Thanks for the reply. It still doesn’t answer my question. Was it because China went away from being a threat or some other reason?
Thanks very!
[quote=“BORUCHV”]Thanks for the reply. It still doesn’t answer my question. Was it because China went away from being a threat or some other reason?
Thanks very![/quote]No, it’s because the USA didn’t recognise the existance of the ROC any more. Therefore the treaty was cancelled.
The Taiwan Relations Act has governed military defense issues between the two countries since US de-recognition of the ROC in 1979.
[quote=“Wikipedia”]The act stipulates that the United States will “consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.”
This act also requires the United States “to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character”, and “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.” However, it does not necessarily require the United States to take any military action against the PRC in the event of an attack.[/quote]
Does this mean Taiwan didn’t need protection any more? No. Does it mean that the US chose relations with the PRC over relations with the ROC? Absolutely. But, the TRA (see above) allowed continued military co-operation between the US and the ROC, albeit at a lower level.
From the 1930’s onward, the ROC was recognized as the legitimate government of China, the “juridicial person” of China, etc. which we may simply call the legal government of China.
Taiwan had been ceded to Japan in 1895 by treaty, and was not a part of the ROC at this point.
During the Pacific war against Japan, all military attacks on Japanese Taiwan were conducted by US military forces. Hence, under international law, Taiwan has been “acquired” by the USA under the principle of conquest. Disposition of Taiwan territory must be conducted according to the laws of war. In early Sept. 1945, Gen. MacArthur directed the ROC Chiang Kai-shek (CKS) group to come to Taiwan to accept the surrender of Japanese troops.
Taiwan was not part of the China theater in the war. The CKS group of military personnel were transported to Taiwan on US ships. The surrender ceremonies were conducted on Oct. 25, 1945. While the surrender ceremonies were ostensibly conducted on behalf of the Allies, the subsequent military occupation of Taiwan was conducted on behalf of the “conqueror” and the “principal occupying power” and that is the United States.
As of Oct. 25, 1945, the CKS group is wearing two hats: (1) it is the recognized legal government of China, (2) it is a subordinate occupying power under the United States in the military occupation of Taiwan.
In mid-December of 1949, the ROC regime fled from mainland China to occupied Taiwan, which was outside of its domestic territory. Hence, from mid-December 1949, in the view of the US government officials, the ROC’s two hats have been slightly adjusted: (1) it is the recognized government in exile of China, (2) it is a subordinate occupying power under the United States in the military occupation of Taiwan.
In late 1978, the United States expressed its intention to derecognize the ROC as the legal government of China.
So, as of January 1, 1979, in the eyes of the US government officials, the ROC’s two hats have been adjusted again: (1) it is the non-recognized government in exile of China, (2) it is a subordinate occupying power under the United States in the military occupation of Taiwan.
The TRA was passed in order to continue economic, cultural, etc. relations with Taiwan.
A comprehensive “Examination of Taiwan’s Territorial Sovereignty and the ROC’s International Legal Position” is given here –
taiwanadvice.com/examlegal.htm
It is a chart, and you may need to study it for some time.
[quote=“Hartzell”]A comprehensive “Examination of Taiwan’s Territorial Sovereignty and the ROC’s International Legal Position” is given here –
taiwanadvice.com/examlegal.htm
It is a chart, and you may need to study it for some time.[/quote]
Thanks, but I’ve gotta run–there are a couple of homeless people under a bridge nearby who spin yarns just as, ah, interesting, but the thing is that they’ll give me a swig of the bottle of Thunderbird they pass around as they’re telling the tale. I suspect one of them is the rightful heir to the throne of France, and the other has the inside story on the black helicopters that they tell me have been flying around lately.
But thanks for the offer! I’ll be sure to keep it in mind.
[quote=“Sam Vimes”][quote=“Hartzell”]A comprehensive “Examination of Taiwan’s Territorial Sovereignty and the ROC’s International Legal Position” is given here –
taiwanadvice.com/examlegal.htm
It is a chart, and you may need to study it for some time.[/quote]
Thanks, but I’ve gotta run–there are a couple of homeless people under a bridge nearby who spin yarns just as, ah, interesting, but the thing is that they’ll give me a swig of the bottle of Thunderbird they pass around as they’re telling the tale. I suspect one of them is the rightful heir to the throne of France, and the other has the inside story on the black helicopters that they tell me have been flying around lately.
But thanks for the offer! I’ll be sure to keep it in mind.[/quote]
Well, if you want to offer a rebuttal, or if you want to advance the argument that Taiwan is “independent” (which neither the world community nor the United Nations accepts) or that Taiwan is a “part of the PRC” (which is extremely curious to say the least) … then I would be happy to examine your statement of reasons and rationale.
However, your attempt at “tongue-in-cheek” comments such as those given above are not persuasive in the slightest.
Moderator’s note: I congratulate Mr. Hartzell on the tone of this posting, which is somewhat criticical without being overly offensive.
[edited to reduce snarkiness]
Now come on, do I really need to respect utter looniness when I encounter it? If, on this particular subject, you are not acting as a one-trick pony and crackpot, Mr. Hartzell, then could you (or your congratulatory mod) please tell me how your post answered the OP’s factual question?.
If you don’t have a firm grasp of Taiwan’s international legal position, and of the legal position of the ROC government authorities, you cannot possibly do a valid analysis of why the Mutual Defense Treaty was cancelled.
My posting explained the “evolution” of the legal position of both Taiwan territory and the ROC government authorities.
Of course, the United States is not going to maintain a treaty with a non-recognized government in exile, so that Treaty was cancelled, and the TRA was put in place to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific and to promote the foreign policy of the United States by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan.