I am certainly not arguing for argument’s sake . . . . . . . however, in this instance you are confusing prescription with transfer of sovereignty . . . . . . .
In relation to the sovereignty of countries, by prescription we are referring to acquisition of ownership or other real rights in movables or immovables by continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, public, and unequivocal possession since time immemorable . . . . . . that is the situation with England, but unfortunately bears no relationship to Taiwan.
The sovereignty of “Formosa and the Pescadores” was originally held by Japan in the pre-WWII era . . . . . . .
Therefore, there has to be a transfer of sovereignty to the new owners . . . . . . however, it never happened. You can read the post WWII treaties, and you will see that there was no transfer of sovereignty of “Formosa and the Pescadores” to the Republic of China.
In fact, as of late 1949, the Republic of China had just become a government in exile which was occupying territory where it did not have sovereignty . . . . . . . and that condition has continued up to the present day.
So who transferred sovereignty of China over to the PRC? Are you people saying that before 1972 or whatever year it was when the U.N. recognized the People’s Republic of China, the PRC was not a real, independent state with real sovereignty? That’s what you’re implying, yes? Let’s turn this bullshit around. According to the legalistic definitions of the anti-Taiwan crowd, the PRC has no sovereignty over China, either! It is simply an occupying army holding the Chinese people against their will.
There are many books in Taiwan which discuss this issue . . . . . . and the consensus seems to be that (1) there was a “revolution” on Mainland China, after which (2) the people decided to implement a new constitution for the nation.
Hence, they effectively kicked the old government out, and established a new government . . . . . . and so you have a new government of China, and China is a sovereign nation via prescription . . . . .
It is not independent. Taiwan is not the island’s official name, it is Republic of China. Republic of China explains pretty loud and clear that the island is not seperate from China. The government is the government of the Republic of China, not the government of Taiwan, which it would be in the case of independence.
No. The territory in which is casually called Taiwan, is part of China, in accord with the “One China” policy, accepted by the majority of the world. The area itself, apart from the names of Formosa and Taiwan, is officially recognized to be the Republic of China. Until that name changes, the territory that is governed by this government is officially “of China”.
I think you are confusing the de facto independence Taiwan currently enjoys with official independence.
According to the Montevideo Convention, there are four requirements for statehood:
Permanent population - 23 million seems to suffice for that. In fact, that makes Taiwan larger than 3/4 of the members of the UN in terms of population.
Government - Taiwanese definately has that.
Territory - Taiwan seems to have that. Taiwan island along with a number of smaller off shore islands.
Capacity to Engage in International Relations - While China hampers with that one, Taiwan has a very active foreign policy, and even though there are only 26 nations with diplomatic relations with Taiwan, Taiwan maintains active relations with many states that don’t have official relations with the country.
Taiwan’s government is still a Chinese government because it governs the Republic of China, therefore, it is the government of the Republic of China.
I’m going to quote Falcon on this one:
“In fact, as of late 1949, the Republic of China had just become a government in exile which was occupying territory where it did not have sovereignty . . . . . . . and that condition has continued up to the present day.”
[quote=“Falcon”]There are many books in Taiwan which discuss this issue . . . . . . and the consensus seems to be that (1) there was a “revolution” on Mainland China, after which (2) the people decided to implement a new constitution for the nation.
Hence, they effectively kicked the old government out, and established a new government . . . . . . and so you have a new government of China, and China is a sovereign nation via prescription . . . . .[/quote]
Forget it Falcon, most of these folks who write in this thread don’t understand the difference you’re pointing out. In their mind, Taiwan is, therefore, it can’t be any other.
Put another way, there are really two “practical” tests of “sovereignty”.
International recognition. If no one in the planet thinks you are a sovereign nation, then you are not a sovereign nation no matter one’s protestations otherwise.
Defense of the country. If no one is willing to die for sovereignty, then it doesn’t exist. Since the Pan Blue people have already effectively conceded this point (i.e. follow their money trail), then it’s up to the Pan Green folks to put up or shut up. But, as we know, the Pan Green folks have the same exit strategy (minus going to China) as the Pan Blue folks, thus, when PRC attacks, Taiwan will be flying the Red and Gold.
Shouting that one is an independent, sovereign nation at the top of Yangmingshan does not constitute actual sovereignty in reality despite characteristics Taiwan has to a true and actual sovereign nation (as it is generally considered).
To help those who like to think legalistically, think of the Taiwan sovereignty issue as thus:
If you have a right as defined by say a Constitution, do you have that right if no one enforces that right?
The answer is clear. That right does not exist if it is not enforceable.
Taiwan is not a sovereign nation because it can’t make anyone in the world recognize it as one, nor protect it.
No, I am not. Look up sovereignty in a dictionary or a political science text. You will find it to mean what I said it. You are talking about ‘official’ sovereignty, under International Law, which is a different thing altogether. It’s like saying there is no war when there is a ‘police action’ etc. It doesn’t matter what other countries, laws, etc call it. If it has the qualities of sovereinty then it is sovereignty.
The name has nothing to do with it whatsoever. If Cuba were to rename itself ‘The Republic of Brazil’, woudl that make it a no longer independent part of Brazil? Complete red herring.
Of course I’m not. De facto, means ‘in fact’. In fact, Taiwan is independent. It doesn’t matter whether or not this independence is official. If a country is officially called and recognised as ‘The Democratic Socialist Republic of X’, this does not make it democratic and socialist.
[quote]Taiwan’s government is still a Chinese government because it governs the Republic of China, therefore, it is the government of the Republic of China.
[/quote]
Wrong. Just because the name is Republic of China, doesn’t mean it is part of China. A name changes nothing.
Or rather the difference is irrelevant. Whena arguing (as per the original post) whether or not Taiwan is independent and sovereign, the only criteria that need to be considered are whether Taiwan possesses the qualities that make up independence and sovereignty. Whether or not the rest of the world, the ROC Constitution or the people of Taiwan itself, will recognise this, is irrelevant. The majority of people saying the earth is flat, does not make it so. Of course if you want to argue if Taiwan is sovereign or independent under international law, then that is a different thing entirely, but but that was not what was being argued.
[quote]Put another way, there are really two “practical” tests of “sovereignty”.
International recognition. If no one in the planet thinks you are a sovereign nation, then you are not a sovereign nation no matter one’s protestations otherwise. [/quote]
Utterly ridiculous. If the UN voted that North Korea was a democracy, it would not suddenly become one.
Again ridiculous. Because a nation’s sovereignty may dissapear int he future, doesn’t mean that the nation doesn’t possess it in the present. You may as well say that I don’t own my car, because I’m not willing to lay down my life in defence of my ownership.
As an aside, I do believe you could argue that Taiwan did not possess sovereignty until democratic reform in the 1990s. Up until then Taiwan was indeed part of an alien regime - the ROC. Despite the fact that the name ROC continues, the fact that the government is now chosen by the people means that they are now sovereign.
[quote="Bu Lai En][quote]Put another way, there are really two “practical” tests of “sovereignty”.
International recognition. If no one in the planet thinks you are a sovereign nation, then you are not a sovereign nation no matter one’s protestations otherwise. [/quote]
Utterly ridiculous. If the UN voted that North Korea was a democracy, it would not suddenly become one.[/quote]
You are confused. The easy refutation is that there are many sovereign nations that are in fact very undemocratic. Democratic institutions have nothing to do with sovereignty as it is generally recognized. That is where your failure to understand is occurring.
[quote]You are confused. The easy refutation is that there are many sovereign nations that are in fact very undemocratic. Democratic institutions have nothing to do with sovereignty as it is generally recognized. That is where your failure to understand is occurring.
[/quote]
You completely missed my point. I was saying that sovereignty does not come from international recognition. Neither does demcoracy. Therefore, to vote N Korea democratic, would not make it democratic. I was not in any way equating democracy with sovereignty.
How about changing my quote to “if the UN were to vote that Brimingham was a soverign nation, it would not be so if it continued to pay taxes to Britain, had no territorial integrity, was not independent or selfgoverning etc”.
How is that different from Taiwan where (1) there was an “election” on Taiwan, after which (2) the people elected someone who vowed to update the constitution?
[quote]Hence, they effectively kicked the old government out, and established a new government . . . . . . and so you have a new government of Republic of
China, and Republic of
China is a sovereign nation via prescription . . . . .[/quote]
Alternatively, if that doesn’t float your boat, you could also say that there was an “invasion” of Taiwan by the KMT who imposed a new constitution on the people 50 years ago.
Falcon, I’m enjoying this discussion and I think we’ve all figured out you’re intentions are to debate and educate so I’ll ask if the situation in Taiwan is not analogous to Iraq?
Presently there is an interim government established by a foreign government that did not ever negotiate a peace or surrender treaty with the previous government. Yes, the US defeated Saddam’s army but the former government did not actually relinguish sovereignty to the US. Hence the very legitmacy of the present gov is highly debatable. In fact, could it not be considered completely analogous to the KMT comign to Taiwan and occupying this land, again without any formal treaty passing on sovereignty?
Now, we all know that the present interim government in Iraq is considered legitimate by the UN and when elections are held next year full sovereignty will reside in this new government. The entire world will accept this. Yet, there was never any official passing on of legitimacy from one government to the next. A military force came in overthrew the previous rulers. Acording to international law, AFAIK, sovereignty cannot be gained by military takeover (at least in modern times, no one is going to give England back to the Saxons.)
So how is the situation that is unfolding in Iraq which will lead to full sovereignty and recognition different from what has happened here? Why will the Iraqi government get full recognition and sovereignty over their land and not the Taiwanese?
[quote=“ludahai”]According to the Montevideo Convention, there are four requirements for statehood:
Permanent population - 23 million seems to suffice for that. In fact, that makes Taiwan larger than 3/4 of the members of the UN in terms of population.
Government - Taiwanese definately has that.
Territory - Taiwan seems to have that. Taiwan island along with a number of smaller off shore islands.
Capacity to Engage in International Relations - While China hampers with that one, Taiwan has a very active foreign policy, and even though there are only 26 nations with diplomatic relations with Taiwan, Taiwan maintains active relations with many states that don’t have official relations with the country.[/quote]
I think the word “capacity” is incapable of meaningful definition. Birmingham could develop a very active foreign policy, but it certainly does not have the capacity to enter into relations on a state to state basis with anybody.
The Monevideo Convention is a load of self-contradictory nonsense. A state may only enter into international relations with another state. But how do we know if it’s a state or not ? Well, if it can enter into international relations then it’s a state. But how do we know if it can enter into such relations ? Well if it’s a state, it can. But how do we know if it’s a state ? Return to start and repeat ad infinitum.
Ideas that the USA and the PRC will submit to the jurisdication of the ICJ on this one could only be entertained after several huge spliffs and a bottle or two of absinthe.
(If you want to see some really vague bunkum, read the Joint Declaration between China and the UK in relation to HK. The Basic Law is hilarious too.)
So. Let’s assume that we all wake up tomorrow and it is proved incontrovertably that Taiwan is a sovereign independent nation. What do you all see as the way forward ? Where do we go from there ?
I have not heard one single idea from any independence activist on where we go from there. Is that it ? Do we just declare independence and carry on with the status quo ? They must have some idea of how the new Taiwan will work. Will there be changes ? Apart from changing a few cap badges and references to “the ROC” to “the ROT” will there be a social programme ?
Umm … the cornerstone of this presidential term is a complete reform of the constitution. While it’s not explicitly addressing independence, it’s pretty closely related, and is an attempt to deepen Taiwan’s democracy and rule of law. I’d say that counts.
[quote]If Cuba were to rename itself ‘The Republic of Brazil’, woudl that make it a no longer independent part of Brazil? Complete red herring.
[/quote]
The official name reflects and is the result of what happens in the territory. People don’t just change the name because it doesn’t sound nice.
Yes it does. Until Taiwan has officially declared independence, its government is still that of an exiled government orginating from China. Its name is still the Republic of China. If you think there is no difference, why do TIers still fight for independence when they already have it?
I was not pointing out whether it was part of China or not. I was pointing out that the Taiwanese government is still a Chinese government, and in their case, is in exile.
Your use of the word “exile” leads me to conclude that you indeed do not believe Taiwan is part of China. One can’t be in exile if one is not completely banished. When Beijing decides it is through with political prisoners and no longer wants to let them rot in prison, they don’t “exile” them to Hainan or Xinjiang. They put them on a plane to another country. Are you saying that you don’t believe Taiwan is Chinese territory?
[quote]Yes it does. Until Taiwan has officially declared independence, its government is still that of an exiled government orginating from China. Its name is still the Republic of China.[/quote] The name “Republic of China” is not recognized by the world community. The ROC passports which are issued are merely regarded as travel documents. The International Red Cross issues travel documents too . . . .
[quote]Your use of the word “exile” leads me to conclude that you indeed do not believe Taiwan is part of China. One can’t be in exile if one is not completely banished.[/quote] “Formosa and the Pescadores” were ceded to Japan in the 1895 Treaty. Were they ever ceded back to China? The answer is no. You need to reread the post WWII treaties.
Japan renounced sovereignty rights to “Formosa and the Pescadores” but those rights were not given to any other country . . . . . and who was the principal occupying power? The United States.
Hence, “Formosa and the Pescadores” remain under United States administrative authority up to the present day . . . . . . they are not Chinese territory . . . . . . . however the USA has (via the 1972 communique) placed Taiwan on a flight path for eventual annexation by the PRC . . . . . and that is where the situation stands today.
Where is the sovereignty of “Formosa and the Pescadores” today? Of course, the USA has it. That is very similar to what we saw in Iraq . . . . . and at the end of June 2004 the sovereignty of Iraq was returned to the government of the area . . . . . .
In the case of Taiwan, when was that “transfer of sovereignty” completed? There is no historical record of that. Taiwan’s sovereignty is still being held by the USA.
Interesting point of view. To some extend USA has much influence on the island or at imply political support to allow Taiwan to exist in its current state.
If the USA does have ultimate control of “Formosa and the Pescadores,” why are the politicians of PRC and ROC saber rattling at each other most of the time? Should not the PRC be pointing the 500 missiles at the USA instead?
Mucha Man,
I think a lot has to do with the degree of usurping control from the previous Iraq government. PRC may have had a low point in recent history. But the USA never captured Chairman Mao and put him in front of a tribuneral. The PRC did put the gang of four in front of a Tribuneral for the Cultural Revolution.
In any event, I think we can all agree it is because the Strait Issue exists because there is vigorous and effective opposition coming from the PRC. The same could not be said of Iraq.
[quote]Find me the agreement that for negotiations to begin on the 3 links that Taiwan has to first surrender. This is all a figment of your over active imagination. Nowhere in any document has the PRC ask us to surrender prior to 3 link negotiations[/quote].
As recently as 3 weeks ago, Beijing has said “3 links” is an internal situation that will be handled through the “one China” format. Even Su Chi, a top KMT official in charge of national security affairs has said that each mustnt insist on the denial of each others existence. The problem isnt Taipei, but Beijing clinging to a totally unfair and unreasonable position that basically renounces the ROC on Taiwans very existence. You should spend more time trying to convince PR Chinese to be more pragmatic.
Actually, the PRC used to support a 2 China`s, so both sides have adapted their respective positions.
Beijing bullies most countries into accepting it.
[quote]Show me the evidence that if Taiwan went back and supported the “One China” policy, we would be a colony of the PRC[/quote].
Use your head, “one-China” means that Taiwan is a province of the PRC.
Of course not. Taipei never surrendered to the other sides preconditions as you`d have them do today.