DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Topics related to Taiwan and Taiwan/China issues can be discussed here. Threads dealing with Taiwan's history belong in the Culture & History thread. Please do not post articles - use links instead. Quoted sources should be limited to one paragraph in length, or less. If you see a post that you feel is against the rules, please send a report to the moderators so we can look into it

Moderator: TheGingerMan

Forum rules
Threads dealing with Taiwan's history belong in the Culture & History thread. Please do not post articles - use links instead. Quoted sources should be limited to one paragraph in length, or less. If you see a post that you feel is against the rules, you can send a report to the moderators so we can look into it

Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby the bear » 28 Jan 2012, 10:05

Charlie Jack wrote:
the bear wrote:
cctang wrote:Just as a some what random aside [from] the newspaper "Southern Weekend"[:]
" . . . even a thumb-sized bomb could wipe out Taiwan."
* * * In almost all of my random discussions on Taiwan during my China wanderings someone would always come out with the line "we could settle the issue with a bomb in 3 minutes". * * *


If the PRC government were of the same mind as the people conversing on the train, and if the PRC government used such a bomb or such bombs on Taiwan, and if neither the United States nor Taiwan nor Taiwan's people responded in any substantial or meaningful military way whatsoever, and if the United States did not take any meaningful or substantial political or economic action on the matter (in other words, removing any U. S. or Taiwan responses from the picture), and if China afterwards easily conquered and occupied Taiwan, would that settle the issue?


There would be no Taiwan to occupy. It would be a smoking ruin. But on the plus side, no one would want it, so yes the issue would be settled.
I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific.
Forumosan avatar
the bear
Thinking of Having Kids (xiǎng yào shēng xiǎo hái)
Thinking of Having Kids (xiǎng yào shēng xiǎo hái)
 
Posts: 3935
Joined: 14 Jul 2003, 14:45
Location: Taipei City
30 Recommends(s)
117 Recognized(s)



Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby LURKER » 28 Jan 2012, 11:57

urodacus wrote:China waited 50 years for the portuguese and the British to "tire" of their colonies in Macau and HK?

The cities were given back to China with all due process at the expiration of their lease. That's it.


This isn't quite accurate. Regarding Hong Kong, Hong Kong Island was ceded "in perpetuity," which means "forever."

Article III.

It being obviously necessary and desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat they may [maintain] and refit their ships when required, and keep stores for that purpose, His Majesty the Emperor of China cedes to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., the Island of Hong-Kong, to be possessed in perpetuity by Her Britannic Majesty, her heirs and successors, and to be governed by such laws and regulations as Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., shall see fit to direct.


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking

I'm not sure why this misconception among Westerners - especially Britons - that Britain was obliged to return Hong Kong to China is so widespread. I suspect though that it makes what was in fact a cowardly surrender seem less shameful, especially when contrasted with the British Government's eagerness to use the rather less valuable conflict over the Falklands as a demonstration of its strength.

Macao, however, was a different case. The Portuguese were reluctantly granted the use of the city, but they were forced to pay tribute for the privilege. As the centuries passed, though, Portugal - while declining itself relative to the other Great Powers - was strong enough relative to China to ignore Chinese concerns. In 1951, Macau became according to Portuguese law an Overseas Province.

When the Portuguese dictatorship was overthrown in 1974, though, the new leftist Government regarded Portugal's overseas possessions as archaic reminders of a shameful past, and agreed to give up Macao and indeed all of Portugual's Empire.
Forumosan avatar
LURKER
Grasshopper (cǎo měng)
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 14 May 2008, 08:22



Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby Charlie Jack » 28 Jan 2012, 21:42

the bear wrote:
Charlie Jack wrote:
the bear wrote:
cctang wrote:Just as a some what random aside [from] the newspaper "Southern Weekend"[:]
" . . . even a thumb-sized bomb could wipe out Taiwan."
* * * In almost all of my random discussions on Taiwan during my China wanderings someone would always come out with the line "we could settle the issue with a bomb in 3 minutes". * * *


If the PRC government were of the same mind as the people conversing on the train, and if the PRC government used such a bomb or such bombs on Taiwan, and if neither the United States nor Taiwan nor Taiwan's people responded in any substantial or meaningful military way whatsoever, and if the United States did not take any meaningful or substantial political or economic action on the matter (in other words, removing any U. S. or Taiwan responses from the picture), and if China afterwards easily conquered and occupied Taiwan, would that settle the issue?


There would be no Taiwan to occupy. It would be a smoking ruin. But on the plus side, no one would want it, so yes the issue would be settled.


I have to confess that I hadn't considered that Taiwan might be a smoking ruin. I figured the Chinese might want to spare some of it.

When I wrote that question, I had a suspicion that the world (again, taking the U. S. out of the picture) would perhaps communicate to China the sentiment I've heard some kids here say to each other: "I don't want be your friend." I even wondered whether some nations (again, setting the U. S. aside) might undergo such a change in attitude towards China that they would begin to limit their dealings with that country, perhaps substantially so, and who knows, might even begin to arm themselves better, and perhaps prepare themselves for conflict in other ways. I thought of Japan in particular, but not only Japan. Had I considered the scenario you described, i. e., one in which there would be no Taiwan to occupy, I guess I would have suspected an even less China-friendly attitude on the part of some nations.

But it was only a suspicion. Maybe the issue would be settled, as you say.
Charlie Jack
Overpaid Foreign Athlete (duō fù xīn shuǐ guò gāo de wài jí yùn dòng yuán)
Overpaid Foreign Athlete (duō fù xīn shuǐ guò gāo de wài jí yùn dòng yuán)
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: 17 Mar 2007, 22:06
Location: Panchiao
1271 Recommends(s)
217 Recognized(s)



Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby urodacus » 28 Jan 2012, 21:54

LURKER wrote:
urodacus wrote:China waited 50 years for the portuguese and the British to "tire" of their colonies in Macau and HK?

The cities were given back to China with all due process at the expiration of their lease. That's it.


This isn't quite accurate. Regarding Hong Kong, Hong Kong Island was ceded "in perpetuity," which means "forever."

Article III.

It being obviously necessary and desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat they may [maintain] and refit their ships when required, and keep stores for that purpose, His Majesty the Emperor of China cedes to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., the Island of Hong-Kong, to be possessed in perpetuity by Her Britannic Majesty, her heirs and successors, and to be governed by such laws and regulations as Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., shall see fit to direct.


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking

I'm not sure why this misconception among Westerners - especially Britons - that Britain was obliged to return Hong Kong to China is so widespread. I suspect though that it makes what was in fact a cowardly surrender seem less shameful, especially when contrasted with the British Government's eagerness to use the rather less valuable conflict over the Falklands as a demonstration of its strength.

Macao, however, was a different case. The Portuguese were reluctantly granted the use of the city, but they were forced to pay tribute for the privilege. As the centuries passed, though, Portugal - while declining itself relative to the other Great Powers - was strong enough relative to China to ignore Chinese concerns. In 1951, Macau became according to Portuguese law an Overseas Province.

When the Portuguese dictatorship was overthrown in 1974, though, the new leftist Government regarded Portugal's overseas possessions as archaic reminders of a shameful past, and agreed to give up Macao and indeed all of Portugual's Empire.


Thank you for the clarification.

I have always (well, since at least as far back as 1980) been under the impression that there was a hand-back date, so (like you) I wonder where the misconception arose.

When did the timetable for the actual return get drawn up? Maybe that has some clues.
The prizes are a bottle of f*!@#$% SCOTCH and a box of cheap f!@#$#$ CIGARS!

Too many people! Almost all of the world's problems are due to overpopulation. The rest are due to religion.

50% of the world's wild animals have disappeared in the last 50 years. Did you eat them, or eat their house?
Forumosan avatar
urodacus
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 11579
Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 23:20
Location: picking flowers
226 Recommends(s)
279 Recognized(s)



Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby Mucha Man » 28 Jan 2012, 22:38

urodacus wrote:I have always (well, since at least as far back as 1980) been under the impression that there was a hand-back date, so (like you) I wonder where the misconception arose.

When did the timetable for the actual return get drawn up? Maybe that has some clues.


Because the New Territories did have a 99 year lease. The Treaty of Nanjing was but one of three treaties that gave the British control of the HK area.
“Everywhere else in the world is also really old” said Prof. Liu, a renowned historian at Beijing University. “We always learn that China has 5000 years of cultural heritage, and that therefore we are very special. It appears that other places also have some of this heritage stuff. And are also old. Like, really old.”

http://hikingintaiwan.blogspot.com/
Forumosan avatar
Mucha Man
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 19006
Joined: 01 Nov 2001, 17:01
Location: Mucha, of course
888 Recognized(s)



Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby mike029 » 29 Jan 2012, 00:35

Muzha Man wrote:
urodacus wrote:I have always (well, since at least as far back as 1980) been under the impression that there was a hand-back date, so (like you) I wonder where the misconception arose.

When did the timetable for the actual return get drawn up? Maybe that has some clues.


Because the New Territories did have a 99 year lease. The Treaty of Nanjing was but one of three treaties that gave the British control of the HK area.


From my understanding part of the reason the British decided to hand Kowloon and HK Island back when the New Territory lease was up to avoid basically the destruction (or more appropriately, implosion) of HK. Considering half the population of HK lives in the New Territories, a massive amount of people moving into Kowloon and HK Island at once would be too much to handle. Plus they would have to secure a new border (between Kowloon and New Territories and the water in the east of HK island) that was never patrolled before and didn't have the proper infrastructure to patrol effectively.
mike029
Newspaper Copyeditor (bàoshè biānjí)
Newspaper Copyeditor (bàoshè biānjí)
 
Posts: 442
Joined: 17 Mar 2011, 16:07
3 Recommends(s)
40 Recognized(s)



Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby bohica » 29 Jan 2012, 10:52

LURKER wrote:
urodacus wrote:China waited 50 years for the portuguese and the British to "tire" of their colonies in Macau and HK?

The cities were given back to China with all due process at the expiration of their lease. That's it.


This isn't quite accurate. Regarding Hong Kong, Hong Kong Island was ceded "in perpetuity," which means "forever."

Article III.

It being obviously necessary and desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat they may [maintain] and refit their ships when required, and keep stores for that purpose, His Majesty the Emperor of China cedes to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., the Island of Hong-Kong, to be possessed in perpetuity by Her Britannic Majesty, her heirs and successors, and to be governed by such laws and regulations as Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., shall see fit to direct.


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking

I'm not sure why this misconception among Westerners - especially Britons - that Britain was obliged to return Hong Kong to China is so widespread. I suspect though that it makes what was in fact a cowardly surrender seem less shameful, especially when contrasted with the British Government's eagerness to use the rather less valuable conflict over the Falklands as a demonstration of its strength.



I think it's pretty clear that the reality of the 20th century means Britain and the other colonial powers had to give up their ill-gotten colonies regardless of whatever Unequal Treaties they imposed earlier. Sure the Treaty of Naking said "in perpetuity", just like Taiwan was also ceded "in perpetuity", but Japan nonetheless had to give up Taiwan after WWII. New treaties can always be written to supercede old ones. "Cowardly surrender"? Gosh if it's that big of a indignity for Britain I guess they and China are now even.
bohica
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 249
Joined: 01 Jun 2011, 17:10
16 Recognized(s)



Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby bohica » 29 Jan 2012, 11:19

mike029 wrote:From my understanding part of the reason the British decided to hand Kowloon and HK Island back when the New Territory lease was up to avoid basically the destruction (or more appropriately, implosion) of HK. Considering half the population of HK lives in the New Territories, a massive amount of people moving into Kowloon and HK Island at once would be too much to handle. Plus they would have to secure a new border (between Kowloon and New Territories and the water in the east of HK island) that was never patrolled before and didn't have the proper infrastructure to patrol effectively.



To save Hong Kong? is that why the Brits colonized the place? Actually the reason British handed back HK Island and Kowloon along with New Territory is because Deng told the Brits to hand the whole thing back or else. New Territory being inseparable from the rest of HK aside, it' kind of a ridiculous notion that Britain could point to some Unequal Treaty from centuries earlier as the reason they should still own a colony half way around the world from Britain after they've already given up the majority of the colonies of the British Empire in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere, and after China was so nice to wait until the lease on New Territory has expired to ask for it and rest of Hong Kong back.

This of course didn't prevent Britain from asking for the next best thing, which is to continue British civil administration on Hong Kong post hand-over. As if China can have "sovereignty" on Hong Kong, while Britain would still be running the place. That is really a stupid idea and of course it was emphatically shot down by Deng. I'm surprised the Brits even asked for it, like they were expecting anything other than to get laughed at and outright rejection.
bohica
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 249
Joined: 01 Jun 2011, 17:10
16 Recognized(s)



Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby mike029 » 29 Jan 2012, 12:17

bohica wrote:
mike029 wrote:From my understanding part of the reason the British decided to hand Kowloon and HK Island back when the New Territory lease was up to avoid basically the destruction (or more appropriately, implosion) of HK. Considering half the population of HK lives in the New Territories, a massive amount of people moving into Kowloon and HK Island at once would be too much to handle. Plus they would have to secure a new border (between Kowloon and New Territories and the water in the east of HK island) that was never patrolled before and didn't have the proper infrastructure to patrol effectively.



To save Hong Kong? is that why the Brits colonized the place? Actually the reason British handed back HK Island and Kowloon along with New Territory is because Deng told the Brits to hand the whole thing back or else. New Territory being inseparable from the rest of HK aside, it' kind of a ridiculous notion that Britain could point to some Unequal Treaty from centuries earlier as the reason they should still own a colony half way around the world from Britain after they've already given up the majority of the colonies of the British Empire in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere, and after China was so nice to wait until the lease on New Territory has expired to ask for it and rest of Hong Kong back.

This of course didn't prevent Britain from asking for the next best thing, which is to continue British civil administration on Hong Kong post hand-over. As if China can have "sovereignty" on Hong Kong, while Britain would still be running the place. That is really a stupid idea and of course it was emphatically shot down by Deng. I'm surprised the Brits even asked for it, like they were expecting anything other than to get laughed at and outright rejection.


The Brits colonized HK to make money in China. Duh. If the place implodes, they lose all their money.

Also, I highly doubt the British were afraid of the 1983 Chinese military. Starting a war with Britain means starting a war with the US, so I doubt that would have ever happened. It's about MONEY, like it always is. It's better to have an HK where westerners can base operations for China than having to operate within China.

If you were the Brits and had spent the last 150 years building HK into the AMAZING city that it is today and economic center of Asia, would you want to give that up to the CCP? To compare HK to any Mainland city (or even Taipei for that matter) is ridiculous. So the Brits are just supposed to use all their skills, money, and drive to build up HK, just to give it back free of charge to the CHINESE?

Considering all the UK money (and other western money) tied up in HK, I would want the British to retain Kowloon and HK Island, considering that's the center of HK. However, if the place implodes from overpopulation (from people NOT wanting to live in New Territories, China), everything (including all investment) goes down with it. The next best option is British administration, which didn't happen, and then the third best option is "Special Administrative Region". Look at how many people went to apply for BN(O) passports before the handover as some clue about the 'right to self determination' that people always talk about when talking about TW and Mainland.

Finally, using the logic of "the British shouldn't base their current territorial claims on past treaties", China should stop claiming the entire South China Sea just because it was mapped by the Yuan Dynasty 800 years ago.
mike029
Newspaper Copyeditor (bàoshè biānjí)
Newspaper Copyeditor (bàoshè biānjí)
 
Posts: 442
Joined: 17 Mar 2011, 16:07
3 Recommends(s)
40 Recognized(s)



Re: DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

Postby Mucha Man » 29 Jan 2012, 13:22

bohica wrote:...I think it's pretty clear that the reality of the 20th century means Britain and the other colonial powers had to give up their ill-gotten colonies regardless of whatever Unequal Treaties they imposed earlier. Sure the Treaty of Naking said "in perpetuity", just like Taiwan was also ceded "in perpetuity", but Japan nonetheless had to give up Taiwan after WWII. New treaties can always be written to supercede old ones. "Cowardly surrender"? Gosh if it's that big of a indignity for Britain I guess they and China are now even.



And that folks is as good a summary as you'll find of the illogical, special pleading, double standard, mendacious nature of the modern Chinese on their history and territorial claims.

First there is the acknowledgement of 20th century western moral standards that compelled former empires to give up their colonies. Ignored of course are the Chinese imperial claims on Taiwan and Tibet. Somehow, 20th century realities don't matter much when China wants back land it controlled centuries ago, or as mike astutely says, was once drawn on a map by Chinese explorers.

Then there is the straight out confusion over treaties. Taiwan was ceded in perpetuity and would have remained part of Japan had the latter not lost WWII. There was nothing inevitable about the loss. While it is true a new treaty can be written there has to be some compelling reason for that. Even a fee simple land right could go back centuries and yes any western court would accept a 17th century deed as a valid claim. But again, China only accepts rules when they are to its advantage.

Finally, the appeal to the unequal treaties, the greatest collective sulk the world has ever seen. But again, not the slightest bit of self-awareness that they themselves have imposed new unequal treaties on Tibet, HK, and would do so to Taiwan too. Nor of course that this is the way the world has always worked: you lose a war and you pay. But as always, the Chinese are permanent victims, and when they are putting the boot in the face of someone else, it is to be ignored or forgiven as they just need to get "even".
“Everywhere else in the world is also really old” said Prof. Liu, a renowned historian at Beijing University. “We always learn that China has 5000 years of cultural heritage, and that therefore we are very special. It appears that other places also have some of this heritage stuff. And are also old. Like, really old.”

http://hikingintaiwan.blogspot.com/
Forumosan avatar
Mucha Man
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 19006
Joined: 01 Nov 2001, 17:01
Location: Mucha, of course
888 Recognized(s)



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Proceed to Taiwan Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 3 visitors

That it will never come again
Is what makes life so sweet.
-- EMILY DICKINSON