The transferring of the title of Taiwan

[printlessfoot]

I guess the US isn't coming over to take over Taiwan, not when Taiwan actally belongs to the PRC.

Let's guess which one will come to take over Taiwan, GIs or PLA?


Oops, GIs have already done that in 1945.


This time the GI's will return with 21st century bombshells and special effects

[fanglangzhe]

I highly doubt Taiwan will voluntarily give itself up to a take-over by USA. So you're saying that the US will take it over by military force?

Also, Taiwan is currently a democracy and its people elect its own government and leaders. Assuming that the majority of Taiwan voters do not want a take-over by USA, you're saying screw that and have the USA launch a military invasion and take-over of Taiwan? That scenario has less chance of happening than pigs growing wings and flying.

[bohica]

Would you please in this weekend open up a Google earth and check again where in the Pacific PRC navy ever won a single air-sea battle? For the sake of your sanity please do that, would you?

For all our sanity would you provide a single shred of proof about your wild ass fantasy that the US is going to take over Taiwan? Seriously, why would the US do that and why would Taiwan allow it?

Frankly I think your act has ceased to be funny after a while. I think it's one thing to have an academic debate with Hartzell by delving into the legal mumbo jumbo about whether Taiwan is de jure part of the USA, but quite another when you're just making up eccentric statements about an impending US takeover of Taiwan with no support whatsoever. Every time the US wades into the TI/unification issue, they always say that they support the status quo. Give me a shred a proof they're actually going to take over Taiwan or clearly you're just being trollish.

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I highly doubt Taiwan will voluntarily give itself up to a take-over by USA. So you're saying that the US will take it over by military force?

Also, Taiwan is currently a democracy and its people elect its own government and leaders. Assuming that the majority of Taiwan voters do not want a take-over by USA, you're saying screw that and have the USA launch a military invasion and take-over of Taiwan? That scenario has less chance of happening than pigs growing wings and flying.

For the US to take over Taiwan would grossly violate the three communiques signed between the US and the PRC, in which the US 'acknowledges, and does not contradict, the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China.'

Btw, all this talk about the status of Taiwan being undetermined results from a partial interpretation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in a way that eschews the part unfavorable to the so-called Taiwan Civil Government's goals. Specifically, Mr. Hartzell and others focus on the fact that Japan only renounced Taiwan in the treaty, without specifying to which State the sovereignty over Taiwan should be transferred. However, Article 8 of the SFPT states:

Japan will recognize the full force of all treaties now or hereafter concluded by the Allied Powers for terminating the state of war initiated on 1 September 1939, as well as any other arrangements by the Allied Powers for or in connection with the restoration of peace. ..

Although the Cairo Declaration itself had no binding force, it was cited in the Potsdam Proclamation, which said 'the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out'. In turn, the Potsdam Proclamation was cited in the Instrument of Surrender (1945), which incontrovertibly had legal binding force. Since these are all 'arrangements in connection with the restoration of peace', the SFPT actually confirms their validity, thereby determining the status of Taiwan.

Note that the word 'arrangments' is used, without specifying whether the 'arrangements' were supposed to be legally binding. All treaties are arrangements, but no all arrangements are treaties or have legal binding force.

[Hartzell]

I highly doubt Taiwan will voluntarily give itself up to a take-over by USA. So you're saying that the US will take it over by military force?

Also, Taiwan is currently a democracy and its people elect its own government and leaders. Assuming that the majority of Taiwan voters do not want a take-over by USA, you're saying screw that and have the USA launch a military invasion and take-over of Taiwan? That scenario has less chance of happening than pigs growing wings and flying.

For the US to take over Taiwan would grossly violate the three communiques signed between the US and the PRC, in which the US 'acknowledges, and does not contradict, the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China.'

No, you are mistaken. There is no violation of the Communiques whatsoever.

ITEM #1
. . . it is important to note that in recognizing the PRC government, the Carter Administration did not recognize China's claim over Taiwan. This position is clear in the policy statement made in the Joint Communique on Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the United States of American and the People's Republic of China ("Second Communique").
quoted from -- One-China Policy and Taiwan
Fordham International Law Journal December 2004
http://www.taiwanbasic.com/lawjrn/onechina-tai4.htm

ITEM #2
(3) US policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan;
quoted from -- CRS Report for Congress, July 9, 2007 -- China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy
http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/crs-report.htm

[raymondaliasapollyon]

No, you are mistaken. There is no violation of the Communiques whatsoever.

ITEM #1
. . . it is important to note that in recognizing the PRC government, the Carter Administration did not recognize China's claim over Taiwan. This position is clear in the policy statement made in the Joint Communique on Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the United States of American and the People's Republic of China ("Second Communique").
quoted from -- One-China Policy and Taiwan
Fordham International Law Journal December 2004
http://www.taiwanbasic.com/lawjrn/onechina-tai4.htm

ITEM #2
(3) US policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan;
quoted from -- CRS Report for Congress, July 9, 2007 -- China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy
http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/crs-report.htm

The Shanghai Communique seems clear:

...The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position.

The combination in wording of acknowledge that... and not challenge that positoin means that the US acquiesces in the Chinese position.
For the US to take over Taiwan would thus equal a challenge to the Chinese position in violation of the communique.

True, Taiwan's status is 'undetermined' to some extent; What remains to be determined is which Chinese government--ROC or PRC-- should be considered as legitimate in exercising control over Taiwan, and in case that the ROC government is legitimate, what course of action Taiwan should pursue in light of its status as a de jure part of China. At this moment we can say Taiwan is de facto independent, not de jure so. Thus two directions are available: head towards de jure independence to perfect its de facto independence or toward de facto unification to pefect its de jure status as part of China. This is a matter to be resolved by the Chinese themselves:


...Second, there has been disagreement as to whether Taiwan’s status actually was resolved or determined. In secret talks in 1972, President Nixon assured PRC Premier Zhou Enlai that the United States viewed the status of Taiwan as “determined” to be part of one China. The PRC’s December 1978 statement on normalization of diplomatic relations with the United States said that the Taiwan question “has now been resolved between the two countries.” However, the U.S. statement of December 1978 on normalization stated the expectation that the Taiwan question “will be settled” peacefully by the Chinese themselves....President Reagan’s 1982 statement on arms sales to Taiwan declared that “the Taiwan question is a matter for the Chinese people, on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, to resolve.” Moreover, under U.S. policy, "settlement” or “resolution”—not stated as “unification” or “reunification”—of the Taiwan question is left open to be peacefully determined by both sides of the strait.

(source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... -FAv_lW-fQ )

If the US holds sovereignty over Taiwan, why did the US government keep saying the Taiwan question should be solved by the Chinese themselves? Because Taiwan is a de jure part of the State of China (a term silent on the legitimacy of particular Chinese regimes). If the US were the sovereign, the Taiwan question could be solved by the US alone.

[TaiwanTeacher]

raymondaliasapollyon wrote:

"Btw, I wouldn't call my ancestors from Fujian and Guangdong 'peaceful people'. You probably don't know much about the internecine fighting between the major Minnan groups, or between Minnan and Hakka groups, or between Han Chinese on the one hand and the aboriginals on the other on the island 2 or 3 hundred years ago."

Just as a side note related to your comment:
1) Granted I know little in the way of specifics about internecine quarrels in China, and you could surely teach me a thing or several about that subject. However, I did not state that Mainland Chinese were peaceful upon their arrival on this island. The long-standing history of the Chinese fighting amongst themselves is self-evident. Indeed, it not only never seems to stop, but they also seem to enjoy taking their arguments onto other people's land, splitting up and recruiting local people under duress, and then declaring themselves the new owners. Rather, I was alluding to the concept of being "Taiwanese"; i.e., those who have adapted and elevated themselves to living peacefully together here as one nationality with some semblence of mutual respect.
2) My wife is of the Amis tribe. But, perhaps you like to call all aboriginals "Gaoshan" so they are reminded of their defeat on the west coast of Formosa at the hands of the Chinese; most DaLuRen prefer that term. Oddly enough, my child is also aboriginal (of a rare form, no doubt). Maybe I should have declared her to be Dutch instead.

[sandman]

you could surely teach me a thing or several about that subject.

Not if he's had a Chinese or Taiwanese education, he couldn't. They're among the most brainwashed/ignorant of their own histories as anyone on the planet!
Try getting THEM to believe that, though!

[Charlie Jack]

However, the U.S. statement of December 1978 on normalization stated the expectation that the Taiwan question “will be settled” peacefully by the Chinese themselves....President Reagan’s 1982 statement on arms sales to Taiwan declared that “the Taiwan question is a matter for the Chinese people, on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, to resolve.” Moreover, under U.S. policy, "settlement” or “resolution”—not stated as “unification” or “reunification”—of the Taiwan question is left open to be peacefully determined by both sides of the strait.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

* * *

Congress makes the following findings:

* * *

Although on January 1, 1979, the United States Government withdrew diplomatic recognition of the government on Taiwan as the legitimate government of China, neither at that time nor since has the United States Government adopted a formal position as to the ultimate status of Taiwan other than to state that status must be decided by peaceful means. Any determination of the ultimate status of Taiwan must have the express consent of the people on Taiwan.

* * *

. . . the United States will maintain the capacity to resist any form of coercion that jeopardizes the security, or the social or the economic system, of the people on Taiwan; and

. . . the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan are objectives of the United States.

--Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, February 1, 2000

Issues between Beijing and Taipei must be resolved peacefully and with the assent of the people of Taiwan.

--President Bill Clinton, February 24, 2000

[raymondaliasapollyon]

However, the U.S. statement of December 1978 on normalization stated the expectation that the Taiwan question “will be settled” peacefully by the Chinese themselves....President Reagan’s 1982 statement on arms sales to Taiwan declared that “the Taiwan question is a matter for the Chinese people, on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, to resolve.” Moreover, under U.S. policy, "settlement” or “resolution”—not stated as “unification” or “reunification”—of the Taiwan question is left open to be peacefully determined by both sides of the strait.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

* * *

Congress makes the following findings:

* * *

Although on January 1, 1979, the United States Government withdrew diplomatic recognition of the government on Taiwan as the legitimate government of China, neither at that time nor since has the United States Government adopted a formal position as to the ultimate status of Taiwan other than to state that status must be decided by peaceful means. Any determination of the ultimate status of Taiwan must have the express consent of the people on Taiwan.

* * *

. . . the United States will maintain the capacity to resist any form of coercion that jeopardizes the security, or the social or the economic system, of the people on Taiwan; and

. . . the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan are objectives of the United States.

--Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, February 1, 2000

Issues between Beijing and Taipei must be resolved peacefully and with the assent of the people of Taiwan.

--[url=http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=AmrJw8QAe2kC&lpg=PA2203&dq=%22peacefully%20and%20with%20the%20assent%20of%20the%20people%20of%20taiwan%22&pg=PA2203#v=onepage&q=%22peacefully%20and%20with%20the%20assent%20of%20the%20people%20of%20taiwan%22&f=false]President Bill Clinton, February 24, 2000
[/url]

Since the Taiwanese are a proper subset of the Chinese (as implied in the three communiques), the assent of the Taiwanese people as a precondition of the settlement of the Taiwan issue is in conformity with the assertion in the three communiques that the issue shall be resolved by the Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Again, let us try to understand what it means to say 'the United States Government [has not] adopted a formal position as to the ultimate status of Taiwan'. Due to the awkward position of Taiwan (de jure part of China but de facto independent), its status is of course considered 'unsettled', in contrast to countries that are both de jure and de facto indepedent.