gov't says ROC was never legal in Taiwan

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

Postby Hartzell » 17 Nov 2004, 18:26

ac_dropout wrote:All one needs to do is dig through the Truman library and Carter library, it will be clear that the USA had no intention of exercising sovereignty over Taiwan.

I agree entirely. But a similar statement could be made of man who fathered a child by a girl he was going with for several years, even though they later broke up. Just because the man had no intention of fathering the child, does not mean that he is not legally responsible!! Just because the USA had no intention of establishing Taiwan as a colony, doesn't mean that it can deny responsibility when that actually happened (which was April 28, 1952) !!

hsiadogah wrote:Interesting that the SFPT makes no mention of China whatsoever ....

Incorrect. See Articles 10 and 21.
Richard W. Hartzell
contact me by email at rwh.midway@gmail.com
Neihu District, Taipei (114)
Forumosan avatar
Hartzell
Mando-pop Singer (Guóyǔ liúxíng gēshǒu)
Mando-pop Singer (Guóyǔ liúxíng gēshǒu)
 
Posts: 2347
Joined: 31 Oct 2000, 17:01
Location: Nei Hu District, Taipei, Taiwan
19 Recognized(s)



Postby redwagon » 17 Nov 2004, 19:00

You're correct. My memory must be failing :( :wink: It's still interesting that the treaty never mentions Taiwan and China in the same paragraph, treating them as distinct and separate entities.

I think it's also interesting that as late as 1950 Truman was still considering handing Taiwan back to the Japanese (along with Korea :eek:) to stave off the march of communism. Is it too late to revive this idea? :twisted:
Signature censored.
redwagon
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
 
Posts: 6341
Joined: 04 Jun 2001, 16:01
Location: Exile
1 Recommends(s)
9 Recognized(s)



Postby ac_dropout » 18 Nov 2004, 01:25

Hartzell,

Are you suggestion that the ROC seek the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/) for assistance in the Strait Issue.

Which International Body has enough clout to enforce USA negligence of ROC? USA been thumbing its nose at the international community for quite sometime.
ac_dropout
Suspended (bèi jìnle)
Suspended (bèi jìnle)
 
Posts: 9272
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 04:08
Location: Red Wood Forest



Postby ac_dropout » 18 Nov 2004, 01:27

hsiadogah wrote:I think it's also interesting that as late as 1950 Truman was still considering handing Taiwan back to the Japanese (along with Korea :eek:) to stave off the march of communism. Is it too late to revive this idea? :twisted:


I think LTH would adopt you as his long lost son, if you could make it happen. The revival of the Golden Age of Taiwan under Japanese rule.
ac_dropout
Suspended (bèi jìnle)
Suspended (bèi jìnle)
 
Posts: 9272
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 04:08
Location: Red Wood Forest



Postby Taichungmafia » 18 Nov 2004, 04:45

Once again ROC didn't ratify the SFPT. So the USMG has neither legal or de facto sovereignty of Taiwan.


The ROC was not a legitimate gov`t at the time and most definitely did not hold the sovereignty of Taiwan. The ROC was only acting as agents of the USMG when they carried out the General Order of MacArthur(head of the USMG) to accept the surrender of Japanese forces on Taiwan. Now that we know that the ROC has never held the sovereignty of Taiwan, then who does? Who conducted all attacks on Japanese forces and military installations on Taiwan during the period between 1937-1945? The USA. Who issued the General Order for representatives of CKS to go to Taiwan and accept the surrender of the Japanese forces on behalf of the USMG? Why it was MacArthur. Under rules of international laws of disposition, "temporary allegiance" goes to the USMG. Under international rules of military occupation, it would be illegal for the sovereignty of Taiwan to be transferred to the ROC. The military occupation of Taiwan continues until it has been legally supplanted. Those are the rules.

The Americans never had any intention to annex Taiwan and that`s why they placed her on a "flightpath" towards eventual union with Beijing when the two sides penned the Shanghai Communique. Every statement and both communiques since have also dovetailed with this American position. The USA recognizes Taiwan as a non-sovereign nation and Powell reinforced this when he was in Asia.
Taichungmafia
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 228
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:42
Location: Taichung



Postby Mr He » 18 Nov 2004, 09:16

Poagao wrote:Can you think in any terms other than strictly black-and-white? I was speaking in terms of tendencies, directions, influences, etc. No, the DPP is not a dynasty by the strict definition you adhere to. Neither is the KMT. Happy?


Can't you bow out gracefully.

All you are saying is that because more or less everybody in the DPP come from an "Asian" cultural background, they will have tendencies toward detail managing more than a western politician would.

At least think before you shoot.
Jeg er hvad jeg er.

Bring Zain back!
Mr He
Bodhisattva (pútísàduǒ)
Bodhisattva (pútísàduǒ)
 
Posts: 9972
Joined: 31 Oct 2000, 17:01
Location: Near the tower of doom
65 Recommends(s)
97 Recognized(s)



Postby ac_dropout » 18 Nov 2004, 09:55

Those are the rules.

Actually, those are the rules that ROC never ratify. So they are just interpretations that USA could use if it was inclined. But the USA is not incline. Nor will they be anytime in the near future.

The Americans never had any intention to annex Taiwan and that`s why they placed her on a "flightpath" towards eventual union with Beijing when the two sides penned the Shanghai Communique.

Yeah but political power is addictive, even if it is over a small island.

The USA recognizes Taiwan as a non-sovereign nation and Powell reinforced this when he was in Asia.

Because Taiwan is unable to form State to State relationship with any other State freely. Not because ROC is illegitimate on Taiwan.
ac_dropout
Suspended (bèi jìnle)
Suspended (bèi jìnle)
 
Posts: 9272
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 04:08
Location: Red Wood Forest



Postby Mr He » 18 Nov 2004, 13:10

ac_dropout wrote:
Those are the rules.

Actually, those are the rules that ROC never ratify. So they are just interpretations that USA could use if it was inclined. But the USA is not incline. Nor will they be anytime in the near future.


No, you still don't get it. And you never will.

The SFPT is the treaty formally ending WWII in the pacific. That ROC did not ratify it does not matter one bit. The ROC is an illegal squatter except from on Jinmen and Mazu.
Jeg er hvad jeg er.

Bring Zain back!
Mr He
Bodhisattva (pútísàduǒ)
Bodhisattva (pútísàduǒ)
 
Posts: 9972
Joined: 31 Oct 2000, 17:01
Location: Near the tower of doom
65 Recommends(s)
97 Recognized(s)



Postby ac_dropout » 18 Nov 2004, 22:33

Mr He,

Yes and the anarchist rule the world.

I still don't see ROC citizens entering the USA at will on a ROC passport. They stand on long lines just like PRC citizens for immigration and port entry into the USA. In fact PRC citizens have an easier time declaring political asylum in entering the USA. ROC citizens need to wait on USA issuing them visas.

I don't see the ROC folding up nor CSB stepping down because he is in effect and illegal squatting president.

So the interpretation proposed is false based on empirical evidence.
ac_dropout
Suspended (bèi jìnle)
Suspended (bèi jìnle)
 
Posts: 9272
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 04:08
Location: Red Wood Forest



Postby TaiOanKok » 18 Nov 2004, 23:35

ac_dropout wrote:So the interpretation proposed is false based on empirical evidence.


If this is your line of reasoning, wouldn't you also accept that Taiwan and China are in a "one side, one country" situation as CSB suggests? Afterall, we don't see either government giving the other country's citizens full citizenship automatically, do we? Nor do we see either government exercising control over the other's territory.

I think this is a very good line or reasoning actually, and I think it does prove that it doesn't matter if the ROC was ever legal in Taiwan. The ROC government controls it in a democratic fashion and has for half a century. It doesn't matter if the ROC constitution claims the mainland, since the mainland is run by the PRC government and has been for half a century. It doesn't matter if China says CSB is going to "split the motherland." It's already split.
Forumosan avatar
TaiOanKok
Breakfast Store Laoban (zǎocān diàn lǎobǎn)
Breakfast Store Laoban (zǎocān diàn lǎobǎn)
 
Posts: 139
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 02:33
Location: TX



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: Bing [Bot] and 6 visitors

Be not afraid of growing slowly, be afraid only of standing still -- CHINESE PROVERB