China and Taiwan

8. PUBLIC POLICY ARGUMENTS

Don't say this is the position of the CCP or that we have been brainwashed by the government. That is an insult. These are personal opinions of the Chinese people. Chinese people have died for the diaoyutai islands (the most famous is the death of David Chang) and the most recent spate of fierce anti-Japanese protests in China were not only based on the right-wing government's refusal to acknowledge and apologise for WWII attrocities but also due to the contraversial diaoyutai dispute.

Well, that's quite a bit of writing. I've been wondering where to start given that it will take a great deal of time to address all the inaccuracies , partially submitted facts and insubstantial conclusions. I guess lets start at the beginning , your selective overview of history.

1. GENERAL HISTORY

pragmatic wrote:

During the 1894-1895 .

I think we can say there was quite a bit of history before 1894 . We see no mention of the Dutch, I presumed from this point (Line one) on although presented as an unbiased factual account, I would be reading only the tailored facts that you determined would further your argument.

In fact The island's modern history goes back to around 1590, when the first Western ship passed by the island, and Jan Huygen van Linschoten, a Dutch navigator on a Portuguese ship, exclaimed "Ilha Formosa" (meaning "Beautiful island"), which became its name for the next four centuries.

During that time the new Manchu emperors were not eager to extend their rule over the island. They were "inland" people with little knowledge of the offshore islands and even less skill at naval warfare. In fact should be noted that in the 1870's Taiwanese pirates captured American, Japanese and French ships passing the island, these governments protested to Peking, but the Manchu emperor said: "Taiwan is beyond our territory."

In fact the first claim to Taiwan from China came in 1887, when the Manchu Imperial authorities decided to declare Taiwan to be a "province" of their Empire: they wanted to outmaneuver the Japanese, who were expanding their influence to the South.

An interesting point by the way is that in 1930's At that time the Chinese Communists under Mao Tse-tung were vying for control over China with Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists. In an interview with American reporter Edgar Snow, Chairman Mao said: "...we will extend them (the Koreans) our enthusiastic help in their struggle for independence. The same thing applies for Taiwan" (p. 110 in Red Star over China, by Edgar Snow).


And you may note from your own post (your start of history) that less than 10 year later the Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed ceding Taiwan to Japan. What you fail to say or make note of is that this was signed in perpetuity , which was quite different to Hong Kong's new Territories lease for 99 years (perpetuity means forever).

pragmatic wrote:

However, after Japan's defeat in WWII, they returned the island back to China.

Actually, no. In 1951-52 the Allied Powers and Japan formally concluded World War II by concluding the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The formal result of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is thus that the people of Taiwan should determine the future status of the island based on the principle of self-determination. This Treaty is thus the first, and the last, international treaty of the 20th Century which deals with the status of Taiwan.

In conclusion up to this point is thus that Taiwan was an occupied part of Imperial China for only eight years. Not "always", as the KMT and the Chinese Communists are claiming. (As a note to any other readers brave enough to be following, KMT is the correct reference for the Kuomintang, not GMT , GMT being better suited used for Greenwich Mean Time)


Ok I'll leave the History lesson for now, so I can get a chance to answer at least a few other classic posts before this one no doubt will need further clarification.

The real question is now: Does the Native Taiwanese have the right to become a Seperate Nation of their own or not??

kounter wrote:

The real question is now: Does the Native Taiwanese have the right to become a Seperate Nation of their own or not??

Kounter , thank you for your contribution. The above is a good question.

Would you agree that because the question has been raised, China's position that they have the right to invade and attack Taiwan as a renegade province which should be considered an internal issue is at the very least one or grave concern for the international community?

Pragmatic had asked what does it have to do with the American's. In fact we live in global economy, damage to Taiwans semiconducter industry or China's manufacturing will have worldwide consequences to site one example, not to mention arms build up and other countries that start to be pulled into the equation such as Japan, North and South Korea. It is not without good reason the Taiwan-China is considered one of the worlds most dangerous potential flashpoints. Besides, it would be easy to do nothing, but then again all that it takes for evil to succeed in the world is that a few good men do nothing.

One would think that National Sovernghty would take precedence over economic concerns. The American Civil War split the Union into North and South, with the South then providing the majority of the Wheat and Grain exports of America. Secession was not approved as it damaged the spirit of Patriotism and essentially weakened the country. In the case of today, the presence of U.S military bases on Taiwan, not mention Japan on the island of Okinawa, South Korea and various South East Asian countries pose a threat of retaliation to Chinese troops in the case of an attack on Taiwan. How would any country be able to stand such blatant infringements on its sovereign territory?? China and the Island of Taiwan is linked together, whether under the control of either government is negligible. True, it does involve the Americans, but not by force through economic means, but through choice in military means.

kounter wrote:

One would think that National Sovernghty would take precedence over economic concerns. The American Civil War split the Union into North and South, with the South then providing the majority of the Wheat and Grain exports of America. Secession was not approved as it damaged the spirit of Patriotism and essentially weakened the country. In the case of today, the presence of U.S military bases on Taiwan, not mention Japan on the island of Okinawa, South Korea and various South East Asian countries pose a threat of retaliation to Chinese troops in the case of an attack on Taiwan. How would any country be able to stand such blatant infringements on its sovereign territory?? China and the Island of Taiwan is linked together, whether under the control of either government is negligible. True, it does involve the Americans, but not by force through economic means, but through choice in military means.

I understand your position that this is Chinese national sovereignty, however what relevent facts can you offer that the Chinese have a legitimate claim over Taiwan?

We have discussed the Chinese previously being in Taiwan for hundreds of years. Yet, the signing of Treaty of Shimonoseki by the Chinese in 1895 in perpetuity gave any prior claim they may have had null and void.

Next was the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951. There was no mention made of who the recipient of sovereignty should be.


Where was any mention this recipient should be China ?

In addition, the UN charter chaper 1, article 1, item 2 states the UN goal is "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples"

This is a fairly solid argument that the people of Taiwan, should be allowed the right of self-determination , whether that is unifying with the mainland or choosing independence.

Now, lets here you persuasive argument for why the PRC have the right to attack, invade and start a war with a peaceful country of 23 million people.

Taiwan has elections, the Chinese hold war games. I know which side holds the moral superiority, and it isn't China!

Sorry, but I live in democracy. In my eyes, a democratically elected government will ALWAYS have the moral advantage over a self appointed one.

What does the Chinese government believe in anyway? They arrest people praying if the church doesn't have approval, but at the same time, their citizens go overseas on holidays, to study, and even emigrate. What is the point of iron-grip control?

Sorry, but I live in democracy. In my eyes, a democratically elected government will ALWAYS have the moral advantage over a self appointed one.

the western powers and Japan, when negotiating this treaty, missed out the two main players invovled - the PRC and the ROC. Both were not invited to talks about the island's future and sovereignty.

It is exactly the same reasons why the Union refused to permit the secession of the Confederate States during the American civil war. Likewise China will NOT accept the proclamation of an independent Taiwan State. What gives Taiwan the right to destablize and potentially rip apart a country of nearly 1 billion people?

Michael I don't understand your last post. As I see it, we've already made clear that the Treaty of Shimonseki is void one way or another so that the island of Taiwan never was (or is not) handed over or given any right or justification to be indpendent. As much as I hate the idea of military means to acheive a result (and I know you doubt me but I do loathe such a possibility) because a territory rightfully belonging to the mainland (and the PRC as the successive government) is acheiving defacto soon to be complete independence status, what right doesn't the Chinese government have to use military means, so long as they don't breach international law (eg: use of nuclear weapons?) You are coming from perspective that can't be regarded as morally, legally or socially based, but merely repeating again and again that "Taiwan is going to be attacked because they want to be independent...and China shouldn't be doing that...and you don't look at it from the Taiwan's people point of view." If anything, it appears that the Taiwan people don't even want independence - President Chen's China bashing platform doesn't appear to be guaranteeing him another victory (unless there is election rigging AGAIN) over Ma Yingjiu.

I don't see any point in debating your current line of reasoning anymore.

pragmatic wrote:

Michael I don't understand your last post. As I see it, we've already made clear that the Treaty of Shimonseki is void one way or another so that the island of Taiwan never was (or is not) handed over or given any right or justification to be indpendent. As much as I hate the idea of military means to acheive a result (and I know you doubt me but I do loathe such a possibility) because a territory rightfully belonging to the mainland (and the PRC as the successive government) is acheiving defacto soon to be complete independence status, what right doesn't the Chinese government have to use military means, so long as they don't breach international law (eg: use of nuclear weapons?) You are coming from perspective that can't be regarded as morally, legally or socially based, but merely repeating again and again that "Taiwan is going to be attacked because they want to be independent...and China shouldn't be doing that...and you don't look at it from the Taiwan's people point of view." If anything, it appears that the Taiwan people don't even want independence - President Chen's China bashing platform doesn't appear to be guaranteeing him another victory (unless there is election rigging AGAIN) over Ma Yingjiu.

I don't see any point in debating your current line of reasoning anymore.

I am sorry you don't understand my last post. The intention was to move away from the legal as we are going around in circles and try another line, which would be intuitive reasoning leading away from a situation that would create a conflict, and yes you are right I do believe this is what you want as you are unable to explore any possibilities, and are approaching with a closed mind, who knows there is a good chance you may get what you want, but it would be terrible for both sides.

I don't think in any way legally you have proved the right of sovereignty, you mentioned the San Francisco Peace Treaty and somehow inferred that "Taiwan being impliedly handed to the government of China". At nowhere in the text is any such thing even remotely mentioned, I suggest you read it.

Kounter had mentioned the Cairo Conference which has its validity in question, which I am sure he knows and was my reason for a change of line so we don't just get hung up on which documents, conferences and agreements are legitimate and which are not. Some which support PRC and some which support Taiwanese independence. I think I have more than proved that although China have every right to claim Taiwan as their own, the Taiwanese claim is strong enough to not to legitimize Chinas claim that they have the right to start a war.

And by the by, my mentioning of the treaty of Shimonseki was more in response to YOUR claims of legitimacy going back thousands of years and how China would never allow part of the motherland to be separate under any condition. When that is EXACTLY what they did in the treaty of Shimonseki . My quotes from that period from never got a response either from you , I put it to you again "In fact should be noted that in the 1870's Taiwanese pirates captured American, Japanese and French ships passing the island, these governments protested to Peking, but the Manchu emperor said: "Taiwan is beyond our territory." "