Diaoyutai Islands or Senkaku Islands?

Major distinction today, and it does create come room for argument is in a defensive war, acquisition of territory is sometimes deemed acceptable (particularly if you are reclaiming territory that was once yours, but taken by the same adversery in a previous war.)

 

If this is what you believe to be true, I ask you again, what is wrong with recognizing that Taiwan became a part of China in 1683 when Qing forces took the island from Ming loyalists.

After all, if it is ok for the Ryukyus to be part of Japan, Bavaria to be part of Germany, Burgundy to be part of France, and Siberia to be a part of Russia, it must follow that Taiwan becoming a part of China (in 1683) must also be ok.

 

Huge difference. Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, etc. were not even a part of Russia, they were all a part of the Soviet Union. Technically, Russia was merely a constituant republic, granted the dominant one, within the Soviet Union.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia recognized the independence of the other fourteen former Soviet republics. Because of this recognition, your point has no relevance to the situation with Taiwan, which became a part of China in 1683.

 

Jamistont - Let us see if we can agree on what a treaty is before we move on to a definition as to what International Law is.

Treaty: an international agreement between states in written form whatever its particular degisnation.

This can include executive agreements, notes of agreement, instruments of surrender, etc.

In the 1930s, the Permament Court of International Justice heard the Austrian-German Customs Regime case (referring back to a dispute between the two during the 1920s). In rendering its decision, the PCIT stated that obligatory international engagements "may be taken in the form of treaties, conventions, declarations, agreements, protocols, or exchange of notes."

Article two of the Law of Treaties of 1969 defines a treaty as "an international agreement between states in written form ... whatever its particular designation."

As a result, an earlier contention that you made, Japan's signature of the Instrument of Surrender did not legally convey Taiwan to China in 1945 because Japan was on its knees is incorrect.

Based upon the opinion of the PCIT, confirmed by the later codification of this principle in the Law of Treaties, the Instrument of Surrender is legally a treaty.

Oppenheim (in his oft cited work International Law) states that "official statements in the form of Reports of Conferences signed by Heads of States or Governments and embodying agreements reached there may, in proportion as these agreements incorporate definate rules of conduct, be regarded as legally binding upon the states in question."

This also confirms the opinion that the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation are binding on the heads of state who engaged in this agreements (in the case of Cairo: USA, UK, and ROC; in the case of Potsdam: USA, UK, USSR). Japan's signature of the Instrument of Surrender (having the legal status of a treaty) signified their formal acceptance of these agreements, hence the transfer of its sovereignty over Taiwan to the ROC in 1945.

 

I am still trying to figure out your basis for this statement.

A 1790 Chinese map of East Asia (reproduced as the cover of Joanna Waley-Cohen's work "The Sextants of Beijing") include Taiwan (and identified as Taiwan - not Formosa) as a part of China. It is clear at this point of time that the Chinese regarded Taiwan as a part of China.

The Treaty Ports System that grew as a result of the 1860 Convention of Beijing included three ports on the island of Taiwan (Danshui, Jilong, and Gaoxiong). I suppose if Taiwan wasn't a part of China, this was not a legal provision of the Convention of Beijing. It is clear that the governments of China, France, and Britain regarded Taiwan as a part of China at this time.

Let us go a little further back in Taiwanese history.

Dutch rule in the parts of Taiwan they controlled was rather harsh against the Han Chinese living on the island at that time. A situation for popular revolt was ripe on the island as the 1660s approached. Of course, we both know that Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga) evicted the Dutch with his own Ming loyalist forces from the Mainland as well as local discontent Han.

Prior to this, the Dutch regarded Taiwan as being Chinese. In a note to the Japanese in the 1620s, the Dutch replied "the land did not belong to them (Japanese) but to the Emperor of China, who had granted it to our Company in place of Pehoe (Penghu), which we have evacuated in that condition and with it the Company had got, as landlords, the inhabitants, and still more from the Japanese, who were strangers." It is clear that the Dutch recognized Chinese authority in Taiwan even before the claims I made for 1683 being the year in which China established sovereignty over Taiwan.

In 1683, a Chinese fleet led by Admiral Shi Lang conquered the island for the Qing and Emperor Kangxi made Taiwan a part of Fujian Province in 1684. The Qing government ordered a mapping of the island in 1714 to determine its size. An "office of imperial supervisor for inspecting Taiwan" was created in 1721, and the administration of the island was reconstituted in 1727. While for most of the 18th century, immigration was prohibited, it was legally encouraged from 1732 to 1736. Local officials in southern provinces did not enforce the ban during other times as many Han migrated to the island. A primary reason for the bans was the military consideration that the Qing had for the island.

In the 19th century, Taiwan would become fully embroiled in the events of the Mainland. In 1841, the Chinese fort at Ersawan was shelled by the British transport Nerbudda. In March, 1842, the British brig ship Ann wrecked at Da'an. The nine survivors were repatriated by Chinese authorities after the Opium War.

In 1850, the British asked the Governor General of Fujian and Zhejiang for coaling rights in Taiwan. This was denied. As already noted, the Convention of Beijing opened up ports on the island to Western trade.

A revolt in Taiwan led by Tai Chaoquan from 1862-1864 was inspired by the Taiping Rebellion on the mainland. He even declared himself the east king of the Taiping Tianguo (The Heavenly Kingdom of Peace). This clearly indicated that even the rebellious in Taiwan were influenced by their being a part of China.

In the 1870s, after diplomatic notes between Japan and China, the Japanese withdrew its challenge to Chinese sovereignty over the island.

All of this indicated that Taiwan was a part of China FAR longer than the eight year span you identify. This was the crux of your argument that Taiwan is not part of China. There is ample historical evidence to refute it.

 

Shenhua, watch it. We are friends and we agree on many things, but don't go down this line.

 

Must be nice to live in your idealistic world. Too bad the real world isn't quite that nice. Japan legally annexed the Kingdom of the Ryukyu's to its territory. As a result, since they are now a part of Japan's territory, international law dictates Japan's accession if the Ryukyu's Islands were to regain their independence.

Unlike the Kingdom of the Ryukyu's, there never was an independent state called Taiwan. It has part of China for hundreds of years, and then legally returned to China by Japan in 1945. If the people of Taiwan want independence, fine, but as the legal sovereign, China has the right to object to this.

The Soviet Union had the right to object to its constituent republics gaining their independence. However, the USSR went out of business, therefore tacitly approving their independence. Croatia and Slovenia didn't gain their indendence until after a fight with Yugoslavia. Slovakia gained its independence, but it was a mutually agreed split. Eritrea gained its independence, but only after decades of fighting.

Precedence is a source of international (among other things). This is once precedent that works against Taiwan simply declaring independence and it being a fact. Furthermore, even the pro-independence people I talk to would rather the ROC government work on fixing things like the economy, environmental pollution, and education system rather than focus on this idea of independence. It is only the top priority of a few political elites within a couple of political parties.

 

And you were saying that Taiwan was only a part of China from 1887-1895. I gave ample historical evidence to refute that, which you patently ignored. According to your theories, virtually ALL of the international boundaries that exist today are invalid because acquisition by conquest prior to the 20th century wasn't allowed.

Again, you are incorrect. Once I find my seminar notes on this subject, I will provide proper citations.

Who was Taiwan's government at the time of the Cairo Declaration? It certainly wasn't the Guomindang's, it was still under the control of Japan. Let's be clear here, you refer to Taiwan being under the control of the Guomingdang, but remember that the Guomingdang was the government of China at the time.

Actually, it was November, 1943. Regardless, it put legally binding committments on the United States and the United Kingdom to return Taiwan to China following the war. This was confirmed at Potsdam less than two years later. When Japan signed the Instrument of Surrender (interesting how you ignored this one in your most recent analysis), the Japanese formally accepted the conditions of the Cairo Declaration. As a result, Japan handed over sovereignty to China on September 2, 1945. How can the San Francisco Peace Treaty purport to hand over territory that is not the legal territory of any of the signatories? China was not represented at the San Francisco talks (either in the form of the PRC or ROC).

Taiwan was already ceded to China in 1945. How can they purport to take back territory that was ceded more than five years earlier. This not naming a beneficiary was so much Cold War BS. In January 1950, President Truman made no bones about the dispute over Taiwan being an internal matter of China, that it was concerning the Chinese civil war. The U.S. made no argument at this time that Taiwan was anything but the Chinese. Only Cold War politics and the Korean War a few months later caused American policy makers to rethink this, hence the decision of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. However, since the Instrument of Surrender was a legally binding document on Japan, it no longer had sovereignty over Taiwan, and neither did any of the signatories of that treaty.

Seems like we have a long way to go on this one. At this time, the PRC wasn't even in the United Nations. In another political move, the US and the Western powers were successful in blocking this until 1971, ignoring the fact that the Chinese people had rid themselves of the Guomingdang and replaced it with the CCP.

 

What Uighur Kingdom? Xinjiang has been part of China off and on since the Han Dynasty. As for Tibet, they did have a kingdom, but they were later incorporated into the Chinese empire.

Same can be said for Xi Xia, Nan Zhao, the Liao Kingdom, and a variety of other now dead kingdoms along China's periphery.

I suppose you are about to campaign for the independence of Bavaria, Burgundy, and Hawaii now (all of them had their own kingdoms before being absorbed into Germany, France, and the USA respectively).

 

They did not become the government of Taiwan. They remained the government of the Republic of China, which had lost the civil war. They fled to Taiwan because they had lost. The only reason they didn't get ousted from Taiwan in 1950 was the US Navy. However, they never relinquished their claim to the Mainland and claimed that Taiwan would be their base of national reclamation. When my wife was in school, they always taught how they would reclaim the Mainland. Didn't sound like any declaration of independence or formal separation from China at that time.

But when the PRC won the civil war and became the government of China, they also are bound by the same agreements and boundaries of the previous regime. If Taiwan was a part of the Republic of China, then the PRC, as the successor regime of China, also has a claim to the sovereignty of Taiwan.

Japan had already given up Taiwan, in 1945. This provision of the San Francisco Peace Treaty was motivated solely by the Cold War. As Taiwan was not even the sovereign territory of Japan, it was not theirs to give up.

Correct.

As the successor government to the ROC, the PRC is entitled to the same boundaries and same rights in the international community as the ROC. Again, the Guomindang did NOT become the government of 'Taiwan', rather they claimed to be the government of the whole of China. This was reflected in the legislative yuan as the old mainlander legislators were able to keep their seats until they died because elections (such as they were) couldn't be held during the 'period of communist insurgency'.

Prior to 1949, yes, those treaties are and by right should be acknowledged not only by the PRC, but the international community.

The GMD wasn't fake, they were the government of China from 1927-1949. The agreements made during that period is legally binding on China, just as the treaties made by the Qing before that (Shimonoseki ending the Sino-Japanese War, as well as the treaty ending the Sino-French War ten years earlier) are equally binding both on the ROC and the PRC. Regime change doesn't implicate the right to ignore or change international agreements or boundaries. Imagine the chaos if it did.

 

Which people, those there now or the aboriginals?

 

Jamisont - You have tried clouding the issue, but there are two major points you made relating to the status of Taiwan, and I have refuted both of them

1. Taiwan was only legally a part of China from 1887-1895.

You don't even acknowledge that you made this claim any more and completely ignore the historical evidence that I provided that refuted it.

2. Japan didn't cede Taiwan back to China in 1945.

You seem to grudging accept that this happened now as you can't refute the legality of the Instrument of Surrender (which you did at the beginning of the thread). You now play a word game based upon the name of regime. International law doesn't bear you out on this. There is one China, not two. There are two governments (the PRC and ROC), but only one China. Taiwan has historically be a part of China, and legally currently remains a part of China.