It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can China Invade Taiwan?

page: 145
1
<< 142  143  144    146  147  148 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   




JOHN Howard has challenged the US to adopt a less hostile stance towards a booming China, arguing the Asian superpower's continued rise is "good for the world".

With Australia seeking to forge closer economic ties with Beijing, the Prime Minister has played down US concerns over China's economic march into Western economies and its belligerent attitude towards Taiwan.

He did not specifically name Taiwan in a speech to the Asia Society in New York.

"As China assumes a greater strategic and economic weight in Asia in the 21st century, it will inevitably place some stress on the international system," he said.

"But to see China's rise in zero-sum terms is overly pessimistic, intellectually misguided and potentially dangerous."

The US has expressed concerns over China's rapid economic gains and the incursion of cheaper manufactured goods into the massive American market.


www.theaustralian.news.com.au...

[edit on 14-9-2005 by chinawhite]




posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
"The US has expressed concerns over China's rapid economic gains and the incursion of cheaper manufactured goods into the massive American market."

The US has expressed concern over China's unfair trade practices and this after it joined the WTO.

Howard's full of bull!



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
here is where you got it wrong.




america signed a treaty with japan and the ROC signed a treaty with japan.

have you ever wondered why the ROC wasn't in the San Francisco Treaty.

here is a link to the ROC japanese treaty


Article 10

For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendents who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores); and juridical persons of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all those registered under the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).


www.taiwandocuments.org...



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss

The US has expressed concern over China's unfair trade practices and this after it joined the WTO.


its only unfair to americans when they are not making profits.


Howard's full of bull!


well its a big change of heart from john howard.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Very well, as to the treaty between Japan and the ROC, the part that mentions Taiwan would be null and void as Japan already surrendered all rights to Taiwan in the San Francisco Treaty so it could not make any claims or detraction there after.

In the treaty between Japan and the ROC which took place after the San Francisco Treaty article 10 does not count and can just be scratched out.

This would be like I gave a car and it's title away to someone, and then I told you it's yours. The second gesture is meaningless.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
that treaty acknowledges that the ROC is the sole owner of taiwan. they didn't give it to the ROC because we were already in possession of it.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   


This would be like I gave a car and it's title away to someone, and then I told you it's yours. The second gesture is meaningless.


no international polictics is not that simple.

it actually depends if you were still in the possession of the car.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
The San Francisco Treaty

Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951
Initial entry into force*: 28 April 1952

Article 2

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan

Signed at Taipei, 28 April 1952
Entered into force, 5 August 1952, by the exchange of the instruments of ratification at Taipei


The treaty with the Roc entered into after the San Francisco treaty took effect, did not take effect until August 5th 1952 making the clause you mentioned void.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
treatys dont void treatys.

because they ROC wasn't in the San Francisco the treaty has no affect on its claim.

japan gave up taiwan 1 year before the treaty to no-one. but it later signed it off to the ROC



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
The San Francisco Treaty

Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951
Initial entry into force*: 28 April 1952

Article 2

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan

Signed at Taipei, 28 April 1952
Entered into force, 5 August 1952, by the exchange of the instruments of ratification at Taipei


The treaty with the Roc entered into after the San Francisco treaty took effect, did not take effect until August 5th 1952 making the clause you mentioned void.



The problem with this theory is that Japan had already signed away all right and title to the island of Taiwan in a treaty signed with the allied powers (not including China.) By what legal theory can the Japanese now come and say that they are going to sign a treaty to assign territory that they have already surrendered to the ROC. Once San Francisco becomes effective, the Japanese lose all right to have a say in the status of the island of Taiwan.

One should note, in the SFPT, no beneficiary is named, something that is required under international law to transfer territory from one state to another. This left Taiwan legally terra res nullius, making continued KMT rule of the island without benefit of a plebiscite unlawful.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   
you guys got it all wrong


japan never gave the terrioty to china . they reconized that the people of taiwan belonged to the ROC.

how could they give up terrioty that the ROC owned?



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludahai
One should note, in the SFPT, no beneficiary is named, something that is required under international law to transfer territory from one state to another. This left Taiwan legally terra res nullius, making continued KMT rule of the island without benefit of a plebiscite unlawful.


the KMT was in control of taiwan.

japan in the SFPT renouced their right to claim taiwan.

they didn't give it up because it wasn't in their posession .


thats the problem with your theory. japan didn't give up the island they gave up their claim



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
"Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention specifies the international legal standards by which nationhood is adjudged. These are (a) permanent population, (b) defined territory, (c) government, and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states. However, if we accept these four stipulations for recognizing a "sovereign state" in the case of the "Republic of China on Taiwan", we are immediately faced with the conclusion that "military occupation does transfer sovereignty" - which is a clear violation of international law, as specified in the Geneva and Hague Conventions. "

Because of abuses during the 1800's The Hague convention of 1907 made it illegal to gain cession by military occupation. The only way for the ROC to be sovereign over Taiwan is if a plebiscite were now held and the people of Taiwan affirmed it by a vote. China is against this because it knows international law, also.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   
the Hague Convention was signed in 1954. and came into force in 1956.

how is it meant to affect taiwans case before it was signed.



japan didn't give up taiwan it gave up its right to claim taiwan. taiwan before the SFPT was even signed was already in ROC posession. taiwan already had a government.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Not that one.

The one of which I speak is the Second Peace Conference at The Hague( Signed -- 18 October 1907; entry into force -- 26 January 1910):

www.lib.byu.edu...


Hague IV signed oct 18,1907 section III article 45 is particularly pertinent.

This is where the ROC occupying authority failed in it's duties under international law.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
taiwan is not a signatory of the Hague Convention



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
It matter not at all if the ROC is a signator of the Hague convention of 1907 or not. Enough of the later treaties it did or did not sign stand on and relate back to the Hague convention of 1907 for that convention to bind all nations, that are nations today.

So the ROC has no claim on Taiwan and China has no claim on Taiwan and for that matter Japan and the US have no claim on Taiwan.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
if a country did not sign a treaty. how is it affected by it?

its just like the geneva convention. the people that didn't sign it wasn't affected by its laws

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hague Article 45 does not mention anything about the PRC or taiwan case. because there is no taiwanese people. they are chinese



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

america signed a treaty with japan and the ROC signed a treaty with japan.


Japan signed a treaty now only with the United States, but with TWENTY-TWO allies, of which the United States was only one. In that treaty, Japan gave up all sovereign rights to the island of Taiwan. Neither Chinese government was in San Francisco. Once Japan signs the rights of the territory way, it has absolutely no authority under the traditions of international law to then sign another treaty assigning sovereignty of that territory. If anyone had that right following the SFPT, it was the 22 allied powers that were signatories to the treaty, and not Japan.

Furthermore, your own beloved PRC government doesn't recognize the Japan-ROC treaty because as far as they are concerned the ROC had no legal right to represent China.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludahai
Japan signed a treaty now only with the United States, but with TWENTY-TWO allies, of which the United States was only one. In that treaty, Japan gave up all sovereign rights to the island of Taiwan. Neither Chinese government was in San Francisco. Once Japan signs the rights of the territory way, it has absolutely no authority under the traditions of international law to then sign another treaty assigning sovereignty of that territory. If anyone had that right following the SFPT, it was the 22 allied powers that were signatories to the treaty, and not Japan.


do you even read what i write?

Japan at the SFPT didn't give up any land.....................................they were not in posession of taiwan so they couldn't give it away. they gave up their right to claim taiwan.


In the peace treaty with the ROC japan reconized its sovereignty of the people of taiwan and taiwan.

they didn't assign anything in those treatys. they had no bargining power to assign these terriotys



Furthermore, your own beloved PRC government doesn't recognize the Japan-ROC treaty because as far as they are concerned the ROC had no legal right to represent China.


we are talking about the ROC rights to the island.


the PRC sign the Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China.


In it stated that japan did not reconized that the government in taipei as the government of china and that the PRC was.

it also says that Taiwan was quote "an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China."

in exchange for this the PRC waived its right to sue japan for war reparations



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 142  143  144    146  147  148 >>

log in

join