Can China Invade Taiwan?

Do you guys know anything about the one china policy?

It states that their is only one china and that both taiwan and the mainland are both the same countries.

Nearly all the countries in the world believe in this(except a few small pacific island countries).

EU Reaffirms One-China Policy

The Taiwan issue will be given "special attention" during the meetings with Chinese officials, said European Commissioner on External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner on Wednesday.

The Taiwan issue will be given special attention particularly in the light of current visit of People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong, said Ferrero-Waldner at a news briefing.
www.china.org.cn...


Singapore reiterates "one-China" policy

Singapore on Monday reiterated that it has adhered to the "one-China" policy, and does not support Taiwan's independence, according to local press reports.

The Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs made the above-mentioned statement in response to a protest by China against Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's visit to Taiwan.
english.people.com.cn...


Rice Reiterates One-China Policy

At a Monday press conference in Beijing, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the United States remains absolutely committed to the one-China policy.

Referring to her meetings with President Hu Jintao and other leaders, Rice said, "I reiterated that the United States does in fact have the one-China policy that has been clearly consistent, a policy that is based on the three joint communiqués."

She expressed hope that the status quo of the Taiwan Straits would be maintained, saying "the most useful path ahead is to reduce tension between the two sides."
www.china.org.cn...


Australia still supports 'One China' policy
Australian Premier Reaffirms One China Policy

Australian Prime Minister John Howard Wednesday reaffirmed Australia's One China policy and said it will not alter the policy. Australia has adhered to its One China policy since the establishment of diplomatic ties between Australia and China in 1973, Howard told the visiting alternate member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, Zeng Qinghong.
english.people.com.cn...


Russia Reiterates One China Policy

Fradkov made the remarks when meeting with visiting Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan Wednesday in Moscow.

Cao Gangchuan said the just-ended China-Russia joint military exercises have boosted the development of the bilateral strategic partner relationship.

The two officials also exchange views on the regional status, bilateral relations and other issues of common concern.

Cao Gangchuan arrived in Moscow on Tuesday for a five-day visit.
en1.chinabroadcast.cn...@270573.htm

[edit on 15-9-2005 by chinawhite]

Thats all well and good that a number of nations support a One-China policy, chinawhite.

More importantly though is: Does Taiwan support a One-China Policy?

All that support can be simple doublespeak.
The fact does remain though that even though the US and some others support such a policy, if China seeks to literally militarily force Taiwan back into the China-fold, that support will change, mainly from a US and Japan perspective.




seekerof

[edit on 15-9-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
More importantly though is: Does Taiwan support a One-China Policy?

47 years of hate towards the PRC through KMT textbooks and education didn't help

All that support can be simple doublespeak.
The fact does remain though that even though the US and some others support such a policy

The vast marjority supports the one china policy. Some countries might pretend but they only do it for one reason. MONEY

, if China seeks to literally militarily force Taiwan back into the China-fold, that support will change, mainly from a US and Japan perspective.

yes, you are right. but china doesn't intend to attack taiwan if it doesn't declare independence. the status quo should be kept because its beneficial to both groups.


the problem is that this was agreed on by different governments and people now want to change what has already been agreed on



PS: i can post a lot more other countries

Interesting, now this thread becomes a court room...

In any case, I also support 1 China, because obviously there is no 2 or N Chinas.

And Taiwan is NOT part of China, hahahahaha.

Funny how you see there is such thing as One-China policy, but there is no such thing as One-US, One-UK, One-Korea, One-Japan policy. Come to think of it, this might be the funny result of wierd CCP and KMT legacy.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by twchang]

Taiwan, China share little culture

Early last month, a legislator asked a group of Taiwanese-American professors how best to address a question posed by some US Congressional aides: Why won't the Taiwanese, who have a shared culture and ethnic origin with the Chinese, simply accept Beijing's claim that Taiwan is part of China?

It is most unfortunate that even Congressional aides have been misinformed and, worse yet, manipulated by China's propaganda machine. Before addressing the question, it is essential that we understand how the argument of "shared culture and shared ethnic origin" has been exploited for political purposes and that we explain that the Chinese and the Taiwanese really share few cultural and ethnic origins.

First of all, not all people who have a shared culture and shared ethnic origin must belong to one nation-state. For example, the British and their descendants over the centuries have founded several colonies that subsequently became independent countries, including the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Likewise, the German-speaking people have established two German-speaking nation-states: Germany and Austria. Arabs most certainly have more than a dozen Arab-speaking countries.

Second, using the pretext of "tung-wen tung-chung," or "same script, same race," the Chinese have repeatedly demanded that the Taiwanese accept China's annexation of Taiwan. Of course, the use of the idea "same script, same race" or any of its equivalents is neither unique nor unusual in modern world history.

In 1910, employing the "same script, same race" argument, Imperial Japan manipulated Korea into accepting the Annexation Treaty and subsequently made it a Japanese colony. Using more or less similar arguments, such as the idea of "Asia for Asians," Japan in 1940 set up its "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" to create a bloc of Asian nations, including occupied China, Manchuria and the Russian Maritime Province, under the leadership of Japan to supposedly free Asia from Western colonial rule, as well as to expand Japanese power. Japan was not alone in exploiting the pretext of shared culture and ethnic origin.

Nazi Germany employed the same excuse to forcibly annex Austria in 1938. Fortunately, in all such cases annexation or occupation did not last. In 1945, having defeated Germany and Japan, the Allied forces liberated Korea, China, Austria and others.

Now, let's examine the Chinese use of the term and concept "same script, same race." The Chinese have been indoctrinated to believe in the origin of a single Han Chinese race in the area of the Yellow River. They will thus say that all Han Chinese have descended from the Yellow Emperor of the ancient times. In addition, they also believe that the Han Chinese culture was so splendid that non-Chinese came to China to learn and even stay to be assimilated and absorbed into the Han Chinese Empire.

In The New Chinese Empire published in 2003, Ross Terrill refers to this phenomenon as imperial China's "one China myth." The effect of the Chinese efforts to sustain the myth is such that, "The idea and ideal of one China are deeply embedded in the Chinese mind," as Singapore's Foreign Minister George Yeo said.

In reality, archeological findings and population geneticists' studies have established that the Han Chinese race is a diverse collection of peoples with a variety of origins, traditions and spoken languages. Today, within the Han Chinese population there are at least eight distinct languages spoken. It is evident that it is the Chinese political and cultural tradition, and practice, to compel all peoples within the empire to accept the Han Chinese identity.

www.taipeitimes.com...

Here's 'oh we big modern Chinese' exploiting a myth from ancient times.

Actually, there is a lot of differences between Southern English people and Scotish people.

There is a lot of difference between Northern America [U.S.A.] and Southern, there is even more difference in a Nation with 1.3billion people or 1/5th of the World.

Little bit of Common-sense goes a long way.

Exactly, this just shows that people with different or similar cultures don't have to be in the same nation.

There are other things that bind people in a nation.


[edit on 16-9-2005 by twchang]

In 1949 there were 6 million "Taiwanese" on the island, then a large influx of 2 millioin mainlanders came into the island.

these are the figures you should keep in mind

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

bodebliss thanks for quoting taipei times again............

here is something this article got wrong

In 1910, employing the "same script, same race" argument, Imperial Japan manipulated Korea into accepting the Annexation Treaty and subsequently made it a Japanese colony.

www.taipeitimes.com...



Korean and japanese languages dont have the same script and are not of the same race.

"Taiwanese" and mainlanders have the same history. same script same spoken language.


most people that claim to be taiwanese actually came there during the 1850s.


The only Native taiwanese are like the maoris in new zealand

[edit on 16-9-2005 by chinawhite]

Originally posted by chinawhite
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.

The ROC was technically occpuying Taiwan on behalf of the allies. Sovereignty over Taiwan had not been transferred to the ROC but rather the technical status was belligerant occupation until such time as a peace treaty would settle the matter. ROC troops accepted the Japanese surrender in northern Viet Nam. Did Viet Nam become part of China? The Soviets accepted the Japanese surrender in Manchuria. Did Manchuria become part of the Soviet Union?

The fact is that under international law, ONLY A TREATY can cause the transfer of territory from one state to another, just as the Treaty of Shimonoseki was the means by which sovereignty over Taiwan was transferred from the Manchus to Imperial Japan.

Originally posted by chinawhite
[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.

Your understand of international law is at fault. The KMT were holding Taiwan in belligerant occupation on BEHALF OF THE ALLIES pending the signing of a peace treaty. This also occurred following World War I. France was occupying Alsace and Lorraine, BUT Germany still had to sign it away in a peace treaty for technical sovereignty to be transferred from Germany to France. You don't seem to understand the difference between belligerant occupation and technical sovereignty. Those are very important distinctions to understand when adjudicating the technical legal status of 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

They Japanese had no power to assign sovereignty over Taiwan because it had already given it up in the SFPT. The fact is that it was NOT given to China. The technical status was that of terra nullius. There was NO TRANSFER to sovereignty to China (ROC or PRC). Japan had already given it up to the 22 allied signatories of the SFPT. Besides, the PRC government doesn't even recognize the validity of the ROC-Japan treaty, so a ChiCom can't really argue based on that point.

we are talking about the ROC rights to the island.

Of which it has none. Taiwan belong's to Taiwan's PEOPLE, not to a fictitious ROC.

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."

Again, Japan has no right to determine the fate of Taiwan's people. In fact, NOW Japan considers Taiwan within its sphere of defense along with the United States.

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

DOesn't matter. Japan has no authority to determine the technical sovereign status of Taiwan. It lost that right when it signed and ratified the SFPT in 1951/52.

The ROC was technically occpuying Taiwan on behalf of the allies. Sovereignty over Taiwan had not been transferred to the ROC but rather the technical status was belligerant occupation until such time as a peace treaty would settle the matter.

Yes and No.

they didn't go their just to occupy the land they came to take it over. because china was already promised taiwan at the cario conference.

In the peace treaty with Japan. japan reconized taiwan as ROC terrioty.

And with the peace treaty with the PRC japan reconized taiwan as a part of the PRC

ROC troops accepted the Japanese surrender in northern Viet Nam. Did Viet Nam become part of China? The Soviets accepted the Japanese surrender in Manchuria. Did Manchuria become part of the Soviet Union?

Bad examples

The fact is that under international law, ONLY A TREATY can cause the transfer of territory from one state to another, just as the Treaty of Shimonoseki was the means by which sovereignty over Taiwan was transferred from the Manchus to Imperial Japan.

you look to much under the finer ponts

I haven't seen one country that hasn't broke international law

Your understand of international law is at fault. The KMT were holding Taiwan in belligerant occupation on BEHALF OF THE ALLIES pending the signing of a peace treaty. This also occurred following World War I. France was occupying Alsace and Lorraine, BUT Germany still had to sign it away in a peace treaty for technical sovereignty to be transferred from Germany to France.

belligerent occupation is when a foriegn force is occupying a country. taiwan was already promised to the ROC at cario.

at the SFPT. japan gave up its right to claim taiwan. they didn't give up taiwan.

it never said that it was going to be decided by the people living on taiwan

They Japanese had no power to assign sovereignty over Taiwan because it had already given it up in the SFPT.

Do you even read what i write?

I never said japan assigned anything

The fact is that it was NOT given to China. The technical status was that of terra nullius. There was NO TRANSFER to sovereignty to China (ROC or PRC). Japan had already given it up to the 22 allied signatories of the SFPT.

terra nullius is when their is no government or that the land was un-occupied.

After the Signing of the SFPT. taiwan wasn't "terra nullius"(as you put it) it already had a government installed.



When the KMT entered taiwan they didn't just take japanese surrender they installed their own government

Besides, the PRC government doesn't even recognize the validity of the ROC-Japan treaty, so a ChiCom can't really argue based on that point.

Because the PRC has a seperate peace treaty

Of which it has none. Taiwan belong's to Taiwan's PEOPLE, not to a fictitious ROC.

You talk like "taiwanese" are actually have their own country

DOesn't matter. Japan has no authority to determine the technical sovereign status of Taiwan. It lost that right when it signed and ratified the SFPT in 1951/52.

The US japan. EU russia all say that taiwan is PRC terrioty

It seems like you dont know what the SFPT was about.

Japan gave up its right to claim terrioty it had captured in WW2 and before.

They gave up all the rights they signed with china post-1868.


They couldn't relinquish taiwan because it had already been under KMT ownership for 7years.

I've seen 0 reports from the EU saying such things, I would like some evidence of that being said by the EU....AKA all of its members.

Originally posted by chinawhite
Do you guys know anything about the one china policy?

It states that their is only one china and that both taiwan and the mainland are both the same countries.

Nearly all the countries in the world believe in this(except a few small pacific island countries).

That is a POLITICAL statement, not a LEGAL one. I can't believe you can't tell the difference between them. No country has the right to determine the legal soveriegn status of another country.

here devilwasp

www.china.org.cn...

A EU report
europa.eu.int...
europa.eu.int...

[edit on 16-9-2005 by chinawhite]

Originally posted by chinawhite

47 years of hate towards the PRC through KMT textbooks and education didn't help

But those very same textbooks were adament that Taiwan was a part of China. So, can't you say that the KMT tried to brainwash the Taiwanese people that the island is a part of China, though it certainly is not? Even today, the KMT STILL objects to inclusion of the SFPT in textbooks, and continue to use their gerrymandered legislative majority to ensure that Taiwanese schoolchildren DON'T see this in their texts.

The vast marjority supports the one china policy. Some countries might pretend but they only do it for one reason. MONEY

It still has no legal standing. China is afraid of a true legal ajudication by the ICJ because they know they have a losing case based upon precedents by both the ICJ and its precursor, the PCIJ.

yes, you are right. but china doesn't intend to attack taiwan if it doesn't declare independence. the status quo should be kept because its beneficial to both groups.

How long will China accept the "status quo"? Certainly not indefinately. Still, why should the Taiwanese people accept it. If Taiwan is a sovereign state (which it is), why shouldn't the Taiwanese people be able to exercise its rights as any other sovereign state in the world is able to.

the problem is that this was agreed on by different governments and people now want to change what has already been agreed on

Remember, political agreements by OTHER countries have no legal standing on the TAIWANESE nation. No state has the right to surrender Taiwan's sovereignty without Taiwan's consent.

But those very same textbooks were adament that Taiwan was a part of China. So, can't you say that the KMT tried to brainwash the Taiwanese people that the island is a part of China, though it certainly is not?

Because people have a bad opinion about the PRC through KMT lies

The majority of taiwanese dont think its a independent country. or can you provide information otherwise

How long will China accept the "status quo"? Certainly not indefinately. Still, why should the Taiwanese people accept it. If Taiwan is a sovereign state (which it is), why shouldn't the Taiwanese people be able to exercise its rights as any other sovereign state in the world is able to.

Armed force is last possible solution for the PRC. In 20-30years i can see taiwan and the PRC re-joining

Remember, political agreements by OTHER countries have no legal standing on the TAIWANESE nation. No state has the right to surrender Taiwan's sovereignty without Taiwan's consent.

As you said taiwan was terra nullius.......................


I could say that the ROC invaded and now it is intergrated into the ROC

Originally posted by chinawhite
here devilwasp

www.china.org.cn...

A EU report
europa.eu.int...
europa.eu.int...

[edit on 16-9-2005 by chinawhite]

First one is some ambassidor, not the EU.
Second one is simply an interview, hell they say they support the "one china" idea but do not believe threatening or fighting is right, so they dont support china.
They simply believe that everyone should join together of thier own free will.

PS the first 2 are just individuals speaking the third shows me nothing near what the first 2 blatently say.

So to correct you, no the EU doesnt support china.
It supports both sides