Can China Invade Taiwan?

Originally posted by chinawhite
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

Illegally under modern standards of international law. Kind of the same as the Jewish settlers in Gaza and the West Bank as being illegal under international law.

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

Not entirely true. Same script, perhaps. However, the history and spoken language were quite different. In 1945, almost nobody in Taiwan could speak Mandarin Chinese. In fact, more could speak JAPANESE than Mandarin. More than 80% of people in Taiwan spoke Taiwanese, a language distinct from Mandarin and the two are NOT mutually intelligible. Most of the rest spoke Hakka, along with those speaking aboriginal languages.

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

Not entirely true. Large scale migrations took place during the Dutch occupation in the south in the 1630s-1650s. Then, there was another wave in the 1660s when the half-Japanese pirate Koxinga ousted the Dutch. There was also another wave in the early decades of the 18th century when, though officially prohibited, local Fujianese officials encouraged migration to relieve overcrowing in their counties.

The only Native taiwanese are like the maoris in new zealand

[edit on 16-9-2005 by chinawhite]

Aboriginal Taiwanese is the term used to distinguish them from Native Taiwanese, which is the term used to differentiate those who came BEFORE the Japanese occupation with those who came AFTER the Japanese occupation ended.

Originally posted by chinawhite
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.

Absolutely irrelevant. The SFPT is the governing document here, NOT cairo.

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

Once again, Japan had already surrendered sovereignty over Taiwan in the SFPT with the allies. The Japanese from that point had no legal say whatsoever in the final dispotition of Taiwan.

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

See above. If this is the legal rationale your buddies in Beijing are relying on, no WONDER they they are afraid to have this decided by the ICJ. They would lose.

Bad examples

Explain

you look to much under the finer ponts

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

So, China can violate the rights of Taiwanese under international law because others violate international law. That argument isn't going to win you any friends.

First one is some ambassidor, not the EU.

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

ambassidor of the EU


china maintians that if you want to have relations with china you must maintain a one-china policy.

last time i checked they did



here is one you should read.........all of it
www.roc-taiwan.be...

Despite its official observation of the "one China" policy, the EU has always insisted that maintaining a peaceful cross-strait situation and military balance is the bottom line.

www.taipeitimes.com...'

[quot]Strictly abide by the one-China principle

The one-China principle is an important political cornerstone underpinning China-EU relations.The proper handling of the Taiwanquestion is essential for a steady growth of China-EU relations.China appreciates EU and its members' commitment to the one-China principle and hopes that the EU will continue to respect China's major concerns over the Taiwan question, guard against Taiwan authorities' attempt to create "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" and prudently handle Taiwan-related issues.In this connection, it is important that the EU

-- Prohibit any visit by any Taiwanpolitical figures to the EU or its member countries under whatever name or pretext; not to engage in any contact or exchange of an official or governmental nature with Taiwanauthorities.

-- Not to support Taiwan's accession to or participation in any international organization whose membership requires statehood.Taiwan's entry into the WTO in the name of "separate customs territoryof Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen, Mazu" (or Chinese Taipei for short) does not mean any change in Taiwan's status as part of China.EU exchanges with Taiwanmust be strictly unofficial and non-governmental.

-- Not to sell to Taiwanany weapon, equipment, goods, materials or technology that can be used for military purposes.
www.fmprc.gov.cn...

This is what countries have to do before you have relations with china


Germany adheres to 'one China' policy
www2.chinadaily.com.cn...

Originally posted by chinawhite

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

Technically, Japan retained sovereignty over Taiwan until its disposition at the SFPT in 1951/52. The ROC was the occupying power with no sovereign rights. Cairo has no standing under international law. Only legally ratified peace treaties can cause territory to be transferred from one government to another. As Japan had already given up its soveriegn right to Taiwan in the SFPT, any clause regarding the sovereign status of Taiwan in a subsequent treaty signed by Japan is null and void.

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

Yes, they did, to both.

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

However, in keeping consistant with the UN Charter provisions on the self-determination of peoples, the Taiwanese and only the Tawanese had the sovereign right to determine their own future when no other state could legally claim the island.

Do you even read what i write?

I never said japan assigned anything

I read what you right, but it is full of bunk. Japan signed away Taiwan in the SFPT. You can't get over that. Anything Japan says after that regarding Taiwan has no legal standing.

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

Or when no state entity has a legal claim to a territory.

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

But it was a government that had no legal basis in Taiwan. It wasn't a Taiwanese government, it was a Chinese government that had arrived in belligerant occupation in 1945 and refused to give the Taiwanese people a voice in their future following the SFPT. At that point, the KMT government became both illegal and illegitimate.

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

Which was illegal. However, keep in mind that the KMT didn't regard Taiwan as a Chinese territory in 1946. That was the justification for not permitting Taiwanese delegates to attend the Constitutional Convention in Nanjing in 1946.

Because the PRC has a seperate peace treaty

Whose provisions regarding Taiwan have no legal standing.

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

They do! NOW!

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

The U.S. Congress says that Tibet is NOT Chinese territory. The U.S. says that Diaoyu (Senkaku) belongs to Japan. Since you take such stock in the opinions of other countries, why not those?

The reality is, the POLITICAL statements of states do not have LEGAL status. If China were so confident, why are they opposed to the ICJ deciding this?!?!? BECAUSE THE KNOW THAT THEY WILL LOSE!

[edit on 2005/9/16 by ludahai]

Originally posted by ludahai
Not entirely true. Same script, perhaps. However, the history and spoken language were quite different. In 1945, almost nobody in Taiwan could speak Mandarin Chinese. In fact, more could speak JAPANESE than Mandarin.

not true.

Most people on the island sproke two languages.

More than 80% of people in Taiwan spoke Taiwanese, a language distinct from Mandarin and the two are NOT mutually intelligible. Most of the rest spoke Hakka, along with those speaking aboriginal languages.

Ha.... i laugh at that.

the reason i dont believe in this taiwanese language is because i can speak it it is a variation of hakka.


I dont think i have told you my family background. ever wondered why i am so interested in this subject

Not entirely true. Large scale migrations took place during the Dutch occupation in the south in the 1630s-1650s.

large scale. we are talking 10s of thousands. this is not large enough to be claimed as a different culture with

Then, there was another wave in the 1660s when the half-Japanese pirate Koxinga ousted the Dutch.

How long was that seperation? 50years. that was about 200,000-300,000

There was also another wave in the early decades of the 18th century when, though officially prohibited, local Fujianese officials encouraged migration to relieve overcrowing in their counties.

yes but this was not large enough. 10s of thousand

Aboriginal Taiwanese is the term used to distinguish them from Native Taiwanese, which is the term used to differentiate those who came BEFORE the Japanese occupation with those who came AFTER the Japanese occupation ended.

bensheng ren and waisheng ren.

the waisheng ren mkae up about 1/8 of the population

Originally posted by chinawhite
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.

That's kinda funny since I did my master's thesis on this very topic.

Once again, the KMT was in belligerant occupation of Taiwan. Sovereignty wasn't transferred to the ROC. The KMT government in Taiwan became ILLEGAL following the SFPT because it didn't permit the Taiwanese people to exercise self-determination.

Originally posted by ludahai
Absolutely irrelevant. The SFPT is the governing document here, NOT cairo.

the SFPT has nothing to do with the status of taiwan.

Once again, Japan had already surrendered sovereignty over Taiwan in the SFPT with the allies. The Japanese from that point had no legal say whatsoever in the final dispotition of Taiwan.

If taiwan was terra nullius then why would the people have a say.

It was un-inhabited terrioty

So, China can violate the rights of Taiwanese under international law because others violate international law. That argument isn't going to win you any friends.

Why does the PRC have to be bond by some rules while others are not?

Originally posted by chinawhite
ambassidor of the EU

So? Im the ambassador of LOX games....

china maintians that if you want to have relations with china you must maintain a one-china policy.

Really? So what about relations with taiwan? LOL.

last time i checked they did

Last time I checked they ddnt support an invasion.

here is one you should read.........all of it
www.roc-taiwan.be...

I did read it, well scimmed it, frankly it just proves my point, the states are flexible and frankly are not restricted by china.

Despite its official observation of the "one China" policy, the EU has always insisted that maintaining a peaceful cross-strait situation and military balance is the bottom line.

www.taipeitimes.com...'

Yeah that means they want peace, both sides, not supporting ethier side fully.

[quot]Strictly abide by the one-China principle

The one-China principle is an important political cornerstone underpinning China-EU relations.The proper handling of the Taiwanquestion is essential for a steady growth of China-EU relations.China appreciates EU and its members' commitment to the one-China principle and hopes that the EU will continue to respect China's major concerns over the Taiwan question, guard against Taiwan authorities' attempt to create "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" and prudently handle Taiwan-related issues.In this connection, it is important that the EU

-- Prohibit any visit by any Taiwanpolitical figures to the EU or its member countries under whatever name or pretext; not to engage in any contact or exchange of an official or governmental nature with Taiwanauthorities.

-- Not to support Taiwan's accession to or participation in any international organization whose membership requires statehood.Taiwan's entry into the WTO in the name of "separate customs territoryof Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen, Mazu" (or Chinese Taipei for short) does not mean any change in Taiwan's status as part of China.EU exchanges with Taiwanmust be strictly unofficial and non-governmental.

-- Not to sell to Taiwanany weapon, equipment, goods, materials or technology that can be used for military purposes.

www.fmprc.gov.cn...

This is what countries have to do before you have relations with china

Yes thats because you live under a "secure" regime, not once there does it say we must support china in an act of agression, the above can be broken at anytime.

Germany adheres to 'one China' policy
www2.chinadaily.com.cn...

Germany is one state, if I said luxemburg adheres to the taiwan policy that would make no diffrence? Why? Luxemburg is one state.
Why do you think because some agree that all agree?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

SFPT rescinded all treaties from 1901 on, but left the ones made before that intact. That is why they specificly freed Taiwan in the SFPT.

Technically, Japan retained sovereignty over Taiwan until its disposition at the SFPT in 1951/52. The ROC was the occupying power with no sovereign rights. Cairo has no standing under international law. Only legally ratified peace treaties can cause territory to be transferred from one government to another. As Japan had already given up its soveriegn right to Taiwan in the SFPT, any clause regarding the sovereign status of Taiwan in a subsequent treaty signed by Japan is null and void.

Here is what the SFPT said.

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

www.taiwandocuments.org...

However, in keeping consistant with the UN Charter provisions on the self-determination of peoples, the Taiwanese and only the Tawanese had the sovereign right to determine their own future when no other state could legally claim the island.

do you know what terra nullius is ? you brought this up

I read what you right, but it is full of bunk.

Haha

You can't get over that. Anything Japan says after that regarding Taiwan has no legal standing.

OMG i never said it had legal standing. i pointed out that the former owner gave its opinion about taiwan

But it was a government that had no legal basis in Taiwan. It wasn't a Taiwanese government, it was a Chinese government that had arrived in belligerant occupation in 1945 and refused to give the Taiwanese people a voice in their future following the SFPT. At that point, the KMT government became both illegal and illegitimate.

taiwanese? whats their history?

Which was illegal. However, keep in mind that the KMT didn't regard Taiwan as a Chinese territory in 1946. That was the justification for not permitting Taiwanese delegates to attend the Constitutional Convention in Nanjing in 1946.

But made a claim to taiwan in 1939

The U.S. Congress says that Tibet is NOT Chinese territory.

Congress or congressman?

The U.S. says that Diaoyu (Senkaku) belongs to Japan. Since you take such stock in the opinions of other countries, why not those?

actually they dont have a opinion

Yes thats because you live under a "secure" regime,

Dont assume anything........ i dont live in china.

not once there does it say we must support china in an act of agression, the above can be broken at anytime.

At the present time they are supporting the one-china policy...................

Germany is one state, if I said luxemburg adheres to the taiwan policy that would make no diffrence? Why? Luxemburg is one state.
Why do you think because some agree that all agree?

In 1975 china and the EU agreed on the one china policy or are you disputing this?

So? Im the ambassador of LOX games....

# A diplomatic official of the highest rank appointed and accredited as representative in residence by one government or sovereign to another, usually for a specific length of time.
# A diplomatic official heading his or her country's permanent mission to certain international organizations, such as the United Nations.
# An authorized messenger or representative.

He represnts the EU

Really? So what about relations with taiwan? LOL.

We are talking about the one-china policy dont change the subject

Last time I checked they ddnt support an invasion.

they dont.

Mabye later.

If you want to discuss this. you should read the material i provide

Originally posted by chinawhite
Dont assume anything........ i dont live in china.

Yeah your from the taiwanese islands arent you?
The one closesnt to the mainland I believe?

At the present time they are supporting the one-china policy...................

To a certain degree yes, BUT the fact remains that it is already part of china and infact if it did break away, the UK would probably back up the US and support it, since it has invested about 50% of the EU's economical influence in taiwan.

In 1975 china and the EU agreed on the one china policy or are you disputing this?

No, I am disputing the fact that in 1975 the EU was much smaller and the EU most likely WONT support it if tensions rise.

Originally posted by chinawhite

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

What KMT lies about the PRC? The disaster of the "Great Leap Forward", or the "Cultural Revolution" or the general degredation of Chinese culture under the CCP?

NOW, Taiwanese hate China because of China's behavior, which is clear for all to see. From missile tests prior to the 1996 elections to hundreds of missiles pointed at us, to Chinese public health officials saying that no one cares about Taiwan at WHO meetings...... There are PLENTY of reasons for Taiwanese to hate China. It is nothing to do with the KMT today, and everything to do with China's own actions.

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

What information do you have that says that the majority of Taiwanese DON'T think Taiwan is an independent country? I live in Taiwan. I speak Mandarin and some Taiwanese. I talk to Taiwanese people on a DAILY BASIS. Even in casual conversation, people regularly refer to Taiwan as a country, NOT as a part of China.

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

How can Taiwan re-join the PRC when it has never been a part of the PRC?
Don't be so sure about Taiwanese wanting to join the PRC. The younger generation is even more confident of Taiwan's sovereignty than their parents are. The Pan-Green candidates in Taiwan get larger and larger vote tallies with every presidential election. Even the Pan-Blue is now mum on their stand regarding Taiwan's relationship with China.

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

Except that now the Taiwanese have a voice in their own government and are democratic. Once the Taiwanese have the referendum on independent, it will confirm what most people who live here in Taiwan already know. Taiwan is NOT a part of China and that Taiwan is a sovereign nation.

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

Except that this no longer holds water in international law. Wars of aggression (in post WWII international law) are not means to legally acquire territory.

[edit on 2005/9/16 by ludahai]

[edit on 2005/9/16 by ludahai]

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah your from the taiwanese islands arent you?
The one closesnt to the mainland I believe?

think australia.............

To a certain degree yes, BUT the fact remains that it is already part of china and infact if it did break away, the UK would probably back up the US and support it, since it has invested about 50% of the EU's economical influence in taiwan.

the country with the most inflence economically is infact mainland china. go figure

NOW, Taiwanese hate China because of China's behavior, which is clear for all to see. From missile tests prior to the 1996 elections to hundreds of missiles pointed at us,

but still 1996. when chen was making threats about taiwanese independence

to Chinese public health officials saying that no one cares about Taiwan at WHO meetings...... There are PLENTY of reasons for Taiwanese to hate China. It is nothing to do with the KMT today, and everything to do with China's own actions.

Its called backmailing

What information do you have that says that the majority of Taiwanese DON'T think Taiwan is an independent country?

opinion polls.

theres independence, status quo, and uni-fication

How can Taiwan re-join the PRC when it has never been a part of the PRC?
Don't be so sure about Taiwanese wanting to join the PRC.

better living standards in china bigger per-capita income.

Except that now the Taiwanese have a voice in their own government and are democratic.[/qote]

YEAH NOW. but the ROC took taiwan when it was terra nullius

Once the Taiwanese have the referendum on independent, it will confirm what most people who live here in Taiwan already know. Taiwan is NOT a part of China and that Taiwan is a sovereign nation.

Go have a referendum. it'll be your last

Except that this no longer holds water in international law. Wars of aggression (in post WWII international law) are not means to legally acquire territory.

As you said the allies told the KMT to go to taiwan

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by ludahai
Not entirely true. Same script, perhaps. However, the history and spoken language were quite different. In 1945, almost nobody in Taiwan could speak Mandarin Chinese. In fact, more could speak JAPANESE than Mandarin.

not true.

Most people on the island sproke two languages.

Most EDUCATED people before 1945 could speak two languages: Taiwanese and JAPANESE, NOT Mandarin. To this day, most older people in Taiwan can only speak fragmented Mandarin. My mother in law doesn't speak Mandarin at all, and the same is true for most of her elderly neighbors.

[qouote]

More than 80% of people in Taiwan spoke Taiwanese, a language distinct from Mandarin and the two are NOT mutually intelligible. Most of the rest spoke Hakka, along with those speaking aboriginal languages.

Ha.... i laugh at that.

the reason i dont believe in this taiwanese language is because i can speak it it is a variation of hakka.

LIE! Taiwanese is a dialect of MINNANESE, NOT Hakka. Both Taiwanese and Hakka are spoken in Taiwan and the two languages are NOT mutually intelligible.

I dont think i have told you my family background. ever wondered why i am so interested in this subject

What, are you really a Taiwanese traitor?

bensheng ren and waisheng ren.

the waisheng ren mkae up about 1/8 of the population

More and more people are now referring to "Waishengren" as "Shinjhumin" 新住民 1/8 of the population isn't much compared to 7/8 that were already here. It seems that their rights to a sovereign state should outweigh those who came here and denied Taiwanese basic rights for decades.

Originally posted by chinawhite

the SFPT has nothing to do with the status of taiwan.

Of course it does. This is where Japan formally surrerended its sovereign claim to Taiwan.

If taiwan was terra nullius then why would the people have a say.

It was un-inhabited terrioty

It doesn't mean uninhabited. It means that no state has a legal claim to it.

Why does the PRC have to be bond by some rules while others are not?

Care to cite an example of a great power invading and annexing land that doesn't belong to it in a war of aggression since World War II?

Originally posted by chinawhite

Technically, Japan retained sovereignty over Taiwan until its disposition at the SFPT in 1951/52. The ROC was the occupying power with no sovereign rights. Cairo has no standing under international law. Only legally ratified peace treaties can cause territory to be transferred from one government to another. As Japan had already given up its soveriegn right to Taiwan in the SFPT, any clause regarding the sovereign status of Taiwan in a subsequent treaty signed by Japan is null and void.

Here is what the SFPT said.

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

www.taiwandocuments.org...

Nothing there contradicts what I have been saying.

do you know what terra nullius is ? you brought this up

yes, it means that no state entity has a legally binding claim to a particular territory.

OMG i never said it had legal standing. i pointed out that the former owner gave its opinion about taiwan

And it is no more than that, an opinion. In the course of my thesis research, I interviewed the Japanese ambassador in Washington. I tried to pin him down on what Japan's official position was concerning Taiwan. He said that it wasn't Japan's say or concern, and kept referring me to the SFPT, NOT the treaty with the ROC or the memorandum of underdstanding with the PRC in 1972, but the SFPT. THAT would seem to be the my thesis research.)

taiwanese? whats their history?

Taiwan has never been ruled by the same government as China except for when the MANCHUS conquered them both! That is the history you seem to want to ignore.

Which was illegal. However, keep in mind that the KMT didn't regard Taiwan as a Chinese territory in 1946. That was the justification for not permitting Taiwanese delegates to attend the Constitutional Convention in Nanjing in 1946.

But made a claim to taiwan in 1939

A claimw ith NO LEGAL standing. A fact that the ROC seemed to understand when it didn't permit Taiwanese delegates att he 1946 Constitutional convention.

The U.S. Congress says that Tibet is NOT Chinese territory.

Congress or congressman?

An Act of Congress in the mid-1980s declared that they don't recognize the legality of China's brutal occupation of Tibet.

The U.S. says that Diaoyu (Senkaku) belongs to Japan. Since you take such stock in the opinions of other countries, why not those?

actually they dont have a opinion

False. The U.S. handed those island to Japan in 1974 (I may be a year or two off on that - my memory fails at the moment.)

Originally posted by chinawhite
# A diplomatic official of the highest rank appointed and accredited as representative in residence by one government or sovereign to another, usually for a specific length of time.
# A diplomatic official heading his or her country's permanent mission to certain international organizations, such as the United Nations.
# An authorized messenger or representative.

He represnts the EU

But as the EU doesn't have a unified foreign policy (one of the sticking points in the proposed EU COnstitution), the position of the EU ambassador is simply his opinion and not necessarily the stance of the EU's member states.