From: joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang)
Subject: Re: Military Reunification
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: soc
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:37:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.124434.15833@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> tai@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>These statements were not in the formal sense
>legal documents.  They were NEVER ratified, and, moreover, the missions of the
>declarants were simply not empowered to authorize a policy revision of the
>expressed scope. 

Yes they were.


                   P R O C L A M A T I O N
 
 
     Accepting the terms set forth in the Declaration issued
by the heads of the Governments of the United States, Great
Britain, and China on July 26th, 1945 at Potsdam and subse-
quently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
We have commanded the Japanese Imperial Government and the
Japanese Imperial General Headquarters to sign on Our behalf
the Instrument of Surrender presented by the Supreme Commander
for the Allied Powers and to issue General Orders to the Military
and Naval Forces in accordance with the direction of the
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers.  We command all Our
people forthwith to cease hostilities, to lay down their arms
and faithfully to carry out all the provisions of Instrument
of Surrender and the General Orders issued by the Japanese 
Imperial General Headquarters hereunder.
 
     This second day of the ninth month of the twentieth
year of Syowa
 
 
..
|  Seal  of   |
|    the      |    Signed:   H I R O H I T O
|  Emperor    |
!!

If you don't consider a proclamation by the Emperor of Japan to be a
ratification, I don't know what will satisfy you.

>It is very revealing
>in this context that the treaty stipulates ONLY a reununcation of Japanese 
>sovereignty over Taiwan WITHOUT specifying a beneficiary. 

And WITHOUT mentioning independence or self-determination as it did
for Korea.  Have you ever read the text of the San Francisco Treaty
yourself?

>I would argue that the legal status of Taiwan is the important issue here.

I would argue that its impossible to form a solid argument on the
legal status of Taiwan, and hence it's irrelevant.  PRC's
international lawyers can create a reasonable argument for its point
of view.  ROC's international lawyers can create a reasonale argument
for its point of view.  And TI can create a reasonable argument for
its point of view.

As a result, it's useless to argue about Taiwan on these grounds.  My
only purpose in posting was to point out to TI, that their arguments
are less solid than some think they are.

>What
>you must realize is that the present-day debate on whether the ROC government 
>has "democratized" or on how much more "open" it has become or
>on how much more "freedom" or "Taiwanization" it has allowed is not the core
>issue.

Yes it is.  I (and I suspect most people on Taiwan) care more about
what the ROC does now than on arguing fine points of international
law.

>Realize that with the continuing political
>warfare resulting from the battle of the "two Chinas", resources on Taiwan
>continue to be squandered.  Military spending in anticipation of warfare over
>this political squabble takes resources away from the people. 

ROT will have to defend itself from the PRC as much (and probably
more) than ROC does.  If you think that the PRC can to trusted not to
invade, have the ROC slash it's military budget now.