From: joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang)
Subject: Re: Military Reunification
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:42:17 GMT

In article <1daeliINNf42@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> tseng-neill@yale.edu (Neill Tseng) writes:
>	No, YOUR history is wrong.  First of all, Cairo and Potsdam 
>	declarations express the wartime expectations of only THREE of the
>	allied powers.  

According to the Instrument of Surrender of Japan

         We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of
    Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General
    Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the
    declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United
    States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and
    subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-
    lics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied
    Powers.

That paragraph makes the Potsdam and Cairo Declarations legally
binding.  And in case, you want to argue that the Instrument of
Surrender of Japan isn't a legally binding treaty, let me point out
that it was registered with the Secretary-General of the United
Nations by the United States in 1952.  If you want I can get you the
T.I.A.S. number.

>	Secondly, the San Francisco Peace Treaty postdates the Cairo and
>	Potsdam declarations anyway, since it was signed in 1951.  The
>	delegates to the San Francisco conference explicitly stated that the
>	status of Taiwan should be decided ACCORDING TO THE WISHES OF THE
>	PEOPLE LIVING ON THE ISLAND. 

Could you quote me the part of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that
says so?  The only thing that appears in the treaty itself is a clause
stating that Japan no longer claims sovereignty over Taiwan.  This
isn't the first time that Taiwan's status under post-WWII treaties has
come up on this newsgroup, and I've posted the relevant parts of San
Francisco Peace Treaty on soc.culture.taiwan twice before.  Over the
weekend, I'll rummage through my old papers and post it a third time.

>       This is the way it is under international
>	law, in the Charter of the U.N., and in many U.N. resolutions. 

Could you please post the relevant sections of those documents?

>	First of all, estimates and informal polls show that 95% of the
>	electorate supports Independence in itself. 

Provided you define "independence" as "not unification now." 

>	That is not necessarily true.  There are many gains to be made for
>	Taiwan itself through independence.  Then, it could be formally
>	recognized by many foreign nations and negotiate more treaties and
>	business agreements, as well as join in international instruments
>	such as GATT.  

GATT is now considering an application for "the Customs territory of
Taiwan, Quemoy, and Matsu."  The PRC has stated that it has no strong
objection to Taiwan's membership in GATT provided that the PRC is
admitted first. 

As for the UN, the PRC has a Security Council veto and is not about to
let Taiwan in under any circumstances.

In neither case does "independence" get you any benefits.

>	While there may be some economic benefits to a "Greater China", you 
>	must prove that they are a *comparative advantage* to economic
>	benefits from independence.  

What are the economic benefits from independence?  Without
independence, Taiwan has managed to negotiate trade agreements with
the rest of the world.  So what will independence bring?  All I see is
that "Coordination Councils" become "Embassies."

Incidentally, the ROC does not seem to have any objection to dual
recognition.  It's established relations with several governments
which had relations with the PRC.  The PRC broke relations with those
governments on the next day, but it's important to note that PRC was
the one breaking the relations not ROC.

>	Economically, trade opens up with many new nations as official
>	diplomatic recognition is attained.  As China realizes that its claim
>	to Taiwan has been voided, it comes to reality and concedes that
>	maintenance of economic relations with the new independent Taiwan is
>	in its best interests.  The three noes and other old hostilities KMT-
>	CCP hostilities are abolished, and trade is allowed to flourish even
>	more (i.e. all direct links allowed, etc.).  Taiwan is able to reduce
>	the exorbitant % of GDP spent on the military and can rechannel those
>	funds into investment in the island and the people.

1) What does any of what you mention have anything to do with
independence?  There's no reason why the three noes can't be abolished
and direct air/ship links established without any sort of independence
declaration.  The main reason that the "three noes" seem to still
exist is so that the KMT can use it as a bargaining chip to get the
PRC to recognize the existence of ROC.

2) What makes you think that the Mainland government won't just close
down all the Taiwanese factories on the Mainland and try to invade?
It's in the interest of the PRC not to lose face.  And in assuming
that the PRC government will react calmly and rationally to having
Taiwan declaring independence, you are trusting the people in Beijing
far more that I think they deserve.  Need I remind you that the
Beijing government acted irrationally in the summer of 1989.

If I thought that the Beijing government was as rational as you take
them to be, then I'd be arguing for full unification now.  The problem
is that I don't trust Beijing, and I think you are being somewhat
foolish for assuming Beijing will do the "rational" thing.  It
probably won't.

3) Let's suppose you are right and Beijing won't attack ROT.  O.K.
Beijing won't attack ROT.  It won't attack ROC either.  In that case,
what's the point of independence?

>>3. Culturally, one is heir to five thousand years of history.
>
>	Five thousand years of Chinese history.  The problem is, many of the
>	people are native Taiwanese.

Native Taiwanese many of whom think of themselves as Chinese.  China
has survived for five thousand years because at its core there is
something magical.  Something that makes many people want to be
Chinese.  As for Taiwan being different.  Shanghai is "different" too.
It's still Chinese.

>       If the people have the right to be independent, then
>	no one has the right to deprive them of this right! 
[....]
>       My point is, independence is paramount! 

My point is that many (perhaps most) Taiwanese don't seem to feel that
way.  If you believe that independence is more important that any
other consideration, then there is no point in arguing.  You are not
going to convince me, and more importantly you are not going to
convince the people living in Taiwan for whom other things are more
important.