Talk:Legal status of Taiwan/Archive 1

message: This is a rather crankish theory.  By this I mean that the theory that the ROC government holds 
Taiwan in trust for the United States is an idiosyncratic one that no major group in Taiwan, the PRC, or the United States holds.
Roadrunner 08:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A crankish theory

message: Hello Jiang, would you make some account before you put a total dispute sign? Or could you at least drop some opinion to make a dispute case?Mababa 00:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Roadrunner has already stated that this argument is used by the few. The article here does not note this. Instead, it makes assertions without saying who is making them. Our articles should not read like primary reasarch commentaries. --Jiang 00:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Total Dispute

message: : It seems the title makes the article confusing.  I don't think it should be merged, but rather it should take a different title, and explain the historical status of Taiwan leading to present day, leaving out the complete question who owns Taiwan.  I think the article does have a good point in making who use to own Taiwan, and the questionable status whether it is independent or owned by a nation...  The "Political Status" article is more of a representative of the situation now.  I feel that this article should represent the situation in the past leading to now.  Minus all the political and opinions whether or not Taiwan is owned by PRC or anyone. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of perfer to seperate the article. If it get merged, it might have to be truncated a lot and spend space on proving, disputing with other interpertations. It might not worth it and occupy too much space in the other articles as roadrunner suggested.Mababa 08:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Dispute

message: I believe we are ready to develop a NPOV version of this page. First, how about renaming the title "Ownership of Taiwan de jure" and then explaining the views of the PRC and ROC with regard to the Cairo conference and Potsdam declaration, which Japan accepted in its instrument of surrender. Following that, we could add the questions about the validity or lack thereof of those documents as a transfer of sovereignty, and the SFPT and its possible effects. Along with that theory, one should note that the logical conclusion of that theory would be that the United States holds sovereignty over Taiwan on a temporary basis to this day. Stuff about the unilateral nonrecognition of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, stuff over the Treaty of Taipei, and so on perhaps could nicely stay here, as they are side arguments, rather than principal arguments. Ngchen 11:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that mere political stuff should stay out of a discussion of the de jure status of Taiwan.
I think your proposal is probably what AllyUnion means by saying this article should represent the situation in the past leading to now. Minus all the political and opinions whether or not Taiwan is owned by PRC or anyone. I am all for your proposed change.Mababa 04:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed NPOV version

message: With this additional discussion that took place, perhaps we can agree on the following, and convert this article to NPOV. If there is anything anyone disagrees with, please indicate one's objections.<BR>
(1) The title should be changed to "Legal status of the status of Taiwan's sovereignty."
(2) Brief historical overview section. In this section, all of the legal arguments on all sides should be left out. I suggest starting with the Treaty of Shimonoseki (if someone wants to add stuff about the Dutch and events prior, fine), and proceed through the Chinese Civil War, WWII, the Cairo Conference and Potsdam Declaration, Japanese Surrender, and the Treaty of Taipei. Perhaps one could add something about present-day Taiwan, and briefly touch on claims of self-determination and independence. I would expect this page to include numerous links to all the topics which are described in greater detail.<BR>
(3) Legal arguments section - one subsection for each side<BR>
(3a) Pro-China arguments - specify that the term "pro-China" refers only to arguments in favor of some sort of Chinese sovereignty, not necessarily implying that such a position necessarily benefits China<BR>
(3a.1) Arguments common to PRC and ROC - Cairo Conference, Potsdam Declaration, and Japanese Surrender, ROC declaration of war vs Japan, lack of invitation to SFPT protested and of questionable legality (possibly due to cold war maneuverings), lack of protest for years with ROC claiming retrocession, SFPT lack of explcit directive due to accident of history, and to top it off, the cultural claim - namely, that Taiwanese culture and Chinese culture have "always been closely linked " (their POV); IMO legally the cultural claim itself is a weak claim. <BR>
(3a.2) PRC arguments and their weaknesses (I suggest putting that here, since the PRC has probably the most extreme claims); unequal treaties void from start claim<BR>
(3a.3) ROC arguments and their weaknesses - treaty of Taipei and lack of protest (possible prescription). After reading over that treaty, I noticed that again, there was no explicit (even void?) transfer of sovereignty to ROC, FWIW. One can argue whether this is due to some sort of oversight, ill will, or something else.<BR>
(3b) Various Taiwan independence movement arguments - IMO others can arrange this better than I can<BR>
(3b.1) Qing never really administered or ran Taiwan seriously to begin with, throwing the initial Qing claim in some doubt<BR>
(3b.2) Treaty of Shimonoseki, being a dispositive treaty, is unvoidable. By the Japanese cession at the end of WWII, it was at best unclear who the cession went to.<BR>
(3b.3) The Potsdam Declaration and Japanese surrender are simply a modus vivendi, which this side views as having been superceded by the SFPT, which again raises the limbo cession question.<BR>
(3b.4) Self-determination - the claimed right of people from areas detached from the enemy states to determine their own fate.<BR>
(3b.5) (Bringing the US in) Based on the limbo cession, one can also claim the US is still sovereign there, though this argument is claimed by a small minority.<BR>
(4) Current status of Taiwan and de jure view by the UN. Also briefly note the Montevideo Convention there. (I'll need to research that to be able to say much there)<BR>
(5) See also section - I think this section should really be large. History of Taiwan, Treaty of Shimonoseki, Unequal Treaties, Chinese Civil War, SFPT, Treaty of Taipei, Japanese Surrender, Cairo Conference, Potsdam Declaration, Taiwan Independence, Self-Determination, Qing dynasty, cold war, Political Status of Taiwan, Chinese Reunification, Montevideo Convention, and perhaps some others. For external links, we can keep the ones already listed, plus add a few taiwan independence links, a link or two to the PRC foreign ministry or particular embassies, and a link to the ROC government information office.<BR>
I think that if we summarize the arguments used (and can be used) by all sides, and include links to all the other relevant articles, then the article would be NPOV. As the article is about the legal status of Taiwan, I don't think stuff about how poorly or well the ROC dictatorship ran the place is relevant. If others agree, then we could get to work on the article and solve the NPOV dispute for good. Ngchen 20:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How is "Legal status of the status of Taiwan's sovereignty" different from "political status of Taiwan"? You have a great outline there but I really don't see how the two articles will be clearly on separate topics. I think the "political status of Taiwan" article should be greatly expanded instead--Jiang 21:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is different because this article would delve solely into legal issues, as opposed to political ones. Perhaps the political status of Taiwan article can have some of its material trimmed, with a link to this one. So stuff like what position is simply more popular or accepted wouldn't belong here. Ngchen 02:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Sounds great to me.:)Mababa 08:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your good job!! (Clapping) I am sure that your hard work would be highly appreciated. IMO, I think the article is quite balanced. I made some minor modification but nothing dramatic. I think I have provided almost everything I know on this topic. Perhaps it is time for me to rest my case and let other contributers to share with us their opinions.Mababa 22:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed NPOV version (2)

message: The Treaty of Shimonoseki, Potsdam/Cairo declarations were not valid, because they didn't meet the conditions set by the international laws regarding the conclusion of treaty. 
Japan renounced any rights and claims to Taiwan and Pescadores according to Article 2b of the Peace Treaty of San Francisco 1952.  
Some people suggest that according to Article 10 of the subsequent Treaty of Taipei, concluded between ROC and Japan, that Taiwan and Pescadores were returned to ROC.
This view is wrong. Since Japan already renounced Taiwan and Pescadores, logically Japan cannot transfer Taiwan and Pescadores again to any state, simply because Japan was not the owner of these territories anymore. The said treaty was abrogated by Japan at the request of PRC government, when the 2 states established diplomatic relations.  
The Chinese nationalists overthrew the Qing imperial government in 1911 and established a new republican government called Republic of China. The international community then recognized the new government as the sole legitimate Chinese government. 
Same thing happened in 1949. The Chinese communists overthrew the ROC government and established the PRC government. The newly established government requested the UN to expel the ROC representatives from the UN, on the ground that PRC succeeded ROC, and according to international law that the succeeding government inherits all rights and obligations from the preceding government.  
The current status of Taiwan is an occupied area under the effective control of the illegimate Chinese government. According to international law regarding the succeeding of government, there can be only one legitimate government per state, and the only legitimate Chinese government currently is PRC government, therefore Taiwan belongs to China. 
In other words, ROC is the reason that Taiwan belongs to China.
:Disagreed. Taiwan is currently occupied by a government in exile without a doubt. However, even if the succeeding doctrine prevails here, the result would only be that Taiwan island should be occupied by PRC but the sovereignty still is under trust and transaction of sovereignty still not occuring. On the other hand, there are other precedents where an government in exile functioning as occupation forces as well, e.g. Free French. Thus, it is still arguable if PRC has a right to claim in replacing ROC as occupation power since this occupation was merely a serrogate occupation authorized by  General Douglas MacArthur's gerneral order No. 1 for the priniciple occupation power as defined in SFPT. You can say the country executing occupation duty should be PRC instead of ROC; however, equating occupation with sovereignty transfer is invalid. Otherwise, French Indo-China north of 16 north latitude should also belong to China's sovereignty.
 Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, 
 necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the 
 occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional.
The only way Taiwan can achieve independence is to declare independence and seek UN membership and state recognition by other states in stead of government recognition.
:I am not sure about this would be the case either. Other creative options also have been proposed. Your suggestion is certainly one option, but other choices exists.Mababa 19:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The validity of treaty of shimonoseki, Cairo/Potsdam declarations 

message: It suddenly occurred to me that so far, the opinions among this discussion unamously regard the treaty of shimonoseki as result of aggression toward Qing and thus qualifies PRC's unequal treaty list. However, if we take one step further and look into the cause the first sino-japanese war in 1894, we would realize this war would ineviablly occurred anyway as a competition of resources on the Korean peninsula between the existing super power(Qing) and the other rising power(Japan). The trigger point of this war was due to the fact that both countries wants to interfere the internal affairs of Korea. This interpretation would be clearer and more obvious if one stands in a Korean's point of view. And Korea was actully the victim at the junction between the two powers. The result of the war is the treay which consists cession by conquer. Japan initially doesn't even want this barren island, Taiwan.
I understand the Chinese pride and dignity does not allow a different interpretation of the treaty of shimonoseki. However, I am still interested to learn if anyone on this discussion would dismiss the interpretation that this sino-japanese war was  not an act of unilateral aggression but a conflict of resource between two strong countries?Mababa 22:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaty of shimonoseki

message: That is incorrect. Only state possesses sovereignty, not government. Taiwan doesn't have sovereignty because it was and is a territory occupied by other states throughout its history. 
The ROC government was only a government in exile during 1949-1952. From 1952 it exercised effective control of Taiwan until now. 
::Thank you for your response. Please note that even in your arguement, ROC only exercised effective control of Taiwan. The only reason of  description portraying ROC exercised effective control but not sovereignty is because ROC did not recieve Taiwan's sovereignty from any treaty in this universe.
Therefore it isn’t a government in exile. General Douglas MacArthur's general order No. 1 was valid until the conclusion of the SFPT. The US senate ratified the SFPT, therefore US recognized Taiwan was renounced by Japan and occupied by the then legitimate Chinese government(ROC). The US military government in Japan(including Taiwan) ceased to exist on the day the SFPT went into effect.
::After SFPT ratified, the occupation on Taiwan was transformed from belligerent occupation into friendly occupation. 354. Friendly Territory Subject to Civil Affairs Administration Distinguished
Of course French Indo-China north of 16 north wasn’t part of China due to the occupation by the ROC force. Because it was a temporary occupation pursuant to the General Douglas MacArthur's general order No. 1. The French force later returned to replace the Chinese simply because it was a French colony, a part of France.
::In the same logic, Taiwan originally belongs to Japan before the war. China did not recieve the sovereignty from SFPT and was even prohibited to recieve any benefit from the SFPT except from  Articles 10 and 14(a)2. Thus Taiwan does not belong to be part of China when the China Republic first established, and does not belong to China after the Pacific war. In this sense, ROC is also legally categorized as foreign military power occupating Taiwan in the same way it occupied French Indo-China; and this occupation power should also be withdrawn from the island after the SFPT was ratified after 1952 as it withdrew from French Indo-China. 
::The fact is, ROC is still an friendly occupation power on the island and does not have sovereignty. Perhaps for those people support popular mandate, can argue that the current ROC has the mandate from Taiwanese after Lee was elected in the presidential election of 1991. However, THIS ROC with Taiwanese mandate should not be equated with the ROC with the Chinese mandate. THAT ROC with chinese mandate lead by Chiang family IS a government in exile which lost its territory sovereignty during the chinese civil war and was ostracized by the Chinese people onto an island without holding legal sovereignty of it from any legal angle.
::If you could read in Manderine and if other contributers are interested, this following link has a flow chart on the post-war transfer of sovereignty analysis in six territories according to laws of war: Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. I believe external links in the Taiwan cession article should also make argument with plenty legal documents cited. Perhaps you can spend some time to glance over them during the holiday if you are interested?Mababa 01:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation power or sovereign state 

message: Thanks to the many good improvements, I think I can live with this being a separate article, but it should be moved to "sovereignty over Taiwan" and be made the "main article" of the section Political_status_of_Taiwan#Question_of_sovereignty (which should be steamlined to about three paragraphs, making sure it contains no info that's not already mentioned here). The entire Political_status_of_Taiwan article will need to be reorganized/rewritten to have all the legal arguments sit in one section. The rest of the article should focus on historical background (including the major policies enacted through various times) of the conflict. (I believe the Taiwan independence and Chinese reunification articles currently contain more comprehensive material on the subject than the supposedly more general Political_status_of_Taiwan article.
I would like clarification on the historical validity of this statement: "The Qing dynasty never effectively exercised administrative control over Taiwan, making its initial claim of questionable validity." My understanding is that the Qing were the first to establish control, unlike previous dynasties. Having a high incidence of crime in the area does not mean they did not "effectively exercise control" because there are bound to be bandits and pirates everywhere. --Jiang 09:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: At the present time, Taiwan, is considered by the United Nations to be a "Province of China." In 2004, for the twelfth year in a row, the United Nations refused to consider the "Republic of China on Taiwan" or "Republic of China (Taiwan)"'s application for membership as it's argued that de jure Taiwan was part of China, and was represented by the PRC. (See China and the United Nations)
--Jiang 10:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: In light of the curent situation where no concensus are reached so far, I would like to friendly remind Jiang the policy of NPOV, which is to present all side of what people believe instead of supress what people do not believe.
:The neutral point of view policy is easily misunderstood. The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just a single unbiased, "objective" point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.
Mababa 21:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jiang, I have to propose an armistice for the time being. Even though I still belive that many of the dicussion can be further negotiated and many of these paragraphs are still of value, I have to cut down on my extracurricular activity for the time being. So far it has been fun. I find the current version acceptable and is actually NPOV enough. I think people who are interested in this topic should find the current version useful enough and perhaps would be shrude enough to find other source of information on their own. Anyway, your NPOV efforts are appreciated. Many thanks for communication.Mababa 07:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. I look forward to your help in future revamping of that other article on political status.--Jiang 18:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your agreement to suspend the current dispute and also for your comment on the "Removed" section. I am pretty sure that we will run into discussions some time in the future, and it's going to be fun, too. :) I will let you know when I have more time to spare so that I can do more research on the topic and have figured out how to make best use of the information under dispute here in the future and perhaps put in evidence found from both side.Mababa 21:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminding of NPOV policy