The Chinese media is filled with such incessant propaganda to keep people from thinking about and dealing with real problems.

July 26, 2005 @ 9:23 pm | Comment

I don’t see no stinkin’ problems.You make trouble man.

July 26, 2005 @ 9:37 pm | Comment

I hear Taiwan is ready to invade China if China ever declares independence from Taiwan.

July 26, 2005 @ 9:53 pm | Comment

Richard, This is all about “Face” I don’t get it either.Just remember how important it is here.It’s everything.All aspects of daily life 24/7.

July 26, 2005 @ 9:54 pm | Comment

I always ask my Chinese friends: “Why doesn’t China just become part of Taiwan” silent….blank…..stare.

July 26, 2005 @ 9:56 pm | Comment

Also, the “International Law” argument upon which this purports to be based, is illogical. The premises they use here, lead to the opposite conclusion – because if you base the argument on Postdam and the Cairo Declaration, then YES Taiwan WAS returned to China IN 1945, and it was returned to the KMT government of China. So, if you want to trace the proper “sovereign” government of China according to Postdam and the Cairo Declaration, then the true government of ALL China is in Tapei.
I’m not saying that I think this makes sense – quite the opposite – I’m just saying that the “legal” argument which Xinhua has used here actually leads to the opposite conclusion of what they want.
I think Xinhua did not consult with any real lawyers when they wrote this. Or if they did, their lawyers are really incompetent.

July 26, 2005 @ 10:17 pm | Comment

“Japan returned Taiwan andthe Penghu Archipelago to the “national government of the Republicof China,” then the Kuomintang (or the Nationalist Party).”

Then China was taken by force by the CCP, and Taiwan was taken by the Nationalist party.

Therefore Taiwan remains independent until it is also taken by force by CCP. On the same note Taiwan can also take China… and if they did it would (eventually) be a MUCH better place for the people of China, and China would finally become a world superpower… This will NEVER happen under the CCP’s rule (see my blog for why).

July 26, 2005 @ 10:39 pm | Comment

And let me clarify my foregoing point of law:
The recognition of the PRC as the true government of China, is separate from the issue of which government is the successor to the treaty which reclaimed Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan in 1945.
That is:
1. In 1945, the KMT government had sovereignty over Taiwan (as well as over all of China) according to Postdam and the Cairo Declaration.
2. The KMT did not relinquish sovereignty over Taiwan in 1949. The CCP can claim, abstractly, that it attained sovereignty over Taiwain in 1949 – but “sovereignty” requires actual legal control over territory, as a matter of international law.
3. Therefore, International Law does NOT recognize that the CCP had sovereignty over Taiwan in 1949.
Under International Law, the PRC has NEVER had Sovereignty over Taiwan.
4. “Sovereignty” is not the same as representation in the UN. The UN recognises the PRC as the representative of all China – but that does not mean that the UN considers the PRC to be the legal government of Taiwan.
5. So, yes, you CAN use Postdam and the Cairo Declaration to support the argument that Taiwan IS part of “China”. (And I DO agree with that, personally.) But it does NOT settle the issue of WHICH GOVERNMENT has sovereignty over Mainland China or Taiwan, or over both. If anything, Postdam and the Cairo Declaration point to Taipei as the true capital of ALL China.

July 26, 2005 @ 10:50 pm | Comment

Gaz,
Actually, I do NOT agree with you that Taiwan “remains independent of China”. International Law does NOT support this idea. My above arguments were not “for” Taiwan independence, but rather against the faulty legal reasoning of the XinHua article.
Again, as a matter of law, the issue of whether Taiwan is part of China, is SEPARATE from the issue of WHICH GOVERNMENT should be the government of all China.
My point is that if the PRC wants to use LEGAL argument to support “One China”, then it raises questions about the legitimacy of the CCP as the government of all China.
More simply: The “One China” argument does NOT settle the question of whether the CCP can assert legitmate control over Taiwan.

July 26, 2005 @ 10:57 pm | Comment

Where to begin?

1. Until the mid-15th Century Taiwan was virtually entirely populated and governed by indigenous Austronesian inhabitants (likely the ancestors of the Polynesians)

2. In 1624, the Dutch East India Company occupied the Taiwan and made it a Dutch entry port for East Asia. A few mainland Chinese immigrants also arrived on Taiwan at about the same time and engaged in piracy and trade with Japan.

3. In the later 1600s Ching Dynasty troops landed in and occupied Taiwan.

3. Seventeenth century Chinese maps did not show Taiwan as a part of China. The official chronicle of the Ming Dynasty described Taiwan as a foreign land.

4. Official documents of the Ching Dynasty state that Taiwan was a foreign land that was conquered and became a Chinese territory under Kang-hsi in the 1600’s”

5. The Ching prohibited mainland Chinese from crossing to the territory of Taiwan. This ban remained in effect for almost 200 years, until 1875. During that time forty uprisings by Taiwanese took place attempting to expel the Chinese occupying forces.

6. In the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895) China ceded Taiwan to Japan in “perpetuity and full sovereignty.”

7. Between the years 1928 and 1931, the Taiwanese Communist Party declared that Taiwan was an independent country, free from both Japan and China.

8. May 5th Draft for a Constitution by the Nanking government in 1936 p Taiwan from the status of treated Taiwan as independent.

9. Contrary to the Xinhua article, the Cairo Declaration is not a treaty or like a treaty. It was a unilateral statements of intent was NOT SIGNED by any of the declarants and is not legally binding upon them. It is certainly not legally binding upon Japan — who held legal title to Taiwan at the time under the Treaty of Shimonosek — since Japan was not even present. The Cairo Declaration was, effectively, an unsigned press release. Nothing more.

10. The Agreement Regarding Japan contained in the Yalta Declaration of 1945 and signed by the US, Britian, Rusia and China, among others does not recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

11. In the Peace Treaty between the US and Japan, Japan renounced “all right, title, and claim” to Taiwan. This is the only renunciation Japan has ever made regarding sovereignty over Taiwan and it makes no provision regarding Taiwanese sovereignty following Japanese renunciation. In short, the Japanese renounce soverignty and do not transfer it to China or anyone else.

12. UN Resolution 1514 (XV), provides that independence of former colonies like Taiwan should be transferred to their inhabitants upon termination of colonial rule.

13. Up until 1943, the Chinese Communist Party recognized Taiwanese as separate “nation”. And described “the national liberation movement” on Taiwan as separate from the Chinese Revolution.

In short, no national government of China has exercised sovereignty over Taiwan except for a couple hundred years rule, as a territory, by the Ching Dynasty. Prior to that, for all of its history, Taiwan was independent. In 1895 China ceded full rights and possession of Taiwan, in perpetuity, to Japan.

Following WWII, Japan abandoned its claims to Taiwan but did not transfer them to anyone else.

As a legal matter, it therefore seems to me that 200 years of Chinese occupation notwithstanding, Taiwan has the better case for independence.

That should be enough to piss off all the usual suspects.

July 26, 2005 @ 11:44 pm | Comment

Gaz,Love your blog.Why all the Gloomy Gus talk about the CCP tho?

July 26, 2005 @ 11:47 pm | Comment

Conrad,
I agree with most of your points, and I will even say that they tend to support a strong argument for Taiwan independence as a matter of law – although, as a matter of law, Taiwan’s “independence” from China is still very debatable, even when your points are considered.
My prior comments are intended more as refutations of the “legal” arguments made in the XinHua article. That is to say, EVEN IF Taiwan is “part of China”, the XinHua article still fails to prove that the CCP has any claim to sovereignty over Taiwan.
As a LEGAL argument, yes one CAN make persuasive arguments both for and against Taiwan’s “independence”, but one CANNOT use any legal argument to say the CCP has any claim over Taiwan.

July 26, 2005 @ 11:58 pm | Comment

God I gotta start drinking more. I’m being too sensible today, too much logic…. 🙂

July 26, 2005 @ 11:59 pm | Comment

Ivan ,Alcohol abuse is good for the soul! It makes you smarter and more attractive.

July 27, 2005 @ 12:07 am | Comment

This is a good example of China’s selective use of international treaties. How many treaties have the current governemnt refused to acknowledge simply because they deem them “unfair”? The list is endless.

However, China now turns full circle, amazingly manages to keep a straight face, and declares that the Potsdam Declaration justifies that Taiwan is a “legal” part of China.

What is this, death by hypocracy?

July 27, 2005 @ 12:31 am | Comment

I see Conrad continues his personal war against hypocracy and lies everywhere. He’s certainly in a good place for that sort of thing.

I’d like to add that the first settlers who arrived on Taiwan in the 1600’s fled there precisely because it WASN’T China. If it was then they’d have sailed/rowed/swan in the other direction.

It’s amazing how much diplomatic efforts China puts into the Taiwan issue (all allies must first agree to abide by the mythical and illogical “One-China” policy before diplomatic relations/trade deals etc are entered into).

Nowadays, however, it very much comes down to face, and lots of it. China has foolishly painted itself into a very tight corner over Taiwan and, at the same time, has whipped the mainland population up into a frenzy of crazed nationalism.

This whole situation has a lot more chance of back-firing on the Chinese government than effecting anyone in Taiwan.

As Annette Lu once said (my favourite quote of hers):

“We are Chinese but not China.”

Indeed.

July 27, 2005 @ 12:41 am | Comment

Martyn, very well said. This is exactly the reason why the “one China” and Taiwan ownership rhetoric is still ongoing. If China is confident about where she stands, she won’t be making so much noises about it.

July 27, 2005 @ 1:08 am | Comment

Ivan:

I have not significant disagreement with whay you have written. Indeed, it is true that even if Taiwan is part of China does not dispose of the question whether the CCP has any right to govern Taiwan.

An imperfect but helpful (I hope) analogy would be in the Confederacy had not only won the civil war but driven Abe Lincoln and the Union government to take refuge on Manhattan island. Manhattan might be part of America, the rest of which was subject to Confederate rule, but Manhattan, having never been under the control of the Confederates, would still be legitimately governed by the Union government.

July 27, 2005 @ 1:13 am | Comment

“I always ask my Chinese friends: “Why doesn’t China just become part of Taiwan” silent….blank…..stare.”

I’m sorry you asked the wrong persons.

Of course we’d like to join taiwan, there is no difference.

Afterwards we can always hold referendum to decide what next to do.

July 27, 2005 @ 2:15 am | Comment

Who cares about sovereignty? For US Taiwan is nothing about sovereignty.

US has invaded numerous sovereign countries, like Iraq.

Yes Iraq was not a democracy (is it now?), while Taiwan is.

This is used quite often nowadays when people defend Taiwan.

How long has Taiwan been a democracy? No more than 10 years.

So, does that mean it was legitimate for China to invade Taiwan 10 years ago?

I would like to see any indigenous people in america and australia to start their own democracy and declare independence.

July 27, 2005 @ 2:23 am | Comment

No matter how you define sovereignty and democracy, the two “abstract” words, we can always argue some cases in your own sovereign democractic country.

Without proper context, they mean nothing to many.

July 27, 2005 @ 2:37 am | Comment

Bing, some indigenous people in Australia has already declared their independence at a suburb called Redfern. They didn’t get democracy in return. All they are getting are drugs and crime.
As for the majority of the indigenous population, they know that they don’t have to declare independence, because they are the legitimate land owners and all Australians acknowledged that.

July 27, 2005 @ 2:55 am | Comment

Fat Cat,

Thanks for the information.

I was only making an assumption.

“they know that they don’t have to declare independence, because they are the legitimate land owners and all Australians acknowledged that.”

You don’t know if one day they would want real independence, then what would the government and the white society do? Are they entitled to do so even they don’t want to for the moment?

July 27, 2005 @ 3:02 am | Comment

Bing,
You said, that after Taiwan joins with the PRC, “afterwards we can always hold referendum to decide what next to do.”
YES! YES! Oh I hope so! And I think most Americans hope this will happen.
YES! Oh it will be SO GOOD, when the CCP holds a referendum where ALL Chinese citizens can vote!
And of course, part of that referendum will allow ALL of the people of China to decide whether they want the CCP to continue with one party rule.
Bing, you really impress me! If you mean what you say, then I agree with you! YES, China SHOULD hold a nationwide referendum on whether the CCP should continue to have absolute power!

July 27, 2005 @ 3:09 am | Comment

Bing, we are looking forward to having an indigenous prime minister one day. In fact we have a very strong Aboriginal Research Centre here where I’m working with the hope of nurturing more indigenours political leaders for the future.
There are many differences between the indigenous people and those who arrive here as migrants (including people from England, Scotland). But problems are resolved mainly through discussions, debates and reconciliation. I sincerely hope that the PRC and Taiwan issues will be resolved in this manner as well because, believe or not, I have Chinese heritage and fond memories of trips in China and Taiwan.

July 27, 2005 @ 3:16 am | Comment

Why doesn’t China joins Taiwan? Haha da xiao. Good question.

Bing:
“US has invaded numerous sovereign countries, like Iraq.”
Though I don’t think the invasion of Irak was a good idea cause it made the fight against terrorism more complicated and not vis versa, one has to admitt that the people in Irak think somehow different, according to this survey:
http://tinyurl.com/8zjlw

July 27, 2005 @ 4:06 am | Comment

Just my luck that I’ve managed to catch a cold in the middle of a Florida summer and can’t sleep well only to find Martyn leaving “pithy” remarks on my blog. (I thought you were in Taiwan Martyn, why are you using a Dutch ISP?)

Anyways my headache has been compounded by Conrad’s idiocy, which I will presently address

1) Irrelevant. That Taiwan was populated primarily by austronesians isn’t significant to the status of Taiwan.

2) Irrelevant and incorrect. The Chinese immigrants during the period of Dutch settlement were mainly agricultural labour. He conflates two separate phenomenons, the economic activity of the Chinese settlers and the subsequent arrival of Ming loyalists and the expulsion of the Dutch led by the pirate warlord.

3) Irrelevant. The PRC’s claim to Taiwan is based on the RoC’s claim which originated from the Qing’s control of the island. Communist rhetoric about Taiwan always being a part of the motherland is just that, communist rhetoric and not to be taken literally.

4) Irrelevant, though it supports China’s claim. Taiwan was and is a part of China.

5) Irrelevant. The prohibition was caused in part by political uncertainty and the fear of Ming loyalist or rebel forces accumulating at the frontier.

6) Irrelevant. What can be done can be undone, nothing is set in stone.

7) Irrelevant, and for the record I have to ask since when did Conrad start putting weight into the statements of communists.

8) Irrelevant and out of date, refer to the 1947 revision of the Nanjing constitution.

9) Incorrect, all provisions of the Cairo declaration are contained and executed in the Potsdam declaration. Refer to Annex 2, article 3, sub paragraph 8. Provisions of the Potsdam declaration were accepted in written form by the Japanese government in the Japanese instrument of surrender aboard of the Missouri, Signed by Mamoru Shiegemitsu and Yoshijiro Umezu representing the Emperor of Japan, the government of Japan and the General Headquarters of the Army. Received by General Douglas McArthur, Supreme allied commander of the Pacific.

10) Irrelevant, Yalta primarily involved the disposition of post-war Europe and the pre-requisites for the entry of the Soviet Union in the war against Japan. It contains NO provisions regarding the disposition of territory independent of the interests of the Soviet Union.

11) Incorrect and logically fallacious. Refer to Potsdam and also the separate peace treaty signed between the RoC and Japan. Absence of a specific designator of sovereignty does not preclude a legitimate claimant of it. Nowhere is it written Taiwan is not to be restored to China, thus the RoC and PRC are legitimate claimants.

12) Highly irrelevant and not applicable. The mentioned U.N. resolution dates from 1960, 15 years after the conclusion of the Second World War. At the Time, the Republic of China, on Taiwan, was the recognized legitimate government holding sovereignty overall all China (including Taiwan) as well as the permanent Security Council seat. U.N. resolutions do not supersede domestic law and also I should mention that you are being a bit disingenuous Conrad. First quoting communists, now the UN? We know you don’t take either of the two seriously so your citation of them is similarly hollow.

13) Irrelevant, the positions and platforms of political parties are constantly changing.

China has a perfectly legitimate claim to Taiwan; the only thing you’ve managed to prove is that you are an idiot whose only proclivity is to argue against the interests of China irrespective of anything else.

Taiwan can claim independence, but it is separatism and China has the right to enforce its own countering claims by strength of arms if necessary.

July 27, 2005 @ 4:34 am | Comment

Whats pithy mean?

July 27, 2005 @ 4:56 am | Comment

Jing

Before I approach the highlight of my day and read and relish your extra-long comment, I just want to clarify that, although I read Those Who Dare everyday via proxy, I’ve never left a comment on your blog.

I used to be in Taiwan a few years ago but now Guangzhou. I’ll leave a comment on Those Who Dare so you can see my IP. However, it will be proxied. Thanks.

July 27, 2005 @ 5:05 am | Comment

That Jing sure is cleeeever.

July 27, 2005 @ 5:24 am | Comment

jing, that’s what i want to say. thanks.

ivan and conrad, my international law lecturers here in cambridge told me that it is agreed among international lawyers that in international law taiwan is part and parcel of china, has no right to secession or even self-determination. according to them, pro-independence people may of course find someone to argue their case, but the harsh truth is in international law china has sovereignty over taiwan. however, international law is a developing process. some international lawyers have begun to argue that china would have no legal right to use force with regard to taiwan. one of the two lecturers sees this point as the progressive direction for the development of international law. the other finds recent war on terror weakens “non-use of force” norm in international law.

July 27, 2005 @ 6:21 am | Comment

have to add this: considering the evolving nature of international law, it is necessary, though looking and sounding repeatitive, to restate national positions as evidence of opinio juris in international law.

July 27, 2005 @ 6:29 am | Comment

Cambridge…….West Virginny?

July 27, 2005 @ 6:37 am | Comment

uk. 🙂
leaving soon, though. i’m feeling sad.

July 27, 2005 @ 6:57 am | Comment

I just love it when someone says: I would like to see X people in the US declare independece and “we’ll see what happens.”

My answers:
1) The comparison is invalid because the US does not and has never had any region that has been de facto, but not de jure independent for 50 years. There was the Civil War bit, but that little secession was put to rest 4 years after it started. The CCP left Taiwan alone for 50 years. Sorry, that wipes your comparison off the table.

2) As for current areas or groups of people in the US who would seek to mount an independence movement, name me one. You can’t, because there are none…aside from a few loonies in mountain cabins. So what does that tell you about China in comparison?

My advice: Instead of making comparisons that are completely invalid to support a shaky position, focus on the problems of your own country and seek to find peaceful solutions that take into consideration the opinions of all involved (the 23 million people of the de facto-independent-whether-you-like-it-or-not Taiwan)….not just those who share your own hypernationalist agenda.

July 27, 2005 @ 7:51 am | Comment

Thomas,

I just love it when someone says, focus on the problems of your own country and seek to find peaceful solutions that take into consideration the opinions of all involved, when their own country isworking on on shitty things all over the world.

You’d better keep your advice for your own use.

We’d like to focus on our own problems if you country is not so obssessed in interference.

In terms of people of US seeking independence, I’m sure your colonial US government has done a thorough and excellent job by eliminating all native american who stayed there for thoundsands of years and dare challenge your rule and suppressing all the others by forcing your constitution that was not tested in a referendum including all the human beings in the occupied land.

And I only sense hypocricy in your “aside from a few loonies in mountain cabins” comment.

July 27, 2005 @ 8:11 am | Comment

Bing,You’re a voice of reason in the wilderness.I agree with you sometimes.When does the statute of limitatons run out? Well, At best BEFORE a crime happens.I dont agree with you but I DO appreciate your opinions.Don’t go changin’.

July 27, 2005 @ 8:17 am | Comment

And the communism juggernaut is set to crush whatever in the way of uniting Taiwan, no matter you-like-it-or-not.

July 27, 2005 @ 8:18 am | Comment

Good luck! You’ll need it. But beyond that .I do think your on to something here .Actual ,rational (Mainland) Chinese thought.You should get a trademark.

July 27, 2005 @ 8:23 am | Comment

Bing,Have you banged any British honey’s?

July 27, 2005 @ 8:24 am | Comment

Bing,Don’t get caught up in that Western life.China still has MANY people to fuck over.Don’t be selfish!

July 27, 2005 @ 8:29 am | Comment

Xena

I’d like to take criticisms based on facts or sensible discussion. What is said in that post is as arrogant as the crappy reprimand of your Rumsfield and Bush.
They are obssessed in teaching / ordering others how to behave and don’t bother arguing or listening to what others think.

July 27, 2005 @ 8:32 am | Comment

Bing,I think i totally agree with you.Is it O.K. to hate MY OWN government? Just a small difference between friends.

July 27, 2005 @ 8:34 am | Comment

P.S. i’m not so sure he was American. Easy mistake as we all look alike.

July 27, 2005 @ 8:36 am | Comment

Xena,

“Bing,Don’t get caught up in that Western life.China still has MANY people to fuck over.Don’t be selfish!”

Honest to you, I’m a Chinese spy.

July 27, 2005 @ 8:56 am | Comment

Good for you,Soooooooooo much to learn.

July 27, 2005 @ 9:06 am | Comment

Not good at all, you know, 999 others have been finsihed. I’m the only one left.

July 27, 2005 @ 9:19 am | Comment

I love you,So I give my honest ,heartfelt hope that you’re sucessful.I mean it. Good Luck my friend!

July 27, 2005 @ 9:26 am | Comment

Xena,

I really love you too. Are you a girl? If so, you can call me Xeno if you like.

July 27, 2005 @ 9:29 am | Comment

Bing, I hate to break this to you but….there are no gay folks in China.I know that its o.k. with you cause you’re in England but for me …well you leave me in a VERY difficult position.I don’t want to be the first. You can certainly understand my dilemma.It’s nothing personal but,well.when or if I get my Visa card we can…possibly talk about this matter.For now it’s a no go. Got me.? trooper?

July 27, 2005 @ 9:37 am | Comment

I found the Xinhua article–and the comments here–quite interesting and informative. I think the Chinese intent is to discourage “internationalization” of the Taiwan problem, very much as Israel has resisted internationalization of the Palestinian issue. As the comments point out, perhaps inadvertently, tracing history to try to determine the true nature of Taiwan’s sovereignty or lack of it will yield confusion and dispute, not clarity. If the issue is internationalized and Taiwan is regarded as a potentially sovereign state whose status needs to be decided by the world community, and not by the CCP and Taiwan alone, then the cat’s out of the bag for the Chinese. But, ironically for Taidu enthusiasts, it would also mean that Taiwan’s future would be determined by the great powers in ways that the people of Taiwan might not particularly prefer. So be careful what you wish for!

July 27, 2005 @ 12:10 pm | Comment

JING SAID

“6) Irrelevant. What can be done can be undone, nothing is set in stone.”

And with that, simply undermined any declaration that past ownership of Taiwan entitles one to perpetual claims at future dates.

Damn, I should be a lawyer.

July 27, 2005 @ 12:15 pm | Comment

Hoisted on his own petard. Sweet.

July 27, 2005 @ 12:30 pm | Comment

Perhaps I should have been more specific about point number 6. The original point about the treaty of shiminoseki being irrelevant is due to Conrad’s poor interpretation of it. Shiminoseki was, simply put, superceded by later arrangements. To draw a similar parallel, let me address an issue most westerners should be more familiar with Alsace-Lorraine/Elssas Lothringen. The territory had been part of the Holy Roman Empire up until the peace of Westphalia made it part of France. After the Franco Prussian war, the treaty of Frankfurt made it part of Germany. This was again reversed again in the treaty of Versailles after WWI, reversed again temporarily during WW2, and reversed yet again back to France after the war.

My statement was meant to rubbish the extremely narrow interpretation of the treaty of Shimonoseki as somehow still being in effect. What I wrote could just as easily be interpretated as saying that the de-facto autonomy of Taiwan can be terminated in the near future but that obviouslly escaped you Johnny K, which just goes to show how myopic the Taidu separatists really are.

The main reason why I bothered to respond, aside from Conrads standard insufferableness, was due to Martyn possibly leaving a racist limmerick (some little ditty about Chinese and piss) in a comment on my blog. Apparently it wasn’t a dutch IP that was used but rather anonymouse, so I cannot say for certain who it was. The stunt was really something I more or less expected from America Man, but I wouldn’t have put it past Martyn.

July 27, 2005 @ 1:06 pm | Comment

1. Until the mid-15th Century Taiwan was virtually entirely populated and governed by indigenous Austronesian inhabitants (likely the ancestors of the Polynesians)

2. In 1624, the Dutch East India Company occupied the Taiwan and made it a Dutch entry port for East Asia. A few mainland Chinese immigrants also arrived on Taiwan at about the same time and engaged in piracy and trade with Japan.

3. In the later 1600s Ching Dynasty troops landed in and occupied Taiwan.

3. Seventeenth century Chinese maps did not show Taiwan as a part of China. The official chronicle of the Ming Dynasty described Taiwan as a foreign land.

4. Official documents of the Ching Dynasty state that Taiwan was a foreign land that was conquered and became a Chinese territory under Kang-hsi in the 1600’s”

5. The Ching prohibited mainland Chinese from crossing to the territory of Taiwan. This ban remained in effect for almost 200 years, until 1875. During that time forty uprisings by Taiwanese took place attempting to expel the Chinese occupying forces.

Jing has made really strong arguements, I just want to add some supplimental information
Basically this is just for revealing a extremely biased mind to readers.
conrad, what’s the point for writing 1,2,3,4,5 etc ?
Is it useful for Hawaii to gain independence because of similar reasons? never mention that
1,2,3,4,5 are all specific facts in history picked out serving your already exposed motives
CCP also have specific evidence which establishs ties between mainland and Taiwan as early as Han Dynasty, wanna see?

6. In the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895) China ceded Taiwan to Japan in “perpetuity and full sovereignty.”
7. Between the years 1928 and 1931, the Taiwanese Communist Party declared that Taiwan was an independent country, free from both Japan and China.
8. May 5th Draft for a Constitution by the Nanking government in 1936 p Taiwan from the status of treated Taiwan as independent.

6. Under the cannons and guns, whatever it says……
7. Again, biased information, could you at least mention that many supported independence, but only as the first step of “going back to unite with mainland China”
8. What do you mean “DRAFT”? Anyway, indeed, Taiwan was governed by Japan at that time. Principlely it’s not wrong at least for your concerns.

9. Contrary to the Xinhua article, the Cairo Declaration is not a treaty or like a treaty. It was a unilateral statements of intent was NOT SIGNED by any of the declarants and is not legally binding upon them. It is certainly not legally binding upon Japan — who held legal title to Taiwan at the time under the Treaty of Shimonosek — since Japan was not even present. The Cairo Declaration was, effectively, an unsigned press release. Nothing more.

10. The Agreement Regarding Japan contained in the Yalta Declaration of 1945 and signed by the US, Britian, Rusia and China, among others does not recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

11. In the Peace Treaty between the US and Japan, Japan renounced “all right, title, and claim” to Taiwan. This is the only renunciation Japan has ever made regarding sovereignty over Taiwan and it makes no provision regarding Taiwanese sovereignty following Japanese renunciation. In short, the Japanese renounce soverignty and do not transfer it to China or anyone else.

12. UN Resolution 1514 (XV), provides that independence of former colonies like Taiwan should be transferred to their inhabitants upon termination of colonial rule.

9, 10, 11,12 because Jing has his spendid post, I won’t refer much more to the facts themselves.
But, wait, your view is yours, nobody cares.
my view is that imperialists are snaky. No need to follow what they’s decided for this world word by word.
Even a possiblity they played China in WWII? If US and Russia agreed with conrad, then they did. Anyway they did it once to China in WWI.
probably not that dirty in WWII, but they indeed played handful other smaller countries then. Especially, greedy Russian sucks!
If all Chinese people clearly realize that almost everything comes out from the old imperialist point of view at that time, they will know
there is no need to argue about the legal basis about Taiwan with westerners. “You fight your way and I fight my way.”

13. Up until 1943, the Chinese Communist Party recognized Taiwanese as separate “nation”. And described “the national liberation movement” on Taiwan as separate from the Chinese Revolution.

13. refer to the 8.

Conrad, if you want to continue pointing your fingers toward CCP because they use biased info, etc… you have to be a little fair yourself in treating the history.
Martyn: hypocracy and lies by imperialists are at least comparable to those by CCP. I am not saying that CCP shouldn’t be criticized here
but by only criticizing CCP and nationalism in China without considering the legacy of imperialists left to the this world, you have showed your own hypercracy!

I hate being sound like a revolutionary youngster 50 years ago, but for someone like conrad, the only way is to invoke these angels!

July 27, 2005 @ 1:14 pm | Comment

Jing

Next time, make sure you get your facts right little boy before you accuse me of anything. I don’t leave ******* limericks, racist or otherwise, on your, or any other blog. Now go away.

July 27, 2005 @ 2:30 pm | Comment

But after the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded in October 1949, the sole representation of China, as well as sovereignty over Taiwan, transferred to the new PRC government.

Incorrect. The KMT never recognised the CCP as the rightful ruler of all China. So they maintained sovereignty over Taiwan, as they were originally the legal government of China. Thus Taiwan does have its own sovereignty, thanks to the fact that the CCP and KMT never fully ended the war.

That’s basic logic.

July 27, 2005 @ 3:45 pm | Comment

Ooops, that was covered already. Never mind 🙂

July 27, 2005 @ 3:46 pm | Comment

Boohoo Martyn save the angry sob-story, I still suspect it was either you or American man considering the remarkably short list of people named Martyn I’ve come into contact that read China related blogs who happen to have beef with me.

July 27, 2005 @ 5:29 pm | Comment

Jing, what’s up? Do you think Martyn is lying to you? If so, I think you are wrong, and you should watch your tone, okay?

July 27, 2005 @ 5:43 pm | Comment

China’s sovereignty over Taiwan is thus based strongly on international law and is universally recognized by countries in the world. It’s futile for some political forces in Taiwan to seeknon-existent legal evidence to support “Taiwan independence” in defiance of basic facts and international law

This is probably true, and attempts to argue for Taiwanese independence through international law are a dead end. The real question should be, under what circumstances do territories have the right to declare independence and cut the ties to their mother country. Obviously they do have the right in some cases, otherwise Britain would have to ask for its 13 colonies back.

July 27, 2005 @ 8:17 pm | Comment

Jing:

Your response is the equivalent of a child, with his fingers stuck in his ears, shouting “na-na-na-na, I can’t hear you.”

You can parrot the word “irrelevant” until you’re blue in the face, the facts and the law remain what they are.

I will happily put my relevant education and experience (JD degree and 10 years practice in private international law) alongside yours any day for general comparison.

As for my being an “idiot” — perhaps I am, I’ll leave it to readers here to reach their own conclusion . . . although I note that it was not me who was reduced to insults and ad hominum attacks.

As for Lin:

I only see one point in your post that merits a response, and then only because it undermines your entire argument. I accept your comparison between Hawaii and Taiwan. Both were independent and soverign. Hawaii chose to join the United States by way of a state-wide referendum of all of its citizens. Hawaii’s electorate voted 17 to 1 in favor of joining the US, with the strongest support coming from indigenous voters.

Were Taiwan to hold a similar referendum and vote to join the mainland, I’d have no complaint. Of course, the mainland knows what the result of such a referendum would actually be, which is why they threaten war should Taiwan ever try to hold one.

July 27, 2005 @ 10:50 pm | Comment

yeah, i love the constant comparisons that die-hard unificationists come up with: “does that mean hawaii should be independent?”
i would recommend that these people take their heads out of their asses and see that Hawaii does not want to be independent, while the majority of Taiwanese have no desire to join the Mainland.

July 28, 2005 @ 12:29 am | Comment

Thats a laugh Conrad, almost all your posts can be reduced to flippant remarks, ad-hominem insults, and otherwise obnoxious comments about other groups or individuals and now you have the temerity to act offended when someone else directs the same at you. I was a long time reader of your old blog and have seen enough of your writing since to recognize that your natural inclanation is to otherwise act like an ass when you see something that counters your “sensitivities” whether it be related to China, American politics, or anything.

As for your legal qualifications, I could care less and be less intimidated right now. It takes hundreds or thousands of hours of careful work and research to make a solid and convincing arguement and holding a law degree doesn’t make you the end all authority on every subject matter on god’s green earth. You are no less shooting from the hip than every other commenter (more so really) on this subject.

Your counter-arguement is certainly persuasive. I’m a lawyer so nyah!

Thats a fairly mild rebuke Richard, you are beginning to sound like my old primary school teachers. Where was the henpecking when people (myself included) were dropping 4 letter words in an arguement a week back. As a matter of fact, I do think a certain regular visitor of the Peking Duck was responsible and I’m afraid I can’t stock too much faith in you being a character witness.

July 28, 2005 @ 12:30 am | Comment

Jing, I don’t have a problem with that comment; your earlier comment to Martyn I did have a problem with as it was accusing him of boldfaced lying, and this isn’t the place for that.

July 28, 2005 @ 3:17 am | Comment

Jing, only you could look at a situation where I posted a rascist comment, put my own name to it, and then denied it now, as totally normal and logical. Come back when you have a shread of evidence to back up your petulant (fallacious?) accusations little man.

July 28, 2005 @ 4:11 am | Comment

it’s true martyn seems to have been a bit more caustic of late, Jing, but what you’re suggesting he has done is completely out of character for him. I don’t believe he did it.
I had a look on your blog and couldn’t find the comment.
first, are you sure it was spelled martyn with a “y”, because I’ve seen someone occasionally post a couple of places spelled “martin”.
second, could it be someone trying to sow dissension in the otherwise peaceful fraternal loving and warm environment that is western blogs on china?

July 28, 2005 @ 11:41 am | Comment

Haha, Conrad definitely has difficulty understanding my poor english.

My comparison is:
The facts 1-5 are irrelevant to the topic JUST AS the similar facts won’t deny the Hawaii as a state of US now.

I didn’t say anything else is also identical between these two.

If I agree with your ill logic, then you can’t compare anything.

However conrad intentionally hajacked my arguements to something like self determination which is only valid for those which were independent regimes before the colonization.

But, whatever, let me fly randomly with Conrad, even if he led me to a different path where probalby he think it’s his comfortable zone.

After following his thinking for a while, now I get it!

I know the better strategy is
occupy, immigration, throw over the local regime, and do a forced annexation?

Finally vote, vote, vote !

Beautiful! Thanks!

July 31, 2005 @ 2:03 pm | Comment

“I only see one point in your post that merits a response”

Beautiful, this strategy is just beautiful!

How come I am so stupid still arguing here. I am withdrawing from this topic, hopefully as beautiful as you were.
Thank you.

July 31, 2005 @ 2:07 pm | Comment

Why split legal hairs about agreements were made by this and that party 50+ years ago? Were the people of Taiwan included in any of those decisions? For some reason, the opion of the people of Taiwan – the real stakeholders in any of this – has never been a consideration. It’s pretty simple – why not leave it up to the 23M people of Taiwan to decide rather than a bunch of de facto lawyers or burning Chinese nationalists trying to arrange history to suit their political goals?

August 6, 2005 @ 11:54 am | Comment