Taiwan: Is democracy and military the only reasons Taiwan is not a part of China?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

why should China "move on" as you suggest? Its was China that bore the brunt of Japan invasion and after war ended they weren't given a seat at the treaty negotiation. Not even as a courtesy of the "sit and shut" type of seat. China was deem inconsequential by the West and now that decision is coming back to bite everybody.

Who's China are you talking about? Chiang's China or CCP's China? Because it is Chiang's China who bore the brunt of Japan's invasion.

Rather disingenuous to pull out the victim card when the Communist Party is NOT the victim but the aggressors in this case.

China SHOULD move on, because Taiwan doesn't want to be a part of China. That should be where the matter ends. And if China want to kill us then there is nothing we can do. But there is no point pretending China's claim over Taiwan is in any way moral. It isn't.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Who's China are you talking about? Chiang's China or CCP's China? Because it is Chiang's China who bore the brunt of Japan's invasion.

The Chinese people's China. Dynasty come and go but there is Just One China.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Uh, perhaps you should go back and read it again, the age of the claim is hardly the only thing that make the claim ridiculous. Moreover, I still don’t see why you keep trying to bring the Spanish claim into this, it’s not as if I’m saying the Spanish claim is legitimate.

My point is two-fold: that a 50 or 100 year old claim is relatively short, and that your example of Spain on this point is comedic.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Then perhaps you shouldn’t post it as if that’s some legitimate noble endeavor by China.

When did I ever suggest that? Besides, there's nothing particularly noble about either diplomacy or nationalism to begin with.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Um, duh? It was a part of Japan until that point.

My point is that the effect of the PRC never controlling Taiwan is precisely as meaningful as the effect of the ROC never controlling Taiwan until 1945. In other words, zilch.

Originally Posted by kyp275

No, it was because one, the ROC has not yet lost the civil war, and second, Japan surrendered to US forces in the Pacific, not the Soviets. The superpowers are jockeying for their post-war positions, I seriously doubt anyone gave two shits about the Qing.

Nobody cared about the Qing, but everyone cared about who "China" was, hence the importance of the Qing successor. It was still in dispute in 1945, hence neither the Communists (this is pre-PRC) nor the Republic of China were signatories of the Treaty of San Francisco.

Originally Posted by kyp275

And I think the right to self-determination for over 23 million people is more important than what you think should or shouldn’t happen.

So do I. However, the political realities are much more complex than that and we don't always get what we want. Luckily, most the status quo is satisfactory for all parties, so that's going to be the situation for the short-medium term.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Yes, and it doesn't change anything - the treaty of taipei was basically a copy of the treaty of san fransisco the US wanted Japan to sigh with RoC specifically.

Th sovereignty of Taiwan was intentionally ambiguous in both.

It's not ambiguous in the Treaty of San Francisco at all. Japan renounced all claims to Taiwan and abrogated all extant treaties with China. This means that Taiwan now goes to the previous owner - China. The only question is who gets to be called "China". Right now, the ROC is losing the right to that title.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

China lost out becaues of their Civil War. The problem is they haven't just dealt with it and moved on. They keep bringing it up and laying claims (both the PRC and ROC) on places someone else holds, but they claim as their right by a Declaration that was not passed on to the final treaty.

The beauty of international diplomacy is that no country ever has to "deal with it and move on". If you don't like the hand you've been dealt, then the option to renegotiate is always open.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

The Chinese people's China. Dynasty come and go but there is Just One China.

These type of imperialistic manifest-destiny dogma really gets on my nerves. News Alert: nations also come and go, China is not a special snowflake. It doesn't get to lay claim to whatever land that once belonged to Imperial China in the ancient days.

Can Rome claim half of Europe as its own because it was part of the Roman Empire?

Can France also claim half of Europe as its own because it was once part of the Frankish Empire?

Can Mongolia claim half of the world because it was part of the Mongol Empire?

Because this is the exact logic you're using.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

My point is two-fold: that a 50 or 100 year old claim is relatively short, and that your example of Spain on this point is comedic.

The only comedy here is your apparent failure to comprehend what was written. Spain was brought up because Ithekro mentioned/asked about the colonization history of Taiwan, YOU are the one that started going off-tangent on this.

When did I ever suggest that?

That's the impression I got from your post about reclaiming old Qing territory.

Nobody cared about the Qing, but everyone cared about who "China" was, hence the importance of the Qing successor.

No, the only thing people cared about was who would win the civil war. The idea that there was no successor to the Qing at that point is ludicrous - The dynasty fell in 1911 as a direct result of the rebellion that founded the RoC as the governing body of China in 1912.

The communists were not trying to become the "successor" to Qing, which was already overthrown - they were trying to overthrow the ones who did.

This means that Taiwan now goes to the previous owner - China.

That part would be your assumption, there's a reason why that was intentionally not explicit in the treaty.

If the UK renounced it sovereignty over the Falklands tomorrow, does it automatically go to Argentina?

If the US does the same to Puerto Rico, does PR automatically go back to Spain?

The answer would be no.


Good luck to you all who want to continue talking about this, I'm going to need a break before any more of my braincell dies.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

China SHOULD move on, because Taiwan doesn't want to be a part of China. That should be where the matter ends.

The only issue with that is the Chinese people would complain about how PRC would respect the opinions of taiwanese but not their own

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

The only issue with that is the Chinese people would complain about how PRC would respect the opinions of taiwanese but not their own

You nailed it. The Chinese posters don't understand why the Taiwanese demand that their opinions should matter, because the Chinese are used to their own government just doing whatever the fuck they liked.

"CCP want this, so it needs to be done." is the default situation in China. And the Chinese people are confused that the Magical Command somehow failed to function outside of their own territory.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

The Chinese people's China. Dynasty come and go but there is Just One China.

Originally Posted by kyp275

These type of imperialistic manifest-destiny dogma really gets on my nerves. News Alert: nations also come and go, China is not a special snowflake. It doesn't get to lay claim to whatever land that once belonged to Imperial China in the ancient days.

Indeed, it's moronic to think China will always remain the same as one. Considering how many ethnic/cultural groups and languages exist within China, it would not be impossible if those groups claim their independence in various ways.

Russians claimed that there was only one united entity when it was the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union. Yet it never kept several ethnic groups away from fighting and gaining their independence when you count how many countries were born from the 1991 downfall of the Soviet Union.

We speak of Taiwan's strong resistance to the PRC, but I would not count out anything on the mainland yet if the CCP ends up falling further behind in terms of overall popularity. We could easily have half a dozen Chechenyas if the system crumbles.

Like Vallen mentioned, it's better for China to let it go for everyone's good. Could the British Empire have launched another invasion force on the US at some point in the 19th Century knowing the Brits had a strong foot in Canada and an empire in full expansion to provide resources and manpower? They could, but never bothered with it although the UK/USA diplomatic relations were chilly between the independence all the way to 1895.

[Fireminer]

China can't let go. Why? If the retreat their claim to Taiwan, it's like showing a weakness to Japan, Korea, India,... and every countries that are in territory argument with them. And with the hawks in the army, it's worst than death.

Say, if China invasion really happen, what will you do? Flee, or fight?

[Ithekro]

The San Francisco Treaty made sure Japan lost all its colonial and imperial possessions. It did not, unless specified, hand those lands back to their previous owners. This was because the United Nations (and mostly the Allied powers) were dividing things up. Sometimes it went back to the party that had the best claim on the territory by being present. Others through negotiations outside the treaty (former French Indo-China had to deal with that one between the French, Americans, Cambodians, Laosians, Imperial Vietnamese, Nationalist Vietnamese, and Communist Nationalist Vietnamese...and it was bloody). But the bottom line was simply that Japan lost its rights to those lands. Okinawa went to the United States with the idea that it would be a trustee. But instead they gave it back to Japan eventually.

The Chinese lost out because of the Civil War. The British wanted to invite the PRC and the Americans wanted to invite the ROC. The compromise was to invite neither party (as inviting both might have been even worse).

Taiwan would, in theory, go to the government that was on the island at the time. That would be the colonial Japanese Government though, so it would go to local governance by the locals as they kick the Japanese officials out. The local Chinese governent at the time was the Republic of China, and after the Civil War it migrated there. So the controlling party of Taiwan is not in doubt. The questioning becomes if the People's Republic of China also has the right to claim the island as part of its territory. In an even world, the answer would be no. Not only have they not been in control of said islands, they were also not the government if said islands at any point. Thirdly, the peoples of the island do not want to be part of the PRC. That should, in a balanced world, be the end of it if the PRC is unwilling to go to war over it and invade. If they are willing to do so?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

China can't let go. Why? If the retreat their claim to Taiwan, it's like showing a weakness to Japan, Korea, India,... and every countries that are in territory argument with them. And with the hawks in the army, it's worst than death.

Say, if China invasion really happen, what will you do? Flee, or fight?

Flee or fight doesn't matter if the Chinese decide to attack. The outcome is the same.

None can resist a nuclear power without being a nuclear power themselves.

However, I draw the line at any attempt to justify the invasion as a moral one. If CCP want to murder the Taiwanese and steal our lands, then they would do it. But don't the Chinese ever dare to claim they are actually doing the right thing, or to tell us we should just hand ourselves over to them.

I accept that Taiwan can't change what we can't change. But I will never accept that China can claim Taiwan is somehow in the wrong for resisting. Never in a million years.

[Fireminer]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Flee or fight doesn't matter if the Chinese decide to attack. The outcome is the same.

None can resist a nuclear power without being a nuclear power themselves.

However, I draw the line at any attempt to justify the invasion as a moral one. If CCP want to murder the Taiwanese and steal our lands, then they would do it. But don't the Chinese ever dare to claim they are actually doing the right thing, or to tell us we should just hand ourselves over to them.

I accept that Taiwan can't change what we can't change. But I will never accept that China can claim Taiwan is somehow in the wrong for resisting. Never in a million years.

So, that also mean Vietnam shouldn't had win a nuclear-ready America decades ago?

Hate to say this, but this matter, but the winner decided who is right. If you want independent, then at least show that you're willing to fight.

[Flower]

Okay. I think that's enough for now.

Thread closed.