Talk:Political status of Taiwan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political status of Taiwan article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Political status of Taiwan is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwanese politics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the politics of Taiwan. If you would like to participate, please join the project
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance for this Project's importance scale.


This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...

Please help keep this discussion civil. Assume good faith – for many things, there are perfectly innocent explanations, and there is no need to accuse anyone of lies or deception.

Contents

[edit] KMT is called Chinese Nationalist Party

"When the Kuomintang visited Mainland China in 2005, the government-controlled Chinese media called this event as a "visit," and called the KMT one of "Taiwan's political parties" even though the Kuomintang's full name remains the "Chinese Nationalist Party."

This is not true: CCTV, a government-controlled media, broadcast this visit and called KMT 'Zhongguo Guomindang', even they emphasize the 'Zhongguo' pronunciation http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/pZ7TNOBDWlw/

Hand15 (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] China's own contradiction

I personally made several changes in that section. I believe most of the content in this section is due to the lack of understanding. C&C welcomed.--StrikeEagle 02:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire article was originally written by pro-independence supporters , who seems not interested in clearly and concisely presenting the Pro-China POV. Redcloud822 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slip of the tongue

Is this section necessary? All those cases were just as the title indicates "slip of the tongue"; compared to official stands those incidents don't carry any weight. It seems a bit childish to use "slip of the tongue" as arguements to support a particular POV. I suggest this section to be removed. I also added the fact that PRC treats Hongkong investment as "foreign investment" as well. Redcloud822 06:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not under that title, but those incidents are certainly worth mentioning. I don't think they are arguments to support any particular POV. They just show that the complexity of the China-Taiwan relationship presents international diplomatic problems at times. I do think that section needs a better title. "Diplomatic bloppers"? heh --Kvasir 08:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The title reflects the content very well. It's the content of this section that appears very childish. If you believe the section is not used to support only the Independent POV, could you show me anything in this section supports unifiction POV, barring anything added by me two days ago? I believe this secion is very biased, and it ought to be removed. Redcloud822 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You would have to be specific about which incidents in that section are childishly POV. I don't understand how citing foreign diplomats/politicians misrepresenting, misquote, misunderstand the China-Taiwan relation supports either unification or independent POV. They happened and at times created international and diplomatic embarassment. It was what it was. We should define "mistakes" as doing or saying something that is contrary to the official policy of a country. I can only speak about the incident i added -- the wrong anthem played in Grenada. I really can't see there's any POV in reporting that. If the content needs to be reworded, by all means. But the incidents themselves should be included. --Kvasir 06:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This is what I am saying. All slips of tongue or mistakes did reject of Chinese sovereignty of Taiwan, which were in contrast to official stand. In the Grenada instance, PRC anthem should have been played, but ROC anthem was played. The mistakes of Pres. Ragan and Bush were in favor of rejecting Chinese sovereignty of Taiwan against official stand. In all incidences mentioned (insert an incident here), the mistakes were made to deny Chinese soereignty of Taiwan. Do you think I have been specific enough? Again, all mistakes were made in treating Taiwan as a country. IMO, such is to infer that somehow Taiwan should be considered as a country. Redcloud822 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying they made those "mistakes" on purpose to make a point? Some politicians indeed say something (sometimes on his/her own agenda) that is against his/her country's official stand. That's why we can't really call them mistakes or "slip of tongue".
You are free to speculate the intentions of those "mistakes," actually, those "slips of tongue" are open to any interpretation by anyone. But any serious discussion of ROC's political status has to refer back to the official stand of those identities, which are all committed to "One China" principle. Redcloud822 03:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
They create controversies nonetheless. In Grenada, they didn't play the ROC anthem on purpose to deny Chinese sovereignty on Taiwan. If you think that is the case that is really far-fetched and twisted. Yes, you are correct in that all mistakes/controvesy mentioned in this section were made by treating Taiwan as a country. This is because only some 25 states in the world has formal diplomatic relation with Taiwan, thus recognising it as the country of "China". The rest of the world has diplomatic relaion with the PRC which means in THEORY they SHOULD agree with the PRC's view of a single China. No country in the world recognise both PRC and ROC as seperate country at the same time. Are we saying then that the two China's POV is not represented? If you are able to find instances where, say Nauru, inadvertently referred the PRC as a seperate independent state, then by all means add them to the section to balance it out. The fact is there aren't many of these countries to begin with, you'd be hardpressed to find their diplomatic "mistakes". By citing these instances we are not supporting which side or which POV is correct, we are saying what they say or do is inconsistent with the official policy of their country. --Kvasir 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
So you do agree with me that this "slips of tongue" section is bias towards the favoring of Taiwan Independence POV. Now let's talk about why it is childish. 1)Taiwan Independence supporters use "slips of tongue" to support their POV, which as you said were "mistakes." Mistakes were not meant to happen, so to use such "mistakes" to push you POV is unfair to those committed it. 2) PRC conducts far more diplomatic relations and functions than ROC. The chance of "slips of tongue" is vastly against PRC, so emphysizing such "mistakes" is unfair to PRC. 3) By ignoring vastly more times of glichless diplomaic encounters also creats bias. For example, Pres. Ragan and Bush made few "mistakes", but vastly more times Ragan and Bush reaffirmed "One China" principle, and more US Presidents who didn't make "mistakes" are ignored, such as Nixon, J.H. Bush, Clinton. How many times they have reaffirmed "One China" principle. Should we record every incident of US Presidents conducted a glichless diplomatic fucntions with China or reaffirmed "One China" principle? Should we record all other heads of states who reaffirmed "One China" principle. This is the only way to present a NPOV. Don't you think it's too excessive. That's why I say, to use "mistakes" to push you POV is childish. In all fairness, this section should be removed. Redcloud822 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you get it. Why would it be biased when no one is trying to exclude counter examples? As I said, if you find any counter example go ahead and include them. No one is pushing any POV except maybe you, which is what it begins to sound like. You are reading too much into this. When US presidents reaffirm the "One China" principle, they are in accordance with their country's official policy, it's not a mistake nor does it create controversy. When the Vatican invited only ROC president to John Paul II's funeral but not PRC officials, it was also done according to its own diplomatic policy, there is nothing controversial about that. Like I did before, I've always said "mistake" isn't the right word from the get go, nor is it "slip of tongue". Instead of going in circles and nitpicking, why not just change the title. "Diplomatic controversies" or something. --Kvasir 00:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Your arguement is not logical. For example, there is no way for a US president to make a "slip of tongue" in PRC's favor, since when a US president reaffirms "One China" principle, he is doing the right thing. There are only 24 heads of state recognizing ROC, who is qualified to make a "slip of tongue." Yet, actually only about dozon times or less a year those 24 heads of state get a chance to committ such a "mistake." Whereas PRC has to conduct tens of thousands diplomatic functions, a few gliches are unavoidable. So such comparison is inheritantly biased and meaningless. To use such comparison to push you POV is childish. Do you think the world affairs should be re-interpretated through "slips of tongues" according to your speculation? See someone made a "mistake," and they claim they didn't mean it. But you insist that you know the true intentions of those made a "slip of tongue." This is childish, isn't it? That's why it's wrong for this section to push a biased POV of Taiwan Indpendence with "slips of tongue" or "mistakes." Redcloud822 03:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You just repeated what i said. I don't even know what you are arguing about anymore. I personally don't have a POV and am not pushing anything. It's always the ones that have an agenda assume others have one. Again, if you actually read what i commented, I said they were not "mistakes" or "slip of tongue". Whether they did it on purpose or not wasn't the point. No one is counting who makes more "mistakes" than whom, only you are. --Kvasir 05:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't repeat what you said, no need to play games. Cut to the chase. Those who "sliped" their tongues said that mistakes were made. But you believe you know the "true" intentions behind those mistakes. You want the readers to speculate with those selected occurances to push your favor POV. It is simply wrong to mislead readers with your selected events to foster speculation as the "true" intention behind those "slips of tongues". Redcloud822 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It is simply wrong to speculate what MY intentions are, especially when I only contributed only one incident in that section. And no, I wasn't the one who started this section, check the History if you want. Like you said, if those involved even admit about making a mistake, what's wrong with including them? Besides I didn't say I know what the true intentions were. You were the one back in a few posts (13:12, 26 March 2007) saying mistakes were rejecting this or denying that. Which by the way, how can a mistake be made with an intention? That's an oxymoron. You really have to decide what you are talking about here. --Kvasir 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the "Slips of the tongue" is to highlight how ambigious and confusing Taiwan's political status is rather than to make an argument for independence. Hope this clarifies things. Allentchang 12:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not. How many times, Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Ragan, Bush Sr., and Clinton unmistakenly reaffirmed "One China" principle? (TG, not every President is dumb) Stacking up the times US Presidents got it right over the so few times Bush Jr. got it wrong, it clearly shows the issue is not "ambigious and confusing." not to American presidents at least. To selectively present two to three "slips of tongue" of Bush Jr., while ignoring the clear-spoken by numerous occasions of most American presidents post 1970's, in order to claim the issue "ambigious and confusing" is misleading and biased. This tactic is called spinning. Redcloud822 02:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
To ignore those incidents like they have never happened is the real bias here. Besides, I've always been saying we shouldn't call them "mistakes". "Diplomatic gaffe" is more like it, whether those were intentional or not isn't important. What significant about those incidents was that they all create a reaction or an uncomfortable situation with either the PRC and/or ROC. If the issue isn't confusing and it is so obvious, what are we really trying to achieve in this and other related Taiwan/ROC articles then? Would one or two sentence not clear it all up? --Kvasir 09:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Bowrrowing your own logic, to ignore those incidents of "clear spoken," which had occured many many more times than that of "slips of tongue", as if they never happened shows even stronger bias here. When you compare how many times the world leaders "got it right" to the times of "slips of tongue", it becomes clear the issue is not confusing but only obvious. If you want to show something is confusing, you can't only count times people "got it wrong". You need to compare the times people "got it wrong" to the times people "got it right." This is simple logic, why it's so hard? Redcloud822 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Actually, I agree a little with both of you. Mentioning the mistakes while ignoring the times they got it "right" may seem biased, but then it's really pointless to point out how they got it right because that's what they should. The argument, I believe, is about whether or not to remove the section or to let it be with a different title. Anyway, I've changed the title for now to "Controversies" - that's much more in pace with the rest of the article. IMHO, the times they got it wrong unintentionally should be removed (they caused controversies too, yes, but they're just mistakes and not really relevant), while the time they got it wrong intentionally (e.g. Rumsfeld) should be included. There're problems, of course, but this should be able to keep to Wikipedia's standards best, especially in a political article like this. Aran|heru|nar 09:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Order No.1 by General MacArthur

I have not been able to varify the Quation cited in the article on "General Order No.1" by Gen. MacArthur throught the link. The link was broken. If no link available, the quotation should be removed, otherwise it is misleading. I added in the article the fact Gen. MacArthur was never given the command of Allied Forces in China Theater. Thus Gen. MacArthur did not have the authority to issue commands to Allied troops (i.e. Chinese Troops) landed on Taiwan, that reclaimed Chinese sovereignty. Redcloud822 19:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan was not part of the China Theatre !!! Please get your facts straight before you start writing comments in this section ..... Hmortar 11:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Nobody said Taiwan was part of the China Theater. I said Gen. MacArthur directed Japanese forces to surrender to the Allied Commander of the China Theater, thereby conceding to the reclamation of ROC's sovereignty of Taiwan, again on the basis of Cairo Declaration, Postdam Proclamation, and Japanese Instrument of Surrender. No evidence shows that Gen. MacArthur ever questioned ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan. Redcloud822 20:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Following the acceptance of the surrender of Japanese forces in Taiwan by the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek's government, Taiwan remained de jure Japanese territory. General Douglas MacArthur stated at a congressional hearing in May 1951, "legalistically Formosa is still a part of the Empire of Japan." Hmortar 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't reclaim sovereignty just by sending troops. Otherwise America would possess sovereignty over Iraq or some such nonsense. --Rmdsc 12:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right. ROC claimed sovereignty on the basis of Cairo Declaration, Postdam Proclamation, and Japanese Instrument of Surrender. For 60 years, other than PRC (the civil war rival), nobody challenged ROC's sovereignty on Taiwan. There is nothing similar between Taiwan and Iraq. BTW, if you have no objections, I will revert back on "reclaiming Chinese sovereignty" wording in the article. Please talk it over here before you edit the page. Redcloud822 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There was no "reclaiming" of sovereignty on Oct. 25, 1945 -- that was just the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. Territorial cession is accomplished by treaty. In 1895, Taiwan was ceded to Japan by treaty. Any cession of Japanese territory to China would have to be done by treaty as well. There is a very good summary of all the historical and legal details in Roger Lin's lawsuit, see -- http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/twamended.htm Considering that the Court will be discussing all of this, it is worth spending some time studying the details in the case. Hmortar 11:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Also see the new 31-page Discovery Requests filed with the United States District Court in Washington D.C. on June 26, 2007. http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/tw1discovery.pdf
Which law dictates the transfer of sovereignty has to be done by a treaty? Cairo Declaration, Postdam Proclamation and Japanese Instrument of Surrender provides more than ample legal basis for ROC to reclaim sovereignty over Taiwan. After ROC's reclamation, nobody in the world(except old civil war rival PRC) challenged ROC's sovereignty of Taiwan. China's sovereignty of Taiwan is indisputable. Redcloud822 20:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Which law? It is called "customary law." China's sovereignty over Taiwan is non-existent, and the Court in D.C. is going to declare it as such. Hmortar 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Redcloud's arguments don't hold water. This entire article should be revised to clearly point out that the military occupation of Taiwan began after the surrender ceremonies of Oct. 25, 1945. None of the Allies recognized any transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC on that date (or on any later date). I would challenge Redcloud to prove otherwise. Hmortar (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's not POV push. Also, I invite everyone to check the article Legal status of Taiwan for the detailed arguments for all sides. IMHO, prescription is a very strong pro-ROC argument, and it is incorrect to claim that "customary law" dictates all border changes to be done by treaty. Ngchen 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This is incorrect. There can be no claim to prescription because "military occupation does not transfer sovereignty." That is international law. This is a situation of territorial boundary changes after a war, and the laws of war (including the laws of military occupation) must be considered. Ngchen is incorrect to say that "it is incorrect to claim that 'customary law' dictates all border changes to be done by treaty." Hmortar (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was "Taiwan under military occupation since 1945"

Quote from historical background section from the article

"Japan surrendered it in 1945 at the end of World War II after 50 years of colonial rule, and it came under the military occupation of the Republic of China (ROC)."

"Came under the control of ROC" is probably a better way of putting it, while many native Taiwanese did resent the rule of the KMT led ROC, it is incorrect to classify the rule as a "military occupation". It's like, we do not call Hitler's Nazi regime "Military occupation of Austria" or Saddam's Sunni/Baahist Regime "military occupation of Shiite dominated regions of Iraq". the term "Military occupation" is simply not accurate.Philosophy.dude 04:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a biased statement. It should be part of the Taiwan Indpendence arguement. According to ROC, Taiwan's sovereignty was transferred to ROC in 1945 on the basis of Cairo Declaration, Postdam Proclamation and Japanese Instrument of Surrender. No country ever challenged ROC's sovereignty on Taiwan since 1945 except old civil war rival PRC. The UN recognizes Taiwan as sovereign part of China as well. I am about to correct this statement soon to reassure NPOV, comments welcome. Redcloud822 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Redcloud made numerous incorrect statements above. (1) According to ROC, Taiwan's sovereignty was transferred to ROC in 1945 on the basis of Cairo Declaration, Postdam Proclamation and Japanese Instrument of Surrender. ==> This is pure ROC propaganda. The Allied Powers recognized no such transfer, hence it is clear that no such transfer took place. Redcloud is mistaken. (2) No country ever challenged ROC's sovereignty on Taiwan since 1945 except old civil war rival PRC. ==> This is total nonsense. It would be more accurate to say that no country ever agreed to ROC's sovereignty on Taiwan since 1945. (3) The UN recognizes Taiwan as sovereign part of China as well. ==> This is incorrect. Taiwan is not recognized as a sovereign part of China. Hmortar (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"According to ROC". That is biased in and of itself. The Cairo Declaration was a press release (hence officially titled the Cairo Communiqué) and, according to the Japanese Library of Congress anyway, was not even signed (http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/shiryo/01/002_46shoshi.html). Potsdam is similar and merely quotes Cairo. The Japanese Instrument of Surrender was an armistice. None of these documents can legally effect a transfer of sovereignty. Of course, by allowing ROC to occupy Taiwan, de facto sovereignty was transfered, and that, as you said, indeed has not generally been challenged. What I am saying is that ROC technically placed Taiwan under military occupation, despite or in spite of the ROC or China's claims. How to word that in the backgrounds paragraph I don't know... (BTW, I didn't notice this until I edited, sorry, not trying to start an edit war or anything)--130.216.191.182 05:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"According to the UN","According to the United States", and "According to rest of the world", Taiwan is sovereign part of China(though not necessary PRC). This is same as to say "according to the US" is biased in and of itself so Texas does not belong to the US. Find me any contest of ROC's sovereignty claim on Taiwan in the past 60 yrs, discounting PRC. Find any country claims Taiwan does not belong to China(either PRC or ROC). When the world agrees China's sovereignty over Taiwan, this is called consensus not POV.
"According to Japanese ..., Cairo Declaration is press release"
Now this is POV, not shared by the rest of the world, understandalbly of Japan a loser of WWII. Japanese Instrument of Surrender was NOT an armistice. Japan surrended unconditionally, no negotiation so no armistice. Of cause Cairo Declaration and Postdam Declaration and Japanese Instrument of Surrender are ample legal basis of the transfer of sovereignty. It's mind boggling to deny such overwheling evidence for Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan to claim otherwise. Redcloud822 02:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your point; whether the Instrument was an armistice or not, it remains nothing more than a modus vivendi, otherwise we wouldn't have had the peace treaty year later. It cannot, by definition, transfer sovereignty. I am not trying argue about the sovereignty claims, btw. --Rmdsc 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I mean when unconditional surrender takes place, there is no armistice. But regardless, what name you call the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. Nothing changes the fact that Japanese Instrument of surrender was signed by the Allies and Japan. The terms of the document had been carried out in 1945, which states Japan "accept the provisions of Postdam Declaration." And Postdam Declaration Article (8) states "Cairo Declaration shall be carried out." Cairo Declaration states "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." So there you have it. Formosa was restored to the Republic of China; this was legally settled when Japanese Instrument of Surrender was signed; and physically carried out when ROC troops landed on Taiwan in 1945. ROC reclaimed Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan in 1945, and no other country contested that ever since. That Taiwan is sovereign part of China (either PRC or ROC) is a consensus of the entire world. This is simple and clear. To throw in all kinds of jargons can only cause confusion in an otherwise simple matter. Redcloud822 00:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Stating POVs is OK as long as they are correctly attributed. A big problem with claiming that Taiwan was/is under military occupation, IMO, is that it is not being run like a military occupation, at least not anymore. Civilian government was established a few scant years after 1945, so to claim that the occupation has persisted would be a stretch. Anyway, the various arguments are laid out in the main article Legal status of Taiwan.Ngchen 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but then won't the initial change of control be a military occupation until it ended some at an indetermined time later? That's, I think, the issue here: whether the initial take over was a military occupation. --Rmdsc 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I was reading up a little, and apparently the Province of Taiwan was established to administer civil rule only in 1947, so I think there is very strong suggestion here that prior to that Taiwan was under military rule. I'll see if I can find out more before I come back next week. --Rmdsc 05:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

ROC's basis of reclaiming Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan--Cairo Declaration, Postdam Declaration, Japanese Instrument of Surrender were all established before ROC troops landed on Taiwan. So ROC did not militarily occupy Taiwan first then found legal means to declare sovereignty. Rather ROC came armed with legal basis for claiming sovereignty; therefore, there was no military occupation but only reclaiming of sovereignty. Redcloud822 03:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The flaw in your resoning is that, did the ROC claim sovereignty over Taiwan the moment or before it landed troops? Becuase when the basis of their claims was formed isn't directly related to when their claim was made. Of coruse, I am not an expert on the subject, just want to point this out. --Rmdsc 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan's sovereignty was transfered to ROC the moment Japanese Instrument of Surrender was signed, which states
Japan "accept the provisions of Postdam Declaration." And Postdam Declaration Article (8) states "Cairo Declaration shall be carried out." Cairo Declaration states "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa(Taiwan), and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China."
The landing of ROC troops was only to materialize the reclaiming of ROC sovereignty. ROC was given the check of Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan at Japanese surrender, landing on Taiwan was only to cash the check. Redcloud822 00:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the Cairo declaration was a press release and cannot, by itself, enforce a transfer of de jure sovereignty over Taiwan, regardless of what popular (or rather, Chinese) misconception is. See the Japanese Library of Congress' photo of the document. I don't believe that photo is disputable, if only because Japan does not stand to benefit from either a legal or a non-legal Cairo Declaration. And, since none of the governments party to the Declaration controls Taiwan at the time, they do not have the legal authority to determine the status of Taiwan.
  • ("The Cairo Declaration (in The Pacific Front)", Maxwell S. Stewart, Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 12, No. 25., Dec. 22, 1943, pp. 241-242)
  • ("The Contemporary Practices of the United Kingdom in the Field of International Law - Survey and Comment", E. Lauterpacht, 8 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 186-187)
  • ("The Chinese Recognition Problem", Quincy Wright, 49 A. J. I. L. 333 1955)
Secondly, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender merely states that Japan will "undertake... to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith". Thus, even assuming Cairo and Potsdam are legal instruments, Japan has not formally agreed to them. Hence, the Treaty of Peace with Japan was signed some years later, precisely as part of Japan's undetaking to carry out Potsdam's provisions. In the interim, Japan retains de jure sovereignty over Taiwan pending retrocession. That is to say, even though Cairo commmits the Allies, and the Instrument Japan, to the retrocession of Formosa to China (an obligation later superseded by the treaty United Nations Charter), the legal transfer of de jure sovereignty has yet to be formally enacted.
  • (Great Britain, Parl. Deb. (Hansard), House of Commons, Official Report, Vol. 469, Nov. 14, 1949, Col. 1679)
  • (ibid, Vol. 536, Feb 4, 1955, Col. 159)
  • (UN General Assembly, 5th Session, Official Records, 286th Plenary Meeting, Sep. 27, 1950, p.133)
This is of course disputed by both Chinas, but for obvious and likewise clearly biased reasons. I would suggest then, that it be phrased as something like: "Taiwan and the Pescadores were then occupied by Nationalist China forces with the intention of re-establishing Chinese sovereignty." --Rmdsc 03:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Your arguments ignore historical facts. Firstly, Postdam Declaration Article (8) states "Cairo Declaration shall be carried out." So wheather Cairo Declaration was signed or not is not the issue as long as Postdam Declaration was signed. And it was by the US, China, and the UK.
Secondly, you are fabricating "facts" when you wrote, I quote
"Secondly, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender merely states that Japan will "undertake... to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith". "
This is a lie. Here is the original text,[1] I quote
"We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers."
Fabricating "facts" is a sign of bad faith, please don't do this again. Japanese Instrument of Surrender further stated, I quote
"We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated."
Given the statement"proclaim(ing)unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers..", Japan was not in a position to agree or disagree with the demands in Japanese Instrument of Surrender, all demands of Japanese Instrument had to be carried out, including Cairo Declaration. So your arguments are based on fabrication of "facts" and are of no merit Redcloud822 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
At the time the Potsdam Declaration, none of the participating governmnents controlled Taiwan, and were therefore legally incapable of awarding ownership of Taiwan to China. Further, it was signed only by the Americans, with Churchill and Chiang's names written in by Truman. Hardly a solid legal instrument, although we could say it is more disputable than Cairo.
Next, I did not 'frabricate' facts, as logically impossible as it sounds. If you bothered scrolling down a little on the very same page you listed, you will come to see "[w]e hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government, and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith...". Please don't go about randomly accusing me of acting out of 'bad faith'. While we're at it, I would also like to see some clarifications as to how land title transfers could be legally effected by an instrument of surrender, which is nothing more than a modus vivendi. Hence why no one needed to ratify it.
Finally, an unconditional surrender means that a state agrees to peace with no conditions. It isn't the peace settlement and certainly does not mean that land titles would be lost automatically - that's done by a peace treaty. If you want to insist on unconditional surrender means Taiwanese retrocession, please explain what the Treaty of Peace with Japan was meant to achieve. Please also note that, as you quoted, Japan surrendered her military unconditionally. By the way, it would be nice if you could cite a few professional sources too.--Rmdsc 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's see if you are lying, I quote,
"Secondly, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender merely states that Japan will "undertake... to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith". "
"merely"? Examining the entire the text, as I have quoted part of the original text earlier, Japan certainly stated more than "Japan will "undertake... to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith". " A white lie is still a lie. This is a sign of bad faith. When you read the entire document, nowhere it implied Japan could retain sovereignty over Taiwan because "Japan will "undertake...Potsdam Declaration"". What prevents from ROC taking sovereignty over Taiwan, just because Japan could pretend accept Potsdam Declaration but not really? I don't understand your logic.
If anyone bother to check it out, here is the text Japanese Instrument of Surrender [2]
Wheather any of the countries had the control of Taiwan at the time of signing Potsdam Declaration is irrelavent, because in Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Japan vowed to "accept the provisions of Potsdam Declaration." Wheather Potsdam Declaration was signed was again irrelavent, because Japanese Instrument of Surrender was signed by all parties, and Japanese Instrument of Surrender dictates, Japanese authority "accept the provisions of Potsdam Declaration."
Indeed, it was the Japanese Instrument of Surrender that forced Japan to accept and carry out the provisions of Potsdam Declaration and Cairo Declaration, both of which were cited in Japanese Instrument of Surrender (JIS) as part of Japanese obligation. Therefore, as long as Japanese Instrument of Surrender was signed, Potsdam and Cairo Declaration must be carried out. And it had. That's why signing of JIS returned the sovereignty of Taiwan to ROC. Did Japan ever claim sovereignty over Taiwan after its Surrender? Never. Taiwan has nothing to do with Japan any more after the signing of Japanese Instrument of Surrender. Taiwan's sovereignty was returned to ROC at the signing of JIS before ROC troops landed on Taiwan, no military occupation.
Why I am not citing sources? This is a simple matter, as long as you can read and willing to follow the logic. It's all in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. Ironiclly it was Trumen who said "If you can't convince them, confuse them." Right on. Redcloud822 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A friendly reminder: talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article, not for general discussion of the subject. The details of the arguments, I'd like to reiterate, are more appropriately located under the article Legal status of Taiwan, rather than this one.Ngchen 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reminder. When I raised this issue, I intended to change the text in the article's claim, transfer of sovereignty didn't take place, only the military occupation. Redcloud822 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I want to focus on the military occupation issue too, but it is intricately tied to everything else. Anyway Redcloud, I am glad that we have narrowed the debate down to the Instrument of Surrender. However, it is very frustrating to see you continously sidestepping my questions. You have asserted that the Instrument of Surrender allows for a transfer of sovereignty, whereas I have cited reliable sources right at the start which states that a Peace Treaty was needed to effect such a change. Unfortunately, so far you have essentially ignored them in favour of your own flawed logic.
An Instrument of Surrender is by nature provisional ("The Names and Scope of Treaties", Denys P. Myers, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 51, No. 3. (Jul., 1957), pp. 595). Japan stated that she will be willing to accept the Allied conditions in Potsdam in return for a cessation of hostilities. The Instrument, then, obliged Japan to carry out certain terms. ("United States Occupation Policies in Japan since Surrender", Hugh Borton, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 2. (Jun., 1947), pp. 256.)("Allied Council for Japan (in Notes and Comments)", Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, The Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 2. (Feb., 1951), pp. 174). Japan's failure to comply with these terms meant reverting to a state of war, untill a peace treaty can be signed that releases Japan from such obligations ("The Timing of Japan's Peace Treaty" Shintaro Ryu, Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 20, No. 16. (Sep. 26, 1951), pp. 165-168).
The bottom line: Japan agreed, in the Instrument, that it will give Taiwan to China, in the peace treaty ("The Chinese Recognition Problem", Quincy Wright, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 49, No. 3. (Jul., 1955), pp. 332). Because the Instrument, being provisional in nature and never ratified, cannot legally transfer land titles. As a matter of fact, Japan gave up sovereignty over Taiwan only with the signing of the Treaty of Peace with Japan.
And speaking of which, you have not answered my other question either. Why would the Treaty of Peace With Japan be needed if the Instrument of Surrender is sufficient legal grounds to transfer territorial title?--Rmdsc 03:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Very good we can have a rational discussion. You have agreed that the issues raised about the signing of Cairo and Postdam Declaration are irrelevant as long as the Japanese Instrument of Surrender(JIS) was signed by all parties. If you are willing to read JIS, you will see the return of Taiwan's sovereignty to China had been completed. In JIS, Japan vowed to accept and carry out Postdam Declaration and Cairo Declaration, which states "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa(Taiwan), and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." Note, it doesn't say Taiwan should be restored to ROC in the future. This means so as the JIS was carried out, the restoration of Taiwan's sovereignty was completed.
So the question becomes whether Japan had been forced to carry out JIS. If Japan still had Taiwan's sovereignty, that meant JIS was not carried out. We can check the record. Did Japan ever claimed it had sovereignty over Taiwan? Are there any evidence to support Japan rejected JIS? Any other country complained that Japan rejected JIS? The answer to all those question is NO. So it's safe to say JIS had been carried out. Since JIS had been carried out, Taiwan sovereignty was "restored" to China. Other peace treaties, Japan signed after JIS, have nothing to do with Taiwan's sovereignty, because Taiwan's sovereignty already belonged to China since 1945. The transaction had already accomplished. Can Mexico sign a treaty and give New Mexico to Panama? I respect your political beliefs, but please respect logic. Redcloud822 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You are not making your case rationally. The issue here is whether the Instrument of Surrender is a legal means of transfering land title, which it clearly isn't. I have cited numerous, authoritative sources to support my statements, but you failed to even respond to them. You'll forgive me when I say that, on the subject of International Law anyway, I give more weight to the opinions of:
1. a British Foreign Office minister
2. an Inidian Ambassador to the U.N.
3. a president of the Haverford College with a Ph.D in Japanese history
4. the leading founder of modern peace research, again with a Ph.D
5. a chariman of the American Society of International Law's State Department Publications Committee
6. a Professor of International Law at Cambridge University
than someone on the internet with obvious partisan feelings who argues with only a so-called logic that fails to impress.
An instrument of surrender cannot legally transfer sovereignty, as I have stated again and again and conclusively backed up with reliable sources. Otherwise, it would have been ratified, which it has never been. Or there would have been no need for a peace treaty, which was signed 6 years later. But throughout the entire length of our 'discussion', you have refused to respond to this, choosing instead to show your blatant disregard for the Laws of War and International Law in general. You asked me to respect logic. I will ask that you respect academics, the laws, and the fact that I have mde my case for you to respond to rather than ignore.
Furthermore, as I have said previously, and as you have once forced me to repeat yet again, in the Treaty of Peace with Japan, Japan officially renounced her sovereignty over Taiwan. By implication she continued to hold title to Taiwan until the Treaty was signed, something you have continously ignored in favour of fabricating the fantasy that an Instrument of Surrender transfered sovereignty. I would like to point out, once again, that you have not backed up that story in any meaningful sense.
By the way, political beliefs don't come into this. I am arguing for your acceptance of historical fact, hence my reliance on impartial sources with the exception of a HK scholar (Professor Hsu) who I accidentally included. I did also cite Dr Borton's works on the same point, though, so it still remains valid. You, on the other hand, are clearly basing your position on political grounds. All of your arguments make use of nothing more than flawed logics and ignoring my rebuttals. --Rmdsc 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, it's you who are irrational. Everything is in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender (JIS). As long as JIS was carried out, sovereignty of Taiwan was restored to ROC. What you are trying to tell me is that JIS didn't count. You can't just look at this binding legal document and tell me it didn't count. Doing so doesn't make any sense. JIS was signed by all parties, in which Japan vowed to carry out Postdam declaration, which further states Taiwan should be restored to ROC. JIS was carried out, Taiwan was restored to ROC. It's simple logic. You can make it as complicated as you want, and come out to say whatever you want to say. It's like you can apply high mathematics and all kinds fancy theorems to prove 1+1=3. I am not a mathematician, I can't argue all the advance mathematics with you, but I know you are wrong, because when I count with my fingers, 1+1= 2 not 3.
Other than obscure legal mambo jumbo, you don't have any hard evidence to support your position. Did Japan ever challenged ROC on Taiwan's sovereignty after 1945? Did any other non-China country ever claimed Taiwan's sovereignty after 1945? NO and NO. Does the world have consensus on China's sovereignty over Taiwan? Yes. So the above historical facts support ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan in addition to the legal foundations such JIS, Postdam declaration, Cairo Declaration, which also support ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan. What else you want? Which international law says JIS didn't return Taiwan's sovereignty to ROC? Only argument you have is SFPT, but did Japan ever challenged ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan after 1945? Never. That means Japan accepted ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan. So in 1950, by the time of signing SFPT, Japan didn't have Taiwan's sovereignty. So whatever Japan signed off was irrelevant. The sources you cite don't mean much, I can just easily cite source to prove Holocaust didn't exist or space alien has invaded planet earth.
Again, I have historical facts and legal documents to support my position, and my position is based on simple logic. What you have is bunch of legal mambo jumbo, that don't make any sense. Your argument is politically motivated. As I mentioned before, Truman rightly said, "If you can convince them, confuse them." It applies perfectly to you.Redcloud822 06:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If you don't understand something, that doesn't make it invalid. Take this analogy: even though most people don't understand the theory of relativity, as long as it has not been disproven we accept it as true. You are like an intermediate math student insisting that square root of negative four equals undefined, because you haven't been taught complex numbers yet. Just because you have no idea how international law works doesn't mean my argument is 'mambo jumbo', as you have so elegantly put it. Please, stop insulting my intelligence. You may not be able to understand scholarly works, but not everyone is at your level.
Your flawed logic is meaningless because its central premise is false. You assumed that an Instrument of Surrender can legally transfer sovereignty. That is not true, and I have proven it with the works of renowned scholars on international law. Unless and until you can prove otherwise, your 'simple logic' is false. Which part of this do you not understand? None of what you said is valid because you reasoned from a false assumption. Even then I have made an honest attempt to engage you on every point you have raised, and your only response is to dimiss everything I said as 'politically motivated' and 'mambo jumbo'. Is it too much to ask that you try to disprove my points instead of accusing me of trying to confuse you? Even though it is hardly my problem that you don't understand international law. --Rmdsc 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

HEY! This section above is just two people arguing, it is not discussing any proposed changes to the article. Please take political arguments elsewhere when they aren't clearly related to the Wikipedia article. k?thx!bye SchmuckyTheCat 02:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan – St. Lucia Relations

Thanks to That-Vela-Fella for the corrections earlier! According to new news reports though, the restoration of ties between Taiwan and St. Lucia have now been finalized, see: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/01/asia/AS-GEN-Taiwan-China-St.-Lucia.php http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/news/article_1298587.php/Taiwan_and_St_Lucia_sign_communique_on_resuming_ties Thus I have reverted the changes, as the qualifications and footnotes are no longer necessary. I have, however, changed the cite on the article to redirect it to the IHT article, due to its greater accuracy and relevance.Konekoniku 05:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] returned to the Republic of China (ROC}?

Since Taiwan had never previously belonged to ROC, why does it say "returned" under the background section? or am I wrong? Shuttlecockfc

What it probably means is that Taiwan used to believe to the Qing dynasty. As the ROC is the undisputed successor government of China at that time, Taiwan was returned to it. Ngchen 12:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That's obviously POV. We should reword that statement.--Jerry 12:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate as to why it's POV? At least de facto, there's no doubt that it was returned. Ngchen 14:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
same reason that alsace-lorraine was lost under the french napoleon III monarchy and then "returned" to the french third republic. Blueshirts 17:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In 1955, United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles confirmed that the basis for ROC's presence in Taiwan was that "in 1945, the [ROC] was entrusted with authority over [Taiwan]" and "General Chiang [Kai-shek] was merely asked to administer [Taiwan] for the Allied Powers pending a final decision as to their ownership."

In the words of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, "Chiang Kai-shek . . . took refuge upon Formosa, where he still remains [in 1954]" after he "was driven out of [mainland China] by a Communist revolution." Hmortar 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, 6 months to act on an obvious POV violation. Worse, the information wasn't even precise. Anyway, I've corrected it. Readin (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead links

Dead links are still valid sources as they can be accessed via internet archives and such like. Although sources should be replaced by others if possible, the text shouldn't just be removed. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Unless the archive link can be seen, the source is pretty much useless. It is only because of Wikipedia policy of "Good faith" that it should be kept. Anything else, it fails to support what is claimed.

[edit] Many feel????

Many feel Chinese dynasties administered the island long before this.

What is this sentence doing in the article? If a poll were cited, perhaps it would be interesting to know. But even then, why would many people's feelings about what happened, rather than what actually happened, be important enough to have such a prominent place in the article? If the sentence is going to be included, some information should be provided as to why people feel this way. And there should be information saying why it is only a "feeling", that experts aren't willing to back up with facts.

This should have a short shelf life. If no one is wiling to defend the sentence within a very short period of time it should be removed. Readin (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Since no one rose to defend the sentence I've deleted it. Readin (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cession, retrocession and self-determination of Taiwan

This section appears to be written from a pro-Chinese sovereignty POV. The entire first paragraph is devoted to the POV of the pro-Chinese sovereignty, simply stating the arguments as fact. The second paragraph begins to give the Pro-Taiwan POV, but rather than stating things as fact, each statement is annotated with words like "supporters of Taiwan independence argue" and "the independence advocates argue". Also, unlike the first paragraph where the Pro-Chinese sovereignty POV is given an undiluted airing, statements in the second paragarph that give the Taiwanese view are often immediately rejoined with an opposing view. Readin (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have basically axed the pro-reunification rebuttal paragraph in the section you mentioned. Can you please see if it is now neutral? If so, please remove the POV tags. Thanks.Ngchen (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You confused me when you said you axed the paragraph. Instead it looks like you took out the rebuttles within the paragraph and also fixed the annotations. Good job. Thank you. I removed the POV tag from the section. I'm not sure why a POV tag was also put on the whole article. I didn't put it there and have no objection to it being removed also. Readin (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the article POV tag. It was placed by a user after seeing your earlier objections.Ngchen (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] de jure and de facto

The section dealing with de jure and de facto has these lines:

it is regularly argued that Taiwan satisfies the requirements of statehood at international law as stated in the Montevideo Convention. At the same time, there is continued debate on whether UN membership or recognition as a state by the UN is a decisive feature of statehood (since it represents broad recognition by the international community); the debate arises because non-state entities can often satisfy the Montevideo Convention factors,

First, is there a reliable source for saying that "recognition as a state by the UN ... represents broad recognition by the international community". In this case non-recognition by the UN appears to represent only the views of the PRC and its ability to persuade others to do its bidding. Is there any evidence that absent PRC pressure other states would still refuse to recognize Taiwan or that the UN would refuse to recognize Taiwan?

Second, there seems to be a contradiction in saying that "requirements of statehood at international law as stated in the Montevideo Convention" and "non-state entities can often satisfy the Montevideo Convention factors". If a non-state entity satisfies the factors of statehood, doesn't that make it a state? I suppose it doesn't if you believe the "Montevideo Convention factors" are insufficient, but that would be POV.

Third, what non-state entities are being described?

Readin (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it amazing to threaten Taiwan with war - this means Taiwan is considered to be a sovereign state anyway. Simplicius (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of applications, votes on RoC membership

Can someone provide a list of RoC applications after 1971, what was happened to each of them, under what name it applied (RoC, RoC on Taiwan, RoC (Taiwan)), for what status (member, observer), what states were in favor and what were against (if there was a vote in SC or GA), sponsor states of the application (if such). 88.203.201.214 (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WBC-TVCM-ORIGINAL.JPG

Image:WBC-TVCM-ORIGINAL.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Map

There should be a map of the world showing Taiwan in black and countries recognizing the ROC in green.

There is a similar map for Kosovo. There is also one for SADR/Western Sahara but it isn't as good. ROC/Taiwan should have a similar map. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight under "Judicial" section?

Does anyone other than myself believe that the "Judicial" section gives the claims of the plantiffs undue weight? After all, to my knowledge almost no mainstream news sources have covered the movement, which is frankly borderline fringe. If the section does suffer from undue weight, then I propose trimming it down to the barest essentials in the spirit of conciseness.Ngchen (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move????

Anyone remember discussing this move?

The article is about Taiwan. It is about the ROC only to the extent that the ROC currently governs Taiwan. The PRC also claims Taiwan. Should the article be renamed to "Political status of the Republic of China, People's Republic of China, and Taiwan"?

This will be my first time moving a page. I hope I do it right. Readin (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)