If china attacks Taiwan, what do you think America will do ?

Something we agree on, HayesStreet.

Clinton is lambasted for everything imaginable by the Republican side and by many Democrats, and he deserved much of it for being such an a** in his personal life, but he responded to the threats against Taiwan by the Chinese and he responded to the threat of North Korea to build nukes.

Bush choose to get deep into Iraq when he could have put that off and focused first on North Korea. I think it was a mistake we are paying for now. The mad NK governing clique think we are bogged down in Iraq and now is the time to come out publically as a nuclear power. I believe they would have been very hesitant to do so if we had/were responding forcefully to N. Korea.

Sabre rattling can be a useful tool. It's not taken as seriously if you left it stuck in the ground somewhere else.

 

Do we disagree often? I'll have to make a note of that . And how come no one has dispelled my fear that MSG is a PRC conspiracy to destroy the west?

 

Sometimes.

Sometimes it's just "maybe... maybe no".

 

You must've missed Chiang's reign of terror on Taiwan. Chiang was more concerned with fighting off the Communist than the Japanese. He lost the civil war because of the popular uprising of the peasants AGAINST HIS RULE. The haves loved him, the have nots hated his ass. He's our man by default because he was against the Communist and not because he was a great champion of self determination. Taiwan has only been a democracy for the last decade. Chiang and his iron fist was 50 years ago. And is it okay to support him because he's the lesser of two dictators?

(Can disliking both Bush and Clinton be mutually exclusive?)

 

Arguing the moral choice of Chang Kai Shek and Mao now is a moot point. The fact is Taiwan is a democracy now and China isn't.

Panda you said you support China because your Chinese and I support the US because I'm American. Sorry but that is wrong, I have spoken against the US when I think it's wrongheaded and I'm sure I will again in the future. But, I will always support the side of democracy and personal freedom. What you don't seem to understand is that once people havefreedom they won't ever willingly give it up. Freedom my friend, is worth fighting for and dying for. Can you say that restoring autocratic rule to all the former territories of greater china is worth your life?

You young Chinese need to dedicate your lives to bringing freedom to China before dying to glorify the misguided egos of some bearded old men.

 

Nothing compared to Mao. Simply no comparison.

True, but not sure how this affects this discussion.

Yes, sometimes life forces a choice between the lesser of two evils. Chiang was the right choice then, Taiwan is the right choice now. That Taiwan is a democracy and the PRC is not would seem to validate the choice. Allying ourselves with the democracy instead of the totalitarian seems to be the correct choice.

Nope, but you emphasize current rhetoric as somehow startling, and so I pointed out that this type of policy about Taiwan is not new, rather its consistent with past actions not just with the Bush Administration.

 

once again, very well said, Panda. appreciate your effort. a lot of us mainland Chinese on this board share the same views but dont have sufficient English to express them. you're not alone here.

 

well, I think we should make final decision to support DPRK.
However bad they are, they havn't aimed at us till now.

 

Panda , let's just say for a minute that your position on Taiwan was different from your ruling party, how could you express your opinion where you live? Could you vote for a candidate that expressed a dissenting view? Could protest on the streets?
Could you start a webpage with information supporting your view?

That is what you spend your time on, that should be infinitely more important for the Chinese populace than Taiwan.

 

There seems to be much misunderstanding and confusion regarding China's "right" to Taiwan so I think understanding the basis of China's (PRC's) claim is important, regardless of whether you think Taiwan "should be" a part of China or not.

China (PRC) does not claim Taiwan based on vague "historic rights" or the "cultural affinity" of the Taiwanese. It is based on pure, hard, legal grounds which are indisputable.

In 1895, China (Qing) ceded Taiwan to Japan and agreed to this in writing in the Treaty of Shiminoseki and thus "legally" lost Taiwan "permanently".

However, Japan lost WWII and signed and agreed to the instrument of surrender and one of these conditions was to abide by the Cairo Declarations which stated that Taiwan should be restored to China (and not made its own independent nation, rightly or wrongly).

Once Japan signed the surrender document, from that point on, Taiwan was legally part of China again. While some may disagree with the Cairo Declarations and can make a good case that Taiwan should have been allowed to be independent, this didn't happen.

It is on this basis that Chiang Kaishek moved to establish a provincial govt in Taiwan in 1945 after the surrender of Japan and later withdrew there in 1949 when he lost the Civil War on the mainland. No later treaties or international agreements have since been signed to alter the status of Taiwan that was last established by the instrument of surrender of Japan.

This is what makes analogies to other situations that other poster have brought up faulty because in these other cases, papers were signed renouncing forever claims of sovereignty to lands formerly under its control. For example:

1. US-Britain:
Britain signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783 recognizing US independence and renounced claims on US land forever.

2. Cuba-US
After a few year's of US occupation of Cuba, The US and Cuba signed the "Platt Amendment" treaty in 1902 whereby the US recongized Cuban independence.

3. Vietnam-France
After WWII, France did claim sovereignty over Vietnam but after its defeat at the Battle of Dienbienphu, France acceded to the Geneva Accords in 1954 whereby the French govt recognized Vietnam, Cambodian and Laotian independence.

4. Iraq-Turkey
Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, signed the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 which established Turkey's borders and in which Turkey formally renounced former parts of the Ottoman Empire such as Iraq.

From a "moral" standpoint, China as an authoritarian govt has weak claim to Taiwan which has governed itself as a de-facto independent state for over 50 years. However from a purely legal point of view, Taiwan is still legally a part of China as no one has signed any legal international documents changing this status.

 

A nice recitation of history, but when it comes to who owns a country, possession and power define all borders. Law emanates from he who rules, therefore law IS he who rules, not he who claims a right to rule.


Your recitation proves what lawyers call a colorable claim to title. China has a claim to title by virtue of the resolution of WWII. But Taiwan was not a signatory to that agreement. Of course, the allies had promised Taiwan independence, so that is legal right, too. Of course, that was not honored, but Taiwan got its independence anyway.


BTW, your US history needs an addendum. There was that unpleasantness with the Brits called the War of 1812, resolved by the Treaty of Ghent. They may have forever abandoned their claims in 1783, but they renewed them 3 decades later.

 

Taiwan was retroceded to the REPUBLIC OF CHINA, not the Communists. By electing to declare the PRC a new state in 1949 (after all the treaties you mentioned) while not in control of Taiwan, Mao Zedong effectively gave up all rights to Taiwan for all of you.

Taiwan's sovereignty remains to be determined by the REPUBLIC OF CHINA, which has maintained continuous de facto jurisdiction over Taiwan from the time of retrocession (1945-present). As of the present day, since the ROC is a democracy, and only Taiwanese citizens have voting rights in the said REPUBLIC OF CHINA, it is also a logical conclusion that the REPUBLIC OF CHINA IS TAIWAN. Furthermore, by renouncing its jurisdiction over the mainland (which it did years ago), the REPUBLIC OF CHINA obviously does NOT include mainland Chinese (we may claim your lands, but you guys aren't our citizens, LOL!)...

And so unfortunately it is a FACT that only Taiwanese have legal rights to decide the future of the Republic of China and hence Taiwan. Only the Taiwanese people have "ownership" of Taiwan.

There is a seminal work by Peng Ming-min discussing exactly this: the status of Taiwan in international law. I suggest you find a copy of it and check it out. He's far more eloquent than I, and he discusses far more than treaties and declarations, and goes into universally affirmed principles such as self-determination as well.

But on the whole, I'm in agreement Friendly Fan. International law is a total joke, serving only the great powers' interests, and brushed off by even insignificant powers by in conflict with national interests. Power is the only language that works. And as of now, mainland China hasn't got what it takes...

I believe the moral basis for any claim should outweigh the legal basis, because in the end laws are made to serve people, not to enslave them.

China's claim to Taiwan therefore, is not only weak morally, but it doesn't hold much legal weight either.

 

On a side note, 150,000 people took to the streets of Taipei today (9/6) to demand rectifying the name of our country from the "Republic of China" to simply "Taiwan", led by none other than Mr. Democracy himself, our former president Lee Teng-Hui.

I swear, that man is a god walking amongst men. In terms of rhetorical power, clarity of thought, moral appeal, and inspirational charisma, he's up there with Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

I'd follow him to the ends of the earth and die for him if he so asked. And I'm just your regular Taiwanese-American joe living down the street... Imagine his power over the actual Taiwanese people living there.

 

Once people have tasted freedom, they won't go back to totalitarianism without a fight. If the PRC thinks they are having trouble with Hong Kong how do you think they would do with Taiwan?


Sept. 5, 2003, 7:28PM


Hong Kong subversion bill axed
Protests prompt leader to withdraw contentious control measure
Associated Press

HONG KONG -- In an embarrassing retreat, Hong Kong's leader scrapped an anti-subversion bill Friday that had drawn huge protests and raised fears China was trying to curb freedoms in the former British colony.

Tung Chee-hwa, who was chosen by Beijing to run Hong Kong, said he will withdraw the bill from parliamentary consideration because of residents' concerns. He also pledged to focus more on reviving the struggling economy.

Under the terms of its handover to China, Hong Kong is to enjoy Western-style freedoms, and many residents worried the bill would limit those rights. The bill had proposed giving police more powers and imposing life in prison for some offenses, stirring fears that it could lead to mainland China-style controls on journalists, the Falun Gong spiritual group and others.

Tung reiterated that national security laws are constitutionally required in Hong Kong, which reverted to Chinese rule in 1997. He refused to say when new legislation would be introduced, but promised to do so only with popular backing.

Critics welcomed Tung's reversal but suggested it was a purely political decision, not a change of heart.

Tung doesn't want to cost his allies votes in next year's legislative elections, said Li Pang-kwong, a political scientist at Lingnan University.

Residents also had mixed reviews. "He's just saving himself. It doesn't mean he's competent," said Patrick Yu, a banker.

The move marked the end of a chapter in the Hong Kong government's biggest political crisis under Chinese rule, which saw the resignations of the financial and security ministers, as well as calls for Tung to step down. After 500,000 people marched in protest of the bill July 1, legislative support quickly dwindled.

 

no need waste time here. no one want a
strong china whether she is democratic or not. olygarchy or poverty is just a good excuse they found to laugh at china. we must go our way just like long before whether they like or not. If there is an OBSTACLE, that is an obstacle we must PASS BY. The world is never a trustable world, it's still FOREST. If we're strong enough we could also paint a good picture for the world and everyone else would enjoy it, maybe democracy, or maybe another toy.

 

It's not us, but everyone else, who needs to change.
this is the attitude that hobbles China worse than any other

As a country, it has the worse case of inferiority complex in modern history. Nobody loves me, everybody hates me, I'm gonna go eat worms. This is not one of the qualities which endears China to the rest of the world.

It's a totalitarian state. You don't even bother trying to defend the horrific excesses of the government. I'll put it simply: China can barely govern itself, and until it can show the ability to lead China, it's got no business having designs on Taiwan.

When China stops acting like a country that is 2000 years old and starts acting like a country that just started walking, it will improve. As long as it clings longingly to the days when China was the center of the universe, China will continue to brood unhappily. Imagine a 95 year old man, still wanting the world to fit the one he remembers from 75 years ago. That is China. An old man who still gets mad because no one remembers who he used to be.

Well, here we are in 2003, and China has 1.3 billion people who have less personal freedom or wealth than most in the world. From how many children to who you can worship, you live in a totalitarian state. The justice system is still either glorified vigilantism or miltary tribunal, and addressing any major international business problem is a crap shoot. Fix all that, then worry about Taiwan in 30 years.

US interests never have a big deal in China that doesn't get re-traded many times. No sooner is there an agreement, than someone in the delicate chain of dealings decides to try to extort a little more. They don't even do that in Russia or Romania.

To our fellow Rockets fans who are in China: I know this must be harsh criticism, but as Americans, we dish it and we hear it about ourselves all the time. There's an old saying that

Your best friend is the one who will tell you that you've got bad breath.

Believe it or not, we are not trying to be your enemy in this. Someone asked what the US would do, what the US thought, and this discussion evolved.

 

Taiwanese are Chinese in heritage and language.
One day harmony will prevail and the common bonds will overcome the political asperations of either location.

 

this is just a discussion. it's common people's opinions differ. no hard feelings. and at the end of day, what we think probably doesn't matter anyway. I'm confident that Taiwan won't be an independent country in any forseeable future. i don't care about if Taiwan "should" be independent, moral basis, legal basis and so forth. the discussion is tiresome and usually wont reach a conclusion. the reality is Taiwan doesn't have what it takes to declare its independence. thats all I care now.

 

I have as little respect in talking about China issues with people who aquire their knowledge about CHina from the likes of Red Latern, as I have for people who talk America from the knowledge based on Hollywood Movie.

peace

 

And politically naiive, to say the least.