I'm not sure where the notion that Taiwan has always been part of China comes from. Taiwan, in fact, had almost no Chinese inhabitants at all until the 17th century. Taiwan was originally settled by Austronesian peoples, and their descendants are today known as gaoshan. The first formal external government imposed on Taiwan was not even a Chinese one--it was Dutch. The Dutch ruled the island from 1624 to 1662. Further, Spain retained a small settlement at Keelung, known as Fort Santo Domingo, beginning in 1626 until they were driven out by the Dutch in 1642. During the period of Dutch rule, Chinese began to immigrate in modest numbers, often marrying locals.

In 1661, a Ming loyalist named Koxinga, or more commonly known to the Chinese as Zheng Chenggong, departed from the Fujian region of China with an armada. Nine months later, he succeeded in ousting the Dutch, and established his own government with which he hoped to be able to rally support against the Manchus who now ruled China (and had recently conquered Fujian). Following a naval defeat at the hands of Admiral Shi Lang in 1683, Koxinga's grandson submitted to Qing rule. It should be noted that at this time, there were only 7,000 Chinese on all of Taiwan.

The Qing dynasty placed little value on Taiwan, and it ruled it as a mere prefecture (it was divided into two prefectures in 1875). The Qing dynasty forbade emigration to Taiwan. Its rule consisted mostly of trying to make the locals act like Chinese and pay taxes, which was partially successful. Following embarrassing Japanese and French probes of the island, respectively in 1875 and 1887, the Qing made Taiwan a full province and attempted to develop its infrastructure, building a railroad between Keelung and Hsin Chu. Chinese were still barred from settling. Over the years, of course, numerous Chinese had settled, but almost all were young males who ultimately intermarried with the local population. On the eve of the Sino-Japanese war, 55% of the island was still administered by the gaoshang population and not subject to Qing control.

Mainland Chinese rule over Taiwan stretched from 1683 to 1895 (after China got its ass kicked by Japan), or 212 years. During this time, very few Chinese moved to Taiwan, and the Taiwanese did not adopt Chinese customs on a large-scale basis (aside from the paying of taxes, and only 45% of the island was subject to this at peak). From 1895 to 1945, Taiwan was under Japanese civilian rule, and it was an extremely efficient administration. Japan sought to modernize and educate Taiwan, and her efforts were largely successful. It is worth noting that many Taiwanese learned to speak and read Chinese for the first time under Japanese rule. By 1939, Taiwan's industrial output surpassed its agricultural output for the first time, making it officially an industrial nation.

After the defeat of Japan, the Republic of China (ROC) claimed sovereignty over Taiwan, primarily on the basis of the Cairo Conference of 1943, when the Allied Powers issued a declaration intending that Taiwan be handed to ROC following the surrender of Japan. According to both ROC and the People's Republic of China (PRC), this was given legal weight by Japan's instrument of surrender, though no such clause exists in that document. ROC established an extremely corrupt rule in October of 1945 after accepting the surrender of Japanese troops, which resulted in a massive rebellion in 1947, which was brutally put down by ROC troops. 30,000 Taiwanese were massacred, and indigenous Taiwanese still remember it as the 2-28 incindent (February 28 being the date the rebellion began). In 1949, defeated on the mainland, ROC set up an emergency provisional capital at Taipei, and brought two million refugees along. Most of the Han Chinese on the island on Taiwan are descendents of these refuguees.

PRC's claim to Taiwan exists on the basis that PRC considers itself the successor state to ROC, and therefore it has a right to Taiwan, which was (and is...) under ROC rule. PRC claims that a successor state has a right to territorial integrity, using the Treaty of Vienna Convention on Succession of States as legal weight. However, that treaty was never entered into force. It is also worth noting that Japan's instrument of surrender in 1945 was merely an armistice, and did not transfer title of Taiwan. Title was transferred in the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco to the allied powers, or more accurately, to the Taiwanese people in custody of the allied powers. While the legal status of Taiwan is highly convoluted--arguably the island is legally ruled jointly by the US and the UK--Taiwan is clearly not part of China. The easiest solution seems to be to recognize that Taiwan is quite clearly independent, seeing as how it has been under self-rule since December of 1949 (even if ROC still sees itself as the rightful government of China).

As to China's new anti-secession law, it should be noted that the fact that sovereignty over Taiwan never legally passed from Japan to any Chinese government, that China's new anti-secession law is fundamentally useless as a legal instrument (and it's pretty funny that the Communist Party of China officially supported Taiwanese independence until 1943). Taiwan does not need to secede, because it is not part of China, and has not legally been a part of China since 1895.

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

I agree with you that China has no right to Taiwan but the fact that the Nationalists fled to Taiwan and massacred Taiwanese people also disturbs me. It seems to be another case of indigenous culture vs foreign culture. The foreigners should be allowed to live their now but when they came they committed many crimes much like European colonialists in the new world. When will China give up its thirst for war? Their imperialism is just as disgusting as the USA's.

The article is not objective

The first Chinese settlements of Taiwan dated back in 600 AD and possibly earlier.
This resulted in assimilation and conquest of the aboriginal population who were possibly Polynesian in essence. As a result of the migration, current aboriginal population is less than 2 percent of Taiwan’s population. The aboriginals, the true natives of the island used to be referred to by their politically incorrect name Shandi. It means highlander or mountain people (most likely because they were driven there). The majority population of Taiwan were from Southern China. The people of Taiwan have distinguished themselves into 2 groups. The WaiSheng (roughly means outside the province) which refers to Chinese provincial dialects who came after the civil war in 1949. And BengSheng (originated in the province) which refers to the rest of the Chinese provincial dialects that migrated from the mainland before 1949.
http://www.roc-taiwan.org.uk/taiwan/5-g ... people.htm

http://www.taipei.org/teco/cicc/current ... aborig.htm

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/sectio ... istory.asp


Taiwan aboriginals still exist although they are only 2 percent of the Island’s population. They have tried seceding from Taiwan itself but Chinese secessionists would not allow Aboriginal secessionists to secede.

The Straits Times Interactive, June 16, 2004
Chen crushes "republic" of aborigines
by Lawrence Chung

TAIPEI - President Chen Shui-bian, widely believed to want independence for Taiwan, has, ironically, denied the same to a group who are the original Taiwanese - the aborigines.

His government, on learning that hundreds of them have formed their own 'Kaosha republic', ordered a crackdown, sending in 500 armed police to disperse them from a site they have claimed as the seat of their republic.

Kaosha is a term used to refer to the aboriginal people of Taiwan.

The police raided the 6ha site in southern Kaohsiung county early yesterday, ordering the inhabitants to evacuate before four bulldozers tore down the more than 270 illegal structures.

The aborigines turned emotional and blamed the President for their plight.

'Down with Chen Shui-bian the big liar,' some of them shouted.

The residents claimed they had been tricked by Chen aides, who had told them that if they supported his re-election, their 'republic' would be legalised and they could each get a small piece of land.

'A-Bian told us he would establish 'country within country' relations with the aborigines if we voted for him,' said Mr Tang Chao-cheng, a self-proclaimed 'Speaker' of the 'Taiwan People Parliament'.

'Now that he got his second term, he no longer cares whether we are alive or dead,' said Mr. Tang.

The angry residents tried to block the bulldozers and had to be forcibly removed from the scene.

'Give me back my home. We have no place to go,' cried an elderly woman.

In April last year, the aborigines started congregating on the farmland leased from the state-run Taiwan Sugar Corp.

They were led by Su Jung-tsung, a non-aborigine who nevertheless proclaimed himself president of the Kaosha republic, which had its own flag and anthem, and a temporary government and parliament.

He was arrested earlier this month after Taiwan Sugar sued him for breach of contract as the land had been leased for the purpose of planting vegetables and fruit trees.

Indigenous legislator Kao-Chin Su-mei said the aborigines had first been tricked by Su and then by certain aides of Mr Chen.

'A number of these people are underprivileged and do not have a steady job. Because they are poorly educated, they are easily cheated.'”

Sorry, the website seems to have expired.
But there is this story.
http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/2004/ ... 351073.htm


There were Dutch settlers hoping to do trade with the Ming in the 1620s claimed Taiwan. Chinese settlers that claimed dominance in the region fell under Dutch authority. Remnants of the Ming Dynasty retook the island from the Dutch in the1660s. The Ming General, like Chiang Kai Shek tried to stage a retaking of the mainland from the Island of Taiwan. But soon after, Ching China overthrew the Ming in Taiwan.

http://www.eslisland.com/intro/history.html

Ching China then fell into decline and Taiwan was ceded to Japan due to the Sino-Japanese War. The Treaty of Shimonoseki required that China hand over the island and its Chinese population to Japan in the late 1890s. Due to continuing Sino-Japanese war and continuing invasion of Chinese territory, the ROC argued that it had no reason to respect any agreement with Japan since Japan continued to act within a state of war with China.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0845361.html

After Japans defeat in the 2nd world war the Republic of China who succeeded the Ching government (by overthrowing it) reclaimed Taiwan. But after regaining jurisdiction in Taiwan for China, the ROC was overthrown on mainland China by the People’s Republic of China.

The US does not claim or has ever claimed sovereignty over Taiwan. Its position was that the SFPT gave the US temporary administration. The US argues it can not transfer sovereignty to the mainland since it never had it to begin with. The situation now is that the US makes agreements that Taiwan is a domestic affair for the Chinese but at the same time backpedals on such agreements in fear of losing Taiwan as a strategic investment.


“This interpretation of Taiwan's de jure status has gained some low level of acceptance in recent years. In a Rotary Club meeting in 2004, the former ROC President Lee Teng-hui, who is recognized as one of the pro-independence leader, publicly asserted that Taiwan is still a territory administrated by US military government and therefore is not likely to be accepted in U.N. without a determined status.[10] (http://www.ettoday.com/2004/10/08/10844-1696624.htm) Still, one should note that this is a position held by a small minority, and the United States government has not claimed sovereignty over Taiwan. Furthermore, if the United States had been merely given the "administration" of Taiwan temporarily following Japan's cession of it, then the United States would be unable to cede what it never possessed in a sovereign sense. One should also bear in mind: though the PRC stressed the sovereignty of Taiwan to be its domestic affair and the U.S. has "acknowledged" the PRC's position, the U.S. government made it clear that "the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan" in its Six Assurances offered to Taipei in 1982”.


http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... -of-Taiwan

speaking of which, don't u think it is high time the whites the blacks and everyone else except for the amerindians pack their bags and leave the americas?

Maybe the Normans/Anglo-Saxons should get the hell out of pictish land or and do not get me started on the Aryan domination of Dravidian Indian land.

Fastspawn, I think that posturing by various nations (by which I mean ethno-linguistic groups, not states) is absurd, and claims to ancient territory more so. My point in this is that China has zero legal claim to Taiwan, in light of the fact that successor states have no right to territorial integrity. The fact that China does not assert that it has a right to Mongolia or Vietnam is telling, as they were part of the Qing Empire (though Vietnam was lost under one of the "unequal" treaties). While the US has never claimed sovereignty over Taiwan, the US abrogated its responsibilities per the Treaty of San Francisco and has essentially left Taiwan in limbo. China has as much legal right to Taiwan as the US or even Japan. The most sensible solution is to allow Taiwan to decide her own fate, given the large amount of legal confusion.

“I'm not sure where the notion that Taiwan has always been part of China comes from”

You asserted you didn’t know where the notion that Taiwan has always been a part of China comes from. Well, one doesn’t have to assert ancient history, one could simply assert modern history. The line isnt continuous but the line is more dominant than what Japan and the US has to offer. China doesn’t assert authority over Mongolia or Vietnam, where China has by means of no duress accepted the sovereignty of these nations more than once in recent history. Legality or not, China is certainly more entitled to Taiwan than Japan or the US. Saying although I recognized your sovereignty despite your reliance but chose not to accept it as legally binding is not going to make the objective of reunification go away. Determining secession by what the people want in a particular region is not even a view the secessionists Chinese in Taiwan consistently hold. Otherwise there would be a Kaosha Republic for the aboriginals.

If you thought using ethnicity as the only determination of nationhood is absurd and as do I, what was the reasoning behind confusing the aboriginal population with the overwhelming Chinese population in Taiwan?

The treaty of San Francisco is not the correct document to refer to when it comes to Taiwan and China relations. Japan and China signed a separate peace. Essentially both are the same thing.

The part u would be referring to is that Japan renounces all claim to Formosa?
that would be article 2.
------------------------------------------------------
Article 2 (Treaty between Japan and China)

It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands.

Article 2 (San Francisco)

(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

(appended)
---------------------------------------------------

Now that leaves Formosa in limbo right? Since technically they never state that Taiwan now belongs to China. Notice however they do declare that Corea is an independant nation, but not formosa.

However for more damning legalities we refer to 2 previous documents.
1. The Cairo conference held between 2 allied greatpowers and Chinain 1943
2. The Instrument of Surrender of Japan in 1945 signed by Japan and most of the allies, including China.

In Cairo,

----------------------------------------
Cairo Conference 1943

November, 1943
Released December 1, 1943

The several military missions have agreed upon future military operations against Japan. The Three Great Allies expressed their resolve to bring unrelenting pressure against their brutal enemies by sea, land, and air. This pressure is already mounting.

The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion.

It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen form the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.

Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.

With these objects in view the three Allies, in harmony with those of the United Nations at war with Japan, will continue to persevere in the serious and prolonged operations necessary to procure the unconditional surrender of Japan.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/cairo.htm
---------------------------------------------------

The instrument of surrender states that Japan unconditionally accepts all conditions listed down in Potsdam, which proceeds from the 3 conferences held before it, Yalta, Tehran and finally Cairo.

Since we know Cairo Conference was never brought into disrepute, or changed we can reasonably assume, the allies on condition of victory returned FORMOSA to China. Legally formosa was Japan's territory in 1943 due to the 1895 signing of the Shimoseki Agreement (is that correct i forgot the name of that document). Since Japan unconditionally surrendered to the Allies, and the Allies had stated that on victory the territories that once belonged to China and were "stolen" by Japan including FORMOSA would be returned to China.

So legally China has every right to claim Taiwan as their own territory. On the fact that ROC was stated in name, this ROC was the name of China back then. They changed the name to PRC in 1949. KMT fled to Taiwan and renamed Taiwan to ROC. Its the same as if i call my home ROC, but clearly i am not the ROC referred to in the document.

NOW ethnically, Taiwan might not have been originally Han Chinese, but technically so isn't Yunnan or the southern provinces but all are recognized as Chinese provinces. So why the disparities?

The reason i pointed out the ethno-linguistic argument in my first reply(although linguistic each of china's dialect is varied enough to be considered a language of its own) was the tone of the first post was concerning ethnicity. LordofTheNippleRings had posted a very good article on how the aborigines are being actually treated by the "NATIVE" TAIWANESE who are actually Han Chinese.

SO legally, I point out China has every right to claim Taiwan due to the 2 documents, and ethnically i point out that it makes no sense whatsoever to let a minority aboriginal population be the judge of whether their nation is independant especially when they are maltreated by the "native taiwanese".

at this time, there were only 7,000 Chinese on all of Taiwan.

then can you tell me now how many Chinese there?

note that the america is not white man's america, the original resident is indian, why the president of USA is not indian? whether Taiwan is a part of China or not, only weapon can tell you.

Taiwan is seen to be a part of China. Chinese, wherever they are, be it Singapore, Hong Kong or America, see Taiwan as a part of "China". Kind of like how Austria and the Sudetenland were seen as part of "Germany".

The first article is right though. Mainland China was not involved in Taiwan until the end of the Ming Dynasty and the beginning of the Qing dynasty. That is when mainland Chinese begin to settle in the coastal plains of Taiwan. Beijing at this time though, wasn't really interested in Taiwan and saw it as a backwater haven for pirates.

By the way, the best way to see this problem is not look back at history.
It is all to do with power now.

Guess what? China comes from the word Qin which is a dynasty. Qin Country conquered many parts in China and therefore people classified as the first China unification. If China is the Qin Country back then, China should be one of China's province now.

If a country conquered a piece of land which itself is not known as a country to other countries (or part of other countries), that piece of land is hers.

China isn't 100% Chinese, there is only 90% which you will see and call them Chinese, there are machus, xinjiang, tibetans, and even Gaoshan from Taiwan.

I support self-determination whenever it is practical. The presence of an emerging superpower certainly makes things much more complicated however. I'm not sure self-determination is really necessary when global international security is so clearly at stake.

Taiwan is part of China, whether PRC or ROC.
history-illiterates should take care what you say

"at this time, there were only 7,000 Chinese on all of Taiwan."

ignorant.

as long as there is not another war

But what will happen when Taiwan declares Indipendnance? Or China decides it want's Taiwan?

taiwan will be part of china when china is democratized

Could people stop adding one liners to this thread? It was basically dead before and now it is being kept alive by random people making unsupported assertions.

Make a real contribution or go home.

I suport the one china policy.
there is no seat for taiwan in diplomatics way.

Was that one China Taiwan then?


Not a lot of space for Uzbekistan either... will China try to absorb them? Palau? Do the Taiwanese (or anyone else for that matter) get to have a say in this matter, or will China just be deciding who gets to have their own country from now on?

For future reference: A one line post with a random 'enter' in it is still a one line post