The Chinese always say the future of Taiwan is up to the Chinese, but shouldn't be only up to the Taiwanese?

Question

The comparison of the U.S. and Hawaii is not equivalent and I'm getting tired of that analogy. The Government, constitution, monetary system and military in Taiwan are completely separate from China. They don't even use the same writing system anymore. People in Hawaii actually agreed to become a state at one time in history, and note the U.S. has let many territories (i.e. the Philipines) go there separate ways through history.
Never-the-less, in Taiwan and China we are talking about two countries that are at the very least de facto separate, especially in function.

Answer 1

Yes it should be up to the Taiwanese, just as the Palestinians are entitled to their own state.

Answer 2

It's not quite as simple as that between China and Taiwan. The history between the two is sort of like taking Hawaii and the U.S......Hawaii suddenly revolts and wants to be off on their own but the U.S. wants to envoke sovereignty on the island because of past agreements and the way 'things were'. I'm sorry that I cannot explain it in proper terms, but Taiwan is technically still too much a part of mainland China to have enough independance to thumb their nose at the mainland. The U.S. acknowledes the historical linking of the two and though we will on the one hand defend Taiwan against invasion, our leaders also acknowledge some validity to China's claims. And there are many in Taiwan that don't want to break away entirely from China. There's just plain alot of political baggage between the two.

Answer 3

In order to understand this you have to go back to the condition of the serfs under feudalism. The serfs had "usage rights" which in some later periods included the rights to buy and sell the land. However, all land was owned by various landowners - nobility, Church and monarchs.

What this has evolved into today is that the people have usage rights, including the right to buy and sell land, but the "sovereignty" or "dominion" over the land is held by a government.

So, for the lack of a better terminology, we can say that the people have "plenum utile" or usage rights, and the government has "plenum dominium" or dominion over all the land, which of course includes the territorial title.

This formulation gives us a good insight into the concept of "territorial cession." In a territorial cession, the territorial title is transferred from one country to another, but the relationships between the people in the country do not (of necessity) change, rather those relationships continue as before. Hence, when Denmark sold the Virgin Islands to the USA in 1917, there was a change in sovereignty, but the relationships between the people and their usage rights of their land continued as before.

So, looking at the situation of Taiwan, it was ceded to Japan in 1895. Did the people of Taiwan actually have any say in that?? No, they didn't. That is because the territorial title is held by a government, it is not held by the people in any collective fashion. Up to 1895, the world community agreed that China held the territorial title to Taiwan. In 1895, China ceded the territorial title of Taiwan to Japan.

What was the reason that China ceded Taiwan? It was because of "conquest." China was conquered by Japan. Japan wanted war reparations, and initially demanded the Liaotung Peninsula, but the Chinese refused to cede that. Then China and Japan settled on Taiwan. So Taiwan was ceded to Japan. That cession was due to conquest.

In WWII, all military attacks against the four main islands of Japan and against Japanese Taiwan were conducted by US military forces. The United States won the war and acquired Japan and Taiwan under the principle of conquest. The disposition of territories acquired under the principle of conquest must be conducted according to the laws of war. Simply put, that will be "military occupation" followed by a peace treaty. You will need a peace treaty when territorial cessions are involved.

But, both before and during the military occupation of Japan, there was never any talk about Japan becoming a territorial cession. In the peace treaty of April 28, 1952, Japan was restored to full sovereignty.

However, in the same peace treaty, Japan renounced the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan. That territorial sovereignty was not awarded to the Republic of China or to any other country. So where is that territorial sovereignty (i.e. "territorial title")? Obviously, the United States has it.

Article 4b of the peace treaty says that the United States Military Government (USMG) has final disposition rights over the "property" of Japan and Japanese nationals. In the English language, "property" includes the concept of "title."

Moreover, article 23 of the treaty designates the USA as the "principal occupying power."

In the Shanghai Communique of 1972, the US Commander in Chief has put "Taiwan" on a flight path for future unification with the PRC. This is his planned (future) final disposition of the occupied territory of Taiwan. Did the people of Taiwan actually have any say in that?? No, they didn't. That is because the territorial title is held by a government, it is not held by the people in any collective fashion.

So, in answer to your question, at the present time in Taiwan, the local people only have "usage rights" of the land, but they don't have sovereignty, nor does the Republic of China have the sovereignty. So, in fact the future of Taiwan is up to the US Commander in Chief, because he is the head of USMG.

If the Taiwanese don't like this arrangement, they should demand their constitutional rights under the US Constitution.

For the Taiwanese people to continue to argue that they are a sovereign nation, qualified to join the United Nations, qualified to have full diplomatic relations with the USA and other major world nations, etc. is USELESS, because the simple existence of the Shanghai Communique with those few clauses regarding the intended (future) final disposition of Taiwan territory is proof enough that Taiwan's territorial title is currently being held by the military arm of the US government, which is USMG.

Answer 4

YES, communist red china has no claim to Taiwan.... the commies just want to steal Taiwans economic output and expand RED china's filthy communist empire. Their love of money may be the downfall of that red government.... the world can hope.

Answer 5

Mmm, because China actually do affect them, because of their economy ..

My cousins' girlfriends' uncle is the President of Tawain,
it's true.

^^