I am indifferent to what they 'want'.
The TRUTH is that the land belongs to the nation of China.
I want a Ferrari...I can go get in one, drive off, and call it mine but the judge will not care, as he shouldn't.
A thief by any other name.
The truth is:
You do not know the history of the Island of Taiwan
Japan never admitted that “Taiwan was returned to China.”
'Taiwan was already ceded to Japan before the end of the Qing dynasty. From China’s perspective, it was an “unequal treaty.” However, in terms of international law, it was a legal transfer of territory. At the same time, recognizing the legality of territorial transfer doesn’t erase the possibility of returning such territory legally again.
In the case of Hong Kong, for example, Kowloon and Hong Kong island were both ceded to Britain in perpetuity. Yet the Sino-British Joint Declaration stated that the PRC would legally repossess the entire Hong Kong.
After the Second World War, Taiwan should have been returned to the ROC as well. Practically speaking, the ROC has indeed reclaimed Taiwan. But in terms of international law, whether Taiwan has been returned remains in an “incomplete” status.
Three documents — the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender — have determined that Taiwan must be returned to China after WWII. However, each of these documents standing alone is insufficient to prove that Taiwan must be returned. We have to examine all three together to clarify the logic.
The Cairo Declaration was the only document that mentioned: “all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.” But it was not signed by Japan — it was more like a statement of political will. The 1945 Potsdam Declaration was signed between the Allies, and it stated that Japan must accept the Cairo Declaration, but again it was not a treaty signed off by Japan.
The 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender was signed between Japan’s representatives and the Allies, officially the end of the war. Ironically, this treaty did not mention the Cairo Declaration or Taiwan. It had only stated Japan’s acceptance of the conditions outlined in the Potsdam Declaration, indirectly linking it to the initial Cairo Declaration.
Despite all the twists and turns, Taiwan was “supposed” to be returned to the ROC.
Legally speaking, however, the above-mentioned documents were simply “letters of intent.” Although they have a certain extent of legal authority, only an official peace treaty signed by Japan can resolve Taiwan’s status legally. Unfortunately, the Cold War quickly took place and the peace treaty with Japan was not finalized until 1951, yet the KMT had lost the civil war and retreated to Taiwan in 1949. There was no consensus on which government represented “China,” therefore neither the PRC nor the ROC attended the conference.
In the end, Japan only declared to “surrender” Taiwan in the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, rather than “returning” Taiwan. Next, under the U.S. permission, Japan decided to choose the KMT-ruled ROC as “the sole legal government of China” and signed the Treaty of Taipei with the ROC government. In Article 2 of the Treaty of Taipei, both parties agreed that “Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands,” according to the San Francisco Treaty.
Both the PRC and ROC have emphasized that the Treaty of Taipei meant Taiwan has been returned to China. The logic was, in terms of international law, Taiwan was only relevant to China-Japan relations without a third party claiming sovereignty over Taiwan — so it was redundant to reiterate the returned party in the treaty. But it leaves a loophole: Will Taiwan still have the right to self-determination when Japan had only surrendered the territory? Within the U.N. list of "non-self-governing territories," which are subject to the decolonization process, Taiwan was not included. In other words, Taiwan was already decolonized, but its status was still incomplete.
Until 1972, Japan signed the Japan-China Joint Communiqué with Beijing to establish their diplomatic relations. In this agreement, the Japanese government “fully understood and respected” the position of the PRC that Taiwan was an inalienable territory of the PRC, but note that Japan never used the term “recognize” or even “acknowledge.”
At the same time, Japan insisted on complying with the Potsdam Declaration, which implied that Japan acknowledged Taiwan was already returned to the ROC. Also, the Japanese government refused to call the Treaty of Taipei illegal or invalid after it was abrogated and declined to “surrender” Taiwan again. The Japanese argued that Japan had already “surrendered” Taiwan once in the 1950s, therefore it cannot be done again. But these arguments did not help to clarify Taiwan’s international legal status.'
我們是一群對於現今媒體不滿又想要做出一些改變的人。有一直在媒體產業的編輯，有多年在海外各地工作的專業經理人，還有對於網路技術有熱情的開發者，以及一群對於我們這個夢想有興趣，願意一起幫忙的實習生、朋友以及許多外稿作者。 我們夢想中的媒體是除了陳述事實之外，還能夠提供多元、不同方向的觀點，並為智慧手機、平板、電腦等不同平台提供各自適合閱讀內容。也讓社交網路世代的使用者，能夠更輕鬆的分享、討論和參與他們有興趣的議題。
international.thenewslens.com
Taiwan is the Real China
The Republic of China was never conquered by the communists....they fled to the Island of Formosa.
The mainland is occupied by communist usurpers hence their obsession with Taiwan....they know to be legal they must conquer Taiwan where the real legal government of China resides.
I mentioned earlier that I find Taipei to be a great deal more Chinese than anywhere I’ve visited in mainland China, which is to say that Taipei corresponds more closely with the images I had of China before I ever traveled there, from its architecture, to it culture, to its cuisine.
This makes sense, of course, given Chiang Kai-Shek’s goal of Chinese national restoration in Taiwan following the exile of the Republic of China there, to say nothing of Mao’s goal of destroying most things traditionally Chinese during the Cultural Revolution in the
People’s Republic of China.
