I’ve just glanced at the articles, and seen a lot of stuff that I’ve never read about before. I’ll have to read them.
I’ve always read about Henry Lee’s investigation, but most of the stuff I’ve read about it stops after that, case-closed, all naysayers are bitter Blue-camp cry-babies.
Thanks for the links.
Sure. I’ll bet you can find more info than I can. 
But read carefully and *literally * Henry Lee’s findings. And what he *doesn’t * say. And ask yourself if Henry makes a definative statement of fact one way or the other. the whole thing reeks badly regardless of what side of the Straits you happen to live on.
The real question is: Does Taiwan have a legitimate claim of self rule.
Real estate, by itself, is not a country. The people of Taiwan established themselves as a unique political force in every respect. All the structure required to sustain a separate identity is in place. There is a history of separation.
While Chinese history and culture are one of the oldest on the planet they are political newbies. Taiwan could make the same claim against the mainland.
So the answer to the original question is no. China’s claim over Taiwan is superceded by Taiwan’s claim of self-rule. And by Taiwan’s claim I mean the people of Taiwan.
restate the question: does Taiwan have de facto suzeranity? yes or no
does taiwan have de facto suzeranity? yes or no
can taiwan make a strong case to world governing bodies for de jeure suzeranity?
Would the OP care to define “legitimate” for us?
Maybe, that’s what I’m trying to figure out. What makes China’s claims over Taiwan legitimate for all those who oppose the island’s independence?
I think yes and yes.
You mean sovereignty? The (outdated?) concept of suzerainty, similar to a vassal state of a more powerful neighbor, may be more along the lines of what Beijing wants. But why would Taiwan ever petition world governing bodies for vassal status?
BTW, to follow up on my own post and address the OP, one interpretation might be that China indeed would have an irrefutable claim in the eighteenth century or thereabouts. But under the modern system of diplomacy, not so much. The trouble might arise over whether China is capable of recognizing that the 18th-19th century model of international relations, under which it was so victimized, no longer exists. Kind of like a victim of childhood abuse obsessing over perpetrators that are long gone–and even growing up to an abuser herself in response to those long-ago outrages.
I’d have to change my answers then. I had never heard the term suzerainty, and upon searching had decided it was a highfalutin word for sovereignty.
You may be right about the suzeranity definition. Often used in the tibet debate but looks like the wrong term for Taiwan.
Restate the question as there was a typo in the original.
Koxinga, ROC at least previously, used the exact same historical claims as China does to both all of China, Mongolia, the Spratley Paracel Islands , etc. Not sure if this stance has changed in the past 10 years. Pretty sure Taiwan has not given up claims to the Spratley and Paracel Islands
china, as you are aware, will take any historic claim back to the Yuan (Mongolian) Dynasty as proof. IMHO it’s pretty understandable that China would not accept the “modern” claims/definitions because it was an occupied and very weak State during the great Western colonization era. Heck parts of China were a colony of the English, French, Japanese, Germans, etc. The noteable exception was the US, which to be fair was not really able to project colonial power at that time. China was basically in anarchy occupied by a foreign power (the Manchus) and in a state of more or less continuous warfare from pretty much the mid 1800’s until 1949.
By requiring us to “restate the question”, you’re actually asking an entirely different question and attempting to shift the burden of proof: instead of discussing whether China has a legitimate claim to a piece of territory under international law, you want us to discuss whether the government of Taiwan (that happens to be sitting on that territory now) has the right and capability to argue for its continued existence.
But the question of China’s legimate claim over Taiwan would remain a question whether the island were occupied by the Republic of China, a Republic of Taiwan, or for that matter Imperial Japan or the United States. What business does China have in claiming the island in the first place?
So for my part, I will respectfully ignore your two questions as irrelevant.
Overly sensitive? Nothing of the kind, just trying to see what posters’ stances are without being leading. So, I won’t be leading.
Taiwan by just about anyone’s opinion has exhibited de facto independance since 1949. agree?
de jeure is a lot tougher. And a lot more difficult to prove since both the ROC and PRC officially still claim the same territory, regardless it those claims are historically accepted by modern Western definitions. And what time frame are you using for de jeure? The last decade, the last 5 decades the last 9 decades? I think that would make a material difference. It doesn’t matter what I think, but explain how China looks at this.
Does taiwan still claim the spratleys and the parcel islands? I can’t find any cite that says these are no longer claimed. The claims to these two islands IIRC are based on the same historic claims that China uses.
Again, Taiwan still officially claims China and Mongolia even if no one believes that fiction any longer. One of the biggest claims China has to Taiwan, is that both China and Taiwan have the same claims. Or at least they did up until 10 years ago.
Is de jeure based on the number of countries that recognizes a government? The number of international bodies that recognize an independant country? What countries one can travel without requiring a visa? Etc.
Huh?
shrug
I dunno, and as I said, I think all such arcanities are irrelevant to the OP. Let’s just ignore that entity calling itself the “Republic of China” for now, can we? It’s not germane to the OP’s very simple question: on what basis does the government of China–any purported government of China, for that matter–claim that piece of territory called “Taiwan”?
The island has been Chinese territory since 1683. No non-Chinese state has made any claim on since that time, except for Japan, briefly during WWII, and Japan no longer claims it.
Almost all its inhabitants are ethnically Chinese; only 2% are non-Chinese aborigines.
Erm, try 50 years . After centuries as a fringe outpost of the Manchu empire, the Qing organized Taiwan as a province in 1885 and then signed it away to Japan “in perpetuity” ten years later.
I would be very, very interested to see where modern international law recognizes the ethnicity of a territory’s inhabitants as the basis for an outside state’s claims of sovereignty. Aside perhaps from the Sudetenland, could you kindly provide a cite?
The “Republic of Formosa” is a red herring. It would be similar to having the current government of the United States retreat in a civil war to California, then claim legitimacy as a separate government because of the existence of the Bear Flag Republic. Just as the Confederate States of America were never a legitimate country, as they were never recognized as such by the international community, so, too, was the “Republic of Formosa” nothing in the way of a legitimate nation.
Thus, the continuity of legal control of the island of Taiwan is: 1683 - 1887, Qing Dynasty China (attached as prefecture to Fujian Province); 1887 - 1895, Qing Dynasty China, full province; 1895 - 1945, Empire of Japan; 1945 - present, who knows? The Japanese surrendered to the Republic of China. The forces of the Republic of China occupied Taiwan. So far as I know, no formal treaty ending the war between “China” and Japan ever was signed which ceded Taiwan back to any entity. China was in the middle of a civil war in 1945, and that war ended with the almost complete victory of the Communist forces; only Taiwan was never captured. Legal arguments appear to exist for any of a number of possibilities.
From a de facto standpoint, Taiwan is its own nation, now. I suspect that it won’t be much longer before the PRC manages to negotiate some compensation from the rest of the world in order to relinquish its claims to the island, allowing the de jure establishment of the Repulic of Taiwan. But the so-called Republic of Formosa has nothing to do with it, legally.
I’m not sure if the Chinese government would ever do that. They have a lot invested in maintaining the idea that Taiwan is a (estranged) part of China, and the populace believes it. It would be a major failure and loss of face to both the world and their own people to just let Taiwan go. I also suspect that having an external struggle such as this feeds nationalist fires, much in the same way that the pervasive vilification of the Japanese does. Keep’em looking outward, not inward.
In the end, I agree with China Guy’s prediction that the whole “stand-off” will only end with Taiwan going back to the mainland, but that will only happen when Taiwan deems China good and ready. Any other ending would not make sense, given that both sides really just want to keep the wheels of the economy greased and rolling, as that’s what keeps the populace nice and compliant.
Generally I would agree that any change in Chinese-Taiwan relations will be in the mainland’s favor - it’s a far more powerful country. But never say never. If you had asked me twenty years ago what where the chances of seeing Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (not to mention the other former Soviet countries) as sovereign nations, I’d have told you virtually nil. If the People’s Republic of China experiences the same kind of turnover that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did, it might be Taipei that swallows Beijing after all.
BrainGlutton is correct, you are confusing the establishment of Taiwan as a full province in 1885 as the beginning of Chinese control. It had already been formally part of the Chinese empire for over 200 years at the point, it had previously been considered part of Fujian province.
China’s claim rests on the fact that they have been settling on the island for over 800 years, so much so that ethnic Chinese now make up 98% of the population, and that it was formally part of the Chinese empire from 1683. Until recent years neither the PRC or the ROC disputed that Taiwan was part of China only that the other party was illegimate and that only they were the true government. As such I’d say territorial claims don’t come much more rock-solid then this one. Of course the contemporary population have been effectively independent since 1949 and are entitled to want to continue so, but that’s a separate question from whether China has a valid claim at all.
Imagine a hypothetical world where Canada is a great power, it defeats the United States in war and forces the US to sign over Oregon. The US is in a state of political turmoil and plunges into civil war. Canada is defeated in turn in a war with Mexico and loses control over Oregon. Would whatever faction wins the US civil war have a valid claim to Oregon?