Jenna Cody :
Is Taiwan a real China?
No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.
This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.
So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.
Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).
Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.
Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.
Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.
What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.
So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.
It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.
This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.
In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.
After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.
Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.
In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).
In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.
Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.
It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.
Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.
This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.
*
Now, as I said, none of this matters.
What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.
Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.
Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.
Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.
So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.
And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.
The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.
A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.
There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…
…well, that’s already settled.
The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.
Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.
If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「treaty of san francisco」的推薦目錄:
- 關於treaty of san francisco 在 Mordeth13 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於treaty of san francisco 在 雲林輪椅立委張永津 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於treaty of san francisco 在 音樂政治上班族 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於treaty of san francisco 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於treaty of san francisco 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於treaty of san francisco 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於treaty of san francisco 在 The Japanese peace treaty is signed in San Francisco (1951) 的評價
treaty of san francisco 在 雲林輪椅立委張永津 Facebook 的最讚貼文
Q: 中国一直不擇手段的打壓台灣,為什麼不敢禁止台灣貨品進口到中国?
A: 因為中国沒有台灣來的零件,很多的中国製成品就沒辦法生產出來賣到歐美,證明中国出口必須靠台灣零件,得罪台灣國就是中華共國在自掘墳墓。
中華民國用敵人隨便大量印的人民幣兌換台灣錢來掏空台灣人民. 中國民黨.民進黨都是中共國的幫凶? 配合敵人中共國利用trf搶劫台灣人民4兆元資產,台灣產業界經濟崩盤。
大家想想.我們的銀行讓敵人的貨弊人民幣在台灣流通換取台灣人民的資產.而那些敵人民幣是中共國想印多少就印多少的.這不是中國民黨.中華民進黨在協助敵人來掏空台灣人民資產嗎?
而且還把台灣人民的錢數兆去借給敵人使用,去買更多的武器來恐嚇台灣人民的現有生活,中國民黨與中華民進黨不是通敵?不是賣台嗎?
雲林2區立委選3號張永津👍
政黨票投8號.喜樂島護台灣👍
我在立法院就會提案針對敵人進口來台灣的商品增加審查,如果敵人不買台灣的農產品,我們就增加敵人的進口關稅到兩倍三倍五倍,來保護台灣的農民收入有保障。
敵人若再不承認台灣國主權,我們就立法拒絕敵人入境法。
讓敵人民弊任意換走台灣國商品、零件、生財器具、人才,就是賣台,毫無殘念💯
台灣人民被中國民黨騙了67年、被中華民進黨騙了30年了。
舊金山和平條約的真正名稱叫做日本合平條約,當時全世界大多數國家在美國舊金山簽署而已,為什麼他們不直接講真正的名稱日本和平條約呢?因為他們中華民族蓄意詐騙台灣國人民。
Treaty of Peace with Japan (with two declarations). Signed at San Francisco, on 8 September 1951
https://treaties.un.org/…/vol…/volume-136-i-1832-english.pdf
現在中華民進黨就是當年的納粹黨,靠選票起家、靠獨裁奪國,台灣人民終歸尾、愛西火衣🖤
treaty of san francisco 在 音樂政治上班族 Facebook 的最讚貼文
從事實學台灣歷史~
一段你可能不知道的聯合國有文獻記載的台灣身世
以下這一段歷史內容,我們的歷史教科書似乎都沒教?台灣不屬於中國,1950年11月30日聯合國安理會正式否決案已清楚說明,況且當年中華人民共和國指派出席聯合國的辯論人員,有名有姓,又有日期,這是不爭的事實。
1949年10月01日:中華人民國共和國誕生(以下簡稱中國)。中國誕生時,台灣和澎湖的領土主權,仍然屬於日本,迄今從未經過或有任何國際條約證明日本向美國投降後,將台灣和澎湖的領土歸還給中國共產黨,或是中國國民黨。
1950年06月27日:美國前總統杜魯門發表台灣地位未定論,引發1949年10月1日才誕生的中華人民共和國第一任總理周恩來向聯合國安理會表達抗議,謂中華人民共 和國握有大量證據,足以證明台灣的主權屬於中華人民共和國。當時的聯合國安理會五個常任理事國之一的中華民國,亦未表示反對,於是聯合國 安理會開會一致通過,同意中華民共和國派人攜帶所謂的大量證據,到聯 合國進行辯論。
1950年11月14日:中華人民共和國派出以伍修權為首,喬冠華為顧問,龔普生、安東、陳翹、浦山、周硯、孫彪和王乃靜等九人代表團,在聯合國進行為期二星期的辯論。以所謂手中擁有大量證據,證明台灣、澎湖屬於中華人民共和國,向安理會提出三項要求:
(一) 譴責和制裁美國侵占臺灣與干涉朝鮮罪行。
(二) 美國軍隊撤出臺灣。
(三) 美國與其他國家軍隊撤出朝鮮。
1950年11月28日:辯論終結。
1950年11月30日:辯論終結後,聯合國安理會正式函文回覆中華人民共和國,台灣和澎湖的主權不屬於中華人民共和國。聯合國安理會也正式「否決」中華人民共和國所要求,美軍必須自臺灣與朝鮮撤軍的提議,自此明顯確定「臺灣地位未定」,證實臺灣不是中國一部份。以上歷史事實,可參考伍修權發表於1990年6月28日「人民日報」之自述「40年前的聯合國之行」。
另外、蔣經國在「風雨中的寧靜」一書中曾說:「…計謀由我交還美國管理…」,文中又說:「余必死守台灣,絕不能交歸盟國,…。」事實證明,蔣介石父子早知台灣真正的國際定位,為了自己的私利,而欺騙台灣人。
1950年 7月26日,英國外交部官員 Kenneth Younger ,發表書面聲明:「英國政府在法律上承認 中華人民共和國為中國之合法政府 ………… 臺灣在法律上仍為日本領土,故無所謂臺灣政府。日本投降後當時之中國政府,經其餘盟國之同意,取得臺灣之臨時治理權,但仍須等和約對其地位作最後之決 定。」(倫敦時報,1950年7月28日)可見,當年沒有任何國家同意中國併吞臺灣。
美國人做事都是按步就班,在各個不同階段訂定國際條約,或是制定日後具有可供公開檢驗的法律依據可循,任何時間、任何地點,都隨時有白紙黑字登載的於法有據,就是有了1950年11月30日聯合國安理會正式函文回覆中華人民共和國,台灣和澎湖的主權不屬於中華人民共和國的國際法依據。
美國才又於1951年9月8日邀集48個國家在美國舊金山市召開會議,用同等有效的英文、法文和西班牙文以及日文,和日本 簽定舊金山和平條約「San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT)」。此條約是對日本的解放令,條約生效,日本恢復主權國家地位。條約第2B條中規定,日本「放棄」對台灣及澎湖群島領土主權的一切。條約的第21條也清清楚楚規定,對中國應享之權益,並沒有包含臺灣與澎湖群島。
參與舊金山和平條約會議的國家:共有52國,只有48個國家參與簽署,因為有四個國家並未參與亞洲的這一場「美日太平洋戰爭」,又稱「美日亞東戰爭」,亞東戰爭發生的時間,雖然和當時的歐洲第二次世界大戰同一時間,但是、戰爭的名稱和歐洲的「第二次世界大戰」不同。因此、蘇聯、波蘭、捷克、斯洛伐克等四個國家,是參與歐洲的第二世界大戰,沒有參加亞洲的這一場「美日太平洋」的亞東戰爭。
更有趣的是:另外有二個國家未被邀請參與「舊金山和平條約」的簽署,因為1945年日本向美國投降時,「中華人民共和國」還沒有誕生。中華民國並沒有正式對日本公開宣戰,而自顧忙於和共產黨內戰,被共產黨打到節節敗退,退守四川重慶,還曾經在重慶成立臨時陪都。這一段非常重要的歷史,我們不能不知道。
52個參與舊金山和平條約簽署的國家們是:蘇聯、波蘭、捷克斯洛伐克、阿根廷、澳大利亞、比利時、玻利維亞、巴西、柬埔寨、加拿大、錫蘭、智利、哥倫比亞、哥斯達黎加、古巴、多米尼加、厄瓜多爾、埃及、薩爾瓦多、衣索比亞、法國、希臘、瓜地馬拉、海地、宏都拉斯、印度尼西亞、伊朗、伊拉克、寮國、黎巴嫩、賴比瑞亞、盧森堡、 墨西哥、荷蘭、紐西蘭、尼加拉瓜、挪威、巴基斯坦、巴拿馬、巴拉圭、秘魯、菲律賓、沙烏地阿拉伯、敘利亞、土耳其、南非聯邦、英國、美國、烏拉圭、委內瑞拉、越南和日本。
這麼多國家所共同簽定的悠有關台灣和澎湖主權歸屬的「舊金山和平條約」,竟然沒有1912年成立的中華民國(Republic Of China),以及1950年成立的中華人民共和國(Peoples, Republic Of China)!美國和日本等48個國家所共同簽定的〈舊金山和平條約〉連「CHINESE」中文版本也沒有,可見得台灣和澎湖的領土主權,和1949年逃亡到台灣所謂「中華民國」,以及1949年10月1日才誕生的中華人民共和國,是完全沒有關連的。
全世界的國家幾乎都知道,【舊金山和平條約 San Francisco Peace Treaty(SFPT)】是日本和美國於1951年9月8日於美國舊金山正式簽訂,並有52個國家共同見證,48個國家共同簽署生效的國際條約。在舊金山和平條約簽署的那一刻,日本當著美國和共同簽屬的48個國家面前,聲明放棄台灣和澎湖主權,日本沒有說要將台灣和澎湖歸還給中國。
所以、台灣若想要宣佈獨立,除了徵得得美國同意支持以外,恐怕也要獲得1951年9月8日在美國的舊金山,和美國共同簽署舊金山和平條約的48個國家的支持,所以、台灣未來何去何從的決定權,關鍵就在舊金山和平條約,因此、解鈴恐怕還須【美國】這個繫鈴人。
1952年4月28日:「舊金山和平條約」正式生效。條約第23條,明列「美國是主要佔領國The United States of America as the principal occupying Power」。
美國在1952年4月28日“確認”舊金山和平條約正式生效之後,接著才又於1954年12月3日和當時的中華民國簽訂《中美共同防禦條約》的國際條約,該條約以軍事為基礎,包含政治、經濟、社會等合作條約。
當1979年1月1日,美國和中華人民共和國建交時發布聲明時,美國依《中美共同防禦條約》第十條規定,由美國國務院正式通知中華民國,將於1980年1月1日終止《中美共同防禦條約》。
美國為了保護台灣和澎湖的主權不受影響,於1979年1月1日由美國國會通過制定屬於美國國內法的《台灣關係法Taiwan Relation Act.》,作為取代延續保護台灣和澎湖的主權不受影響,所以、可見美國對台灣的重視,完全依照國際條約,和屬於美國國內法的《台灣關係法Taiwan Relation Act.》法律依據,行使其法律權利,這些都是有憑有證的法律依據,不容挑戰。
台灣小留學生家長協進會(秘書長)
黃育旗 Johnny Y.C. Huang 敬啟
treaty of san francisco 在 The Japanese peace treaty is signed in San Francisco (1951) 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>