A Paper Dragon: China's armed forces

[J20!]

So, ethnicity matters, even though you do not wish to see reality.

As above.

Was Okinawa ever Chinese?

Please point out where I said the Ryukyu's were Chinese territory... I said they were an independent Kingdom that paid homage to the Qing Dynasty. Look it up. The US even asked the RoC govt whether they would lay claim to Okinawa before the end of WW2.

You're grasping at straws mate. Ethnicity is important, sure. But if ethnicity were the sole measure of nationality, INDIA WOULD NOT EXIST AS A NATION STATE since it is comprised of many different ethnic groups, cultures and sub-cultures. The US would have no claim to sovereignty over the Hawaiian Isles either if your selective reasoning was a reality.

Either way, Taiwan hasn't been an independent state since before the Dutch invasion in the 1600's. How would their claim be legitimate?

If you, yourself, claim that A key measure (among many) of sovereignty is duration of control over the territory and populace, then it is KMT's alone and not of Communist China.

*sigh. Are you basing your arguments on history or your own biased opinion? The KMT fled to Taiwan after losing the Chinese civil war. They didn't conquer an already CHINESE TERRITORY.

PRC's claim is over Mailand China, by your principles that you have mentioned. It is not PRC's right to claim Taiwan, which has no historical link at all to China as has been mentioned before.

Where are you getting your facts?

http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp78.html

Thus both the Guomindang(RoC) and the PRC insisted that for the purposes of the treaty with Japan, Taiwan should be defined as part and parcel of the rest of China, a position both still maintain to this day.

Your posts don't stand up to historical scrutiny and read more like a layman's theories. I'm starting to think you no actual knowledge on the topic you're (attempting) to debate.

It is time you boned up on history and not the fairy tales of Communist China. Taiwan was given as a 'trophy' to the Japanese when the resoundingly trashed the Chinese and the Chinese sued for peace.

Japan may have been imperialistic. But then what is China doing? Being a pussy cat?

Who are you fooling?

Its history, not "communist" history:

http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp78.html

Who are YOU fooling with your selective reasoning Ray? Russia, China, Korea, the Philipines, Vietnam etc etc all lost territory to Imperial Japan. Korea and the Philipines actually lost ALL their territory to Japan. And every one of them signed a treaty of surrender. Whether that qualifies as "giving away" territory voluntarily is up to you.

Yet most of those countries got their territory back following WW2. The US even took some Japanese territory for themselves (eg Guam and Okinawa) - which had their own indegenous/aboriginal population BTW) with the Sanfranscisco Treaty.

Furthermore, China was a combatant, a major stakeholder and arguably the most affected victim in the War agaisnt Japan, yet was deliberately excluded from negotiations on the Peace treaty with Japan, which the US decided on almost unilaterally..

Regarding the SFPT's relationship to World War II agreements, there is substantial evidence to support the PRC claim that the treaty violated them. For example, the Allied Declaration signed in Washington on January 1, 1942, was quite clear: "Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies." The United States, the Soviet Union and China, although then ruled by the Guomindang (the Nationalist Party that later went into exile on Taiwan), signed this declaration and, furthermore, the United States continued to use the Allied Declaration as its own rationale for inviting, or not, specific countries to the peace conference. The U.S. exclusion of China clearly violated not only the spirit but also the letter of that agreement.

Furthermore, as part of the peace treaty process, the U.S. coerced Japan into signing a bilateral treaty with Taiwan in 1952, effectively cutting off Japan from continental China.

Heard of something called 'political expediency'?

Diplomatic relations are essential in today's world. Hence, there are such equations.

India Rejects the U.S. Invitation

On August 23, 1951, a week after receiving the PRC objections, Dulles was informed by the Indian government that it would refuse to participate in the peace treaty. The telegram was very explicit regarding the reasons for its rejection of the treaty. (1) It considered that the provisions giving the U.S. control of Okinawa and the adjacent Bonin Islands (also known as the Ogasawaras) were not justifiable. (2) The military provisions of the treaty (and the security treaty to be signed with it) should only be concluded after Japan became fully independent. (3) Formosa (Taiwan) should be returned to China at once. And (4) India objected to the fact that the peace treaty deliberations to be held in San Francisco would not allow for negotiation of the treaty.

It seems like you and your country have a few differences on the Taiwan/Formosa issue.

US will win.

No foreign country will dictate China's sovereign borders or who should govern China. Not even your beloved Uncle Sam.

The PLA will modernize and grow with time. In the mean time, China's influence in Asia grows year-on-year. Not because we have scores of military bases or tens of thousands of troops deployed in countries in the Pacific; but due to China's growing ability to create prosperity and wealth in Asia through trade, commerce and Industry.

US trade and industry won the Cold War, not aircraft carriers.

 

[J20!]

The difference is that the US is not 'conquering' areas, while the PRC is.

I'm sorry, WHAT?!!!
Which country is the PRC "conquering"??

And do you need a list of the COUNTRIES the US has "conquered"? It would take time, but I could compile one. Or specifically the countries I'ts currently "conquering"...

Trying to equate the US and the PRC in terms of modern day Imperialism and hegemony in terms of scope and scale is like comparing a zygotte to a US Army green beret.

 

[J20!]

It is time you boned up on history and not the fairy tales of Communist China. Taiwan was given as a 'trophy' to the Japanese when the resoundingly trashed the Chinese and the Chinese sued for peace.

Japan may have been imperialistic. But then what is China doing? Being a pussy cat?

Who are you fooling?

Dulles stated that the U.S. could not agree to this and that the only basis upon which the U.S. had dispatched the Seventh Fleet to Taiwan at the beginning of the Korean War was because it believed the status of Formosa was an international problem to be resolved by the U.N. "Were we to accept the [Nationalist] Chinese point of view our use of the Seventh Fleet would constitute an interference in China's internal problems" (Ibid.). Koo stated that the Chinese government could not change its position but assured Dulles that it would not attempt to embarrass the United States.

Thus both the Guomindang and the PRC insisted that for the purposes of the treaty with Japan, Taiwan should be defined as part and parcel of the rest of China, a position both still maintain to this day. In agreeing not to embarrass the U.S., the Guomindang of course demonstrated its dependency on the U.S. and its willingness to subordinate national interests to its quest to remain in power. The SFPT left in its wake not only a divided China, but also numerous other territorial disputes that the U.S. military is only too pleased to use in justifying its continuing presence in the region.

Dulles also used the nine-month veto power the U.S. had during the ratification process to pressure the Yoshida government on the issue of China.The Republican Party faction in Congress was determined to bolster the Guomindang in Taiwan and threatened to stop ratification of the peace treaty unless Japan allied itself with Taiwan. In December 1951, Dulles travelled to Tokyo where he met with Yoshida.Despite a gentlemen's agreement with Britain that Japan would be free to determine its relations between the two Chinese regimes, Dulles forced Yoshida to sign a letter drafted by either himself or his advisers guaranteeing that Japan would recognize the Taiwanese regime and isolate the People's Republic. (FRUS, 1951, Vol. VI, Part 1, pp. 1466-67).

n the end the San Francisco agreement was only peripherally a peace treaty--it was a series of bi- and multi-lateral military pacts that ensured the Pacific would become an American lake, an ambition that dates from the early 20th century. The U.S. would retain over 200,000 troops in Japan alone, not to mention thousands more in Okinawa, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan and, as the decade continued, in Vietnam as well.

As Chalmers Johnson concluded in his recent work, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: "In the course of the Cold War, the USSR intervened militarily to hold its empire together in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.The United States intervened militarily to hold its empire together in Korea and Vietnam (where it killed a great many more people in losing than the USSR did in its two successful interventions)" (p. 21).

JPRI Working Paper No. 78

Get your history right and open your eyes to the origins of todays maritime disputes in the Pacific - a tool for US empire in Asia - the San Fransisco Treaty.

The Taiwan Straights crises was completely a US creation to isolate and eventually usurp the PRC govt. Not to mention the situation with the Spratly's and Paracels which were also covered by the San Fransisco Treaty.

Whitewashing history and making it a case of unwarranted "Chinese aggression" is just part of the widespread propaganda that you seem to accept as "history". Yet VICTORS WRITE WHICHEVER HISTORY THAT SUITS THEIR INTERESTS. And you're too caught up in your "China-hate" bubble to see the obvious.

 

[Ray]

Dulles also used the nine-month veto power the U.S. had during the ratification process to pressure the Yoshida government on the issue of China.The Republican Party faction in Congress was determined to bolster the Guomindang in Taiwan and threatened to stop ratification of the peace treaty unless Japan allied itself with Taiwan. In December 1951, Dulles travelled to Tokyo where he met with Yoshida.Despite a gentlemen's agreement with Britain that Japan would be free to determine its relations between the two Chinese regimes, Dulles forced Yoshida to sign a letter drafted by either himself or his advisers guaranteeing that Japan would recognize the Taiwanese regime and isolate the People's Republic. (FRUS, 1951, Vol. VI, Part 1, pp. 1466-67).



JPRI Working Paper No. 78

Get your history right and open your eyes to the origins of todays maritime disputes in the Pacific - a tool for US empire in Asia - the San Fransisco Treaty.

The Taiwan Straights crises was completely a US creation to isolate and eventually usurp the PRC govt. Not to mention the situation with the Spratly's and Paracels which were also covered by the San Fransisco Treaty.

Whitewashing history and making it a case of unwarranted "Chinese aggression" is just part of the widespread propaganda that you seem to accept as "history". Yet VICTORS WRITE WHICHEVER HISTORY THAT SUITS THEIR INTERESTS. And you're too caught up in your "China-hate" bubble to see the obvious.

Your contentions are bogus.

Taiwan was Japanese.

But the Treaty of San Francisco, Peace Treaty of San Francisco that was officially signed by 48 nations on September 8, 1951, at the War Memorial Opera House in San Francisco, United States was to determine the legal status as to which country Taiwan belonged to.

The Treaty of Taipei between Japan and the ROC acknowledged the terms of the San Francisco Treaty but added that all residents of Taiwan and the Pescadores were deemed as nationals of the ROC.

In the confusion of who owned Taiwan, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, co-author of San Francisco Peace Treaty, correctly affirmed that the treaty ceded Taiwan to no one; that Japan "merely renounced sovereignty over Taiwan".

Hence, Taiwan was on it own.

It is time you get your fraudulent Chinese history right.

The point to note is that Taiwanese are not pure Han.

 

[Ray]

I'm sorry, WHAT?!!!
Which country is the PRC "conquering"??

And do you need a list of the COUNTRIES the US has "conquered"? It would take time, but I could compile one. Or specifically the countries I'ts currently "conquering"...

Trying to equate the US and the PRC in terms of modern day Imperialism and hegemony in terms of scope and scale is like comparing a zygotte to a US Army green beret.

Let's start with Tibet, that will help you.

Then claiming everything around as a part of China and we can look at the shenanigans in South China Seas.

 

[Ray]

Please point out where I said the Ryukyu's were Chinese territory... I said they were an independent Kingdom that paid homage to the Qing Dynasty. Look it up. The US even asked the RoC govt whether they would lay claim to Okinawa before the end of WW2.

You're grasping at straws mate. Ethnicity is important, sure. But if ethnicity were the sole measure of nationality, INDIA WOULD NOT EXIST AS A NATION STATE since it is comprised of many different ethnic groups, cultures and sub-cultures. The US would have no claim to sovereignty over the Hawaiian Isles either if your selective reasoning was a reality.

Either way, Taiwan hasn't been an independent state since before the Dutch invasion in the 1600's. How would their claim be legitimate?



*sigh. Are you basing your arguments on history or your own biased opinion? The KMT fled to Taiwan after losing the Chinese civil war. They didn't conquer an already CHINESE TERRITORY.



Where are you getting your facts?

JPRI Working Paper No. 78



Your posts don't stand up to historical scrutiny and read more like a layman's theories. I'm starting to think you no actual knowledge on the topic you're (attempting) to debate.



Its history, not "communist" history:

JPRI Working Paper No. 78

Who are YOU fooling with your selective reasoning Ray? Russia, China, Korea, the Philipines, Vietnam etc etc all lost territory to Imperial Japan. Korea and the Philipines actually lost ALL their territory to Japan. And every one of them signed a treaty of surrender. Whether that qualifies as "giving away" territory voluntarily is up to you.

Yet most of those countries got their territory back following WW2. The US even took some Japanese territory for themselves (eg Guam and Okinawa) - which had their own indegenous/aboriginal population BTW) with the Sanfranscisco Treaty.

Furthermore, China was a combatant, a major stakeholder and arguably the most affected victim in the War agaisnt Japan, yet was deliberately excluded from negotiations on the Peace treaty with Japan, which the US decided on almost unilaterally..









It seems like you and your country have a few differences on the Taiwan/Formosa issue.



No foreign country will dictate China's sovereign borders or who should govern China. Not even your beloved Uncle Sam.

The PLA will modernize and grow with time. In the mean time, China's influence in Asia grows year-on-year. Not because we have scores of military bases or tens of thousands of troops deployed in countries in the Pacific; but due to China's growing ability to create prosperity and wealth in Asia through trade, commerce and Industry.

US trade and industry won the Cold War, not aircraft carriers.

What a loft of hogwash.

I could have replied in detail but I have just returned from a gruelling trip from the Sunderbans.

 

[Tony HMG]

@Ray
This is for sure a very good thread!

Off topic, did you have Tiger sightings. I just came back from Ranthambore, could only manage one sighting of a tiger

 

[Ray]

No Tiger. One crocodile, crabs, mudskippers, deer and birds.

Saw the opening into the Bay of Bengal.

Will try to post the pictures and details in a separate thread.

 

[J20!]

Your contentions are bogus.

Taiwan was Japanese.

But the Treaty of San Francisco, Peace Treaty of San Francisco that was officially signed by 48 nations on September 8, 1951, at the War Memorial Opera House in San Francisco, United States was to determine the legal status as to which country Taiwan belonged to.

The Treaty of Taipei between Japan and the ROC acknowledged the terms of the San Francisco Treaty but added that all residents of Taiwan and the Pescadores were deemed as nationals of the ROC.

In the confusion of who owned Taiwan, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, co-author of San Francisco Peace Treaty, correctly affirmed that the treaty ceded Taiwan to no one; that Japan "merely renounced sovereignty over Taiwan".

Hence, Taiwan was on it own.

It is time you get your fraudulent Chinese history right.

The point to note is that Taiwanese are not pure Han.

It's a sourced, ACADEMIC paper by the JAPAN POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE written by a British Columbia history professor.
How that amounts to "fraudulent CHINESE history" is beyond me.

As a result, the U.S. appropriated for itself the preparation of the peace treaty and then cajoled and coerced the others into accepting its proposals with, on a number of minor points, only limited amendments.

Despite the Allied Declaration and other WW2 agreements to cooperate when signing armistices or peace treaties with Japan, the US basically monopolized and abused the treaty process to :

1. assign itself new territory,

2. divide and isolate China

3. Establish Japan as a military base of operations against Communism

4. and lay down the legal justifications for a now 60+ year long military presence in the Pacific.

You make it sound like in "the confusion" Dulles made a spur of the moment decision to keep Taiwan neutral. Dulles was under heavy Republican pressure to not allow any recognition of the PRC by any country under US influence. It was US policy in McArthur's Japan to legitimize and sustain the RoC on Taiwan and not recognize the PRC. Not until Kissinger in the 70's did the US recognize the PRC as the Chinese govt.

The US FORCED the Japanese govt to recognize the RoC over the PRC despite commitments to the British to allow Japan to make an independent choice.

Moreover, Dulles himself coerced Japan into signing a separate peace treaty with the RoC despite San Francisco Treaty promises to keep the Chinese civil war separate from a China-Japan post war armistice and not to recognize one party over the other where sovereign territory was involved.

Finally, on the issue of territorial sovereignty, Zhou accurately described the U.S. intention of having Japan relinquish sovereignty over Taiwan but not incorporating any new sovereign into the treaty. With the outbreak of the Korean War, the U.S. had sent the Seventh Fleet into the strait between Taiwan and the mainland in order to threaten the PRC. Dulles was in touch with Wellington Koo, the Guomindang's ambassador in Washington, who told him in no uncertain terms that China anticipated reparations from Japan in any peace treaty and, to the astonishment of Dulles, insisted that Formosa should be ceded back to China in the treaty and not be dealt with by the United Nations(FRUS, 1950, Vol. VI, p. 1325). Dulles stated that the U.S. could not agree to this

Just read the paper Ray.

The Taiwan strait crises (like so many international disputes - ala Ukraine etc) is completely an American creation by means of the San Francisco treaty and the corresponding Treaty of Taipei. Both of which were American initiatives forced on Japan by Dulles and co.



Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[J20!]

What a loft of hogwash..

Then, by all means... write the Japan Policy Research Institute and tell them how you have an alternative version of history in which Taiwan's ethnic diversity from the mainland makes Chinese sovereignty of those territories irrelevant.

I bet they'd pin it on a notice board and have a month long laugh over it.

Your selective reasoning is quite amusing. If ethic diversity takes the precedence you imply, then how does the US justify its sovereignty over Hawaii, or Japan WRT the Ryukyu's? Let alone the ethnic minorities that exist through-out Asia and the world?

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[J20!]

Let's start with Tibet, that will help you.

Then claiming everything around as a part of China and we can look at the shenanigans in South China Seas.

*Sigh

Chinese claims in the SCS pre-date the PRC govt; its very telling how you always conveniently forget that PRC and RoC territorial claims (9 dash line included) are identical.

China, that is the PRC, the RoC and the Qing dynasty before it, has always laid claim to areas of the SCS. Yet you and Fox News seem to want to make it a case of Chinese "Communist" aggression, despite Chinese claims to the Spratly's et al, predating the existence of both Vietnam and the Philipines.

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/0...ctional-claims-when-politics-and-law-collide/

Plainly, these legal and political claims overlap but do not coincide. However, endless dwelling on the supposedly impenetrable logic of the nine-dashed line's extremity is side-tracking attention from what ought to be the central premise of this issue: that China's claim to the primary land elements lying within the nine-dashed line — the Spratlys and the Paracels — is markedly superior to those of its rival claimants.

Alone among claimants, China is capable of coupling 'continuous and effective occupation' of the islands, islets and reefs with a robust modern international law-based claim backed by relevant multilateral and bilateral instruments.

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[jouni]

Is Crimea just a practise? Is China really trying something similar in Taiwan? I have never personally understod the whole dispute, doesnt China have enough land and people. Does Taiwanese want to join PRC? I have always seen Taiwan like Singapore, prosperous and independent.

 

[Ray]

It's a sourced, ACADEMIC paper by the JAPAN POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE written by a British Columbia history professor.
How that amounts to "fraudulent CHINESE history" is beyond me.



Despite the Allied Declaration and other WW2 agreements to cooperate when signing armistices or peace treaties with Japan, the US basically monopolized and abused the treaty process to :

1. assign itself new territory,

2. divide and isolate China

3. Establish Japan as a military base of operations against Communism

4. and lay down the legal justifications for a now 60+ year long military presence in the Pacific.

You make it sound like in "the confusion" Dulles made a spur of the moment decision to keep Taiwan neutral. Dulles was under heavy Republican pressure to not allow any recognition of the PRC by any country under US influence. It was US policy in McArthur's Japan to legitimize and sustain the RoC on Taiwan and not recognize the PRC. Not until Kissinger in the 70's did the US recognize the PRC as the Chinese govt.

The US FORCED the Japanese govt to recognize the RoC over the PRC despite commitments to the British to allow Japan to make an independent choice.

Moreover, Dulles himself coerced Japan into signing a separate peace treaty with the RoC despite San Francisco Treaty promises to keep the Chinese civil war separate from a China-Japan post war armistice and not to recognize one party over the other where sovereign territory was involved.



Just read the paper Ray.

The Taiwan strait crises (like so many international disputes - ala Ukraine etc) is completely an American creation by means of the San Francisco treaty and the corresponding Treaty of Taipei. Both of which were American initiatives forced on Japan by Dulles and co.



Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Read the Paper.

Apart from India (which did not participate) objection that Taiwan should be returned to China, where else does it say that Taiwan is a part of China?

 

[Ray]

*Sigh

Chinese claims in the SCS pre-date the PRC govt; its very telling how you always conveniently forget that PRC and RoC territorial claims (9 dash line included) are identical.

China, that is the PRC, the RoC and the Qing dynasty before it, has always laid claim to areas of the SCS. Yet you and Fox News seem to want to make it a case of Chinese "Communist" aggression, despite Chinese claims to the Spratly's et al, predating the existence of both Vietnam and the Philipines.

China's South China Sea jurisdictional claims: when politics and law collide | East Asia Forum






Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

In so far as the Nine Dash line, the questions are
1. What is the function of the Nine Dash Line & its design?
2. How did it come about and does it have a Foundation in International Law?
3. If it is an assertion of sovereignty, what is the scope of that assertion, as reflected in the Chinese practice over the years?
4. Is there a role for the historical title to play in this situation? If so, what rights are underpinned in that title?

In fact, it is said that deep in the cartography division of the Kuomintang regime, a map-maker added 11 heavy dashes to the familiar atlas encircling 90 percent of the South China Sea and connecting it back to China. No explanation accompanied this change. No Chinese territorial conquest drove it. No treaty enabled it. No other nation acknowledged it. No global body even knew about it.

 

[J20!]

Read the Paper.

Apart from India (which did not participate) objection that Taiwan should be returned to China, where else does it say that Taiwan is a part of China?

The Guomindang, here:

Dulles was in touch with Wellington Koo, the Guomindang's ambassador in Washington, who told him in no uncertain terms that China anticipated reparations from Japan in any peace treaty and, to the astonishment of Dulles, insisted that Formosa should be ceded back to China in the treaty and not be dealt with by the United Nations (FRUS, 1950, Vol. VI, p. 1325).

And here,

Thus both the Guomindang and the PRC insisted that for the purposes of the treaty with Japan, Taiwan should be defined as part and parcel of the rest of China, a position both still maintain to this day. In agreeing not to embarrass the U.S., the Guomindang of course demonstrated its dependency on the U.S. and its willingness to subordinate national interests to its quest to remain in power. The SFPT left in its wake not only a divided China, but also numerous other territorial disputes that the U.S. military is only too pleased to use in justifying its continuing presence in the region.

Not to mention the Soviet denunciation of the treaty and its terms regarding Formosa, -when it too refused boycotted the Treaty - not detailed in this paper.

Many of the main combatants; the nations that declared war against, fought and lost territory to Imperial Japan, did not part-take in the terms of the treaties, nor where they signatories to the SFT. Namely China, Korea and the Soviet Union.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[Ray]

The Guomindang, here:



And here,



Not to mention the Soviet denunciation of the treaty and its terms regarding Formosa, -when it too refused boycotted the Treaty - not detailed in this paper.

Many of the main combatants; the nations that declared war against, fought and lost territory to Imperial Japan, did not part-take in the terms of the treaties, nor where they signatories to the SFT. Namely China, Korea and the Soviet Union.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

That maybe so, as per the Paper, but time and geopolitics is not enshrined in a timewrap.

If PRC and KMT insisted that Formosa should be ceded back to China in the treaty and not be dealt with by the United Nations, and that is your basis for stating the Taiwan is a part of China, and that Japan has to locus standi because of the Treaty, then I presume, neither PRC not KMT can claim possession of Taiwan because it belongs to the real Taiwanese, who land was stolen by the KMT.

 

[sorcerer]