5 ms·

Very good points. If anything, this overstates the connection. Yes, there were ethnic Chinese settlers heading over to get paid by the Dutch, or to leave mainl

Very good points. If anything, this overstates the connection. Yes, there were ethnic Chinese settlers heading over to get paid by the Dutch, or to leave mainland China for a variety of reasons. With vague, intermittent interest/claims/activity from the court in response to fears about foreigners and internal enemies at a remote place near/in/at the frontier. But as late as the Rover incident of 1867, where aboriginal people in Taiwan killed some US sailors, the Qing dynasty said to the US "Nope, that part of Taiwan, at least, has nothing to do was us, it's not our territory, take it up with them. Any de jure claim that Taiwan as a whole was effectively administered by mainland China would have to fall somewhere between 1867 and Taiwan being ceded to Japan in 1895.

maxglute 2y ago
From OPs: >only according to the law "might is right". And your: >Any de jure claim that Taiwan as a whole was effectively administered by mainland China would have to fall somewhere between 1867 and Taiwan being ceded to Japan in 1895 Historic association has little bearing on "settled" international law and is useful justification in so much as determining whether something feels right or not according to whichever end of propaganda you subscribe to. TW is recognized as Chinese territory of the "One" China at UN according to UN (and vice versa with PRC as Chinese territory) post Resolution 2758... actual "international law" rule based order types like to wank about. This alone supercedes all the insipid recent rationales trying to delegitimize via historic association because it quite literally doesn't matter when in terms of international law, TW as Chinese (though not necessarily CCP) territory is legally clear, hence various pro-TW countries tries to square the circle of their foreign policy by adopting their domestic "One" China policies. But at the end of the day, UN is the international law framework most of the world operates around, and at UN there is One China represented by PRC post Resolution 2758, while also no ratification exist for armistic of the ongoing Chinese Civil War that either side can resume at any time. Actual international law is why US has far flung territories they spent a few years on during WW2, and then became US possessions in the post war order. "History" has nothing to do with it. Being legally recognized at UN does, which is why US tried so hard to spike the deliberations with a US draft that tried to add ambiguities by enabling ROC to continue occupy UN functions to present ambiguity of 2 Chinas, but was ultimately rejected for the Albanian draft that kicked all ROC representation out. It's also why all the latest (failed) efforts by US think tanks trying to get TW UN representation is based off attacking Resolution 2758 instead of the equally DOA previous attacks on historic grounds. TW is Chinese territory because the international law already states it is. All online TW seperate country hur hur is strawman wanking pretending TW is not already legally Chinese territory according to international law and how it shouldn't be because history, when... it already is irregardless of history.
- msabalau 2y ago
  Given that I was specifically talking about Qing claims during a historical period when the United Nations didn't exist, it is not entirely clear why you felt the impulse to reply to me. Especially if you don't think history matters. In any event, discussion of "historical associations" is of great interest to, for example, the PRC, even if you find it irrelevant. They natter on endlessly and untruthfully about Taiwan being a part of China since "ancient times". Sometime invoking mythical emperors from prehistory. Which feels a little odd coming from nominal Marxists, but hey, maybe fables fall under the category "socialism, but with Chinese characteristics" Just because history is irrelevant to what you feel "actual international law" is, doesn't mean that other people share your narrow range of interests. It would seem equally, arbitrarily, narrow to discuss Palestine only in the context of whatever UN resolutions don't happen to be vetoed. But you do you. Given that your actual beef seems to be with people in think tanks who disagree with your assessment of UN Resolution 2758, maybe you could go someplace else and argue with them: https://www.gmfus.org/news/distortion-un-resolution-2758-and-limits-taiwans-access-united-nations https://www.gmfus.org/news/distortion-un-resolution-2758-and...
  - maxglute 2y ago
    You validated position that PRC has weak historic claims in a comment that started that TW can only be PRC territory according law of to might is right. I clarified, that TW, is already dejure Chinese territory under UN based on post war agreements, so any historic de jure argument based on Qing is a distraction when you claimed "any dejure claim" China has on TW should be based on historic XYZ, and invalid claim when it's already already settled dejure international law. It doesn't need to be based on the historic context you outlined. My beef are with arguments that sets up strawman arguments of why China has no/weak dejure argument for TW being part of China as if it's premised on TW is not ALREADY dejure recognized as part of China. Discussing unsettled Palestine status at UN with whatever context is sensible because it's not a settled question. VS TW being part China is ratified law with well understood historic basis, which makes efforts to portray it as not appear to be suspect and dishonest. I also highlighted these are old/well trod (failed) arguments that well funded think tanks already tried to carve more legitimacy for TW in international bodies, including by the folks at GMF who tried to push hard using historic arguments in their pior work at other organizations. So I'm also point out that assertion that "any dejure claim" based on history is false in existing international law context, it's also false in past/ongoing attempts to circumvent established Chinese dejure claims over TW context.
aragonite 2y ago
> But as late as the Rover incident of 1867, where aboriginal people in Taiwan killed some US sailors, the Qing dynasty said to the US "Nope, that part of Taiwan, at least, has nothing to do was us, it's not our territory, take it up with them." Please do provide a source, because I don't remember reading about Qing officials making any such remarks.
- msabalau 2y ago
  I ran across this in Taiwan: Contested Democracy Under Threat, which came out from Columbia University press last fall. Of course, you might not want to buy an expensive book from a university press. But a there seem to be a range of googleable resources on the web that discuss this, for example, from the Harvard University Asia Center: "After the wreck of the U.S.S. Rover in 1867, for example, the Chinese disclaimed accountability for the slaughter of the crew on the grounds that "the Americans were not murdered in Chinese territory, or on Chinese seas, but in a region occupied by savage tribes .... The savage region does not come within the limits of our jurisdiction. " https://brill.com/display/book/9781684173938/BP000011.xml https://brill.com/display/book/9781684173938/BP000011.xml
  - aragonite 2y ago
    Thank you for the link. The book indeed looks very interesting, though I must point out a potentially misleading detail: > After the wreck of the U.S.S. Rover in 1867 ... the Chinese disclaimed accountability for the slaughter of the crew ... on the grounds that "the Americans were not murdered in Chinese territory ..." The phrase "the Chinese disclaimed accountability" suggests the Qing government made a public statement. But that interpretation comes from the US Consul in Xiamen who was quoting correspondence with the governor-general.[1] That official was soon to be corrected by the Qing's foreign minister on this very point.[2] Also the fuller contexts from [1] and [2] make clear that the Chinese side's main point is about jurisdiction. Articles 11 and 13 of the Treaty oblige Qing only to punish offenses against Americans occurring "within the jurisdiction of the emperor, either on shore or at sea," and Qing did not consider the local tribes under their jurisdiction. Which is not a wholly unreasonable stance seeing as it is analogous to how neither India nor the US had any desire to pursue legal action or punitive measures against the Sentinalese for the murder of John Chau. [1] 'In a correspondence with the U.S. Consul for Amoy, while he was conducting the negociations with the chief of the aborigines in 1867, for the adjustment of the Hover case, appears the following declaration, emanating from the governor of the Island himself: — "Articles 11 and 13 of the Treaty (between America and China) provide that within the jurisdiction of the EMPEROR, either on shore or at sea, any one who shall molest an American, shall be punished by the civil and military authorities to the best of their ability; but as, in the Rover case, the Americans were not murdered on Chinese territory or on Chinese seas, but in a region occupied by savage tribes, relief could not be asked for under the Treaty. Were it in our power to seize the murderers we would gladly do so, that the Chinese might keep friendly intercourse with foreigners. But the savage region does not come within the limit of our jurisdiction, &c., &c.,(t)"' (see p. 12 of https://ia903202.us.archive.org/17/items/IsAboriginalFormosaAPartOfTheChineseEmpire/Is%20Aboriginal%20Formosa%20A%20Part%20Of%20The%20Chinese%20Empire.pdf https://ia903202.us.archive.org/17/items/IsAboriginalFormosa...) [2] "In the spring of the seventh year (1868), Prince Gong, the Minister in charge of foreign affairs, wrote to the Governor of Fujian, stating that although the native tribes could not be punished by law, their land still belonged to China. Moreover, it was an important route for Western countries to travel to the South Seas. If it were still treated as a savage region, and if other countries harbored intentions of coveting it, claiming that people had abandoned it and they were taking it, and thus freely encroaching upon it, although the harm might not be immediate, it should still be planned for in advance." (https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=en&chapter=149754#:~:text=%E4%B8%83%E5%B9%B4%E6%98%A5,%E8%A1%8C%E7%B1%8C%E5%8F%8A%E3%80%82 https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=en&chapter=149754#:~:text=%E4%B...)

maxglute 2y ago

From OPs: >only according to the law "might is right". And your: >Any de jure claim that Taiwan as a whole was effectively administered by mainland China would have to fall somewhere between 1867 and Taiwan being ceded to Japan in 1895 Historic association has little bearing on "settled" international law and is useful justification in so much as determining whether something feels right or not according to whichever end of propaganda you subscribe to. TW is recognized as Chinese territory of the "One" China at UN according to UN (and vice versa with PRC as Chinese territory) post Resolution 2758... actual "international law" rule based order types like to wank about. This alone supercedes all the insipid recent rationales trying to delegitimize via historic association because it quite literally doesn't matter when in terms of international law, TW as Chinese (though not necessarily CCP) territory is legally clear, hence various pro-TW countries tries to square the circle of their foreign policy by adopting their domestic "One" China policies. But at the end of the day, UN is the international law framework most of the world operates around, and at UN there is One China represented by PRC post Resolution 2758, while also no ratification exist for armistic of the ongoing Chinese Civil War that either side can resume at any time. Actual international law is why US has far flung territories they spent a few years on during WW2, and then became US possessions in the post war order. "History" has nothing to do with it. Being legally recognized at UN does, which is why US tried so hard to spike the deliberations with a US draft that tried to add ambiguities by enabling ROC to continue occupy UN functions to present ambiguity of 2 Chinas, but was ultimately rejected for the Albanian draft that kicked all ROC representation out. It's also why all the latest (failed) efforts by US think tanks trying to get TW UN representation is based off attacking Resolution 2758 instead of the equally DOA previous attacks on historic grounds. TW is Chinese territory because the international law already states it is. All online TW seperate country hur hur is strawman wanking pretending TW is not already legally Chinese territory according to international law and how it shouldn't be because history, when... it already is irregardless of history.

msabalau 2y ago
Given that I was specifically talking about Qing claims during a historical period when the United Nations didn't exist, it is not entirely clear why you felt the impulse to reply to me. Especially if you don't think history matters. In any event, discussion of "historical associations" is of great interest to, for example, the PRC, even if you find it irrelevant. They natter on endlessly and untruthfully about Taiwan being a part of China since "ancient times". Sometime invoking mythical emperors from prehistory. Which feels a little odd coming from nominal Marxists, but hey, maybe fables fall under the category "socialism, but with Chinese characteristics" Just because history is irrelevant to what you feel "actual international law" is, doesn't mean that other people share your narrow range of interests. It would seem equally, arbitrarily, narrow to discuss Palestine only in the context of whatever UN resolutions don't happen to be vetoed. But you do you. Given that your actual beef seems to be with people in think tanks who disagree with your assessment of UN Resolution 2758, maybe you could go someplace else and argue with them: https://www.gmfus.org/news/distortion-un-resolution-2758-and-limits-taiwans-access-united-nations https://www.gmfus.org/news/distortion-un-resolution-2758-and...
- maxglute 2y ago
  You validated position that PRC has weak historic claims in a comment that started that TW can only be PRC territory according law of to might is right. I clarified, that TW, is already dejure Chinese territory under UN based on post war agreements, so any historic de jure argument based on Qing is a distraction when you claimed "any dejure claim" China has on TW should be based on historic XYZ, and invalid claim when it's already already settled dejure international law. It doesn't need to be based on the historic context you outlined. My beef are with arguments that sets up strawman arguments of why China has no/weak dejure argument for TW being part of China as if it's premised on TW is not ALREADY dejure recognized as part of China. Discussing unsettled Palestine status at UN with whatever context is sensible because it's not a settled question. VS TW being part China is ratified law with well understood historic basis, which makes efforts to portray it as not appear to be suspect and dishonest. I also highlighted these are old/well trod (failed) arguments that well funded think tanks already tried to carve more legitimacy for TW in international bodies, including by the folks at GMF who tried to push hard using historic arguments in their pior work at other organizations. So I'm also point out that assertion that "any dejure claim" based on history is false in existing international law context, it's also false in past/ongoing attempts to circumvent established Chinese dejure claims over TW context.

aragonite 2y ago

> But as late as the Rover incident of 1867, where aboriginal people in Taiwan killed some US sailors, the Qing dynasty said to the US "Nope, that part of Taiwan, at least, has nothing to do was us, it's not our territory, take it up with them." Please do provide a source, because I don't remember reading about Qing officials making any such remarks.

msabalau 2y ago
I ran across this in Taiwan: Contested Democracy Under Threat, which came out from Columbia University press last fall. Of course, you might not want to buy an expensive book from a university press. But a there seem to be a range of googleable resources on the web that discuss this, for example, from the Harvard University Asia Center: "After the wreck of the U.S.S. Rover in 1867, for example, the Chinese disclaimed accountability for the slaughter of the crew on the grounds that "the Americans were not murdered in Chinese territory, or on Chinese seas, but in a region occupied by savage tribes .... The savage region does not come within the limits of our jurisdiction. " https://brill.com/display/book/9781684173938/BP000011.xml https://brill.com/display/book/9781684173938/BP000011.xml
- aragonite 2y ago
  Thank you for the link. The book indeed looks very interesting, though I must point out a potentially misleading detail: > After the wreck of the U.S.S. Rover in 1867 ... the Chinese disclaimed accountability for the slaughter of the crew ... on the grounds that "the Americans were not murdered in Chinese territory ..." The phrase "the Chinese disclaimed accountability" suggests the Qing government made a public statement. But that interpretation comes from the US Consul in Xiamen who was quoting correspondence with the governor-general.[1] That official was soon to be corrected by the Qing's foreign minister on this very point.[2] Also the fuller contexts from [1] and [2] make clear that the Chinese side's main point is about jurisdiction. Articles 11 and 13 of the Treaty oblige Qing only to punish offenses against Americans occurring "within the jurisdiction of the emperor, either on shore or at sea," and Qing did not consider the local tribes under their jurisdiction. Which is not a wholly unreasonable stance seeing as it is analogous to how neither India nor the US had any desire to pursue legal action or punitive measures against the Sentinalese for the murder of John Chau. [1] 'In a correspondence with the U.S. Consul for Amoy, while he was conducting the negociations with the chief of the aborigines in 1867, for the adjustment of the Hover case, appears the following declaration, emanating from the governor of the Island himself: — "Articles 11 and 13 of the Treaty (between America and China) provide that within the jurisdiction of the EMPEROR, either on shore or at sea, any one who shall molest an American, shall be punished by the civil and military authorities to the best of their ability; but as, in the Rover case, the Americans were not murdered on Chinese territory or on Chinese seas, but in a region occupied by savage tribes, relief could not be asked for under the Treaty. Were it in our power to seize the murderers we would gladly do so, that the Chinese might keep friendly intercourse with foreigners. But the savage region does not come within the limit of our jurisdiction, &c., &c.,(t)"' (see p. 12 of https://ia903202.us.archive.org/17/items/IsAboriginalFormosaAPartOfTheChineseEmpire/Is%20Aboriginal%20Formosa%20A%20Part%20Of%20The%20Chinese%20Empire.pdf https://ia903202.us.archive.org/17/items/IsAboriginalFormosa...) [2] "In the spring of the seventh year (1868), Prince Gong, the Minister in charge of foreign affairs, wrote to the Governor of Fujian, stating that although the native tribes could not be punished by law, their land still belonged to China. Moreover, it was an important route for Western countries to travel to the South Seas. If it were still treated as a savage region, and if other countries harbored intentions of coveting it, claiming that people had abandoned it and they were taking it, and thus freely encroaching upon it, although the harm might not be immediate, it should still be planned for in advance." (https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=en&chapter=149754#:~:text=%E4%B8%83%E5%B9%B4%E6%98%A5,%E8%A1%8C%E7%B1%8C%E5%8F%8A%E3%80%82 https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=en&chapter=149754#:~:text=%E4%B...)