US, China Vow to Improve Cooperation

[LeveragedBuyout]

China, as the treaty does not specify ROC but rather used the general term, China.

I'm not sure I'm clear on this. Japan abrogated the Treaty of Taipei as part of its treaty to establish diplomatic relations with the PRC. The "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China" doesn't seem to address the issue, either. In other words, the last document still in effect that discusses Diaoyu is the Treaty of San Francisco. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Zsari]

I'm not sure I'm clear on this. Japan abrogated the Treaty of Taipei as part of its treaty to establish diplomatic relations with the PRC. The "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China" doesn't seem to address the issue, either. In other words, the last document still in effect that discusses Diaoyu is the Treaty of San Francisco. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Treaty of Taipei was not nullified but rather expire or terminated with the signing of the Sino-Japanese joint communique in 1972, where within actually article 8 of the Potsdam declaration was reiterated. So no, it doesn't go back to the Treaty of San Francisco.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Treaty of Taipei was not nullified but rather expire or terminated with the signing of the Sino-Japanese joint communique in 1972, where within actually article 8 of the Potsdam declaration was reiterated. So no, it doesn't go back to the Treaty of San Francisco.

Are you certain of this? Article 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco seems to supersede the Potsdam Declaration in this regard, especially given the contrast with the specificity of Article 2. The Treaty of Taipei seems to recognize this in its own Article 3.

 

[Zsari]

Are you certain of this? Article 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco seems to supersede the Potsdam Declaration in this regard, especially given the contrast with the specificity of Article 2. The Treaty of Taipei seems to recognize this in its own Article 3.

Joint Communique specifically reiterated Artical 8 of the Potsdam declaration as PRC doesn't recognize the validity of the SF treaty. The treaty of Taipei does recognize Article 2 of the SF treaty, but make no mention of Article 3. The main disagreement is whether Diaoyu island are associated islands of Taiwan or Ryukyu. If its the former, then SF treaty would no have bearing in regards to the Diaoyu islands. Even if its the latter, what's stipulated in the SF treaty is the administrative authority of the US. Like I stated elswhere, US does not possess the sovereignty of the island, thus cannot transfer that to Japan unilaterally, which is the current US position where Japan has administrative authority but not necessarily sovereignty over the islands. That same can be said for the Ryukyu as well.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Joint Communique specifically reiterated Artical 8 of the Potsdam declaration as PRC doesn't recognize the validity of the SF treaty. The treaty of Taipei does recognize Article 2 of the SF treaty, but make no mention of Article 3. The main disagreement is whether Diaoyu island are associated islands of Taiwan or Ryukyu. If its the former, then SF treaty would no have bearing in regards to the Diaoyu islands. Even if its the latter, what's stipulated in the SF treaty is the administrative authority of the US. Like I stated elswhere, US does not possess the sovereignty of the island, thus cannot transfer that to Japan unilaterally, which is the current US position where Japan has administrative authority but not necessarily sovereignty over the islands. That same can be said for the Ryukyu as well.

Understood, but that complicates the issue even more. If Diaoyu is an associated island of Taiwan, that puts Diaoyu in the same limbo legal status that Taiwan is in, and further blurs China's ability to put a direct claim on the island until the Taiwan issue is resolved.

If Diaoyu is part of the Ryukyu chain, then in order to conclude the matter, why doesn't China submit a challenge to the UN to issue a ruling on the sovereignty of that group? As long as it does not, Japan has de facto control over the area, so China's position is without much leverage. It would be beyond irrational for China to risk a war over Diaoyu.

 

[Zsari]

Understood, but that complicates the issue even more. If Diaoyu is an associated island of Taiwan, that puts Diaoyu in the same limbo legal status that Taiwan is in, and further blurs China's ability to put a direct claim on the island until the Taiwan issue is resolved.

If Diaoyu is part of the Ryukyu chain, then in order to conclude the matter, why doesn't China submit a challenge to the UN to issue a ruling on the sovereignty of that group? As long as it does not, Japan has de facto control over the area, so China's position is without much leverage. It would be beyond irrational for China to risk a war over Diaoyu.

Believe me, Beijing would be more than happy to have Taiwan in direct control of the island. Due to its location, it is far more laborious for PRC to patrol the water there than it is for ROC. If not for the Japanese "nationalisation" of the island, China would be perfectly fine with putting the matter aside. Remember while HK activists occasionally sail to the island to make their protest, any such activity on the mainland are prevented by the Chinese authority even today.

As far as the UN court is concerned, it has a precedence of ruling in favor of nation that's has actual control, which is why China today is sending out patrol ship to challenge the Japanese, and which is why going to UN court would not be China's preferred route. I believe the solution for China is in Ryukyu.

 

[Edison Chen]

China, U.S. to boost security ties, but no breakthroughs| Reuters

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

China throw knife, US shoot China by gun. Thats why CHina is still divided as a cheap chess, TW still under US control

Hahahaha Viet talk about TW , we Chineses are more interested about SCS for now

 

[Genesis]

Understood, but that complicates the issue even more. If Diaoyu is an associated island of Taiwan, that puts Diaoyu in the same limbo legal status that Taiwan is in, and further blurs China's ability to put a direct claim on the island until the Taiwan issue is resolved.

If Diaoyu is part of the Ryukyu chain, then in order to conclude the matter, why doesn't China submit a challenge to the UN to issue a ruling on the sovereignty of that group? As long as it does not, Japan has de facto control over the area, so China's position is without much leverage. It would be beyond irrational for China to risk a war over Diaoyu.

You know what Mao did when he made China? He's a able politician, just a lousy economist, he invited the wife of Sun Yat Sen to be vice primer, and a lot of others who have connections to Sun's ROC government.

PRC is the direct successor state of ROC, Chiang has been called anti revolutionary and not a successor to Sun.

So in fact, it's not a American civil war situation, where one wants to break away, we are both successor states of ROC of Sun and Qing dynasty.



As to a challenge to UN, can't cause if we win, we lose SCS, if we lose, that's just insane. The claims are contradictory. in the way we are pursuing it.

But here's an even bigger problem, if we submit to the UN, that means we are effectively saying we are a follower, rather than a leader. Whether you like it or not, leaders in this world don't go to the UN for things, they take what they want, period.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

China controls media for that, but USA is different.
So Chinese member posted what is good for their public ears.
And secret meeting report only posted by Western media ... for saving faces of China.

Look at Yang face, he must be happy when China and USA reached a good cooperation.
But no.

Who is talking about control media? you viet are so good at making lunatic comments, no wonder you guys are so easily to be manipulated, when US said anything you viets like to hear about China, then you guys are so thrill, excited and jump of joy, but the reality is that great powers don't give a fck to your insignificant country...the less to say.

Want to get attention, try to have bigger gun...LMAO

 

[BoQ77]

Want to get attention, try to have bigger gun...LMAO

That's the argument of THE GANGSTER.

 

[Kyle Sun]

Then, China would report to USA in advance, anything they plan to push around.

That is why US/Soviet/China need to set up military hot line.

We need to inform each other before big action. No one wants to start the WW3 by accident.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

That's the argument of THE GANGSTER.

Ganster? look at me

 

[NiceGuy]

Hahahaha Viet talk about TW , we Chineses are more interested about SCS for now

US have core interest in both TW and SCS(east sea). If u cant take back TW that much closer to China than SCS, then no hope for u to rob the international water from the whole world

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

As to a challenge to UN, can't cause if we win, we lose SCS, if we lose, that's just insane. The claims are contradictory. in the way we are pursuing it.

But here's an even bigger problem, if we submit to the UN, that means we are effectively saying we are a follower, rather than a leader. Whether you like it or not, leaders in this world don't go to the UN for things, they take what they want, period.

That's fine, but as a result of this decision, you can see why the US has been pursuing its pivot. China doesn't want what is "fair," it wants it all. Of course, the other inhabitants of Asia won't just roll over for China, and the US is exploiting that opening. I'm sure China sees some advantage in its posture (possibly for domestic political reasons), but meanwhile, the US is benefiting as well. If pushing the US out of Asia has been China's goal, it's doing the worst possible job of it.