Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "Why China Is Demanding These Japanese Islands" video.
-
7
-
6
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paiwanhan "The Dongning and the Qing also only had partial control of the island. Neither even had total control of the coastline"
Youre making misleading claims. Large countries dont "control" every single inch of land they claim. You think Russia or Canada has total "control" over their arctic coastline? They dont have total control there, does it mean its not theirs?
"Japan is essentially the first colonial power to claim and actually have sovereignty over the entire island"
It was Qing that had sovereignty over the entire island first, its on their map under their jurisdiction. I can point to an area, say forest, on a Taiwan map that Japan did not control over. Is that area not part of a countrys sovereignty?
"After the war, Taiwan's trust territory status should have been guaranteed to foster eventual self-determination like other former Japanese held UN trust territories in the Pacific.
What UN? What trust? As of Japan surrendering the war, the UN did not exist yet. The surrender of Japan was to follow the Potdam declaration as CLEARLY stated in their signed surrender instrument.
Moreover, the islands in the pacific were colonies of another empire taken by force without any treaty, in other words they actually deserve the right to self-determination instead of being ruled by a foreign colonising power. Whereas Taiwan was already Chinese, being are 98% Han, and was formally surrendered by Qing China to Japan under a treaty unlike the others. Those are the differences.
"Those so called declarations weren't even signed"
An agreement is an agreement. Signed or not is just a matter of formality.
Regardless, the very first sentence in Japans SIGNED Instrument of Surrender says it all:
"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam (AKA the Potsdam declaration)".
"They were more like memorandums, and doesn't have legal status as the final treaties such as the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco"
Who said the Japanese Instrument of Surrender has no legal status? The UN didnt even exist at their time of surrender. So how were they meant to follow the usual "UN formalities" prior to their existence?
"The ROC essentially had been the trustee since Japan's surrender"
No such thing as a "trustee" then. Japan surrendered prior to the existence of the UN.
The agreement and acknowledgement of Taiwan returning to China PREDATES the existence of the UN. So your point here is redundant.
"The ROC doesn't de facto get Taiwan's sovereignty just because Japan surrendered to them. Just like the ROC didn't automatically get the sovereignty of North Vietnam just because they accepted Japanese surrender there on the behalf of the Allied powers".
North Vietnam was part of Qing China? And was taken by Japan? Idk about that but I do know Taiwan was part of Qing China, and was taken by Japan. All China did was take back what originally belong to theirs after Japans defeat. And it was supported and acknowledged by world powers.
"With the DPP in power, Taiwan is more than happy to draft a new constitution, however, it would be all a pipe dream if the US isn't onboard"
Taiwan is more than happy to draft a new constitution? Roughly half of Taiwan supports KMT (give or take, varies year to year). To change the constitution you would need 75% of the government to be on board. If Taiwan is truly more than happy to change their constitution, then they need 75% of the population to vote for DPP. Question is, is that the case? Can DPP gather support from 75% of its population?
And whats the US got to do with this? Since when is a foreign country involved in another countrys constitution???
1
-
@paiwanhan "Canada and Russia has full control over their Arctic territories. If they sent their military through those regions, no one would oppose them"
Thats not what I meant by "control". By control I meant actual control. They dont control the tribes living in the area. Even if a crime is committed there, they wouldnt know. Thats not called "control".
And your reasoning is not what defines "control".
"There are more than half the island where Qing military would get ambushed and slaughter for entering"
So youre saying Brazil/Bolivia/Columbia/Ecuador/Paraguay etc has no control over the Amazon/rainforests? And India has no control over the Sentinel Islands? To this day, tribes there will attack anyone that set foot into their territory. Whats your take on that? Are the rainforests/islands part of those respective countrys sovereign territory?
"The UN didn't exist doesn't mean the rules doesn't apply"
Nonsense. If they dont exist of course it doesnt apply. You cant use future laws to judge current rulings.
If a new law came out that children born in the US after WW2 (with foreign parents) are no longer US citizens, does that mean those people are no longer US citizens and are to be deported despite being US citizens their whole life?
"That is why the UN charter explicitly mentions...Trust territories was an Allied Power policy..."
Tell me, were ANY of these "trust territories" mentioned in ANY declarations or ANY agreement of ANY sort prior to the establishment of the UN that they were NOT to be designated as trust territories or anything of the sort?
"The Potsdam declaration isn't a legal treaty. It serves as merely a guideline. The legally binding stuff is in the final treaty, which would be the Treaty of San Francisco"
So youre saying Japans Instrument of Surrender was not legally binding? Japans Instrument of Surrender EXPLICITLY states they accept the provisions set forth in the Potsdam declaration.
"Northern Vietnam had been a proper territory of China much longer than Taiwan had ever been. In fact, so is true for North Korea"
We are specifically talking about Qing, the predecessor of ROC, not whatever dynasty you wish to pick from from an undefined timeline without relevant context to suit your narrative.
North Vietnam was never part of Qing. Same as North Korea. Tributary States are another story, and thats different to sovereign territory.
"In fact, the Qing claimed entire Siberia"
Youre speaking nonsense now. Where do you even get your "facts" from? Show me a map of Qing that claims the "entire Siberia".
1
-
1