East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...

& Or alternatively, a better comparison would be the bodies of the US soldiers died in foreign lands not being allowed to be buried properties and were taken for organ donations or medical experimentations, against the wishes of their families. In a secular point of view, the bodies are just organic matter are they not?

Not to mention that if possible even the bodies of the US soldiers are sent back to US to be buried properly.

edited 16th Jul '14 11:16:19 PM by IraTheSquire

If by "secular" you mean "dispassionately nihilist", then maybe. Otherwise, not really.

I'd call myself secular and to me a memorial is definitely much more than just a slab of stone with names on it.

China-Africa relations hurt by bad Chinese behaviour, says ambassador.

Why Defending Taiwan is Illegal.

Northeast Asian Security Architecture: Lessons from European History.

Corporate Japan’s Best Chance for Survival: Abroad.

China's Role in the Middle East.

... If defending Taiwan is illegal by international law, even in the way Japan and the US are saying that they would in case the PRC invades, then why the hell do they say that they would do so? They're all but saying that international law is not even worth the paper it's written on or the ink it's written with, not even trying to bother with a Loophole Abuse handwave that makes it sound/look "technically legal from a certain point of view" like it's typical in such cases.

edited 19th Jul '14 3:48:30 PM by MarqFJA

Because it's a technicality that they don't care about. It's very unlikely that it would make a difference in practice, too.

It's technically illegal because everyone who recognises China doesn't technically acknowledge that Taiwan exists. So any military action to help Taiwan wouldn't be (collective) self-defence but instead military intervention in an internal conflict.

The UN rules are written on the basis that you're dealing with actions between one country and another, but Taiwan isn't recognised as a country by most of the world (or the UN), so the rules don't really work where it's involved.

edited 19th Jul '14 5:05:06 PM by Silasw

Taiwan should be able to make a Unilateral Declaration of Independence, though. Secession is permissible in international law once a prospective country is independent and gains recognition, such as in the case of Bangladesh. Other countries can then assist. In Taiwan's case it would be a bit theatrical since they already are independent, really, but not illegal.

Er, the Taiwan Relations Act doesn't even specify that Taiwan has to be "independent" for it to be "defended", but they point at "defending the territory" of the island and the waters around it which obviously includes the strait in the case of an invasion...so there's no "technically it's illegal" there. Because "technically" the issue of independence of Taiwan is irrelevant because the important thing is an invasion happens. And a country obviously doesn't "invade" its own territory that it also controls (which is what "Taiwan is not independent" means).

Well, if they do that the PRC would enter war.

But that might not be as bad as it sounds because if the US and others join in the PRC might get pushed over. So yeah. Not something I mind seeing happen.

edited 19th Jul '14 7:41:25 PM by IraTheSquire

One factor that renders the entire optimism of the scenario above defeated is the ugly fact that the United States is currently not in the mood to politically, socially, and culturally stomach a full frontal conflict with China. We still had our Cold War readiness mood within us when Clinton sent the 7th Fleet into the Taiwan Strait during the 1990's, but the decade of war in the Middle East has quite drained us of our past willingness to intervene in such ways.

edited 19th Jul '14 8:44:59 PM by FluffyMcChicken

X3

The Taiwan Relations Act has no bearing on if US military action would be legal internationally, from an international point of view Taiwan is part of China, the US government recognises the PRC as the legitimate government of China, as such any military action the US would carry out would from a legal perspective be interfering in China's sovereign territory.

No what Taiwan is not independent means is that the island of Taiwan is internationally recognised as part of China, which the US recognises as being represented by the PRC. From an international legal perspective any action the PRC took against the ROC would be purely an internal matter within China, and as such not an invasion.

Now none of this would have any bearing on what would happen if the PRC actually invaded Taiwan, international law tends to fly strait out the window if a conflict is important enough to anyone.

It's able to, but as Ira pointed out China might well invade if it did. Also I believe there are still major parties in Taiwan that don't want independence, they want Taiwan to be a part of China, they just don't want it enough to give up to the communist government of China.

Uh, no. If country A invades Abkhazia, they are not invading Russia. They are invading Abkhazia, even though Russia (and some other "friendly" countries like North Korea and Venezuela) is the only one recognizing Abkhazia's independence...that's the situation with Taiwan. The ONLY difference is the number of countries recognizing Taiwan's independence, DE FACTO independence. Taiwan is de facto independent, even if it's de jure not. As it stands there is still no international agreement, and thus international law, nullifying its de facto independence. Because that's what you need in international law (unlike in "national laws" like countries have for within its territory).

edited 19th Jul '14 9:07:00 PM by entropy13

, x4

Well Marq FJA's post imagined if the PRC invades Taiwan, I'm saying it wouldn't be illegal under international law for US etc to defend Taiwan if Taiwan makes a UDI. Otherwise there's no point to a UDI because Taiwan is functionally independent already.

edited 19th Jul '14 9:18:02 PM by editerguy

Correct, they're invading Georgia as far as international law is concerned. Because as far as the UN is concerned Abkhazia is not a state, it is simply a part of Georgia that happens to be in a state of armed rebellion.

Expect Taiwan does not claim independence. the government of Taiwan does not claim that it's not part of China, it actually agrees with the PRC that Taiwan is part of China.

I direct you to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758[1] which states that "the PRC is the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations.". As the PRC is the representative of the state of China (which Taiwan is a part of as recognised by both Taiwan and the PRC) any action carried out by the PRC within Taiwan is legally speaking an action carried out internally within its own territory.

De-facto independence doesn't matter from a legal perspective, de-facto literally means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law". Legally Taiwan is not independent, the fact that the law doesn't match up with facts doesn't make the law any less the law.

It could but it would still be a legal grey area, until Taiwan joined the UN it wouldn't gain any UN protections. It was still technically illegal for NATO to mess about in Yugoslavia when it broke up and parts declared independence, so a deceleration of independence doesn't make military action legal.

edited 19th Jul '14 9:50:22 PM by Silasw

Mind you, if the US decided to get involved, it's not like the UN would agree to stop them, since the US has full veto power (just as the PRC does, actually), so any attempts to rally the UN to enforce the law would just get shot down on the spot.

Doesn't stop the various member nations of agreeing in a non-UN context to rally against the US if they are so inclined, of course.

Yes, it would be a legal grey area. It would mean that it is not definitively illegal to support the prospective state, because UDI is not by any means illegal. If a UDI creates international recognition and a successful secessionist attempt, as in Bangladesh, the result of the conflict is not infringing international law. In other words, the UDI creates legal ambiguity, rather than illegality.

O completely, intervention being illegal in former Yugoslavia didn't stop anyone.

Not really, intervention in the conflict would still be illegal, a UDI has no legal weight. A people can declare their independence all they want, until they are recognised as independent they legally aren't independent (yes that's circular logic, welcome to international politics/law). The UD Is of formed Yugoslavia didn't make it legal for NATO to get involved, post conflict the intervention was still recognised as illegal, it was just also recognised as the right thing to do.

Wouldn't that then indicate the secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan was illegal though, since India provided military assistance to Bangladesh?

My point is that other countries can recognise the UDI and the independence of the 'new' state. So for example earlier you pointed out that currently, "any military action to help Taiwan wouldn't be (collective) self-defence but instead military intervention in an internal conflict." The recognition of a UDI and consequently a new state means that the matter is no longer internal. A UDI flags a change in the status of a territory which the international community can acknowledge (or not, of course). Recognition by the international community has consequences in international law, just as no recognition of Rhodesia by the international community had consequences. It's recognition, not the UDI itself, that is significant.

I'm not familiar with your specific example regarding NATO, sorry. But NATO is made up of many different countries, doesn't it tend to shilly-shally?

The intervention of India would be unless it could be justified under humanitarian intervention. Though I think the concept of humanitarian intervention might not have existed at the time.

Only if the recognition is carried out by the UN, otherwise it doesn't count.

Technically such recognition doesn't have a legal effect, it has a practical effect but until such recognition leads to UN recognition there's no legal effect.

But again you have to keep in mind that this is international law, illegal things are done all the time without problem in international law because of the level of agreement needed to enforce the law. A war of aggression is illegal under international law, but look at how many of them have happened without any legal moves being made. If memory serves the last time the UN prosecuted anyone for starting a war of aggression was WW 2, it's that hard to get international agreement on what counts as a war of aggression.

edited 20th Jul '14 3:38:07 AM by SilasW

For the record, the United States has made it clear beforehand that it will not intervene if Taiwan makes a unilateral declaration of independence.

Rather old, but what say you on China and Korea's meeting and statements here?

For that matter, where do you stand, since some over here share SK's reasons for holding animosity towards Japan. From another user on a different article:

""Lucky Johnny" Sherwood died one year after completing his memoirs of his POW years He wrote daily to try to heal his PTSD which was giving him nightmares every night.

And Ryuichi Sakamoto repeatedly played his HIT composition “Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence” over the years as if the STORY of the POW atrocities was just background for his musical accomplishment.

Hikari Utada even turned the song into a booty call anthem.

They’re not sorry in the least. Not really."

edited 21st Jul '14 6:26:52 PM by LDragon2

Jesus Christ at these July typhoons.

I saw that. Can't say anything other than Mother Nature's a b***h.

On another note, apparently China is once again publishing Japan's WWII atrocities in their newspapers again. How long are they gonna keep this up? I sincerely doubt that this is gonna convince Japan to finally admit to them. If anything, it will just make them deny their actions even more.

Nationalism man.