Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: China relics buyer refuses to pay

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: China relics buyer refuses to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Your citation confirms exactly what I said. The Chinese sold tea (and porcelain) but didn't want to purchase anything.
    I misread your original statement as the Chinese giving away tea in exchange for nothing. Apologies.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    You are guilty of selective reading. I said that there was no international law that could be applied regarding the relics.
    There was no international law that could be applied to anything prior to the League of Nations, as no such suprainternational regulatory body existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Treaties are recognized under internaitonal law and China was arguably in violation of those treaties.
    Who regulated international law when the Treaty of Nanjing was signed? The answer is no one.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    You are correct that in modern international law, treaties signed under duress are regarded as invalid, but there was no such provision in the 19th century.
    Yes I know, but that wasn't my point. You were arguing that the Qianlong Emperor should never have signed a treaty that he wasn't willing to agree to. The fact is that he was willing to agree to it, but lacked enforcement oversight and the Chinese rebelled on a wide scale. The sacking of the Summer Palace, where these relics come from, was not because the Emperor was disobeying the treaty, but because the imperial powers were upset that the Chinese were not being controlled. How is that the government's fault?

    The imperial attacks weakened the Chinese military and infrastructure considerably... how do you enforce a treaty that is inherently unenforcable? But that was the whole point you see. The imperialist powers knew it was an unbalanced treaty, and the lack of its enforcement gave them entitlements for further invasions and further unfair treaties. This is the same tactic they used in every nation they invaded. They claimed that the occupied government was not doing its job, then continued invading until they were essentially given full control of the country.

    You can't use the claim that the Qianlong Emperor didn't honour his agreements and therefore China deserved to be looted. The Treaty of Nanjing and subsequent treaties were unbalanced and unenforceable in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Well, then China shouldn't have violated its earlier treaties.
    There was no earlier treaty before the Treaty of Nanjing, as it was a result of the First Opium War.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    If the Chinese Qing government had not been so arrogant in dealing with the Western powers (as indicated in the excerpt you provided earlier) then things would likely have been very different.
    If, if, if... again, suppositions. You have a clear inability to discuss what did happen as I am continually having to clarify your points on history. Yet you revert to "what ifs" as justification for looting. I cannot prove your what ifs because they do not exist in history.

    I personally do not souly blame the imperial powers for what happened in China. The Emperor and his xenophobia also contributed to the events which destroyed most of the ancient mainland... but as you know, Chinese history is incredibly complex and a domino effect, and so you cannot blame it all on one factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    You don't have to teach me Chinese history. I am quite familiar with it thank you very much.
    You have a very slanted and opinionated view of Chinese history which favours your current agenda against the mainland. You continually blame the Qing court for the events which lead to looting, yet any historian who studies China in the post-Ming era knows that the factors were much more complicated than those arising from one man.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    France is not keeping the relics. They are in the estate of Yves St. Laurent.
    It was the French army that took the relics in the first place when they attacked the Summer Palace, so by definition they were looted by France.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    And they may have a MORAL claim, but not a legal one.
    Yes we've been over this.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Completely different situation. Those were RECENTLY excavated IN VIOLATION of existing international protocols regarding the trafficking of cultural treasures.
    You never stated that requirement in your initial criteria. Don't change the goal posts in order to save your sinking ship.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Source?
    I only remember it from my studies in university... as far as I know it is still in the drafting process. You'd have to look up the Hague Convention protocol amendment. I am still in contact with my old professor and when I next talk to him I'll ask for the source. The idea is to create a sort of international claimant court to address stolen cultural property, under the banner of UNESCO. The Christie auction was already addressed in French court and it was dismissed immediately... but this is their domestic law, and so an international forum should be able to step in to address claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    You change the parameters of what was said, and then taunt based on that. Typical.
    Non-sense. You claimed that had the relics stayed in China, the Cultural Revolution would have likely destroyed them. I asked you to prove evidence for this claim, which, of course, you can't because it's an opinionated supposition. Given that many Chinese relics survived the rise of the Communists and still exist in China to this day, there is no way to know for sure what "might have" happened had the relics stayed.

    Court rooms don't operate on what "could have" happened. Your parameters were unrealistic in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Too bad that law goes out the window during wartime.
    Not really. There are standard war conventions that all signing nations now adhere to. Even war now has rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    What do you expect the French government to do? Violate its own laws and confiscate the relics? Typical of the Sino/Russo contempt for the rule of law.
    Spare me your sniveling remarks about Communism. I am not a Communist.

    I expect the French government, and all nations with stolen property, to do what is right and return property within its borders to other nations who are demanding them back. No demand? No problem. France and Britain have tonnes of outstanding claims from foreign countries that want their heritage back. France itself has claims against Cuba, parts of Africa, etc. for return of its priceless and irreplaceable art. Yet France itself will not acknowledge claims against it for stolen property? Utter hypocrisy.

    If relics which are now in private hands were originally looted by any establishment in relation to the French government, then yes, I expect them to be confiscated and returned. What makes those relics safer in a private collection than in a museum where curation is paramount, and where the public can have access to view their own heritage?

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    I would suggest you find a source since you are the one bringing it up. Again, it is a general principle of international law to not enforce new laws in an ex post facto fashion.
    I will have to get more info... but again, in the least it would create an official international forum for staking such claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    As I said, there is a different between MORAL right and LEGAL right. SOrry you can't see that I HAVE made a distinction between the two and that I am arguing purely from a LEGAL perspective.
    I do see the difference... however I have spent most of this debate arguing against your moral imperative which is based on a biased view of Chinese history mixed with your own Sinophobia. If you scroll back to my first post in this thread, I said there is no legal claim, but the countries should do the right thing and return the property. It was you who started blaming the past with normative statements. I am simply trying to balance out your extremism, as moderates tend to do.

  2. #42
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: China relics buyer refuses to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I misread your original statement as the Chinese giving away tea in exchange for nothing. Apologies.
    No problem. You are not "you know who."

    There was no international law that could be applied to anything prior to the League of Nations, as no such suprainternational regulatory body existed.
    Again, not true. There has been international law for thousands of years, though for most of it, it was regional in nature. Only in the 19th century did it become global - the global international law evolving essentially from Western international law. However, even in pre-modern times, there was international law whether it was in East Asia which was enforced by a hegomonic China or the laws practiced amongst the city-states of ancient Greece.

    It is true that there was no suprainternational regulatory body, but it doesn't change the fact that there was a series of rules that international actors were expected to abide by.

    Who regulated international law when the Treaty of Nanjing was signed? The answer is no one.
    The recognized members of the international community.

    Yes I know, but that wasn't my point. You were arguing that the Qianlong Emperor should never have signed a treaty that he wasn't willing to agree to. The fact is that he was willing to agree to it, but lacked enforcement oversight and the Chinese rebelled on a wide scale. The sacking of the Summer Palace, where these relics come from, was not because the Emperor was disobeying the treaty, but because the imperial powers were upset that the Chinese were not being controlled. How is that the government's fault?
    The emperor would still be responsible for making sure all elements of the government adhered to it. The execution of a missionary by the Guangxi Provincial government would certainly fall under his area of responsibility under international law.

    The imperial attacks weakened the Chinese military and infrastructure considerably... how do you enforce a treaty that is inherently unenforcable? But that was the whole point you see. The imperialist powers knew it was an unbalanced treaty, and the lack of its enforcement gave them entitlements for further invasions and further unfair treaties. This is the same tactic they used in every nation they invaded. They claimed that the occupied government was not doing its job, then continued invading until they were essentially given full control of the country.
    It could be argued that in the late 1850s, the infrastructure of the Qing government had been far more weakened by the Taiping Rebellion than by anything the ENglish and French did in the Second Opium/Archer War.

    You can't use the claim that the Qianlong Emperor didn't honour his agreements and therefore China deserved to be looted. The Treaty of Nanjing and subsequent treaties were unbalanced and unenforceable in the first place.
    Sure I can. CHina did not honor its agreements. Under international law, both France and England had the right to redress. The fact that they were unbalanced was irrelevant.

    There was no earlier treaty before the Treaty of Nanjing, as it was a result of the First Opium War.
    And it was the Treaty of Nanjing's violation that led to the Archer War, which is when these relics came into French hands.

    If, if, if... again, suppositions. You have a clear inability to discuss what did happen as I am continually having to clarify your points on history. Yet you revert to "what ifs" as justification for looting. I cannot prove your what ifs because they do not exist in history.
    I should be Harry Turtledove. Perhaps I should write a novel about what would have happened had the Ming continued on the course Zhu Di set for it.

    Seriously, I am not using the what ifs to justify the looting. Again, I am not defending it MORALLY. I am merely making a legal argument that China's govenment has no legal claim to those relics.

    I personally do not souly blame the imperial powers for what happened in China. The Emperor and his xenophobia also contributed to the events which destroyed most of the ancient mainland... but as you know, Chinese history is incredibly complex and a domino effect, and so you cannot blame it all on one factor.
    Have I ever blamed it on a single factor? Heck, the Chinese regarded the Qing emperors as foreigners anyway. The Chinese were, as you said, highly xenophobic, which brought on the disaster that China sufferred. If they had talked with the British as equals from the beginning, this would possibly been averted.

    You have a very slanted and opinionated view of Chinese history which favours your current agenda against the mainland. You continually blame the Qing court for the events which lead to looting, yet any historian who studies China in the post-Ming era knows that the factors were much more complicated than those arising from one man.
    Sorry if you think a realistic look at Chinese history is slanted and opinionated. I do NOT hold to the school that foreigners were to blame for all of China's troubles. The Manchus as well as the Han Chinese themselves were actually far more to blame for China's failures than the foreigners ever were.

    It was the French army that took the relics in the first place when they attacked the Summer Palace, so by definition they were looted by France.
    Sure they were. But they are not today in the possession of the French government.

    You never stated that requirement in your initial criteria. Don't change the goal posts in order to save your sinking ship.
    My sinking ship? You bring into the discussion something that is CLEARLY covered by international law today and try to compare it to something that is completely different. THAT is indicative of someone with a sinking ship.

    I only remember it from my studies in university... as far as I know it is still in the drafting process. You'd have to look up the Hague Convention protocol amendment. I am still in contact with my old professor and when I next talk to him I'll ask for the source. The idea is to create a sort of international claimant court to address stolen cultural property, under the banner of UNESCO. The Christie auction was already addressed in French court and it was dismissed immediately... but this is their domestic law, and so an international forum should be able to step in to address claims.
    I would be very interested in seeing the source to this. Once you find it, please post it here or PM it to me.

    Non-sense. You claimed that had the relics stayed in China, the Cultural Revolution would have likely destroyed them. I asked you to prove evidence for this claim, which, of course, you can't because it's an opinionated supposition. Given that many Chinese relics survived the rise of the Communists and still exist in China to this day, there is no way to know for sure what "might have" happened had the relics stayed.
    A large proportion of relics that were known at the time of the CUltural Revolution were damaged or destroyed. I saw quite a lot of evidence of this first hand in Beijing, Ji'nan, Nanjing, Shanghai, Kunming, Shenyang and many other places in China. This simply can not be denied.

    Court rooms don't operate on what "could have" happened. Your parameters were unrealistic in the first place.
    No. Court rooms operate on the principle of LAW. China has no LAW in this case that supports its claims, something confirmed by a student of international law cited in an earlier post.

    Not really. There are standard war conventions that all signing nations now adhere to. Even war now has rules.
    Sure there are. But this is 2009, NOT 1860. The rules have changed.

    Spare me your sniveling remarks about Communism. I am not a Communist.
    I didn't say anything about communism. The comment was related to the rule of law.

    I expect the French government, and all nations with stolen property, to do what is right and return property within its borders to other nations who are demanding them back. No demand? No problem. France and Britain have tonnes of outstanding claims from foreign countries that want their heritage back. France itself has claims against Cuba, parts of Africa, etc. for return of its priceless and irreplaceable art. Yet France itself will not acknowledge claims against it for stolen property? Utter hypocrisy.
    What would the legal basis of the French government to seize relics that are privately held?

    If relics which are now in private hands were originally looted by any establishment in relation to the French government, then yes, I expect them to be confiscated and returned. What makes those relics safer in a private collection than in a museum where curation is paramount, and where the public can have access to view their own heritage?
    Again, what is the legal basis for such a seizure?

    I will have to get more info... but again, in the least it would create an official international forum for staking such claims.
    As I said, please get back to me when you find it. I am genuinely interested in it.

    I do see the difference... however I have spent most of this debate arguing against your moral imperative which is based on a biased view of Chinese history mixed with your own Sinophobia. If you scroll back to my first post in this thread, I said there is no legal claim, but the countries should do the right thing and return the property. It was you who started blaming the past with normative statements. I am simply trying to balance out your extremism, as moderates tend to do.
    I am not Sinophobic. I love China and the Chinese. I am fascinated by Chinese history, culture, food and so many other things about China. However, my love for China and the Chinese does not blind me to the fact that, like anyone other old culture, there is a tremendous amount of baggage, something that would be looked down upon by today's standards. My gripe against China is not its past, it is the thugs and criminals who rule it in the present.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #43
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Last Seen
    01-13-10 @ 08:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    146

    Re: China relics buyer refuses to pay

    The People's Republic of China is NOT the Qing Dynasty. France didn't loot the artifacts from the PRC, so the PRC has no right to claim it.

  4. #44
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: China relics buyer refuses to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by George VI View Post
    The People's Republic of China is NOT the Qing Dynasty. France didn't loot the artifacts from the PRC, so the PRC has no right to claim it.
    TECHNICALLY, the PRC is the successor regime to the ROC and the Qing Dynasty, and is thus bound and obliged to the same agreements, boundaries, etc. as its previous regimes save for how they are subsequently altered while it is in power. This is a standard practice in international law.

    Just as the Fifth French Republic is the successor to the Fourth Republic and all prior manifestations of the sovereignty of France.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: China relics buyer refuses to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by George VI View Post
    The People's Republic of China is NOT the Qing Dynasty. France didn't loot the artifacts from the PRC, so the PRC has no right to claim it.
    This is false. The PRC is bound by all agreements made by its Qing predecessors. This is why Hong Kong was not ceded back to China until the 90's, when the treaty expired.

  6. #46
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: China relics buyer refuses to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    This is false. The PRC is bound by all agreements made by its Qing predecessors. This is why Hong Kong was not ceded back to China until the 90's, when the treaty expired.
    First statement? True
    Second statement? Barely true. The treaty that expired was only in regards to the section that was LEASED after the Boxer Rebellion and the foreign intervention. Had Britain wanted to retain Hong Kong proper, they would have had the legal right to have done so.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: China relics buyer refuses to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Again, not true. There has been international law for thousands of years, though for most of it, it was regional in nature. Only in the 19th century did it become global - the global international law evolving essentially from Western international law. However, even in pre-modern times, there was international law whether it was in East Asia which was enforced by a hegomonic China or the laws practiced amongst the city-states of ancient Greece.

    It is true that there was no suprainternational regulatory body, but it doesn't change the fact that there was a series of rules that international actors were expected to abide by.
    You are confusing international law with regional law. The Western treaty system and mercantilist values were not present in Asia when the imperial powers arrived with their demands. They were foreign concepts to China. China always used the tributary system to establish relations with its Asian neighbours and that was the basis of their economic friendships. They didn't use treaties.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    The recognized members of the international community.
    You mean the West? Don't be silly... there were no international regulations at that time that even came close to applying to Asia. It was the Western powers and their own mercantilist rivalry that caused them to enter China in the first place. They were all competing for trade in silk, tea, spices, coffee, and fine China. Britain became the hegemon in this department later on.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    The emperor would still be responsible for making sure all elements of the government adhered to it. The execution of a missionary by the Guangxi Provincial government would certainly fall under his area of responsibility under international law.
    The missionary was executed for breaking Chinese law, which the West didn't acknowledge. Missionaries did not have unlimited access under the Treaty of Nanjing. That came later in the following treaty in the Second Opium War. He was legally executed for prosyletizing Catholicism in China without permission from the governor. His execution was legal. The Western powers just wanted any excuse to further their control.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    It could be argued that in the late 1850s, the infrastructure of the Qing government had been far more weakened by the Taiping Rebellion than by anything the ENglish and French did in the Second Opium/Archer War.
    Yes, it could be argued, but it would not be consistent with historical facts. The Taiping Rebellion gained the strength that it did because the Qing military had weakened resources as well as competent leadership, due to the First Opium War and the Treaty of Nanjing. Prior to the arrival of the Western forces, the Qing could have easily contained such fanaticism. Not to mention, Hong Xiuquan, the leader of the rebellion, started his cause due to Christianity and his own conversion. Where would he have learned such a religion? Gee I wonder.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Sure I can. CHina did not honor its agreements. Under international law, both France and England had the right to redress. The fact that they were unbalanced was irrelevant.
    Under European law, perhaps. You cannot make international claims in an era where no such international system existed, so cease the pretense already.

    China was incapable of honouring its agreements. The treaties were practically signed at gunpoint, and the imperial powers knew it.

    Treaty of Nanking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Read the first line. It says "unequal treaty". This is what all historians refer to it as. You claim that you have studied the past, but your dishonesty shows.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    And it was the Treaty of Nanjing's violation that led to the Archer War, which is when these relics came into French hands.
    Yes I know about the Archer War. Again, you are trying to argue that China deserved to be looted, but your historical knowledge does not hold up to scrutiny. You have first cited international law, which did not pertain to China at all and only among European powers and its conquered territories; then you try to cite the Qing's "violations" of Treaties, even though the Qing lacked the ability to even enforce them; now you are citing entire wars as a justification for looting. It is just laughable.

    Putting more claims aside and legal claims, why not just admit that the looting was done upon the free will of the military, and they didn't give a damn whether or not it was legal? Stop trying to blame China for everything, as you always do.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    I should be Harry Turtledove. Perhaps I should write a novel about what would have happened had the Ming continued on the course Zhu Di set for it.
    Based on what you have already said, I doubt any historian would take you seriously. Maybe the fringe Sinophobic activists in the West would buy it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Seriously, I am not using the what ifs to justify the looting. Again, I am not defending it MORALLY. I am merely making a legal argument that China's govenment has no legal claim to those relics.
    Not using ifs? Yes you are. "If" they had stayed in China, the Cultural Revolution would have destroyed them. That is an unprovable supposition. Your intellectual dishonesty is displeasing.

    If the Qing had enforcability at all, the relics would not have been stolen in the first place, as it would have been illegal to do so. So yes, China did have a legal claim to the relics... but once they left the mainland, they didn't. But that doesn't account for why they shouldn't be returned in modern times.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Have I ever blamed it on a single factor? Heck, the Chinese regarded the Qing emperors as foreigners anyway. The Chinese were, as you said, highly xenophobic, which brought on the disaster that China sufferred. If they had talked with the British as equals from the beginning, this would possibly been averted.
    I love this paragraph. "I'm not blaming it on a single factor, but... I blame the Chinese." It could also be said that if the West had respected they were in a foreign land that operated different than their own, and they weren't so greedy with their quest for empire, the problem could have been averted? The argument works both ways. At least I can acknowlege that.

    The Manchus were later accepted as the rulers of China and they did all they could to respect Chinese beliefs. It was why their transfer to power was so seamless after the invasions were complete.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Sorry if you think a realistic look at Chinese history is slanted and opinionated. I do NOT hold to the school that foreigners were to blame for all of China's troubles. The Manchus as well as the Han Chinese themselves were actually far more to blame for China's failures than the foreigners ever were.
    A realistic look at Chinese history does not involve placing blame on anyone. It is the revisionists and people with an agenda who decide that one side was the greater evil. In this debate I have been defending the Chinese because your side is wholy against them. You claim to have a balanced view but it's not balanced at all. You continually blame the Qing and the Chinese way of life for why they were invaded without even considering Western involvement.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Sure they were. But they are not today in the possession of the French government.
    If you trace the transferrence of property back to the original owners, it doesn't matter anyway. The French government stole them, plain and simple. That's why I find it incredibly ironic that the French government can be absolved of responsibility now... "Oh, they're in private hands now, we don't have anything to do with it!" So much for accountability.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    A large proportion of relics that were known at the time of the CUltural Revolution were damaged or destroyed. I saw quite a lot of evidence of this first hand in Beijing, Ji'nan, Nanjing, Shanghai, Kunming, Shenyang and many other places in China. This simply can not be denied.
    I never denied it. You, however, are denying that a large part did survive, and I myself have seen this with my own eyes. Revisionists like you make it seem like the Cultural Revolution destroyed all of China. Fact is, it didn't. A lot of its heritage lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    No. Court rooms operate on the principle of LAW. China has no LAW in this case that supports its claims, something confirmed by a student of international law cited in an earlier post.
    Yes, we covered this. Right now I am mostly debating against your Sinophobia, a mistake that I will not enter upon again.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Sure there are. But this is 2009, NOT 1860. The rules have changed.
    I know, but that's not what I was replying to. Re-read your statement that I was replying to, and try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    What would the legal basis of the French government to seize relics that are privately held?
    If the French Government were the original looters, then they could declare the original resale illegal and confiscate them, returning them to the authority that demands them. If private looters went overseas then there is not much that can be done about it. (i.e. Egyptian grave robbers.)

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    I am not Sinophobic. I love China and the Chinese. I am fascinated by Chinese history, culture, food and so many other things about China. However, my love for China and the Chinese does not blind me to the fact that, like anyone other old culture, there is a tremendous amount of baggage, something that would be looked down upon by today's standards. My gripe against China is not its past, it is the thugs and criminals who rule it in the present.
    I don't believe this for one minute.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: China relics buyer refuses to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    First statement? True
    Second statement? Barely true. The treaty that expired was only in regards to the section that was LEASED after the Boxer Rebellion and the foreign intervention. Had Britain wanted to retain Hong Kong proper, they would have had the legal right to have done so.
    You don't have to tell me the terms of the lease.

    The lease was part of the Treaty of Nanjing, which stipulated that the lease would take place in perpetuity and be reviewed in 99 years. My statement is true.

    My point was that the PRC still had to honour this agreement even though it was the Qing who signed it, and that was why when it came up for review in the 90's it still fell to the PRC to handle it.

    I won't sidetrack the thread on this point. My point stands.

  9. #49
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Last Seen
    01-13-10 @ 08:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    146

    Re: China relics buyer refuses to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    You don't have to tell me the terms of the lease.

    The lease was part of the Treaty of Nanjing, which stipulated that the lease would take place in perpetuity and be reviewed in 99 years. My statement is true.

    My point was that the PRC still had to honour this agreement even though it was the Qing who signed it, and that was why when it came up for review in the 90's it still fell to the PRC to handle it.

    I won't sidetrack the thread on this point. My point stands.
    In this case, it was the British who were bound by the treaty to return Hong Kong to [Qing] China, or it's successors. The PRC didn't have to didn't have to honour anything, they were just simply given Hong Kong.

  10. #50
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: China relics buyer refuses to pay

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    You don't have to tell me the terms of the lease.

    The lease was part of the Treaty of Nanjing, which stipulated that the lease would take place in perpetuity and be reviewed in 99 years. My statement is true.

    My point was that the PRC still had to honour this agreement even though it was the Qing who signed it, and that was why when it came up for review in the 90's it still fell to the PRC to handle it.

    I won't sidetrack the thread on this point. My point stands.
    Your point does NOT stand. Britain did not have to return Hong KOng proper because that was given to BRitain in perpetuity in the 1840s. The 99-year lease referred to the New Territories and Lantau Island, NOT Hong Kong proper that Britain was obligated to return in 1997. There was NO obligation regarding Hong Kong Island because that was not part of the lease. Please get your history straight.

    However, we are in agreement that the PRC is in fact bound to the agreements made by the predecessor regimes, the ROC and Manchu Qing dynasty.

    I will respond to your longer post in the morning.
    Last edited by ludahai; 03-08-09 at 10:38 AM.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •