Could a Crimea model or a Northern Ireland model work for the KMT?
If the motivation is purely driven by their complex with Japan and a revival of boxer rebellion mentality, then certainly this model wouldn’t work because they do see Taiwan as nothing more than a trophy or war loot. But suppose they’re driven predominantly by fear of not being able to preserve their Chinese ties and Chinese identity, then perhaps a Northern Ireland or Crimea model would work. In this kind of model, ROC is preserved as a SAR of China for as long as they want under the one China principle, and both the Chinese people in the SAR and those living overseas can decide the fate of ROC together.
In what sense? Do you have in mind a KMT-dominated enclave, perhaps around Taipei, which recognizes itself as a part of China while the rest of the island goes its own way? Or “little red men” infiltrating Taiwan society in order to foment rebellion against the government?
Could the area surrounding the CKS Memorial Hall be a modern version of the Forbidden City, where the Qing Royal family (substitute modern equivalence) is allowed to stay within that confine, daily needs and amenities subsidized of course?
Or it could be a variation of the Vatican City?
Either Jinmen or Mazu would be comparable to the Crimea model.
Or, if KMT in Jinmen works hard and adopts the Singaporean model, they could survive pretty well, given that China would also support them in every possible way. The KMT are in good terms with China and China would keep the ROC alive, as an SAR.
Given today’s technologies in civil engineering, Jinmen can be expanded with reclaimed land and a bridge to Xiamen, and be the hub of all of China, right?
Also I don’t think it is necessary to pick a KMT dominated enclave, because people are indeed free to move around, as seen by the Service Trade deal that KMT envisioned, where the service providers (human beings) do migrate.
Tsai is in Japan for a visit. Conspicuously, as far as I can tell, they never invited Hung. That smacks of the US House of Representatives inviting Netanyahu to speak but none of his opponents. Could Japan be trying to influence Taiwan’s democracy? Nah, how could it? Only evil governments like China’s do that. Amirite?
The US doesn’t necessarily agree with Taiwanese independence, however, it has always welcomed both the KMT and the DPP for a visit.
Sure but that’s before an honest discussion of the pros and cons. I think the concept of one-country-two-system deserves an honest discussion. If pro-China-ers’ goal is to return to China and make real contribution in China, these are real possible accommodations.
Also a lot of deals can be sealed without voting. If people really object to the deal, then can initiate a referendum.
As far as legal matter is concerned, such a plan is not really against the ROC constitution either, especially if you consider the entire KMT and Pro-Chiners do consider PRC as legal as of today.
[quote=“Dirt”]Tsai is in Japan for a visit. Conspicuously, as far as I can tell, they never invited Hung. That smacks of the US House of Representatives inviting Netanyahu to speak but none of his opponents. Could Japan be trying to influence Taiwan’s democracy? Nah, how could it? Only evil governments like China’s do that. Amirite?
The US doesn’t necessarily agree with Taiwanese independence, however, it has always welcomed both the KMT and the DPP for a visit.[/quote]
I think your speculation is not well founded.
If Hung really wants to visit Japan, I’m sure Japan will not object to it, and will be a good host despite Hung’s world view. As a comparison, Wang Jin Ping visited Japan many times and had good ties with Japan. The following picture was taken in April this year, when Wang was still considered a potential candidate. You’d notice the man hosting Wang then is exactly the person hosted Tsai this time.
The usual comparison with Crimea is that Russia invaded and annexed it, and nobody did anything. Maybe China could use Tsai’s visit to Japan (or Hung’s lack of an invitation to Japan) as a pretext: “It’s not us, it’s them fascists! We’ve got to do something about them fascists!”
He’s talking about giving ROCers sar passports to create a population of Chinese citizens in Taiwan who the PRC can then claim its protecting, is that it? Creating facts on the ground?
Northern Ireland is very different than Crimea, the resolution there was by mutual agreement with two governments (good Friday agreement), and both territories are part of a bigger bloc, the EU. 'The plan was then voted on by an all island referendum. The establishment of Northern Ireland way back around 1921 was also preceded by war, not something that I think would be wanted or feasible in Taiwan’s case.
Besides the KMT is not a monolith and most KMT types don’t have any desire to change status quo. What does the KMT stand for now…who are its power base…not clear.
[quote=“Dirt”]Tsai is in Japan for a visit. Conspicuously, as far as I can tell, they never invited Hung. That smacks of the US House of Representatives inviting Netanyahu to speak but none of his opponents. Could Japan be trying to influence Taiwan’s democracy? Nah, how could it? Only evil governments like China’s do that. Amirite?
The US doesn’t necessarily agree with Taiwanese independence, however, it has always welcomed both the KMT and the DPP for a visit.[/quote]
Hung would be stoned by hard core KMT types if she shows anything but contempt towards Japan or anything Japanese. remember the official line is we are celebrating 70th anniversary of the victory against Japan, and they haven’t apologized enough, so we hate them.
I am mainly talking about a minor territorial cession in which the Chinese loyalists can comfortably build their society to be integrated with China, just like Crimea prefers to be absorbed into Russia and Northern Island prefers the UK.
Consider the alternative where Taiwan continues Taiwanization, then the Chinese loyalists will probably still do everything to sabotage Taiwan, for generations. The cost of this is probably much higher than a Crimea/Northern Ireland model.
Sure but that’s before an honest discussion of the pros and cons. I think the concept of one-country-two-system deserves an honest discussion. If pro-China-ers’ goal is to return to China and make real contribution in China, these are real possible accommodations.
Also a lot of deals can be sealed without voting. If people really object to the deal, then can initiate a referendum.
As far as legal matter is concerned, such a plan is not really against the ROC constitution either, especially if you consider the entire KMT and Pro-Chiners do consider PRC as legal as of today.[/quote]
To my knowledge, I’m the only pro-1C2S person (PRC and a Taiwan SAR) who posts here and I’d certainly welcome a robust discussion on the merits. I take it though, that you are talking about a 1C2S model where a ROC SAR exists that on a small portion of Taiwan or the outlying isles and where the rest of Taiwan become a separate ROT. Under this model the much diminished ROC SAR would be part of the PRC like the HK and Macao SARs?
[quote=“Dirt”]Tsai is in Japan for a visit. Conspicuously, as far as I can tell, they never invited Hung. That smacks of the US House of Representatives inviting Netanyahu to speak but none of his opponents. Could Japan be trying to influence Taiwan’s democracy? Nah, how could it? Only evil governments like China’s do that. Amirite?
The US doesn’t necessarily agree with Taiwanese independence, however, it has always welcomed both the KMT and the DPP for a visit.[/quote]
I think the 2012 U.S. “leak” of “administration” views on TIW before the election were another clear signal that the U.S. has no problem in trying to influence Taiwanese elections. I wouldn’t be surprised if a more activist Japan under Abe tried to do the same (although it would be interesting if they tried to influence things differently than the U.S.). While I think that Taiwan should “pivot” to China, I can’t blame Japan if it tried to exert some influence given that this is going on in their backyard.
Didn’t HHC say that she was not going to go to the U.S., even after the AIT said that she was welcome. Likewise, did Japan invite TIW on their own accord, or was this something she pushed for?
[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
To my knowledge, I’m the only pro-1C2S person (PRC and a Taiwan SAR) who posts here and I’d certainly welcome a robust discussion on the merits. I take it though, that you are talking about a 1C2S model where a ROC SAR exists that on a small portion of Taiwan or the outlying isles and where the rest of Taiwan become a separate ROT. Under this model the much diminished ROC SAR would be part of the PRC like the HK and Macao SARs?[/quote]
Well sort of like that, but still, could we focus on the ROC problem? Irrespective of different expectations of what Taiwan will become in 100 years or 200 years, you’d still need to solve the ROC problem. And the ROC problem is a relatively simple one.
Ideally, since the Chinese on both sides of the strait are already in good terms, I think it is China’s responsibility to provide a sizeable area for the KMT/ROC to relocate to. Now, I’m saying is that if China is unwilling to provide the bare minimum, then I think Taiwan could be generous by allocating an roc zone.
How big, where, how to operate etc would be questions that I hope forum members would contribute.
The thing about giving them passports sounds more like Georgia or Moldova. And the thing about a “minor territorial concession” makes me thing of the novel (and now movie) Silence. You know, where Japanese Christians get imprisoned in their own little ghetto…? Or since they feel so strongly about the Senkakus and the Spratleys, one of those could be their Siberia.
1C2S is a great idea. Let’s see China try it first with Tibet and Xinjiang. Or would that add up to too many systems?
Chinese don’t care about the ROC. They care about Taiwan being part of China. No government in China Willa crept any part of Taiwan declaring independence, that’s why I said the Crimea/N Ireland model is not feasible
In the first place. wHere is this hypothetical SAR going to be created and which population of SARites will
Occupy it? There’s nowhere in Taiwan with a
Concentrated population of people who want to unite with the ‘motherland’ anymore. They are dead. There is almost zero interest in the population here, even the pro
One chine population, of creating a SAR like HK, what the hell
Would
Be the attraction in that?
A dedicate ROC SAR could in theory provide a safe zone for the loyalists to opt-out of Taiwan.
And, the zone can perpetuate roc’s legal status without being dragged in to potential intra-China conflict or Taiwan-China conflict. It is a zone where a particular flavour of China can exercise collective decision. Otherwise, the Loyalists might find themselves in an awkward predicament where they need to choose, as individuals between a regime in China and Taiwan.
I think Taipei Mayor Ko has expressed that he intends to make Taipei City “Neutral”. I think that’s more or less compatible with the Crimea/Northern Ireland Model proposed in this thread, although he did not put it this way.
Who are these ‘dedicated loyalists’ , a few hundred at most, where would they go, what would be the point? Maybe kinmen…it would make little difference to Taiwan
And change nothing about PRC towards Taiwan except for pissing off Taiwanese people.
[quote=“headhonchoII”]Who are these ‘dedicated loyalists’ , a few hundred at most, where would they go, what would be the point? Maybe Kinmen (Jinmen)…it would make little difference to Taiwan
And change nothing about PRC towards Taiwan except for pissing off Taiwanese people.[/quote]
I think there are at least one million ROCers, who are Chinese Loyalists regardless of what kind of path Taiwan takes. That’s enough to make up a functioning SAR. Whether they would be motivated to affect any real change in China is unknown. If there is not such SAR, they might perceive to be under existential threat, and that’s when things could get out of control.
[quote=“sofun”]A dedicate ROC SAR could in theory provide a safe zone for the loyalists to opt-out of Taiwan.
And, the zone can perpetuate roc’s legal status without being dragged in to potential intra-China conflict or Taiwan-China conflict. It is a zone where a particular flavour of China can exercise collective decision. Otherwise, the Loyalists might find themselves in an awkward predicament where they need to choose, as individuals between a regime in China and Taiwan.
I think Taipei Mayor Ko has expressed that he intends to make Taipei City “Neutral”. I think that’s more or less compatible with the Crimea/Northern Ireland Model proposed in this thread, although he did not put it this way.[/quote]
Dunno. Problem is the loyalists still believe it is their born right to rule China and hate Taiwan because “Taiwanese did not fight to regain the Motherland/defend the Motherland”. So, their predicament is double-fold as they do not want to stay but they do not want to go, either. I assume somewhere, as in the inner workings of their minds, they think this Crimea will rule from the Kremlin… once again they say, though it never was…
