If even half of what you said was reasonable, we’d have a pretty good conversation going here. Yes, there was a provincial vote in Quebec. But no, it wasn’t unilateral. The Canadian federal government insisted that it had a role to play in the secession process, right? [/quote]
Right but the democratic process was observed. Of course the Canadian government would have been involved in the seccession process. How could it not? There is however a big difference between that situation and the one here in that Taiwan is ALREADY AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY. [/quote]
Wrong. Taiwan has never been an independent country. Not even for a single day. Point to me a time when Taiwan has been an independent country. The Republic of China established in 1911 was, guess what, a government of China, and Taiwan was made a province of it.
Till the day Taiwan secedes from China, it continues operate as a province of China, and every election and every oath-taking executive produced under the constitution and associated laws that state such only reaffirms it.
This is just internally. At the international level, nobody has ever recognized a sovereign state of Taiwan, either. But plenty have recognized the independent country of China even before the PRC even came into existence. Was the world appeasing the PRC before there was a PRC? TI/ers are laughable in their illogic.
While it may be true that mainland Chinese people believe in their government’s view of a “One China” policy, currently we cannot know what the majority truly believe. The Chinese government is pretty good at repressing any dissenting views, particularly on matters regarding political boundaries. In an environment where the goverment heavily censors all printed materials, from school texts to newspapers to novels, who could even have the opportunity to form an intelligent, informed position? With one side of the debate presented to you from birth and others condemned as criminal, how could we expect folks in China to openly question government policy?
We do, however have the opportunity to understand the point of view of many Taiwanese people, as they have enjoyed relative freedom for a number of years. I found a number of books debating both sides of the issue at Page One. People have conducted survey upon survey asking Taiwanese people what their opinion is on the subject. The last one I read indicated that more people actually prefer the ambivalent status quo to chosing either side. The shear fact that such surveys and publications exist and are available to the public in Taiwan drives a wedge between Taiwan and China that is far larger than the strait.
People generally appreciate freedom. As kitchy as that sounds, once you taste it, it is something quite addicting…so much so that you start taking these freedoms for granted, and only notice them when taken away. Taiwanese democracy is by no means perfect, but where in the world can we find that? It’s colorful and dramatic…but it’s real, and I think that people here would not appreciate being stripped of their voice, especially the folks I have come to know. This could just be the ramblings of a culture blind westerner who doesn’t know anything about Chinese culture. Of course cultural ties are important. This is why Taiwanese business people prefer to invest in China over India (amongst other places), despite the Taiwanese government’s efforts to shift this trend.
Maybe if China experiences a serious political overhaul in the next decade, then Taiwan would be more interested in being part of this “One China.” For the moment, I think the general public prefers relative freedom and democracy coupled with ambiguity over unity with China.
[quote][quote]The Republic of China established in 1911 was, guess what, a government of China, and Taiwan was made a province of it.
[/quote]
I thought Taiwan was a province of the Japanese Empire in 1911, not a part of the ROC.[/quote]
Indeed. Did not the Treaty of Shimonoseki cede this island to Japan in perpetuity?
Wouldn’t Taiwan be a part of Japan, were it not for the Rising Sun’s misadventures in WW2?
It will also be remembered that the Qing mainly controlled the populated lowlands, while the mountainous interior was controlled by the native people. Much of the interior was not “pacified” until Japanese rule.
Doesn’t this really depend on what you understand by “independence.” As has been pointed out already, Taiwan operates, functions, and exists independently, whether the “international community” chooses to recognize it’s independence is another matter. A number of political borders in the world are recognized as independent, but chaos ensues within those borders (Somalia, Afghanistan, the Ivory Coast). Taiwan not only has a functioning government, it has national health care, a democratic process, a solid public transportation infrastructure, and many other services most of the world likely envies (including the 800 million or so people living in poverty in China).
Historical arguments about who has had recognized sovereignty over Taiwan when are irrelevant. Any given piece of land has been at some point inhabited or conquered by various ethnic or political groups, including Taiwan.
In the end these arguments are just froth. Borders and territorial disputes are rarely so logically handled. Whoever has the most political clout–military, economically, or otherwise-- and the strongest friends gets what they want (I think back to the US policy of Manifest Destiny). Their selection of arguments is accepted as “right” or “justified” and that’s it. Or somebody almost randomly draws the borders and they stick (like nearly the whole continent of Africa).
This same international community generally prefers current territorial distributions…over say, civil wars. This is probably why Taiwan has existed in such a precarious position for so long. Why change something that (sort of works)?
Come on now. Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of the desperate. Saying my post reminds you of the above racist comment really undermines all the intelligent arguments you’ve made in this thread and elsewhere.
Heavy-handed huh? Let’s call it what it was: a butchering, a massacre.
Here is a link of some pictures to remind everyone what happened (NSFW)
An interest idea. The opportunity for political reform is closed tightly for the Chinese people, but they’re free to make money. Economies go up and down. In a representative democracy, when the economy is down, we tend to vote our leaders out of office. I wonder what the Chinese will do if there is a prolonged recession?
You are contradicting your previous argument. Remember? If reconciliation ultimately fails, China will just let Taiwan go. It would be an insult to your forefathers.
I stand by my statement China’s single-minded quest for Taiwan is irrational.
Doesn’t this really depend on what you understand by “independence.” As has been pointed out already, Taiwan operates, functions, and exists independently, whether the “international community” chooses to recognize it’s independence is another matter. [/quote]
No. It depends on what you understand by “country.” TI/ers like to say the PRC has never ruled them. Fine. The ROC has, and still does. The ROC was set up in 1911 to be China. Taiwan has never been set up as a country. Calling the ROC “Taiwan” does not make a country of Taiwan. It is still a part of that China with the China constitution written by delegates of China, in China, for China, in 1947. Until the day the constitutional issue is resolved, TI/ers won’t be happy because they know that is precisely why Taiwan is not a country. TI/ers understand it. You don’t seem to.
I’ll leave the discussion of whether Taiwan is/was independent and, or a country to the budding lawyers out there. I just don’t see it as particularly relevant.
bob, maybe I was just confused… but I thought you were telling me that according to democratic principals, people can decide who/where/what nation they belonged to without regards to “history” and “ethnicity”.
Oh, I guess I wasn’t confused. Only you were.
For Quebec at least, the “democratic principle” is apparently less important than the Canadian notion of history and statehood. The Canadian federal government isn’t only involved in the process of resolving Quebec’s independent future; the Canadian federal government has given itself the legal right (via legislative decision + court decision) to veto any secession that it finds unaccepatble. The fact that the Canadian federal government is democratically elected doesn’t mean much… I’d be fine, for example, with a secession process for Taiwan that had to be approved by a UN-administered vote of all 1.3 billion Chinese.
So, explain it to me, bob. Why is Canada remaining “in the wrong”? Why must the Quebecois be subject to the democratic choice of tens of millions of Canadians who have never even stepped foot in Quebec? Why, all of a sudden, does democratic principal depend on the legal and historical definition of Taiwan?
I thought you were just preaching from the lectern that “democracy was the highest ideal”. That was you, right? Therefore, if 50.1% of the Quebecois vote for secession tomorrow, it will be respected, right? Or did you really mean to modify your statement to read… “democracy is the highest ideal, as long as existing nations + systems are recognized”?
[quote=“billy budd”]
Come on now. Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of the desperate. Saying my post reminds you of the above racist comment really undermines all the intelligent arguments you’ve made in this thread and elsewhere.[/quote]
Don’t get wrapped up in the “racist” component of the quote. That’s only a poor word choice, but the absurdity of the phrase (and the philosophy that motivated the Vietnam War) remains the same even if we changed the phrase to…
“Inside every respected Vietnamese/Chinese gentleman, there’s an American trying to get out.”
Let’s talk about that absurdity instead. Let’s talk about the absurdity that jihadists for democracy and the American way of life assume that everyone is seeking to be freed their non-American, “chilling”, way of life.
History will tell us, won’t it?
I think that’s a legitimate question that you pose. I’m of the opinion that an authoritarian government is far more effective in making the difficult decisions needed for real reform. I’m of the opinion that this is why China is, and will, outperform any number of representative democracies in the long run. I’m curious if you’ve thought about the comparison in depth: China versus India, China versus Mexico, and China versus Brazil. What conclusions can you draw?
I believe the consequence of this “effectiveness” is the one you pointed out: a lack of flexibility, a greater fragility. This is why Beijing remains heavy-handed. Could there be a perfect storm that could expose this fragility? Absolutely.
[quote]I stand by my statement China’s single-minded quest for Taiwan is irrational.[/quote]I think we understand your statement. I think the first step to understanding any sort of human behavior is to understand your measure of rationality doesn’t match those of others. It’d be very easy for me to say, for example, that I find your belief to be irrational.
[quote=“cctang”]
You should learn the difference between wujing and jiefangjun.[/quote]
I agree. We all should learn. Tell us more. Wu-Jin? Wot?
Can posters please try to explain or elucidate Chinese words, whether in a form of romanization or Chinese script? At least the ones where us non-literary types are like: :homer:
Some of us us ignorant plebes have no idea!
Folks could do it thus.:
fongleweiguoren {= crazy foreigners}. It doesn’t have to be exact, and if you felt self-conscious about it, you could add the term (=approx) or some such. I think the same would go for Chinese characters in the forum.
[quote=“TheGingerMan”][quote=“cctang”]
You should learn the difference between wujing and jiefangjun.[/quote]
I agree. We all should learn. Tell us more. Wu-Jin? Wot?
Can posters please try to explain or elucidate Chinese words, whether in a form of romanization or Chinese script? At least the ones where us non-literary types are like: :homer:
Some of us us ignorant plebes have no idea!
Folks could do it thus.:
fongleweiguoren {= crazy foreigners}. It doesn’t have to be exact, and if you felt self-conscious about it, you could add the term (=approx) or some such. I think the same would go for Chinese characters in the forum.
Just an idea,
Ginger[/quote]
Oh, yes. Wujing. it means you got no sauce, you’re impotent.
I didn’t know the topic would be of general interest, or I would’ve certainly gone into more detail.
wujing = armed police, also known by their acronymn the PAP. This arm of the Chinese public security forces gained greater importance in the last decade. It’s staffed mostly with men/units decomissioned from the military… and there’ve been many, as the PLA has down-sized substantially over the past decade.
The wujing were established out of recognition that the military does not police well. Iraq is one recent example, but there’ve been many in history. For China, this lesson was learned again at Tiananmen. If you put soldiers who’ve only been trained to kill and destroy the enemy in a stressful environment where they are attacked, they will respond with force first, and consider consequences later.
The wujing are given high-profile responsibilities that out-class local police requirements. This includes guarding key national events/facilities, national leadership, prisons, and finally, responding to civil riots. They have light infantry arms, and numerous riot gear (water cannons, light APCs, etc). They’re controlled in a “dual” manner from both the central government and local government officials.
The jiefangjun = PLA’s responsibilities are what you’d expect out of any national military. Border defense, protection of Chinese sovereignty, etc. The PLA doesn’t participate in internal security.
When Hu Jin Tao was in the Washington recently they put on a big show with the Bu Hu twins there for a press conference. They played the national anthem of China. But it was introduced as the R.O.C anthem! Later when asked about democratic reforms in China Hu said he didn’t know the definition of the word democracy! :roflmao:
This thread brought to mind this campaign by mainland-based aiguozhe tongmeng (Patriot’s Alliance) a few years back… I believe it was shortly before the 2004 election.
A group of mainland Chinese nationalists formed the group, which remains a very popular discussion forum. They organize a variety of patriotic activities, and were behind many of the anti-Japanese protests/petitions that swept mainland cities about a year ago. The Beijing government also cracked down on them for a few months because of those protests, shutting down the website until the fever subsided.
This song was announced/shared/broadcast back then as a plea, from the Chinese nationalists, to Taiwanese across the strait. It accompanied a petition for peaceful, eventual reunfiication.
The petition/movement itself isn’t relevant in a global sense… but the song does reflect how mainland Chinese nationalists perceive cross-strait affairs.
And the RMB has been a recognized currency since, like, when?
