Looking at this report it seems China is taking another step to limit Taiwan’s political maneuverability.
“The reunification law will define what is Taiwan independence and specify corresponding measures. It will be legally binding. The use of force will be an important but last resort.” " said Zhu Xianlong, a Taiwan expert at Beijing Union University.
Knowing how western nations love legal documents. I wonder how a law like that might shift the current political situation across the Straits.
[/url]
Germany actually had a decent claim to much of Poland and Czechoslovakia.
As far as the present controversy goes, how should Taiwan respond?
(a) Vote to accept or reject China’s proposed law in a referendum
(b) Complain that China is changing the status quo
(c) Make their own damn law that says China should go sodomize itself
If a diplomat says yes, he means maybe.
If a diplomat says maybe, he means no.
If a diplomat says no, he is no diplomat.
[quote]As far as the present controversy goes, how should Taiwan respond?
(a) Vote to accept or reject China’s proposed law in a referendum
(b) Complain that China is changing the status quo
(c) Make their own damn law that says China should go sodomize itself[/quote]
i would go with b) AND c), and issue a public statement that china can pass all the friggins laws re taiwan it wants, but it is irrelevant to taiwan since we are a separate country.
china thinks this is a clever bit of political/diplomatic manuevering to counter the US’s Taiwan Relations Act. the US has always justified to china its aid to taiwan by citing the TRA: “sorry zhang, we have to sell those billions of dollars of military equipment to taiwan - it’s our legislative mandate.” now china wants to play hardball with the US by citing its own version of the TRA: “sorry homer, we have to amass billions of RMB on a military offensive against taiwan - it’s our glorious motherland’s mandate.” this kind of hard-headed politics could lead to dangerous displays of brinksmanship like the cuban missile crisis. and the recipient of all this potential hurt would be taiwan.
Any legislation by the PRC in terms of unification with Taiwan would be an attempt by the PRC to change the status quo.
An attempt to change the status quo by either side, China or Taiwan, is forbidden by the USA.
Now is time for the USA to bitchslap the PRC on this comment OR for Taiwan to scream yell and holler and elevate their name change statments (Taiwan zhen ming), and legislation, etc. and if the USA says something, they can whine like Lien Chan and say it isn’t fair, why can the PRC say something and we have to keep quiet. It isn’t fair, it isn’t fair. It’s just not fair! Then maybe the USA will say, you are right. Go ahead, we got your back. Then what is the PRC going to do?
Come on PRC, don’t test the USA now, they are busy with IRAQ right now. Those damn Commies are such troublemakers!!
I think the difference now is that China wish to pre-emptively define what is a “change” to status quo, and the actions they will take to different degrees of changes.
Really I thought the USA told the TI to stop making trouble recently.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]I think the difference now is that China wish to pre-emptively define what is a “change” to status quo, and the actions they will take to different degrees of changes.
Really I thought the USA told the TI to stop making trouble recently.[/quote]
The US warned against changing the status quo. China has been doing tha tunilaterally.
Regarding the socalles “reunification law”, then in a society where the rule of law is so weak as the Chinese one, that “law” can be disregarded. After all, it’s an illegal attempt to meddle in Taiwan’s internal affairs.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Germany actually had a decent claim to much of Poland and Czechoslovakia.
[/quote]
Huh?!?! DIdn’t GErmany sign a treaty following World War I setting its boundaries? How does that give Hitler a “decent” claim to much of Poland and the then-Czechoslovakia?
Based on the self-determination of the GERMAN majority who lived there. The treaty was forced on them, of course, and given its strictures one can hardly blame them for abrogating it at the first opportunity. (AND going after those elements of German society which had betrayed them.)
It was a treaty that was forced on them after a war that they began. At that time in history, forced treaties (in reality, MOST treaties had an element of force to them in that day and age) were perfectly legal and binding on all signatories.
