I have a question mostly aimed at AC and zeugmite. How can China pass an anti-seperation law aimed at Taiwan and talk about “peaceful reunification” at the same time? How can you pass a law saying “Don’t split from us” and say “Come rejoin us” and not see a problem? Basically, how can Taiwan reunify with China if it hasn’t split, and why talk about reunification if it hasn’t split?
Perfect logic Tetsuo, and all that is necessary to show that Taiwan is not part of the PRC. :bravo:
In which case, the ASL is clearly just like Sodom Hussein insisting that Kuwait not split from Iraq. True, historically, they might have been joined in some extinct political entity under foreign rule (hmm, ring a bell? just like a Qing Chinese empire under the Manchus), but if we’re to allow countries to turn as far back in the history books as they want to make claims on other nations or portions of their territory, much more of the world will be engulfed in war than already is.
The ASL is therefore completely devoid of legitimacy.
The options have always been Status Quo, Reunification, and Independence. They have just stated one of the options will lead to war, as they always have. The only difference is that now it is codify as law, which the international community is free to examine at their leisure.
There is still plenty of wiggle room with the PRC when we are ready to enter negotiations with them about the Strait Issue.
Of course if you are one of those that believed Taidu was the only viable solution to the Strait Issue, then of course you might feel threaten by the ASL, because quite frankly the ASL is targeted toward you and the antics your leadership brought upon us.
Thank God ROC is a democracy because there have always been a large segment of the population that supported the other two solution to the Strait Issue. Now we just have to manipulate the democratic political system on Taiwan to get our leadership in key position to ensure that the damage done by Taidu folly are reverse and a semblance of mature political dialogue can resume.
Don’t dodge the issue mate. Your red herrings aren’t going to work and I’ll keep asking until you answer the question. I’m serious - China talks about wanting to reunify with Taiwan, but also says it can’t secede. You can’t reunify with what you haven’t split from because reunification implies seperation, and you can’t split from something that wants you to reunify with it because secession implies unity. How can the two stands hold true from one position, the way they seem to from China’s perspective?
Is it the “One China” principle that got you going in circles?
If you take the time to read to ASL and the ROC constitution, you will see that it is the Taidu aspirations, which is causing most of the trouble.
I think ROC should pass an Anti-Taidu law to show the PRC we serious about seeking a peaceful resolution to the Strait Issue as well.
I seriously believe if we codify the 4 no’s and 1 without and the 10 point consensus as a domestic law on Taiwan, we could bring stability to the Strait.
It’s perfectly clear what PRC means, she views that: the Taiwan problem is a problem remaining from the civil war, hence a problem internal to both sides of China; that Taiwan is not a separate country from the rest of China, but is ruled by a competing entity that controls Taiwan. The word used for this is 割据. Think along the lines of warlords.
Anti-secession means against Taiwan making itself into a formal country hence permanently separating from China. Hence the whole issue of “international” representation, etc. The ASL just says PRC will prevent that at the cost of using non-peaceful means.
Peaceful reunification means as far as the PRC is concerned, how to resolve the issue of the relationship between the two sides within China should be negotiated instead of through further pre-70s style military conflict.
Only by insisting on “TIer logic” would one not understand this. One may disagree with it, but saying one doesn’t “understand” is patently disingenuous. Playing useless TIer semantic games is the lowest form of debate.
A bonus lesson for TIers: If you understood the PRC position, you would also understand why thinking the PRC is claiming Taiwan on pre-Qing “historical” grounds is missing the point because it’s not the case. PRC states that as historical background to show on what grounds China demanded Japan return Taiwan to China during WWII. That’s an entirely separate issue. So please stop harping on about PRC “demanding Mongolia” “demanding Vietnam” or “demanding Korea” or other illogical and irrelevant retorts.
Thanks for that highly patronizing answer. But it still doesn’t explain how reunification is still possible when they’re already part of one entity. And no, I’m not playing “semantic games” and all that, this is a genuine question, and if you can’t at least disguise your utter contempt for those that don’t agree with you for long enough to address a question that was meant in a genuine spirit of enquiry, then don’t bother answering at all.
Oh, and assuming that everyone who questions the PRC position is automatically a “TIer” makes you look remarkably one-eyed.
That’s why the political leadership needs to have a long dialogue about this issue on both sides of the Strait.
However, Taidu interest derailed the whole process after the 1992 consensus was reached.
So 13 years later we have Taidu interest claiming the proper solution to the Strait Issue is a new constitution, new name, new flag, new anthem, etc.
Sounds like one side is in denial and wishes to abandon the whole “One China” paradigm, thus the enactment of the ASL.
So now ROC has to go back to the 1992 consensus.
AC - Get off the “Taidu is evil” thing for just one second please. Answer the damned question. How can the PRC (meaning this has nothing to do with TIers or the ROC authorities or any of that) say in one breath that Taiwan is part of China and must not be allowed to split, and in the next say they want peaceful reunification? You can’t split from what you need to reunify with, and you can’t reunify with that from which you haven’t split.
It’s a simple question. Try answering a question, instead of derailing things with yet another rant about how Taidu has anally violated the world.
[quote=“Tetsuo”]Thanks for that highly patronizing answer. But it still doesn’t explain how reunification is still possible when they’re already part of one entity. And no, I’m not playing “semantic games” and all that, this is a genuine question, and if you can’t at least disguise your utter contempt for those that don’t agree with you for long enough to address a question that was meant in a genuine spirit of enquiry, then don’t bother answering at all.
Oh, and assuming that everyone who questions the PRC position is automatically a “TIer” makes you look remarkably one-eyed.[/quote]
Highly patronizing only if you are a TIer. I didn’t say you were. I do have contempt for the games that TIers play and pity their self-denying personality disorder; that’s quite different from having contempt for them due to their position, however.
As for the meaning of reunification, I believe I wrote pretty clearly: reunification refers to resolving the internal matter within one China, anti-secession aims at preventing a separation from becoming formalized, legalized, permanent, and internationalized; an internal split is recognized, an external split is to be prevented; if you still don’t get it, you are being dense, intentially or unintentially; if unintentional, it is probably due to an unwillingness to think like unificationists for a moment.
Yeah, because that wasn’t patronizing at all to anyone who actually asks questions.
- Do you understand it?
- Are you using “TIer logic”?
So are you questioning the “One China” paradigm or are you question the non-explicit nature of ASL in terms of “reunification” and “status quo”?
Let’s proposed this argument then:
“How can TI supporters claim ROC and PRC are seperate entities, then stage a political protest against the ASL enacted by the PRC?”
- During the course of history, when has a political protest against a foreign government ever succeeded in repealing a foreign law, unless the people in Taiwan believe in “One China” subconsciously?
And while we are playing word games, let’s not forget mine, either. When will Tetsuo answer my question? If Taiwan is “already independent,” then on what year what month what date did it become so? (No, no, no, not the ROC; that’s just the loincloth that TIers use.)
Oh, come on, y’all. Pistols at ten paces and be done with it!
In my admittedly non-comprehensive understanding, December 10, 1949. As much as CKS may have wanted to believe he still ran China, the PRC was a seperate entity from the get-go.
So now when are you going to answer my question in a way that a) adresses the question and b) doesn’t immediately patronize anyone who disagrees with your perspective?
"If Taiwan is “already independent,” then on what year what month what date did it become so? "
Well, it ceased being part of the Manchu empire when it was ceded to Japan, and after that, has never been part of the PRC. It became independent from Japan and part of the ROC upon retrocession, and that’s pretty much the whole story. It never needed to become independed from the PRC because it was never part of it.
I would like to point out several things.
Tetsuo and Dragonbones don’t even agree on the answer of this question. That points to something.
Second, Chiang had control of Hainan island (among other things) until the spring of 1950. Since I specifically asked when Taiwan became independent (not when was Chiang’s move to the main Taiwan island), then according to Tetso, “China” invaded an “independent Taiwan” in the spring of 1950 and took Taiwan’s Hainan island? Or perhaps an “independent Taiwan” occupied China for a time? Laughable. I am not patronizing; I already fully answered your question. I will appear to be less patronizing to you when you don’t dismiss my answer, become intellectually honest by being willing to take the position of a different side for a moment to understand an answer, and begin to think through your own answers seriously.
As for Dragonbones, I have always asked about Taiwan being independent from China, not from the PRC, so stop repeating to me endlessly how Taiwan has or has not been a part of PRC’s rule. Whatever Hartzell’s controversial theories, Taiwan’s current politics is based on the on-the-ground happening of retrocession in 1945 of Taiwan to China. So when afterwards did Taiwan become independent from that very China? Who said anything about the PRC? And as a side note, Dragonbones is again forgetting about Kinmen, Matsu, and a few Spratleys islands, which were never ceded to Japan by China.
Again, will somebody provide me with a date of Taiwan’s independence from China, along with a non ad-hoc, non a-postiori reason?
Remember, this is a word game, just like yours, Tetsuo. We can play till the end of time.
Realistically, it seems that Taiwan was politically a part of China for some time prior to 1895, and then again from 1945 to whenever moment you deem CKS as having lost China. Hence “reunification.”
This has nothing to do with the question of whether “reunification” is good. In fact I am mystified as to why so many people discuss questions like this in terms of historical precedent rather than the present desires of the people directly concerned.
Exactly. The only sane argument that has ever existed for TI was “becasue we want to (along with specific things that could only come with independence).” If 1C2S could not plausibly offer those, then at least it has a chance of convincing some people.