How can Taiwan reunify w/ China if it hasn't already split?

Politics Taiwan Politics
21

[quote=“zeugmite”]… 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? …

Again, will somebody provide me with a date of Taiwan’s independence from China, along with a non ad-hoc, non a-postiori reason?[/quote]
All of this confusion is easily cleared up if you understand that October 25, 1945, cannot be called “Taiwan Retrocession Day.” It is only the beginning of military occupation of Formosa and the Pescadores. Issues regarding territorial cession are always handled in the post-war peace treaty.

The date given as December 10, 1949 (or therabouts) is when the ROC (under the KMT leadership) moved its government operations to Taiwan. Let me ask this question: In late 1949, what if the ROC had moved to the Philippines? and established full control over Luzon island?

In that situation you see very clear that the ROC would be “a recognized government in exile exercising effective territorial control over an area where it does not possess sovereignty.”

Now move back to Taiwan. As of October 25, 1945, the ROC is holding Formosa and the Pescadores under military occupation. Does military occupation transfer sovereignty? No. Did the post war peace treaty award the sovereignty of Formosa and the Pescadores to the ROC ? No. Hence, the ROC’s position in Taiwan is the same as in the above theoretical Philippine example, i.e. the ROC is “a recognized government in exile exercising effective territorial control over an area where it does not possess sovereignty.” (In late 1971, the UN derecognized the ROC, and in late 1978, the USA did likewise. Hence, today, the ROC is “a non-recognzied government in exile exercising effective territorial control over an area where it does not possess sovereignty.” )

Hence, the answer to your question is clear. Taiwan is not an independent nation. The ROC is not an independent nation. There is no date which can be established when Taiwan became an independent nation, because it is not an independent nation, it only appears to be so … .

22

[quote=“Hartzell”][quote=“zeugmite”]… 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? …

Again, will somebody provide me with a date of Taiwan’s independence from China, along with a non ad-hoc, non a-postiori reason?[/quote]
All of this confusion is easily cleared up if you understand that October 25, 1945, cannot be called “Taiwan Retrocession Day.” It is only the beginning of military occupation of Formosa and the Pescadores. Issues regarding territorial cession are always handled in the post-war peace treaty.[/quote]

Has there been a post war treaty that deals with Taiwan?

In any case AC and Mr Z have not come forward with any real arguments to say why Taiwan should not become an independent state apart from money and war. Many independent countries have had wars to become independent. Freedom comes at a high cost.

23

Actually, I completely agree with what Tetsuo wrote: “As much as CKS may have wanted to believe he still ran China, the PRC was a separate entity from the get-go.”

My point in avoiding the word “China” is that it is a nebulous concept, which can variously refer to a geographic area, a historical nation of frequently varying territory, a so-called ethnic Han-run empire, a Manchu-run empire, a nation in political flux and military turmoil, a nation divided into two sovereign entities by civil war, or, to be consistent with the majority of territory held and the traditional notion of the geographic area, mainland China now, i.e., the PRC. It is precisely because it is nebulous, i.e., people mean different things when they use it, that it should be used with care in discussion. When you say China, are you defining that as a mainland area? Greater China? What you see as the PRC’s “rightful” claim to all of Greater China? We’re not going to get anywhere if we don’t define terms.

Thus, I rejected the question as phrased, and answered it in a different way, using careful wording (not blurring PRC and China). That careful wording was consistent with Tetsuo’s usage. The careful choice of wording is intended to make the discussion more accurate and scholarly, not to play word games.

Your grotesque twisting of Tetsuo’s meaning is incredibly patronizing. Tetsuo said no such thing. If you want people to continue talking to you, you should show a modicum of sobriety and respect.

I point out quite clearly above why the use of the term China makes such a discussion problematic. The use of the terms PRC and ROC are completely relevant to the discussion, whether you like it or not. The retrocession of Taiwan was to the ROC, not the PRC.

As for Kinmen (Jinmen), Matsu (Mazu), and a few Spratleys islands, they were under the possession of the ROC and did not need retrocession from Japan to make them so.

24

I was under the impression that the China which was recognized by the Allies was the ROC government and that retrocession of Formosa was therefore to the ROC not the PRC. But I’d welcome being corrected on this by anyone interested in sober, mutually respectful discussion.

A very interesting posting from a man for whom I have great respect.
I’m interested in why you call it military occupation. I of course understand that view from the perspective of locals who didn’t see Taiwan as part of China (ever, i.e., viewing the Manchus, Japanese and KMT all as illegitimate invaders) and don’t recognize Japan’s right to give the island to the ROC government; is that the basis for your statement? (I would have no objection.) Or, if one recognized the ROC as the rightful government of China from 1911 to 1949, and Japan’s return Taiwan to China in 1945, then the return would effectively be to the ROC, then the KMT’s move to Taiwan wouldn’t be military occupation, right? Your thoughts, Richard?

I do understand that since in late 1971, the UN derecognized the ROC, and in late 1978… the ROC is “a non-recognzied government in exile exercising effective territorial control over an area where it does not possess sovereignty” as a fair statement of the international legal status, but when you state this, are you also agreeing that the ROC rule of Taiwan is illegitimate in your eyes? That it shouldn’t rule Taiwan? I doubt this is what you’re saying, and am not being at all sarcastic, just asking for clarification and/or further discussion.

25

DB: Do a little reading on the SFPT and you’ll see Richard’s point here. :wink: It’s been discussed many times and no-one has come up with a statement there that shows Taiwan’s sovereignty was passed to the ROC. As far as the SFPT is concerned, Taiwan and the Pescadores are still under the custody of the US armed forces, with CKS’s ROC having been appointed as caretakers or custodians if you like. I’m sure Richard will point out the relevant passages. :wink:

26

I think you should let Tetsuo answer himself. As for the “grotesque” nature of what I wrote – what can I say? If you can’t even stomach the logical consequences of what you or somebody else writes, why debate at all?

Ah… fuck, not this piss-shit again. Look, I told you this is a word game. Deferring Hartzell’s point for a few paragraphs, Taiwan was returned to China – all of China – with all of its citizens, including overseas ones who had no relation to Taiwan island – in 1945, at which time there was a well defined political China – and there was only one. I simply asked you at what point you thought Taiwan ceased to belong to that China. If you say “ROC” means that “China,” then fine. Answer the question with ROC in place of China. PRC was never brought up by me. Yet you give me “careful wording,” bringing up the PRC over and over.

“Careful wording” is good, but in this case it is to avoid stepping on the landmine that calls TI into question. “Careful wording” in this case is to refuse to look at somebody else’s (not even mine) “careful wording.” Lack of intellectual honesty is what this is about. Even though I disagree with Hartzell’s verdict, I still think he has a strong interpretation, and applaud him for at least willing to consider a point that doesn’t agree with the Joe TIer orthodoxy.

As for Hartzell’s theory, whether you believe it or not, it doesn’t resolve the issue, because there is still Kinmen, Matsu, and a few Spratleys islands not involved in any issue with Japan.

Well, happy playing word games, girls and boys.

27

Peace everyone…

Let’s come back to the original question that was posed in this thread.

AC, Zeugmite…please give an answer. Not a roundabout blast of hot air.

If the sides have never split, and if Taiwan is an indelible part of China, how can there be talk of reunification. Neither of you have given an answer yet. (I suspect because you know you can’t.) :laughing:

28

Get back on-topic and answer the question.

It’s quite a reasonable and simple question if you actually look at it.

Look at the anti-secession law:

chineseculture.about.com/od/gove … a/a002.htm

Read Article 1 (my emphasis)

So two of the purposes of the law are:

  1. Opposing Taiwan’s secession

  2. Promoting peaceful national reunification

Secession and reunification are opposites. Secession means to leave a unified entity. Reunification means to rejoin and entity after having left it.

Taiwan can only secede if it is actually a part of China.

Taiwan can only reunify if it is seperate from China.

Thus the ASL is holding Taiwan to simultaneously be a part of and seperate from China.

I don’t think this is of any great importance (except as an illustration of how PRC ideology is in no way based on logic), but it is a perfectly valid point that Tetsuo was making.

[Moderator’s Note: Stick to the topic of the thread. If you want to address a different question, start a new topic. Further off-topic posts in this thread will be moved.]

Brian

29

Just to make sure we are back on track: The point about “a date of independence” is moot. The real basis of the thread is in the first posting…How can there be reunification if there was never independence (who gives a hoot about a date and time)?

30

Bu Lai En, don’t you hate it when your western terminology doesn’t fit the Chinese situation? Well, pity that. Better brush up on what 统一中国 has always meant to Chinese people in the past, including in the warlords period, etc.

Reunification means the reassertment of one legitimate central government over all of China, not the rejoining of separate countries. The latter would be termed 合并 or 统合.

31

Don’t you hate it when what’s actually written doesn’t fit your pseudo-argument?

“促进祖国和平统一” - from article one. That explicitly says “to advance peaceful unification with the motherland”.

Now who’s “playing semantic games”?

EDIT: Oh, and it’s not Bu’s choice of terminology. The CCP-organ People’s Daily also refers to it as “reunification”. You don’t think the CCP would misword their own stuff, right?

32

[quote=“zeugmite”]Bu Lai En, don’t you hate it when your western terminology doesn’t fit the Chinese situation? Well, pity that. Better brush up on what 统一中国 has always meant to Chinese people in the past, including in the warlords period, etc.

Reunification means the reassertment of one legitimate central government over all of China, not the rejoining of separate countries. The latter would be termed 合并 or 统合.[/quote]

While you like to live in the past we live in the present for the future.
You use the words to combine 合并 and to unite 统合. Thank you for the clear understanding. We know what those words mean in bringing two separate things together.

To re-unify means to bring something together that has been separated. You cannot re-unify something that is still part of the whole… or do these words escape your logic?

AS for 统一中国 One China… China would claim that any person of Chinese race belongs to the PRC, regardless of their current nationality… why do you think the other south east asian nations with large ethnic chinese populations are concerned?

You can keep your One China, in China… Taiwan is not a part of China… but in case you think it is please tell me what your nationality is and where you live? My passport says that I live in Taiwan…I don’t have a PRC Chinese visa in it, so therefor I cannot be in PRC China now can I?

Is China going to invade the neigbhouring asian countries to protect their Chinese compatriats, much the same way the Nazis invade their neighbours to protect ethnic Germans…?

Mr Z, I wlecome your debate but you still havent answered my question as to why the ROC should not formally declare independence? Why should the citizens of this country ( which includes me ) not have a referendum to decide to be a part of the PRC or to go another path?

Or does the popular vote scare you? Does real democracy scare you as well? Because you may not be the victor? Being a bully not good enough for you then eh?

33

[quote=“Tetsuo”]Don’t you hate it when what’s actually written doesn’t fit your pseudo-argument?

“促进祖国和平统一” - from article one. That explicitly says “to advance peaceful unification with the motherland”.

Now who’s “playing semantic games”?

EDIT: Oh, and it’s not Bu’s choice of terminology. The CCP-organ People’s Daily also refers to it as “reunification”. You don’t think the CCP would misword their own stuff, right?[/quote]

I’m not saying reunification is not the word associated with 统一, because that’s what the translation is. However, what you insist 统一 means is not what 统一 actually means. No amount of insisting will change that. The PRC wrote 统一 (and hence reunification) to mean “reassertment of one central government over all of China” and you are arguing the PRC did not mean it. How ridiculous can you be?

34

That’s bullshit and you know it.

Earth to you, your premier recognized 宪法一中. Oops for you.

35

That’s bullshit and you know it. [/quote]

What’s bullshit, suddenly you don’t know the laws of the PRC… you’d better go check em up mister.

When are you going to answer the previous questions instead of skirting around them pretending you haven’t read them?

36

Satellite TV, this is getting really old. Show me where PRC claims that “any person of Chinese race belongs to the PRC regardless of current nationality” with your insidious innuendo about incorporating Chinese in south east Asian nations. You are a real character.

37

Thank you :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

38

[quote=“Satellite TV”]China would claim that any person of Chinese race belongs to the PRC, regardless of their current nationality.[/quote]IIRC, even the ROC used to claim all persons of Chinese descent (whatever that means) were ROC citizens who only had to come claim their passports.

39

So you’re saying that Hu Jintao is actually the creation of Lewis Carroll?

40

Brothers and sisters can be reunited. That doesn’t mean they didn’t stop being family members.

There can be a reunion of mind and will where the two people never left each other.

Reunion does not entail separation of political identity. It can be read to imply this, but does not necessitate it.

The Chinese phrase being used 統一 can likewise be seen as a uniting of government systems, not of sovereignty. When Hong Kong’s 50 year period of autonomy is over it may be that the same term will be used.

Secession is a more specific term, and that does entail leaving the sovereignty.

As much as I’d like the PRC to have shot themselves in the foot on this one, I don’t think a narrow reading is the only one that can be used here.