Surely you know that that’s meaningless. Most of the trappings of the government in Taiwan, from the continued existence of the Mongolian and Tibetan affairs committe to the ROCs continued territorial claims on the mainland and Mongolia to the name of the country itself are Cold War relics that do not reflect reality on the island in the slightest and would have been done away with years ago if the PRC didn’t threaten war over such things. Poll after poll reflects that the vast majority who endorse the status quo do so because it is as close to de jure independence as is possible under the current circumstances.
Yes, there is only one China, according to both sides.
In answer to the question that is the title of this thread…it might be worth recalling what Stalin said when it was suggested to him that he respect the power of the Pope:
“The Pope? How many divisions does he have?”
Surely you know that that’s meaningless. Most of the trappings of the government in Taiwan, from the continued existence of the Mongolian and Tibetan affairs committe to the ROCs continued territorial claims on the mainland and Mongolia to the name of the country itself are Cold War relics that do not reflect reality on the island in the slightest and would have been done away with years ago if the PRC didn’t threaten war over such things. Poll after poll reflects that the vast majority who endorse the status quo do so because it is as close to de jure independence as is possible under the current circumstances.[/quote]
I politely disagree. The ROC doesn’t want to relinquish its claim to China. Otherwise, Taiwan Province would no longer exist, Fujian Province would have been done away with ages ago, the Tibetan and Mongolian councils would have been dismantled, and the Executive Yuan’s Mainland Affairs Council would be called the “China Affairs Council.”
Parts of the amended constitution read “before the country is reunified…” meaning that it is still an eventuality that the Taiwanese people will need to face up to. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, if they are willing participants, but the idea of a “status quo” is a joke. Both Chen Shui-bian and Ma Ying-jeou promised to uphold the status quo, but one saw a continuation of the Taiwan-China divide while the other has overseen unprecedented interactions, but official and otherwise, between Beijing and Taipei.
Ma has neither declared independence nor turned Taiwan into a puppet for China. But you cannot tell me that the millions of Chinese visitors each year, the upcoming visit of China’s Taiwan affairs minister, the various trade pacts, real emerging plans of a meeting between Ma and Xi Jinping, etc. are all part of the same “status quo” Taiwan has been in for the last half century. The Taiwan of today is an infinitely broad infinity apart from Taiwan under CKS, but both parties insist on the stupid phrase of “status quo” to placate uneasy voters, while each is clearly pushing for either eventual unification (KMT) or, probably, eventual independence (DPP).
Either way, the status quo is not sustainable, because Taiwan has moved so much from where the same “status quo” was a decade ago.
Surely you know that that’s meaningless. Most of the trappings of the government in Taiwan, from the continued existence of the Mongolian and Tibetan affairs committe to the ROCs continued territorial claims on the mainland and Mongolia to the name of the country itself are Cold War relics that do not reflect reality on the island in the slightest and would have been done away with years ago if the PRC didn’t threaten war over such things. Poll after poll reflects that the vast majority who endorse the status quo do so because it is as close to de jure independence as is possible under the current circumstances.[/quote]
I politely disagree. The ROC doesn’t want to relinquish its claim to China. Otherwise, Taiwan Province would no longer exist, Fujian Province would have been done away with ages ago, the Tibetan and Mongolian councils would have been dismantled, and the Executive Yuan’s Mainland Affairs Council would be called the “China Affairs Council.”
Parts of the amended constitution read “before the country is reunified…” meaning that it is still an eventuality that the Taiwanese people will need to face up to. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, if they are willing participants, but the idea of a “status quo” is a joke. Both Chen Shui-bian and Ma Ying-jeou promised to uphold the status quo, but one saw a continuation of the Taiwan-China divide while the other has overseen unprecedented interactions, but official and otherwise, between Beijing and Taipei.
[/quote]
As is stated in my original post, the continued existence of bodies such as the Mongolian & Tibetan Affairs Committee or administrative designations like Taiwan province are anachronisms. They have no real substantive function anymore and would have been abolished at least a decade ago had there not been pressure from the PRC against doing so. Same goes for much of the constitution and names of bodies like the Mainland Affairs Council.
[quote]Ma has neither declared independence nor turned Taiwan into a puppet for China. But you cannot tell me that the millions of Chinese visitors each year, the upcoming visit of China’s Taiwan affairs minister, the various trade pacts, real emerging plans of a meeting between Ma and Xi Jinping, etc. are all part of the same “status quo” Taiwan has been in for the last half century. The Taiwan of today is an infinitely broad infinity apart from Taiwan under CKS, but both parties insist on the stupid phrase of “status quo” to placate uneasy voters, while each is clearly pushing for either eventual unification (KMT) or, probably, eventual independence (DPP).
Either way, the status quo is not sustainable, because Taiwan has moved so much from where the same “status quo” was a decade ago[/quote]
I doubt that anyone truly wishes or believes that the status quo is permanent; it is a compromise that makes neither side happy, but it has remained and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future because neither independence nor unification are feasible in the short to mid term. That it why the vast majority of people support it. Both the DPP & KMT attempt to push the country in their preferred direction when in power, but neither of their actions have been decisive.
Beijing doesn’t care if the Mongolian and Tibet commission disappears. That’s kind of silly. The government got rid of Taiwan Province, introduced direct presidential elections, elected a DPP president, and Beijing couldn’t do anything about it. So why would they do something about a single insignificant commission?
The status quo question is like two people who are sort of dating but don’t like each other much. It’s been the status quo for many people’s entire lifetimes, so people are loathe to change – I get that. But it’s not sustainable for another lifetime.
The only reason why status quo isn’t sustainable is because the status quo is independence. China has made that abundantly clear they would not accept the status quo.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]Beijing doesn’t care if the Mongolian and Tibet commission disappears. That’s kind of silly. The government got rid of Taiwan Province, introduced direct presidential elections, elected a DPP president, and Beijing couldn’t do anything about it. So why would they do something about a single insignificant commission?
[/quote]
Beijing threw a fit at every one of those moves including lobbing missiles at Taipei, enacting an anti-secesson law, and actively working with the KMT to destroy the independence movement.
As for an insignificant commission, the smallness makes no difference to Beijing who also has lobbied successfully to keep Taiwan out of the Universal Postal Union.
The only reason why status quo isn’t sustainable is because the status quo is independence. China has made that abundantly clear they would not accept the status quo.[/quote]
I wish you were right, but you’re not. Taiwan’s de facto independence isn’t true independence because it does not have the freedom to make the choices it wants. It’s independence at the end of a gun barrel.
Anyway… Beijing objects to international moves by Taiwan but doesn’t care about how the government reshuffles its ministers and reorganizes its departments. Ma could tomorrow announce the decommissioning of the Mongolian/Tibet affairs council and Beijing more likely than not wouldn’t bat an eye. I refuse to believe the myth that Taiwan does not move toward independence because of pressure from China.
Taiwan does not move toward independence because the people in power don’t want it. It’s that simple.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]
I wish you were right, but you’re not. Taiwan’s de facto independence isn’t true independence because it does not have the freedom to make the choices it wants. It’s independence at the end of a gun barrel.
Taiwan does not move toward independence because the people in power don’t want it. It’s that simple.[/quote]
Agreed, which means when people from the green are in power, China don’t like status quo, and when people from the blue are in power, they move their plans forward.
Before China has the economic advantage, status quo was independence at the end of KMT’s gun barrel. Now China has the economic advantage, it’s independence at the end of CCP’s gun barrel.
China likes the status quo well enough as long as it’s the KMT’s status quo (because it’s not really a status quo, it’s a slow waltz toward unification). They don’t like the status quo when it’s the DPP’s status quo – or Lee Teng-hui’s status quo – because it’s a very slow crawl toward independence. Hence my argument that the term “status quo” is just political rhetoric that masks each side’s true ambition. It’s populism run amok.
Today, Sean Lien announced his bid for Taipei mayor and said he will not give in to populism. He will do what the city needs, whether or not it reflects well on him. Assuming he’s telling the truth and really does know what the city needs (rather than just wants; I’m referring to expropriation and urban renewal here), it sounds like he would make a good mayor. I remain skeptical.
Su Tseng-chang also said recently he doesn’t care what’s beneficial or detrimental to him as a person, as long as it’s good for the country. But being more familiar with his track record than I am with Sean Lien’s, I don’t really believe it.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]
Today, Sean Lien announced his bid for Taipei mayor and said he will not give in to populism. He will do what the city needs, whether or not it reflects well on him. Assuming he’s telling the truth and really does know what the city needs (rather than just wants; I’m referring to expropriation and urban renewal here), it sounds like he would make a good mayor. I remain skeptical.
Su Tseng-chang also said recently he doesn’t care what’s beneficial or detrimental to him as a person, as long as it’s good for the country. But being more familiar with his track record than I am with Sean Lien’s, I don’t really believe it.[/quote]
Sean Lien says he will not give in to populism and then the first policy he is running with is if he gets elected he would donate all of his salary to charity?
Sorry, I don’t buy that even more. The last KMT running for public office that said he would donate half of his salary if his policies fell through. Later when asked he said donating money wouldn’t realize his promised policies. That President Ma…
Oh, would be curious what you think that record is.
To be honest, I guess it’s more of a personal feeling than anything else, since I wasn’t in Taiwan when he was premier. But he certainly has no qualms about smear campaigns against people in his party. He was quick to bring out the big guns against Frank Hsieh ahead of the 2008 election, and there is indication he’s ready to do it again for the party chairmanship.
See: taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003584015
I’m not sure why he ended up running for Taipei mayor instead of New Taipei mayor, but I suspect it was his insistence on getting the big piece of pie. (I contend he would have had a much better chance in New Taipei, and Tsai Ing-wen would have had a shot in Taipei.) In summary, he doesn’t strike me as the kind who would be willing to sacrifice his own interests.
I see. And Sean Lien appearing on stage with known gangsters, and getting shot in the face, is only grounds for skepticism on his claims?
Really, man. Su has dedicated his life to public service. He was a good mayor of Taipei County, and has been a vocal critic of the way county-city mergers are leaving whole areas of the country as have-nots. Yeah he’s a politician and ambitious but his record in office speaks to things getting done and not for his sake.
Lien has done nothing for the public ever and his positions have all been secured by his family wealth and connections.
I suppose I phrased it poorly. I’m equally skeptical about both of them.
But Lien did give a really good speech today.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]
Anyway… Beijing objects to international moves by Taiwan but doesn’t care about how the government reshuffles its ministers and reorganizes its departments. Ma could tomorrow announce the decommissioning of the Mongolian/Tibet affairs council and Beijing more likely than not wouldn’t bat an eye. I refuse to believe the myth that Taiwan does not move toward independence because of pressure from China.
Taiwan does not move toward independence because the people in power don’t want it. It’s that simple.[/quote]
How exactly do you figure that that’s a ‘myth’? If pressure from China was not the main cause of Taiwan failing to move towards independence then we likely would’ve had a Republic of Taiwan 10-20 years ago. LDH or CSB could’ve merely called for a referendum on the matter and it would’ve passed easily without voters having to fear of violent repercussions from the PRC, as poll after poll has show a vast majority are in favor of independence should China be willing to accept such an outcome.
As for the issue of the M/T Affairs Council, as has been pointed out, Beijing has indeed gone apeshit every time the Taiwanese government has conducted any sort of internal reform which servers any symbolic link or claim to China.
You should make sure you’re distinguishing independence from “Taiwanese independence.” The two have different connotations.
Independence is the state that Taiwan is in right now. It is at least on paper not bound to decisions made by any other government, meaning it has sovereignty. But the idea of 台獨, at least back in the day, was a call for the end of the Republic of China government and the founding of a Republic of Taiwan (or some such name). So when you ask “你支持台獨嗎” a lot of people still think of that rather radical notion, and then they think of the education hammered into their heads over the years and of the National Father who watches over them in their classrooms and of all the ROC flags and they get uncomfortable with it. So while most of the Taiwanese want an independent Taiwan, only a minority (though a sizable one) wants Taiwanese independence.
If LTH or CSB had gone through with that referendum, it would have ended without de jure independence for that reason. Taiwan is often painted as a victim of Beijing, but it’s really the Taiwanese people who are the victims of their political leaders – or more accurately, the victims of the enduring legacies of an education system set up under a one-party state.
You do know that the demeaning name “Chinese Taipei” was actually chosen by Taiwan, not China, right? When the PRC joined the Olympics, they eventually got the right to use the name China, leaving Chiang the Younger very angry. The Taiwan team was offered several choices, including, simply “Taiwan” (wouldn’t Beijing have just hated that!) as well as “Formosa,” but Chiang Ching-kuo’s government rejected it because he considered the ROC to be the only true Chinese government. The dumb compromise his team came up with is Chinese Taipei.
In fact, before the 1970’s, Taipei very well could have asked for recognition from other countries as an independent entity as Beijing did not yet have the international clout to block such a move. But Chiang the Elder and Chiang the Younger were both very insistent on their “us or them” policy, demanding that any state that recognizes Beijing cannot also recognize Taipei. In retrospect, that was also a terrible decision.
Lastly, we have nonsense like the 1992 Consensus, a KMT fabrication, and the “One China with different interpretations” nonsense included in it. Lien Chan just visited Xi Jinping and made a point of emphasizing that there is only one China, and both Taiwan and the mainland are parts of it, and his party will always stand against Taiwanese independence, etc. These comments are often made by higher ups in the KMT, which through history has ruled Taiwan, even when CSB was president. (The legislature and most major cities were KMT controlled throughout.)
So can you really argue that Taiwan’s leaders want independence and China is blocking it? That’s not the story I see from reading press releases coming out of KMT headquarters and the Presidential Office.
Now, as for Tibet and Mongolia: China was unhappy when CSB renamed things like Chunghwa Post to Taiwan Post. But Beijing’s anger was nothing compared to the KMT’s wrath. Renaming the postal service and getting rid of (sort of) a provincial government and dismantling the National Assembly which had lawmakers representing the different provinces of China… these are all much, much more aggressive moves than taking apart the Tibetans and Mongolians Fun Time Waste Tax Money Council.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]
So can you really argue that Taiwan’s leaders want independence and China is blocking it? That’s not the story I see from reading press releases coming out of KMT headquarters and the Presidential Office.
Now, as for Tibet and Mongolia: China was unhappy when CSB renamed things like Zhonghua Post to Taiwan Post. But Beijing’s anger was nothing compared to the KMT’s wrath. Renaming the postal service and getting rid of (sort of) a provincial government and dismantling the National Assembly which had lawmakers representing the different provinces of China… these are all much, much more aggressive moves than taking apart the Tibetans and Mongolians Fun Time Waste Tax Money Council.[/quote]
Though I don’t think anyone is arguing that leaders of KMT wanted independence or Taiwan independence (using your definition of these two terms). Everyone knows Chiangs wanted to rule China, and newer KMT leaders wants to be ruled by China.
People are saying that the majority of the people in Taiwan wants independence, in either form. But while the KMT leadership puts on a show saying they want the status quo and maintain de facto independence, the reality is they are working hard to end any kind of independence all together.
Like I said in the other post, 2003 was the year when Hu Jingtao issued the directive to “up the game in the “Reunification campaign”, by altering Taiwanese public opinion through media. First they wish to reunify how Taiwanese people think. When the Taiwanese public thinks the same way as people in China do, that will lead to economic reunification and political reunification. In order to achieve that, comrades must establish effective control over Taiwanese media and publishing.” The current KMT leader is making sure that economic reunification part happens as ordered by Beijing.
So if the people of people seeks independence of any kind, there is really just one option left, which is Taiwanese independence, regardless of whether it will succeed.
hansioux, I have a sneaking suspicion we agree on a lot more than we think we agree on…