Personalized insults again noted.
I’m saying the points of disputes lie amongst ethnic Chinese parties exclusively, not that it doesn’t effect the outside world or actual true Taiwan people.
What’s the point of waxing nasty? You’re a moderator for Christ’s sake!
I am not being nasty. I am just opining that calling it an “internal Chinese problem” is demonstrably crazy, for the reasons i pointed out: four countries are involved. The POINT is crazy, not YOU. Unless you care to include yourself in that description, which is of course entirely up to you.
and who is this Christ personage people keep asking me to do stuff for? I’m not a moderator of this forum.
how can it be genuinely an internal Chinese dispute when it involves at best four separate nations (China, Taiwan, Japan and the US) and at worst three nations (China, Japan and the US) and an unresolved former colonial territory of one of those states (Japan)?
:loco: :loco: :loco:[/quote]
Why does it involve Japan?
taiwandocuments.org/taipei01.htm
Treaty of Taipei
Article 2
Article 10
[quote=“mallard”]Personalized insults again noted.
[/quote]
No one has insulted you. Your arguments have been criticized though.
And I am disagreeing. Both the United States and Japan hold that the status of Taiwan is undecided. The US enforces its position with the US Navy and by selling arms to TAiwan. China says that it is decided and that Taiwan belongs to the PRC. Probably a majority of people in Taiwan says that it is decided and that Taiwan is independent. The current president of Taiwan thinks that Taiwan is part of the Republic of China along with China proper and Mongolia. All of these actors are directly involved with this dispute.
Japan is the ex-colonial power. Japan thinks its security is linked to Taiwan’s. And the PRC and Taiwan claim a small part of Japan’s territory (the Senkaku islands). Japan would certainly turn itself into a formidable military power if China ever invaded Taiwan to enforce its claims.
[quote=“Feiren”]
Japan is the ex-colonial power. Japan thinks its security is linked to Taiwan’s. And the PRC and Taiwan claim a small part of Japan’s territory (the Senkaku islands). Japan would certainly turn itself into a formidable military power if China ever invaded Taiwan to enforce its claims.[/quote]
I agree with that. I was answering in response to the claim by that Taiwan is an “unresolved former colonial territory” of Japan.
I think Taiwan belongs to China. The root of the problem is that China split during its civil war. Currently the ROC exercises sovereign authority over Taiwan.
What do you think Taiwan’s current status is?
I think that the Taiwanese people have exercised their sovereignty over Taiwan since the first 1996 direct presidential election. Therefore Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country that does not need a referendum to ratify its status. A proposal to become part of China would most certainly need ratification by referendum.
More importantly, Taiwan is a nation because it is an imagined community with borders and sovereignty. The majority of Taiwanese people have an imagined affinity with one another that they do not share with the Chinese on the other side of the strait. A dwindling minority of people in Taiwan including Ma Ying-jeou do however imagine that they have an affinity with the Chinese.
[quote=“Feiren”]I think that the Taiwanese people have exercised their sovereignty over Taiwan since the first 1996 direct presidential election. Therefore Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country that does not need a referendum to ratify its status. A proposal to become part of China would most certainly need ratification by referendum.
More importantly, Taiwan is a nation because it is an imagined community with borders and sovereignty. The majority of Taiwanese people have an imagined affinity with one another that they do not share with the Chinese on the other side of the strait. A dwindling minority of people in Taiwan including Ma Ying-jeou do however imagine that they have an affinity with the Chinese.[/quote]
When did Taiwan become a country? Did the first popular presidential election in 1996 or the constitutional amendments in the 1990s legitimate ROC rule in Taiwan?
Since the ROC is the legal and constitutional basis for Taiwanese sovereignty, why do many independence activists continue to question its legitimacy? Does Taiwan need to become independent from the ROC? Or from the PRC (implying that its is currently part of the PRC)?
Well, there’s a very valid third point of view, which is that the KMT (and therefore the ROC) are illegitimate occupiers of the nation of Taiwan, a state that was given up by its Japanese colonial masters after the war and should have been allowed to make its own way forward without the grabby greedy grubby interference of the KMT losers of the civil war in China.
It’s really only your conjecture that the ROC is the legal basis of Taiwan sovereignty, a totally untested fact.
[color=#008080]urodacus[/color]:
“[color=#404040]It’s really only your conjecture that the ROC is the legal basis of Taiwan sovereignty, a totally untested fact.[/color]”
That’s actually one legal opinion, not a matter of fact per se, but still a quite widely held one. In some quarters, including Taiwan’s central government - an entity you apparently don’t recognize, it’s held up for 65 years running, so I don’t see how you can characterize it as “untested” … whether or not it may ultimately be able to prevail.
I’m not inventing the wheel here nor really judging implied assumptions that historic international agreements carry significant weight, nor judging for merit in terms of legal rights afforded the resident population when the Japenese left en masse, but rather regarding ‘it’ as a model to work with and thereby reasonably proceed from. Such a model might conceivably offer much-needed foundation for a more forthright appeal vis-a-vis any external threat.
I do have [my own] problems with Taiwan’s demographic identity being so closely linked to China … only due to historic migration and expulsion [of non-Chinese] patterns, determining who have been allowed come to these shores over the centuries to stay … and by whom the power to determine these patterns has been long been afforded. It’s not been highly democratic, if you will.
This island was not a part of China to start with [circa 1700]. That much we seem to agree on.
[color=#800000]Poagao[/color]:
“[color=#400080]One difference is that Russia actually recognized Finland’s sovereignty.[/color]”
Well, to some extent we should realize that China [unofficially] has observed, if not recognized, Taiwan’s as well … inasmuch as the island has maintained its own seperate identity and that the PRC has never dared to invade, despite all threats. To some extent, they’ve had to deal with the notion that they don’t have any natural right to own Taiwan. It irks them badly, because it reminds them how much they ‘suck’.
thank you for highlighting the word opinion, to signify its status as a synonym for conjecture.
People have lived on this island for a LOT longer than that: At least 10,000 years or so. Let’s start back there, and then see how much claim China has to it. By that reckoning, China and Japan have held sway over the island for almost equal periods of time, proportionally.
And yes, I think the ROC is a complete joke, especially the parts of the KMT ideal of winning back the mainland and reclaiming all the territories that rightfully belong to ROC. Give it a break.
But then, that’s just another untested opinion.
Harzell and the good Dr Lin actually tried to get the opinion tested in a court of law, but the US was having none of that. What does your test entail? A recognition of the status quo (a lovely misnomer, that one)?
“[color=#404080]What does your test entail?[/color]”
First it’s not really mine, and don’t appreciate your general attack-the-duck theme.
It comes down to a review of all international agreements reached over the territory to date, in reverse order. The US signed off long ago, except as the potential defender of Taiwan under the unlikely circumstance of armed conflict. It’s really between the two sides at this point and the real decision makers obviously have zero concern for what people like you or I happen to think.
The problem with this ‘side’ is that it remains internally divided and vague at best.
I’m not sure what the point is of arguing on the historical legal status of Taiwan - it might be an interesting academic exercise but it won’t matter a smidgen on how the PRC, USA or Taiwanese governments use their interrelationships.
In fact that is one problem of Bellochi’s criticism of Gilley’s article. Gilley does not use his assertion that China and Taiwan split in 1949 as a premise to his argument. It doesn’t matter a jot if it happened in 1949, 1895 or 9843 BC.
One of Gilley’s arguments is that Taiwan should take a neutral stance rather than strong alignment with the USA. It should become a non-militarised state next to a powerful country - the same way that Finland remained non-militarised next to the Soviet Union. In return China would give Taiwan further status internationally. China can use its economic power block Taiwan’s participation in ASEAN or for that matter with most countries in the world. By being left out of ASEAN Taiwan is at a serious competitive disadvantage, particularly from South Korea and Japan.
Taiwan would also be allowed to keep its self-determination as long as it doesn’t do anything to threaten the PRC’s strategic position.
Gilley’s premise is that the PRC does not want to take over political control of Taiwan but is seeking strategic military control of the region. Gilley asserts that China wants “…a sphere of influence that increases its global clout and in which Taiwan is a neutral state, not a client state”.
As evidence of this he cites examples of how China’s diplomatic language has shifted over time and in response to Taiwan’s actions, and how surveys show that popular opinion in China is against military action.
Unfortunately Bellocchi’s article does not really provide arguments against this one central premise - apart from citing issues in Tibet and “East Turkmenisatan”, as if China is still under Mao’s expansionist regime of the 1950s. Bellochi simply states assertions about not giving in independence, and shouts appeasement as if Taiwan is the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia - where Germany took over both military and political control.
Gilley basically says that Taiwan needs to trade its card of being a militaristic strategic lynch pin in the area for continued economic prosperity. It’s not about ceding political control.
Gilley also says that by developing a more neutral military stance to Taiwan, it has a better chance of changing China’s politic than if it stays essentially confrontational - in the same way that Finland’s neutral stance was a lynch pin that led to the collapse of the Soviet empire. This is actually a weak argument as there is little evidence as to whether being neutral or confrontational will have any effect on the China government.
Nevertheless, Gilley provides a choice - trade in your strategic role, or remain an economic outcast.
“Look, it’s a duck! Kill it!”
A completely ridiculous false dichotomy is what he provides. Gilley’s paper is like watching an 82 year old geezer strip: as each layer is peeled away, it just gets uglier.
I posted a long rebuttal to my blog:
michaelturton.blogspot.com/2010/ … aiwan.html
But like a couple of my friends who also started detailed rebuttals, the paper has so many problems that we all suffered from evisceration fatigue. I focused on one or two major problems, and also ripped his erroneous and propagandistic presentation of events in the Chen and post-Chen era. Really, if FA editors have some role other than assuring ideological correctness, it is not apparent in the dreck they publish about Taiwan.
Vorkosigan
[quote=“urodacus”]Well, there’s a very valid third point of view, which is that the KMT (and therefore the ROC) are illegitimate occupiers of the nation of Taiwan, a state that was given up by its Japanese colonial masters after the war and should have been allowed to make its own way forward without the grabby greedy grubby interference of the KMT losers of the civil war in China.
It’s really only your conjecture that the ROC is the legal basis of Taiwan sovereignty, a totally untested fact.[/quote]
You should know that without the ROC, Taiwan would have been part of the PRC. No legal mumbo jumbo here, that’s what would have happened had the KMT not retreated to Taiwan.
One of two things would have happened to Taiwan back in the day without the ROC government. One, the PRC would have come right across the straight to take Taiwan, and the US would not have given a damn because Taiwan is just a big island along China’s coast that wasn’t any different than any other island along China’s coast, and besides Taiwan was supposed to be returned to “China” according to the Potsdam Declaration. Or two, instead of Japan just given up Taiwan without designating a recipient, they could have given Taiwan to, guess what, the PRC.
It’s amazing that some TI people actually think ROC is illegitimate, The ROC is the reason Taiwan has its de-facto independence today.
Quite a lot of pro-KMT fruitcakes believe this. In fact long before the ROC had retreated to Taiwan, the US and other powers had already agreed that Taiwan would not be part of the PRC or ROC, but that its status would be undetermined. Washington was well aware of Formosan desire for independence. You should check out the series of State Department memoranda to the NSC during the 1949-1950 period which are available online. One is on my blog.
Vorkosigan
How is that “rabid pan green nutjobs” merits a suspension but “pro-KMT fruitcakes” is OK? Not that there’s anything wrong with either in the wacky world of Internet arguments. Still the inconsistency bothers me, especially amongst people who despise places where the rules are applied selectively against people with the wrong sort of politics. Like China for example.
It’s better to have no rules than rules that are applied inconsistently.
[quote=“Vorkosigan”]Quite a lot of pro-KMT fruitcakes believe this. In fact long before the ROC had retreated to Taiwan, the US and other powers had already agreed that Taiwan would not be part of the PRC or ROC, but that its status would be undetermined. Washington was well aware of Formosan desire for independence. You should check out the series of State Department memoranda to the NSC during the 1949-1950 period which are available online. One is on my blog.
[/quote]So, is this what the TI people have in their heads now? That from the beginning the US and allied powers wanted Taiwan to be in limbo after Japanese surrender?
That’s just absurd on so many levels. You should read the Potsdam declaration and get to know that Taiwan was scheduled to be returned to China. But it wasn’t because, as a result of the Chinese civil war, there was ambiguity of who- ROC or PRC- that was the legitimate government of China.