An oddity this. The ROC, not the PRC, has the veto. Read the UN Charter.
Article 23, relating to the Security Council starts like this:
Quote:
[quote]Article 23
The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. [/quote]
Inaccurate. Normalizing relations will not give Taiwan representation in the Congress and Conference. I know, these bodies are virtually impotent, but your argument is not accurate.
The United Nations
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
PART 1
Article 1
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
To answer Poagao’s question, I think most foreigners here support independence because Taiwan looks, smells, and acts like to a country to them. Add to that the necessity of dealing with the absurdity of Taiwan’s non-country status when getting visas and travelling and people have a basis for feeling that the current situation is insane.
I mean, there is almost NOWHERE else in the world in a situation comparable to Taiwan (maybe, maybe Puntland), and it’s been going on for decades.
Personally, I do mostly keep my mouth shut when the topic arises, although I did just get a job offer rescinded by mouthing off about the KMT.
[quote=“bobdobba”]
Personally, I do mostly keep my mouth shut when the topic arises, although I did just get a job offer rescinded by mouthing off about the KMT.[/quote]
Dang, wish I could hire you just for mouthing off about the KMT.
You know, I think I would be sticking up for Taiwan’s right to join the UN even if I had never even traveled to Taiwan. bobdobba, you bring up a good point that it is a sham and shame that Taiwan is not recognized by the UN, and I still blame the KMT for that. A foreign diplomat here in Taiwan once told me that the KMT were given a choice to choose to be in the UN under Taiwan, or possibly lose their seat if they insist on saying they are the representative of the China mainland. We all know what those stubborn fools did.
That’s correct. When the debate was going on in the UN, Albania argued for the PRC and the US, represented by George Bush (W’s dad) argued for the ROC. There is still argument regarding the events that took place between the US and the ROC, but in fact, the ROC was given the opportunity to share the “China” seat with the PRC, but CKS wouldn’t stand to do so with the PRC… so, we have the situation that exists today.
Can you imagine how different things would be if Taiwan (ROC) were still in the UN?
There were some interesting articles a few years ago, which indicate that contrary to popular belief, that was not the case.
Some were pushing for shared representation, but in the end it was nopt an option. The ROC basically ended up with the option ‘quit, or you get fired’.
Summary: Privately Taiwan was ready to accept dual representation, but they couldn’t tell this to the folks back home (hence the lingering misbelief that Taiwan fucked it up for themselves by insisting that there be only one China seat and that it be theirs). After narrowly loosing a first vote to make the question a special one that required a 2/3 majority, it became clear that they were going to loose the vote that the ROC be expelled and the PRC ejected. At this point they quit the UN. It is also noted that dual representation wouldn’t have happened anyway as even if a vote had decided for dual representation, the PRC would have refused it, as the ROC’s expulsion was their precondition for entry and at the time most of the world wanted them in the UN, so it would have only been a matter of time.
Under traditional international law as it was practiced in the 19th century, if you were recognized by the Great Powers (i.e. Britain, France, Spain, Austria, et. al. - later the United States and Russia), you were a state. However, 20th century practice has of course deviated from this traditional norm.
The 1932 Convention of Montevideo is generally regarded as providing the criteria for statehood. These criteria are:
Territory
Permanent Population
Government
Capacity to engage in relations with foreign states.
When Yugoslavia broke apart, all of the successor states gradually assummed all four of these criteria. Of course, some (like Croatia) had to fight a war to secure it, but all did (with the possible exception of Bosnia which is still a mess).
Taiwan today also meets all four. While foreign relations has been hard, it does have formal relations with 27 countries and unofficial relations with more than 100.
[quote=“Hobart”]I was curious if anyone knew the about this legal issue.
If Taiwan were to hold a referendum on whether they want to unite with the PRC or remain independant, or looking at it from the PRC’s point of view, hold a referendum on becoming independant. If the majority clearly voted for Independance, would there be a situation like East Timor and they could automatically gain admittance to the UN with the protection of UN troops etc. Or could the PRC, the second most powerful country in the world at the moment scare everyone away (even the USA)from allowing it to happen.[/quote]
Taiwan is really in a sticky wicket so to speak. Taiwan was never formally returned to China following World War II. Japan held technical sovereignty until 1952 when the San Francisco Peace Treaty took effect. In that peace treaty, Japan renounced sovereignty, but no beneficiary was assiged. Given that neither the ROC nor the PRC government were signatory to the treaty further erodes any claim to any benefit from the treaty.
However, the U.S. and other Western countries mistakenly tried to maintain the fiction that Taiwan was “Free China” and the KMT was only happy to hold on to the Zheng Chenggong myth of using Taiwan to regain China. Of course, this was never going to happen.
Would a referendum concerning Taiwan be legally binding? Well, in reality, neither a referendum nor a declaration should really be needed, but China’s bullying and desire for hegemonic control over East Asia is intense. Taiwan should have the referendum and declare independence. This would force countries around the world to make a stand. The U.S.A. would almost certainly support Taiwan. Other neighbors would likely come on board as well (likely Japan and the Philippines - neither would like to see Chinese control Taiwan).
www.itaiwan.org www.geocities.com/ludahai/taiwanduli.html[/quote]No thanks, I’ve seen enough of the first one, It gives Taiwanese Indepence a bad name, nothing but racism and hate there. It clear they don’t love Taiwan, they just hate Taiwan less than they hate everything else. Which is a great pity, how can anyone who comes across that site have any sympathy for Taiwan ?
[quote=“matthewh”][quote]See the following websites:
www.itaiwan.org www.geocities.com/ludahai/taiwanduli.html[/quote]No thanks, I’ve seen enough of the first one, It gives Taiwanese Indepence a bad name, nothing but racism and hate there. It clear they don’t love Taiwan, they just hate Taiwan less than they hate everything else. Which is a great pity, how can anyone who comes across that site have any sympathy for Taiwan ?[/quote]
There are a couple of people on the first one who do go a little bit overboard, but most of the people on there actually discuss the issues, not only of Taiwan independence, but of other issues of concern to Taiwan. I am also a mod on that forum and I insist that in the two fora I moderate, discussion is reasonably serious.
The other is simply a website that I have put up with some basic information about Taiwan, its international status, and the true threat that China poses.