[quote=“Mucha Man”]
No. The US merely recognizes that it is the Chinese position that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. But this is not the US position. You see, everyone plays word games on this issue.[/quote]
I concede the point.
“The United States acknowledged the Chinese position that all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.” (state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm)
[quote=“Herodotus”]I [strike]concede the point.[/strike] admit I was completely wrong.
“The United States acknowledged the Chinese position that all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.” (state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm)[/quote]
Fixed that for you. 
Thanks.
The ADMIT ERROR key on my computer has been broken for a while, and I keep forgetting to have it fixed.
[quote=“Herodotus”]Thanks.
The ADMIT ERROR key on my computer has been broken for a while, and I keep forgetting to have it fixed.[/quote]
A stalwart chap. Excellent reply. 
The world recognizes that there are two Koreas. There is NOrth Korea and there is South Korea. Nobody thinks they are the same . There are still two Chinas in the world, whether some believe that to to be the case or not.
The people on Taiwan hold a passport issued by the Rep of China and are citizens of the Rep of China. Whether the govt of the Rep of China is recognized or not it is the de facto govt of the people of Taiwan.
That is the reality. There are Two Chinas in the world just as there are Two Koreas.
The reality is that (even if not to be mentioned in polite conversation) Taiwan is in fact a province of the Rep of China. Whether or not the Rep of China has a right to rule Taiwan may be subject to interpretation but the only other govt wanting to actually challenge that position is the Peoples Rep of China. A govt most people on Taiwan will not accept as their govt.
The USA does not claim or want to claim Taiwan, and neither does Japan. China does though.
I think there is a sizable number of people on Taiwan that want to jettison the Rep of China and set up the Rep of Taiwan but China, the USA and Japan would not support this idea because those countries all have quite a say in this matter. And war is unpleasant for all.
[quote=“tommy525”]
The reality is that (even if not to be mentioned in polite conversation) Taiwan is in fact a province of the Rep of China. Whether or not the Rep of China has a right to rule Taiwan may be subject to interpretation but the only other govt wanting to actually challenge that position is the Peoples Rep of China. A govt most people on Taiwan will not accept as their govt.
The USA does not claim or want to claim Taiwan, and neither does Japan. China does though.
I think there is a sizable number of people on Taiwan that want to jettison the Rep of China and set up the Rep of Taiwan but China, the USA and Japan would not support this idea because those countries all have quite a say in this matter. And war is unpleasant for all.[/quote]
Agreed.
I am still not quite clear why saying this is so controversial, though.
[quote=“Herodotus”][quote=“tommy525”]
The reality is that (even if not to be mentioned in polite conversation) Taiwan is in fact a province of the Rep of China. Whether or not the Rep of China has a right to rule Taiwan may be subject to interpretation but the only other govt wanting to actually challenge that position is the Peoples Rep of China. A govt most people on Taiwan will not accept as their govt.
The USA does not claim or want to claim Taiwan, and neither does Japan. China does though.
I think there is a sizable number of people on Taiwan that want to jettison the Rep of China and set up the Rep of Taiwan but China, the USA and Japan would not support this idea because those countries all have quite a say in this matter. And war is unpleasant for all.[/quote]
Agreed.
I am still not quite clear why saying this is so controversial, though.[/quote]
Its considered inflamatory for those who wish to remove the Rep of China from the map and set up a Rep of Taiwan. The chicoms are happy to assert that currently the island of Taiwan is run by the Rep of China and happy to reach a sort of One Country - two Systems vis-a-vis the Rep of China on this topic.
The PRC has said that they can work with a One Country Two systems . But people doubt how benevolent the PRC will be with that because in fact that is ALREADY the case as it is.
[quote=“tommy525”]
Its considered inflamatory for those who wish to remove the Rep of China from the map and set up a Rep of Taiwan.[/quote]
I don’t know. I am sympathetic to the desire to replace the Republic of China with a Republic of Taiwan. As far as I can tell, what sticks in most people’s craw (if that’s how you spell the word) is when you point out that the Taiwanese people themselves acquiesce to Taiwan’s status as a province of China. There is something gut-wrenching about it, at least for me, but I think it points to the price this society is paying every single day. When progress was being made towards democracy, in fits and starts during the '80s and '90s and up until the shine wore off Chen Shuibian, it was not such a burden, but after years now of relative democratic stagnation, I think it has to make itself felt on this society, perhaps hollowing it out.
I am not in favor of blood at all, Mucha Man. I am in favor of carefully weighing all the essential facts, making the hard decisions–not in Western capitals, but in the hearts of the Taiwanese–about how to move forward, and then executing those decisions. I think there is now a culture of victimization among the democratic/independence crowd that is becoming monotonous and debilitating. Apparently, we can’t wait to get rid of Ma Ying-jeou so we can replace him with somebody who will make futile gestures like applying for UN membership or making bold initiatives such as not signing a trade deal with China. And I don’t mean futile because the UN will reject the bid. I mean futile insofar as nobody is likely to pay any attention to it.
The answer to the Taiwan Question is not in the political or diplomatic processes. Obviously, the KMT has no interest in acknowledging that, but neither does the DPP. It seems to be becoming the green patronage machine, and it has every interest in pushing the Taiwan=ROC line. Stir the pot, win some votes, and then back to the business at hand. That’s its bread and butter, and the KMT are happy enough to tow the same line when they have to. So, why do they get away with it? A lot of reasons, but chiefly, the Taiwanese people let them do so.
In hindsight, it appears that the Shi Mingde protests were a watershed moment for the green movement, but they opted for power and they never looked back.
I find it more unclear than controversial. How are you defining the term “country”? You say Taiwan is not a country, but Tibet is. Is the sole defining criteria that the people within a certain geographical area have attempted to assert their independence?
Most Taiwanese want to differentiate themselves from the Chinese in China but many do consider themselves to be Chinese in origin, even if in fact some of their genealogy is taiwanese aborigine.
Not all want a nation of Taiwan, but most do I think.
I don’t know why you keep repeating this. As I noted in the other thread, it appears no matter how many times you are corrected, you soldier on, robotically. The actual fact is that no major government considers Taiwan to be a province of the ROC. The KMT does, and treats Taiwan that way. Japan, the US, and the other major powers, do not consider Taiwan to be a province of the ROC. Nor is it a province of the ROC under international law, nor under the ROC’s own basic laws.
I realize you will go on repeating this, so I’ll bow out for now. Clearly a case of “If he can’t be convinced by evidence and reality, what can convince him?”
I don’t know why you keep repeating this. As I noted in the other thread, it appears no matter how many times you are corrected, you soldier on, robotically. The actual fact is that no major government considers Taiwan to be a province of the ROC. The KMT does, and treats Taiwan that way. Japan, the US, and the other major powers, do not consider Taiwan to be a province of the ROC. Nor is it a province of the ROC under international law, nor under the ROC’s own basic laws.
I realize you will go on repeating this, so I’ll bow out for now. Clearly a case of “If he can’t be convinced by evidence and reality, what can convince him?”[/quote]
And you may keep your views. But for good or bad the KMT’s ROC runs the island as it is and the only major power to challenge that is currently the PRC’s CHINA.
The evidence is that the people of Taiwan island are being ruled by the KMT run ROC govt currently. There should be plenty of “evidence” of this? There is also evidence that there are those who feel that Taiwan should not be run by the govt of the ROC. That is another point. FAct is it is currently. Lawful or not.
The UN campaign has wide public support – like 80% in most polls. It also helped create space for Taiwan and raise its profile internationally, as well as separate it from China in the minds of many overseas. It was also a component of the DPP’s larger foreign policy program involving some public diplomacy (though hardly enough), democracy initiatives, etc.
As for not signing trade deals with China, it was the DPP administration that signed all the early initiatives and legalized trade with China, charter flights, etc. It would be great if you had a view of DPP policy more informed by actual history.
How were they a watershed for the Green movement? Shih Ming-te was working for the KMT at the time (as he had been since 1999), and the KMT funded and ran the Red Ant protests. There might have been a few deluded idealists in the crowd, but the crowds were composed mainly of Blues as the media reported at the time (AP and FT) and Shih acknowledged in his NYT interview. Bo Tedards had a great piece in the Taipei Times right at the beginning noting that the majority of the crowd were Deep Blue New Party types. So since the whole thing was a Deep Blue project from beginning to end, it’s hard to see how it was a watershed moment for the Green side.
Vorkosigan
I don’t know why you keep repeating this. As I noted in the other thread, it appears no matter how many times you are corrected, you soldier on, robotically. The actual fact is that no major government considers Taiwan to be a province of the ROC. The KMT does, and treats Taiwan that way. Japan, the US, and the other major powers, do not consider Taiwan to be a province of the ROC. Nor is it a province of the ROC under international law, nor under the ROC’s own basic laws.
I realize you will go on repeating this, so I’ll bow out for now. Clearly a case of “If he can’t be convinced by evidence and reality, what can convince him?”[/quote]
And you may keep your views. But for good or bad the KMT’s ROC runs the island as it is and the only major power to challenge that is currently the PRC’s CHINA. [/quote]
Tommy, administrating the island is not the same as owning it.
Well if the KMT runs it and nobody challenges it , its the same as owning it. Because fact is nobody wants to challenge it except the PRC (to take it over) and the DPP (to set up a REp of Taiwan). The USA stands a better then even chance of saying it owns the rock but it doesnt want it. Neither does Japan. The other party with any credible ownership.
Possession is the better part of ownership here lawful or not.
The Taiwanese are being told to be “chinese” by the PRC and the ROC or be swallowed whole by China. The DPP stands little real chance of achieving this Taiwan revolution it so desires in the near term. The USA and Japan politely refrain from participation except to provide some lip service about maintaining peace.
That is the reality.
[quote=“tommy525”]Most Taiwanese want to differentiate themselves from the Chinese in China but many do consider themselves to be Chinese in origin, even if in fact some of their genealogy is taiwanese aborigine.
Not all want a nation of Taiwan, but most do I think.[/quote]
That is no different from modern Tibet, where large numbers of people who are benefitting from Chinese investment want to remain part of China. Not everyone challenges Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and this is also true historically.
[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“tommy525”]Most Taiwanese want to differentiate themselves from the Chinese in China but many do consider themselves to be Chinese in origin, even if in fact some of their genealogy is taiwanese aborigine.
Not all want a nation of Taiwan, but most do I think.[/quote]
That is no different from modern Tibet, where large numbers of people who are benefitting from Chinese investment want to remain part of China. Not everyone challenges Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and this is also true historically.[/quote]
Additionally, Tibetans are not ethnically Han AFAIK ? While the Taiwanese largely are.
[quote=“tommy525”][quote=“Muzha Man”][quote=“tommy525”]Most Taiwanese want to differentiate themselves from the Chinese in China but many do consider themselves to be Chinese in origin, even if in fact some of their genealogy is taiwanese aborigine.
Not all want a nation of Taiwan, but most do I think.[/quote]
That is no different from modern Tibet, where large numbers of people who are benefitting from Chinese investment want to remain part of China. Not everyone challenges Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and this is also true historically.[/quote]
Additionally, Tibetans are not ethnically Han AFAIK ? While the Taiwanese largely are.[/quote]
I think I was responding to a different post. In any case, is Taiwan to be a race-based political entity? I hope not or there is no place for people like me, nor the tens of thousands of SE Asian brides and their offspring, not the 3% aboriginals, nor the assimilated Pingpu, etc, etc.
Be that as it may, things are very different from when you grew up here. The majority now consider themselves Taiwanese and not Chinese. Not that it matters. Vancouver is about 50% Asian but this doesn’t mean my hometown is in danger of being annexed.
I find it more unclear than controversial. How are you defining the term “country”? You say Taiwan is not a country, but Tibet is. Is the sole defining criteria that the people within a certain geographical area have attempted to assert their independence?[/quote]
Something like that. What I am trying to get at is that the existence of a country is not something that can be deduced from history or law. It is something willed and asserted, and it lasts as long as it is asserted. We have an island full of Taiwanese people (whatever their ethnic or historical or cultural origins) that is governed by a state called the Republic of China.
In almost any other context, it would be at best a parlor game to determine whether or not this or that population constitutes a “country” or a “nation” or a “state” or whatever category you can think of, but in this situation, it actually is extremely portentous. By saying that, oh, well, you know, tomayto, tomahto, what’s the difference, we ignore the psychological or spiritual burden that it costs the Taiwanese people to live under the Republic of China, within which Taiwan is defined as a province. That’s assuming, of course, that it is a burden. If a Taiwanese sense of nationhood is still in gestation or is otherwise undeveloped, it is probably not that great of a burden, apart from the diplomatic and economic inconveniences, etc. The real test of whether or not Taiwan is a country cannot be law or history or a poll. It is a matter of identity, the possessor of which feels compelled to assert sometimes in spite of him/herself. The existence of a Taiwanese nation can only be proven in the assertion of such by the Taiwanese people. The fact that China has threatened annihilation if the island should declare independence does not remove that burden from Taiwan; it exacerbates it.
The people who object to Taiwan being called a province of China should certainly agree with me about the importance of a name. They are asserting that Taiwan is already a country and that, as I deduce, one day the anomalous designation of “ROC” will be ended with the signature of a pen somewhere, and they are trying to generate enough international momentum towards that end. They take it as a given–again, from what I can gather–that the ROC is outmoded and ridiculous in light of Taiwanese history (a point I am in almost complete agreement with) and that it is just a matter of time before it will be sloughed off like dead skin. That’s not how viable countries generally come into existence. They must be willed into existence. It doesn’t have to be done violently or even in complete, self-possessed awareness, but it has to be done with the expectation that violence will come in response. Take India, for example. There was no Indian nation before the British came, and just because the British ruled it as “India” did not necessarily make it a nation, but it did create a host of conditions that permitted an Indian identity to emerge–although the parameters of that identity have had to be established through a number of bloody war and insurgencies. But, an identity is not enough, either. It has to be willed and asserted. The Indians had to work themselves up to a point where they decided not merely that “this is something worth sacrificing for”, but that “I must sacrifice for this”. And, even today, India’s nationhood still appears to be in gestation in many respects.
Nations do not exist in a world of international law and justice; they create that world. Outside of that realm, things are decided by power–money, violence, calculation, and sentiment. Particularly in a democratic age such as our own and especially in the West, the sentiment cultivated by a people prepared to martyr itself on street pavement is extremely powerful.
Sorry if I am repeating myself, but it seems that many people are substituting a moral judgment (Taiwan is being treated unfairly and should be permitted to decide its own fate) for a factual one (Taiwan is a province of China). Because of this confusion, they expect foreign powers and institutions to “recognize” a Taiwan that the Taiwanese themselves have, according to my own perception and to polls conducted by “blue” outfits, expressed a preference for but that they have not collectively asserted. In other words, the Taiwanese, like much of the West, have not recognized Taiwan, although they appear to be willing to do so. Because China has raised the cost of asserting full-blown Taiwanese nationalism, it has successfully prevented Taiwan from altering its status as a Chinese province, from daring to assert such a national identity–assuming that that is what the Taiwanese really want. Answering a poll and founding a country that must thrive in the kind of Machiavellian world I described above–and if East Asia is not Machiavellian, I don’t know what is–are two different things. To be a country, you must take your destiny in your own hands. The individual American colonies, for example, opted for a degree of independence but not the complete burden of nationhood. No sooner had they declared their independence from one country (Britain) than they decided to join a new one–and according to the Federalist Papers–because existing as a set of independent nations would put them in a Hobbesian world that they worried would weaken them all.
In answer to your last question, I think I can say “yes”, provided assertion is understood to be more than mere assertion of a preference. It’s like all those people who say, this year I’m going to vote for Ralph Nader, until they get into the polling booth, because the reality of that decision is simply too awful to contemplate. The real weight of a preference is measured at the point of action.
I’m not sure if this is the best way to illustrate my point, but when I came back from the New Year break and kids asked me what I did, I said I watched the protests in Egypt on TV while recovering from an injury. And, after I described what I had seen to them a little bit, a lot of kids quickly recognized what it was that I was talking about. Ask a fairly well-informed average adult in a random country about Taiwan’s dispute with China, and there is likely to be at best a vague understanding of what is at issue. If they know something about the origin of the ROC, it might leave them more misguided than they otherwise might be. My point is that what happened in Egypt burst forth from an irrepressible desire for a new kind of country for which the Egyptians were increasingly willing to die. It was absolutely unmistakable. If you had asked Egyptians January 24 or prior to the Tunisian revolt, few of them probably would have answered even in their own private thoughts that they were willing to risk as much as they did. Would a poll conducted there just before Tunisia have revealed any more than a poll conducted a year before that? Of course, I don’t know, but I am doubtful. As far as I know, everybody, including the protesters, were surprised by the protests.
Did my Taiwanese students understand what they were watching on TV when they saw news about Egypt? Probably not, but the undiluted pure passion of a just cause whose time had come cut through all the flim-flam about “peace” and “stability” and the Egyptian “constitution” and “orderliness” and every issue that could be raised by the governments in Washington and Cairo, through all the fears that people have about Arab democracy, and right into the consciousness of Taiwanese first graders. The Taiwanese issue has nothing like that effect on the rest of the world, not because it does not merit that attention, but because it has not been brought to the world’s attention. I think that kind of attention could be brought to bear, if the Taiwanese wanted to do so, not merely in a preferential kind of way, but viscerally. If there were that visceral kind of feeling, the means would simply produce themselves.
Shi, as far as I know, was the first person to point out the corruption of the Chen family. The cause of Shi or of the reds could not have been morally diminished, I think, either by the refusal of the greens, apart from the deluded idealists, to participate or by the participation, from whatever motivation, of the blues. In fact, since Shi was right, that is all the validation required. That the blues participated for their own ends does nothing for the greens. Having never met Shi, I would be hard pressed to say what was motivating him, but there were plenty of greens making some pretty vicious ad hominem attacks regarding his character and financial motivations in order to discredit him. The problem is that Shi was right, and the decision to attack Shi, whom I think, in light of his record, deserved some benefit of the doubt, marked the stage when the green movement ossified into just another East Asian political party with an ideological veneer masking a patronage machine. In short, it was a watershed for the greens, precisely because they did not participate or at least come up with a credible or creditable response to the party’s corruption.