Here is a powerfully argued essay on why Taiwan should be independent from a 1958 (!) issue of Foreign Affairs. AC and his fellow travelers can read it and weep. This is a model of how to make one’s case persuasively much strengthened by a command of Taiwanese history.
Most of his arguments are still valid today and he makes a number of very accurate predictions about what the future would hold for Taiwan.
[quote=“Feiren”]Here is a powerfully argued essay on why Taiwan should be independent from a 1958 (!) issue of Foreign Affairs. AC and his fellow travelers can read it and weep. This is a model of how to make one’s case persuasively much strengthened by a command of Taiwanese history.
Most of his arguments are still valid today and he makes a number of very accurate predictions about what the future would hold for Taiwan.[/quote]
ooh thats some good stuff there…pure common sense dictating why Taiwan should be independent…
2 scores, 1 decade, and 1 year later, the world has shifted so that the new economic powers are India and PRC.
The functioning democracy has returned the KMT to power, and allow for rather transparent investigations against a corrupt former president, who just happens to be a Hakka pretending to be Hoklo and pretending to advocate TI, is credited to the Chiang family and the KMT for laying down the groundwork for such a political system to arise on the island.
So if Lí Thian-hok (what was pingying like in the 50’s) argument is so compelling why is it that his sentiments are not shared by the population in general, besides a few online TI supporters?
I’m mean I thought the TI bible was written by some white guy who didn’t speak Mandarin or Taiwanese a decade after he left Taiwan? Is the TI cause so desperate now that it is willing to let a Taiwanese guy become the face of TI?
USA political climate has shifted as well, unless the guy is an Indian or Black, I don’t think they will have much political credibility with either the GOP or Democrats these days.
Is this what Violent Tsai year of social movement has become… :roflmao:
And there was me thinking that polling showed Taiwanese believed they lived in an independent country and didn’t want unification.
Strange that… 
that polling is banned because it causes social unrest…
simply brilliant
thats a pinyin of taiwanese you retard 
without any doubt, the best counter argument I saw against the Cairo Conference, along with that one that the declaration was not signed…
[quote=“mr_boogie”]that polling is banned because it causes social unrest…
simply brilliant[/quote]
Actually if you guys have the funding, one can just hire a polling firm…
Numbers can prove anything…
Well written. I dont think China wouldve given up its claim to Taiwan even by today if Taiwan had been able to declare itself independent and the present impasse would continue.
:bravo: Great read. Its really too bad CKS and the US stuffed it and chose greed instead of free will for millions of Taiwanese. But that’s par for the course of history now isn’t it.
Certainly the arguements presented are not new. And of course, the problem with saying that Taiwan deserves independence because thats what its people want is that this arguement easily applies to other secessionist movements in the world. Will Corsica, Basque, Quebec, or Hawaii(just a few places with active secessionist movements) be similarly entitled to “self-determination”? What about unhappy farmers who wants to declare their farms an independent country with its own flag and seat at the UN?
As much as people want to extoll the virtues of the right to self-determination, or of pursuing freedoms, etc. We simply cannot have a world where any province, city, or town- or just any arbitrary piece of land on earth- can break away from their country if only the people living in it so chooses. Hundreds of countries can pop up every day, and this is just not how the world operates.
Quebec exercised its right of self determination in 1980 and 1995. Taiwan’s successive colonization by the Japanese, military occupation by the KMT, the 228 Incident, separate rule since 1949, democratic self-rule since 1996, and the existence of China’s Anti-Secession Law all give Taiwan a very strong claim to self-determination.
[quote=“ABC”]Certainly the arguements presented are not new. And of course, the problem with saying that Taiwan deserves independence because thats what its people want is that this arguement easily applies to other secessionist movements in the world. Will Corsica, Basque, Quebec, or Hawaii(just a few places with active secessionist movements) be similarly entitled to “self-determination”? What about unhappy farmers who wants to declare their farms an independent country with its own flag and seat at the UN?
As much as people want to extoll the virtues of the right to self-determination, or of pursuing freedoms, etc. We simply cannot have a world where any province, city, or town- or just any arbitrary piece of land on earth- can break away from their country if only the people living in it so chooses. Hundreds of countries can pop up every day, and this is just not how the world operates.[/quote]
This is nonsense, as the urge to maintain the status quo is as powerful as any need for self-determination. Even if all the countries of the world allowed any province or territory to seperate the number that would do so would be tiny. Inertia, uncertainty, and apathy (to say nothing of the expenses) would keep countries together. There are only a few hotspots in the world where independence sentiments are truly strong enough to be taken seriously. Taiwan is one of those places. Hence, given the rarity of the true independence movement, and given the solid historical arguments that taiwanese independence supporters have, and given that the clear majority of people in taiwan want independence, and would vote for it in a second if it were not for Beijing’s belligerence, then there is all the reason to support it.
When Quebec voted on seperation in '95 the rest of canada wisely noted that a country can only really stay together by mutual agreement.
ABC, you forgot Catalunia…
Just like the Basque Country (which is still called a country, in case you didn’t know), Catalunia have been part of Spain, but people there never really felt Spanish. They speak their own language and have their own costumes.
Same goes to Corsica.
[quote=“ABC”]Certainly the arguements presented are not new. And of course, the problem with saying that Taiwan deserves independence because thats what its people want is that this arguement easily applies to other secessionist movements in the world. Will Corsica, Basque, Quebec, or Hawaii(just a few places with active secessionist movements) be similarly entitled to “self-determination”? What about unhappy farmers who wants to declare their farms an independent country with its own flag and seat at the UN?
As much as people want to extoll the virtues of the right to self-determination, or of pursuing freedoms, etc. We simply cannot have a world where any province, city, or town- or just any arbitrary piece of land on earth- can break away from their country if only the people living in it so chooses. Hundreds of countries can pop up every day, and this is just not how the world operates.[/quote] Congratulations, that’s virtually the same argument that the 50 year old Singaporean Chinese guys working at the Newton Circus hawker market gave me: “If Taiwan declared independence then a lot of other provinces might declare independence, too”.
Get out of here… Anyone that seriously tries to compare Quebec independence to Taiwan independence is way out of touch. OK, on a very superficial level there is a smiliarity but it quickly ends upon closer observation. Now, if Anhui province attempted to delcare independence you might have some similarity. Quebec’s geographic location would create a huge impact on the country if it declared independence - virtually isolating parts of Canada from each other. Now, if Prince Edward Island or Vancouver Island decided to declare independence you would have a much more compelling comparison.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say not OPENLY shared
Maybe it has something to do with missiles pointed at Taiwan… the threat of war… etc
If the school bully has got you in the school yard and is threatening to beat you to a pulp, unless you agree to what he wants, think you would disagree?
Think deep down inside you would agree with him
PRC options for Taiwan’s future reminds me of that email that went around years ago for the Saddam election
A) Do you want to be part of the PRC, and welcome your new overlords?
B) Do you want to be invaded, sacked and plundered?
If China is so confident and the KMT are so confident that TI supporters are but a few, then why not allow a referendum on it
[quote=“TNT”]
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say not OPENLY shared
Maybe it has something to do with missiles pointed at Taiwan… the threat of war… etc
If the school bully has got you in the school yard and is threatening to beat you to a pulp, unless you agree to what he wants, think you would disagree?
Think deep down inside you would agree with him
PRC options for Taiwan’s future reminds me of that email that went around years ago for the Saddam election
A) Do you want to be part of the PRC, and welcome your new overlords?
B) Do you want to be invaded, sacked and plundered?
If China is so confident and the KMT are so confident that TI supporters are but a few, then why not allow a referendum on it[/quote]
Yes, but neither option A) or B) are going to happen. TI is not about that anyway, since the ROC is already a sovereign, independent state. How does Taiwan become “independent” when it already is independent (under the name Republic of China)? The crux of the problem in fact lies in the ROC’s lack of diplomatic space. Unfortunately the reality is that this problem will not be solved by changing the country’s name or its constitution (which is what TI essentially consists of). TI is not an option, I think the DPP know this, but they continue to use the issue as a way of rallying the base.
Taiwan needs to look for solutions within the current political framework, since it has no power to change this framework itself. If this means talking to China then so be it, as long as the ROC does not surrender its basic sovereignty over Taiwan then everything else can be discussed.
you are partly wrong on what the so called TI’ers want.
They know that the ROC is independent. What they want is to make it a normal country, as in, the name represents the country (and not some other place), the constitution is more or less accurate on the territory it occupies and so on.
What the DPP really wanted was a separation between China and Taiwan, to represent reality. It is more correct to say that TI’ers are Taiwanese Nationalists, and want a Taiwan nation, opposed to living in Taiwan called “Republic of China”.
Other thing that the DPP also wanted but couldn’t get it done because it lacked legislative support was to basically make the Republic of China disappear, something that happened in reality 60 years ago.
[quote=“mr_boogie”]you are partly wrong on what the so called TI’ers want.
They know that the ROC is independent. What they want is to make it a normal country, as in, the name represents the country (and not some other place), the constitution is more or less accurate on the territory it occupies and so on.
What the DPP really wanted was a separation between China and Taiwan, to represent reality. It is more correct to say that TI’ers are Taiwanese Nationalists, and want a Taiwan nation, opposed to living in Taiwan called “Republic of China”.
Other thing that the DPP also wanted but couldn’t get it done because it lacked legislative support was to basically make the Republic of China disappear, something that happened in reality 60 years ago.[/quote]
But it is not possible to separate Taiwan and China now. The lack of international space for the ROC is a problem, but “Taiwan independence” is not the solution. If the environment is challenging for the ROC, then it would be impossible for any “independent” Taiwan. I think most TI people know this, the TI movement more reflects domestic politics and a distaste towards the waishengren KMT regime that dominated Taiwan after the war. While this is understandable, they are not offering any kind of solution to Taiwan’s international situation. Domestically, a focus on Taiwanese identity has unfortunately often spilled over into ethnic chauvinism. Most Taiwanese, both waishengren and benshengren will tell you that relations between the two groups have become worse over the last 10 years. This is very worrying for Taiwan’s future.
I would suggest “smart” engagement with Beijing, but no surrender on fundamental issues of national sovereignty. There are benefits to this kind of engagement for Taiwan. Any move beyond this and towards some kind of “re-unification” will be rejected by the Taiwanese people, and I think Ma and the KMT know this.
actually, these days the waishengren I know don’t want to discuss politics, contrary to 1 year ago.