If they want to go, then yes. Otherwise you are living in a (gasp!) dictatorship–if not of an autocrat, then of a gerrymandered demographic majority.
The other possibility would be Europe. What’s wrong with people on the “inside” making common cause with “outside forces”? Most Tibetans like India and Japan better than China, for example, so why should the feelings of the Chinese particularly matter? Presumably disparities of wealth would exist no matter what, but the EU is addressing this at least as effectively as is China.
In what way would they benefit? Presumably the same ethnic divisions would exist then as now, so which would get to rule? The non-ruling groups would then have every reason to oppose the new empire. You bring up the Ottoman Empire–this was Turkish-ruled, with Arab nationalists trying to topple it.
Maybe. Why would formal political union be preferable to mere cooperation? I don’t see how you can possibly parse this so that Taiwan would turn out to be better off when ruled from Beijing, unless you take into account the threat of force.
Yes. I also recognize that pan-Arabism as a political ideology was never given an opportunity to succeed in recent recorded history.
I don’t really see the relevance. My (unprovable) statement is that a pan-Arabic state would lead to a higher quality of life for her people, would lessen fratricide, would allow policy decisions to be made unilaterally with consideration of only Arab interests, would achieve the common foreign policy aspirations of her people (starting with Israel). It would also likely translate into greater cultural and religious influence world-wide. It is only a guess that a majority of Arabs would care or welcome such a state of existence.
The fact that the warring states existed doesn’t challenge the “myth” of cultural unity. I think any reasonably educated Chinese would be well aware of the fact that China is not all Han; anyone growing up on the mainland constantly bombarded with the propaganda message that we are 56 national minorities strong would know better. And I don’t think anyone operates under the myth that all Chinese dynasties were Han.
“Cultural unity” is a convenient label, not a rigorous all defining religion. If you were to look at the great Chinese of the 20th century, you see that despite the great linguistic, cultural, geographic differences behind Sun Yat-sen (Cantonese/Hakka), Sun Yat-sen (Zhejiang), Mao Zedong (Hunan), and Deng Xiaoping (Sichuan)… there is something around which all of them were united. We could call that “cultural unity”.
[quote]recent recorded history[/quote] Nor ancient history. The relevance is that it is an artificial construct that is meaningless because there are wildly divergent interest and political entities. Pan Arabism doesn’t work not because of Imperialist interventions (as intrusive and damaging as those were) but because there is no fundamental alignment of interests.
By that standard almost anything could be considered unified. All Western society could be considered ‘unified’ since we share Roman & Greek foundations. However, both history and modern reality show that while there is some shared, common base, there are wildly divergent ‘interests’ and political entities that are more important. The only thing shared is nationalism by the people you listed above is nationalism adn desire for a strong China. It may seem a small detail, but each had quite a different interpretation of what that meant. Different enough to fight over.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]If they want to go, then yes. Otherwise you are living in a (gasp!) dictatorship–if not of an autocrat, then of a gerrymandered demographic majority.
[/quote]
So I pose the same question to you; if I were to declare independence + Chinese sovereignty for a few thousand acres in a barely populated region of your home country (whatever that may be)… would I face dictatorship and bullying from the demographic majority? Or would I be welcomed as a fellow citizen of the world with my natural rights of self-determination?
The other possibility would be Europe. [/quote]
And Europe is hardly a compelling example. The greatest wars of the 18th through 20th century were fought inside Europe. And after 200 hundred years of fratricide, what appears to be the solution of the latter 20th/21st century? A political/social movement that seeks to emphasis similarity and unity for the benefit of all.
If China can already achieve what Europe is trying to move towards in her slow, halting way… why should we throw that away?
In what way would they benefit? Presumably the same ethnic divisions would exist then as now, so which would get to rule? The non-ruling groups would then have every reason to oppose the new empire. [/quote]
Are ethnic/religious divisions amongst the Arabs more pronounced and fundamental than ethnic divisions in western Europe or the United States? Of course not. Shia/Sunni differences are no more pronounced than Christian sectarianism… and at least they have a single shared spoken and written language.
Who gets to rule? I’m feeling optimistic today, so let’s hypothetically speak of a democracy. If there was a democratic, united Arab nation… it would likely have a veto seat on the UN Security Council, it would likely replace (or simply rule) OPEC, it would destroy Israel (not my preferred outcome, but probably the Arab preferred outcome), and it would be per capita probably amongst the wealthiest nations in the world. Rather than a Kuwait or UAE or Qatar dependent on Western security guarantees, it would be a nation to which the countries of the West would need to turn to for security guarantees.
Do I really know this is what the Arabs want? I’m not Arab, and I know very few, so this is not a theory grounded by solid observation. But certainly, if I were Arab, the above state of existence really does sound like an improvement from life in the year 2007.
the PRC rulers want a sure thing in taiwan. in a democracy you could have a taiwan president who was pro-PRC/anti-US for several years, and then the whole thing could fall through with the next election. negotiation with a de jure independent taiwan makes the PRC weak and they will avoid that at any cost. the europeans will negotiate with each other- they will take the time to build mutual trust. you can’t compare the PRC rulers with the democratically elected leaders of the EU. for the PRC leaders, taking time to build trust is all well and good with the appropriate carrots, but those 900 plus sticks can help speed things up a bit . :loco:
Wait, really? So your position is purely a legal one? Just exactly what is the legal definition of the word “bullying” in international politics?
Your belief that Taiwan was “abandoned” by Japan is popular legal opinion, supported by experts on this issue? If so, why hasn’t Chen Shui-bian and his legion of foreign law experts in Taipei pursuing this as an angle for entry into the ROC? Why is it left to the hand of amateurs who’ve never practiced territorial law in front of any court to fight this debate on internet forums and international newspaper ads? Why are you trying to convince the uneducated, unwashed masses of this forum of Taiwan’s legal position? If you’re qualified to make such a legal claim, surely you should be contributing your time filing briefs in front of a friendly court?
I guess I was mistaken. I thought you were trying to tug at our heart-strings, and appeal to our morality about what may be “fair” for Taiwan. That’s something any of us, without a solid legal education in treaty law, can discuss reasonably and intelligently. At least, we could, if we gave it a shot.
[quote]furthermore, taiwan is not an outpost or a colony of any enemies or competitors of china, as your using of a poor example of an outpost of the PRC in the USA attempts to claim.[/quote]I don’t know if you’re just naive or ignorant. But let’s put aside the question of an outpost of the PRC for a later discussion. All I want is an independent territory in the United States, and I welcome the support of any friendly states that can guarantee peace. If the PRC supports my efforts for peace, then perhaps I shall be allies with it. But really, I’m not hostile to the United States government; I just want to live in peace with my neighbors, on my territory.
The offer to buy was meant to be an attempt to prove friendliness, by the way. Japan took Taiwan without paying a cent, last time I checked.
actually TAiwan was not abandoned by Japan , but rather was forced to give up Taiwan by the US FORCES. The US FORCES then gave the island of Taiwan to the REPUBLIC OF CHINA. And not to the CCP. IT WAS given to the REPUBLIC OF CHINA. Which govt then ran the island of taiwan fairly successfully (except for the horrible 228 incident of course). Culminating in todays democratic 3 party taiwan.
Legally the USA can still claim title if the REPUBLIC OF CHINA ceases to exist.
Japan took Taiwan by forced and annexed the island into its empire.
The island was “very loosely” administered by the ching dynasty at one point. The island itself was forcibly taken by the chinese from the original inhabitants (who truly are the “real” formosans)
to recap
original inhabitants had it for thousands of years, but today are a very small minority (only thing is apparently some part of their genome lives in a great portion of todays taiwan inhabitants)
chinese from china gradually overcame the natives in numbers.
some parts of the island were ruled by european governments for short periods
very loosely governed by chinese dynaties now and then
taken by force by JAPAN, governed by Japan for fifty years
relinquished by Japan due to Japans loss in world war two
7 . given to KMTs REPUBLIC OF CHINA GOVERNMENT
8 claimed by the CCP as “part of china”
did i miss something??
oh yes i missed the part that said that Taiwan belongs to the CCP?? where does THAT FIT?? IT doesnt !!!
POSSibly GOOD SOLUTION??
CHINA surrenders to KMT and KMT administers CHINA. DPP and KMT and new PARTY continues the usual 3 ring circus in TAiwan. Aborigines allowed to form 4th party . Long term inhabitants of TAiwan (those staying longer then five years) allowed citizenship and their own party .
[quote=“almondbiscuit”]well, point 7 is plain wrong. twn wasn’t given to the ROC. no treaty ever named the ROC (then the KMT) the recipient of Taiwan - or any other government as the recipient of Taiwan. thus the ROC’s claim of sovereignty over twn has always been tenuous. this is not just a technicality. it’s a huge deal that there was no treaty naming a recipient. the best legal argument is that the Taiwanese people reinforced their sovereign claim over twn itself when twn held its own elections.
and is the “good solution” supposed to be a joke or something? and why the KMT?[/quote]
answers.com/topic/legal-status-of-taiwan (excellent article containing all the various arguments about taiwans legal status. and frankly I think that Taiwan belongs to the USA as a military conquest BUT the USA doesnt WANT it )
read the link on top about TAiwan retrocession day . OCT 25, 1945
When Japan lost world war 2, ThE REPUBLIC OF CHINA under the KMT (basically in those days China had the CCP and the KMT parties only, with the “REPUBLIC OF CHINA” under the KMT and the ‘PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA’ under the CCP ) accepted the island of Taiwan from the Japanese upon Japans Surrender.
The second part was supposed to be “tongue in cheek”. The KMT has always wanted to return to the motherland? So return it should. But since it should be given credit on taiwan as well, its allowed to remain on Taiwan as a viable political party in my simple estimation. China should be governed by a coalition of the CCP/KMT if you will, under perhaps a "social democratic " platform rather then a communist platform.
I cant imagine CHINA wanting any part of the DPP to govern itself in any way or form .
CCTang, you have already posted that China [color=darkblue]wants Taiwan to strengthen itself.[/color] You justified this not with a fairness argument, but by saying that the US has done the same thing to great effect, so China is just learning from it (well, that’s sort of a fairness argument in a weird ‘2 wrongs make it right’ kind of way’). You don’t really care about fairness, do you? That little Hartzell/Lin complaint is just laying around for some PR firm to use it at a future date when someone needs it in the US Congress (I hope they never get to the point where they need to use it to justify to the American people and the world why they are getting into a military conflict with China).
I guess that sets a precedent to have the USA pay cctang to take over a parcel of a strategically important island. I say Hawaii, since there is already a native independence movement there already.
This is even better than Hartzell’s plan. Once USA is use to the idea of giving up territory in the Pacific it will be easy to convince the USA to release Taiwan from it sphere of influence.
Without USA sphere of influence on Taiwan, PRC would not feel threaten by the island. Which would reduce tension, then Taiwan can finally be free.
Sure there are naysayers to this plan, like those annoying white mainlanders. But Hawaii is like 90% non-white and has culture that is not part of mainland.
So all in favor of TI, should help cctang aquire Hawaii. For the freedom on Taiwan, let’s make the USA let go of Hawaii…
I guess that sets a precedent to have the USA pay cctang to take over a parcel of strategically important island. I say Hawaii, since there is already a native independence movement there already.
This is even better than Hartzell’s plan. Once USA is use to the idea of giving up territory in the Pacific it will be easy to convince the USA to release Taiwan from it sphere of influence.
Without USA sphere of influence on Taiwan, PRC would not feel threaten by the island. Which would reduce tension, then Taiwan can finally be free.
Sure there are naysayers to this plan, like those annoying white mainlanders. But Hawaii is like 90% non-white and has culture that is not part of mainland.
So all in favor of TI, should help cctang aquire Hawaii. For the freedom on Taiwan, let’s make the USA let go of Hawaii…[/quote]
Why not? Since there are no missles pointed at Hawaii.
You’re claiming that the lack of a “fundamental alignment of interests” is the root cause of pan-Arabism’s failure. I see it as a symptom; I believe the major power brokers of the 20th century have setup the system to assure that there would not be a fundamental alignment of interests.
But that said, this wasn’t really my point. My belief is that the Arab world would be “better” if it could be more united in action; for whatever reason, whether internal (your belief) or external (my belief)… the Arab world is anything but united. This is a fate I’d like China to avoid.
The fact that such distinct, diverse people had that nationalism and desire for a “strong China” is precisely the point. The Napoleans and Hitlers of Europe were seen as tyrants for trying to recreate the Roman Empire, a single political entity built around Roman foundations; Europeans preferred to have their own “local” petty tyrants. In China, the fact that pan-China ideology took root so quickly (amongst such a diverse set) already suggests a significant difference.
PS. I didn’t think we’d really need to have a debate on the historical existence of “cultural unity” in China. I just took for granted that it was a rather obvious: hundreds of millions of Chinese distributed over territories that took years to traverse reading/writing the same script, using the same currency, following the same rites, taking the same civil service exams… the conclusion seems pretty obvious.
The more outlandish the plan, the more easily it’s rejected as just a joke. I’d rather keep things on a very practical, manageable basis.
The Hawaiian island chain include several poorly populated islands. If I were to buy some significant ranch land on one (probably not too expensive), and if I could convince the PLA to drop-ship a few thousand Chinese into the island… if the “people” of my island desire it via public referendum, how long before we can first declare independence from the United States, followed by reunification with China?
I’m going to pass on commenting on “amateur legal hour”. Quite frankly, without any disrespect, I don’t think either of you really know what you’re talking about. I’m not trying to shut you up; I just think your guesses about what “really” happened in Taiwan in 1945-1951 from a legal point of view is as meaningful as my guesses on the origins of life. You’re just repeating what you’ve found elsewhere, and if the legal situation was really clear or convincing, there would be a clear and obvious legal consensus on this issue.
So, let me get away from the number of angels dancing on the head of your pin, and talk practicalities…
Just goes to show you really don’t understand China. Why can’t the DPP participate in the governing of China? I personally have absolutely no problems with the idea.
There are practical issues here of course; current DPP members probably know next to nothing about mainland China, and they aren’t exactly impressing me with their governing efficiency on Taiwan. But I personally would welcome the idea of sending younger DPP members to study at the central party school in Beijing, while sending younger CPC members to study at the DPP’s think tanks in Taipei.
And as political reforms happen in general, I can absolutely imagine the DPP participating in government just like any other group of Chinese. For that matter, they’d probably be more popular amongst many Chinese because their hands are clean, and they stand for reform. I can also imagine that if there’s a reunified China “federation” 20-30 years from now, there may be a rotating “presidency”: 5 years with a mainland president, 5 years with a Taiwanese president.
I have no problems with living under ‘Taiwanese rule’. Why should I? In my mind, Taiwanese are Chinese. After all, maybe we’re talking about my daughter, 45-50 years in the future.
I don’t really know what you’re referring to; your description of my statement above doesn’t ring a bell, and doesn’t really make any sense. Not denying it, I just don’t understand it.
I don’t think you know what “fairness” is.
I like fairness… but I don’t know if it exists, I don’t expect it, and I certainly don’t demand it of others.
Of course it is obvious. It’s the n-th time we’ve been through this discussion. I would say it is even quite obvious to even Europeans and most Americans: they do understand China’s unity even if they have different degrees of the same in their own situation. It’s only among some anti-statist cultural warriors that this simple concept is convolved with utopic garbage. It’s like a fad to want to break up China because it doesn’t fit the notion of popular sovereignty – a flawed model of development incorrectly deduced from the Western world and applicable only to those deemed not to have it.
And that is how you get people to underestimate the individual behind the plan…
I don’t have any brokers on Hawaii, so you’d need to be patient until I get some brokers there to collect the commission.
Land is expensive on Hawaii in general, unless you talking about the “new” land by the lava flow.
How about something even more pragmatic and feasible, provide the aboriginals of Hawaii the logistical and monetary support to their current “independence” movement. Spin the PR as PRC the values human rights of these down trodden minority that may or may not be the lost 57 Chinese ethnic group.
Make sure PRC lobby groups in Washington also include the Hawaiian Independence Lobby groups at major meetings.
If an arm revolution begins, provide arms to these freedom fighters to win back their land.
All Western society could be considered ‘unified’ since we share Roman & Greek foundations. However, both history and modern reality show that while there is some shared, common base, there are wildly divergent ‘interests’ and political entities that are more important. The only thing shared is nationalism by the people you listed above is nationalism adn desire for a strong China. It may seem a small detail, but each had quite a different interpretation of what that meant. Different enough to fight over.