…which is one of the lousiest arguments I’ve ever heard in the never-ending debate over whether Taiwan is an independent state or merely a renegade province that rightfully belongs to the PRC.
It is my opinion that Taiwan is a de facto independent, sovereign state.
Before I explain why I believe that, first allow me to be clear about what my opinion on the issue of “reunification” between Taiwan and China:
Tuan Tuan & Yuan Yuan, the sinister reunification pandas.
Based upon the information I have at this point, and my expectations of the future, I believe eventual reunification is in Taiwan’s economic and geopolitical best interests. Note what I have bolded. I am not advancing immediate reunification nor I am not setting a concrete timeline. I believe there needs to be significant changes (and assurances) with the political system of mainland China before Taiwan will consider and agree to true reunification.
Or…the PRC will militarily and forcefully reunify (if you believe they were divided) or conquer (if you don’t). This isn’t impossible, but I personally believe this is an extremely unlikely scenario that neither side, nor any third party, is seriously considering outside of political posturing. There is very little good to come out of forceful reunification. The costs outweigh the benefits. If you want to go around threatening that this is what the PRC leadership really wants to do, go ahead, but the fact that I see this as “extremely unlikely” means I won’t take you seriously.
Second, I want to acknowledge that there are certainly many people, political scientists or whatnot, who are surely far more knowledgeable about this issue or the issues involved in this issue and/or far more persuasive in arguing their position. I don’t study this subject as a profession, but I do believe I have given this subject more thought than most, have done more research than most, have discussed this issue more than most, and have what I consider to be a coherent platform for what I believe.
Third, I know there are many different arguments for or against the notion of Taiwan independence. While I welcome people to challenge my position, present arguments, and seek to persuade me to change my position or reconcile my position to new information, I will be blunt in telling you what does or doesn’t make sense to me and why. I will tell you when I disagree and I will tell you what I find wrong or irrelevant. I will tell you when we’re no longer discussing the same thing. I may also categorically ignore you when I have decided we cannot have an intellectually honest discussion.
Now, let’s begin:
Taiwan is a de facto independent, sovereign state.
When I say this, I am specifically judging Taiwan by the definition of sovereignty and of an sovereign state. I believe this definition is independent of whether or not other sovereign states recognize it or not. However, I am not ignorant of the fact that things are not so simple in reality and that recognition or non-recognition by “other sovereign states” certainly affects the sovereign state in question in many serious and very real ways.
From Wikipedia:
A sovereign state is a political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a geographic area and population which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state. While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it difficult to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.
I believe Taiwan is indeed a sovereign state because it indeed has effective sovereignty over its territory and is not dependent upon or subject to any other power or state. It has both de jure sovereignty and de facto sovereignty. The people in Taiwan recognize the government to have legal power over them, which it in fact can and does exercise. There is a social contract.
Taiwan’s de jure status in international law and politics (not domestic) is not so clear. I know this. This is why I qualify my statement that Taiwan is a “de facto” sovereign state internationally. While it has, over time, lost recognition by the majority of other sovereign states in the international sphere, this has not changed the fact that it continues to meet the definition of a soverign state, maintaining domestic de jure and de facto sovereignty. This is the premise upon which I state “de facto“.
To this day, Taiwan controls and governs itself, whether or not outsiders, namely the PRC, likes it or not. It is not Hong Kong, which has been and is de jure and de facto controlled and governed by Beijing. If Hong Kong does something Beijing does not like, Beijing has de jure and de facto recourse. In contrast, Taiwan enjoys an autonomy substantially greater and significantly different from what Hong Kong has. The PRC can indeed influence Taiwan as it can influence any separate political and economic entity (like the United States), but influence alone is neither control nor governance by fiat, again unlike the PRC’s control and governance of Hong Kong.
This is not a “one country, two systems” situation. This is at the very least a “two separate systems” situation. This is not a parent-child scenario as can be applied to Hong Kong. This is, with respect to the history between the KMT and CCP, arguably a separated sibling scenario.
Source: Poagao on Flickr.
Taiwan is a renegade province because China says so.
I have outlined the basic premise and limitations of my position above. Below are the arguments of a certain chinaSMACK commenter that disagrees with me. I have reprinted it in near-entirety and will respond to it point-by-point. I have tried to add clarifications as necessary and note that I do occasionally address the commenter with “you” or “your”.
He begins by outlining his position and general claims:
1.) Taiwan is not a country
2.) Taiwan is not a sovereign nation
3.) Taiwan is a rebel state belonging to Greater China
I disagree with #1 and #2, believing Taiwan is very much a de facto country and a sovereign nation. With regards to #3, I ask that “Greater China” be defined. What is “Greater China?” If you say “Greater China” is the PRC, I disagree and do not believe Taiwan is a “rebel” state “belonging” to the PRC. However, I do personally believe Taiwan to belong to a Greater China insofar as that China is defined as an entity or association independent and separate from the CCP and the modern PRC. “Greater China” to me, is about a certain Chinese culture, heritage, and identity. It is not, to me, a specific political entity as the PRC or CCP is.
Next, the commenter proceeds to elaborate and provide arguments in support of each of his above three claims:
1
a) Taiwan is not reocognised as a sovereign nation by United Nations and its members.
I do not think the definition of a country or sovereign nation necessarily requires specific recognition by the “United Nations and its members” though, again, I fully understand the real world disadvantages of lacking that recognition. I believe there is an objective definition for “sovereignty” and a different, malleable definition employed by politicians in the United Nations and its members for political expediency. I recognize the latter, but will you recognize the former?
(b)Political debate has been about Taiwan separating or claiming independance from China – this wording would implicitly imply that Taiwan is not considered an independent country.
I strongly disagree with this characterization of the “political debate” surrounding Taiwan and the “implication” drawn from it. I can accept that this may be the debate within certain circles but certainly not in or with the circles I am familiar with. To me, a lot of political debate is precisely over how to label Taiwan given its de facto independence but ambiguous international de jure status. These political debates regularly involve philosophical and theoretical arguments over “statehood”, many of which are summarized in the Wikipedia entry for “sovereign state” already referenced above.
In these debates, Taiwan is already de facto separate from China, in everything but the unilateral claims of the PRC. The PRC rarely disputes and cannot dispute the actual “separateness” of Taiwan economically, political, and even socially from mainland PRC. It insists that Taiwan not declare, uphold, or emphasize its separateness, the most obvious way being “claiming independence”.
The controversy over “claiming independence” does not “implicitly imply that Taiwan is not considered an independent country.” It explicitly represents the on-going and unresolved political question mark concerning Taiwan’s international status, over how it should be recognized in the international political sphere.
Those who advocate “claiming independence” are not doing so to “separate” Taiwan from the PRC as if their current status is de facto part of China. They are doing so to remind others that they are separate, independent, and not part of China. They are restating a fact in their minds to those whom they believe do not recognize or sufficiently recognize that fact. They do this for many ends, including efforts to more clearly define Taiwan’s international status in hopes that doing so will persuade international organizations to recognize them for what they believe they already are, an independent, sovereign state that deserves international recognition as such.
Those who advocate against “claiming independence” generally belong in two camps. One camp is the mainland “One China/Reunification” camp and the other is the “Maintain the Status Quo” camp. I don’t think I need to explain the former. The latter, however, are the people who understand and recognize the complicated history surrounding the Chinese Civil War, how Taiwan figures into it, how ambiguous — even unresolved — Taiwan’s international status is, and have a vested interest in maintaining peace between the two sides. They know that Taiwan “claiming independence” rocks the boat, pissing off an increasingly powerful PRC that cannot be ignored. They also know that this rocking of the boat accomplishes very little because the PRC holds enough influence over other nations to deny Taiwan what some seek for it. Finally, they know too that Taiwan remains de facto independent even if it doesn’t “claim independence”. The expected costs of Taiwan “claiming independence” outweigh the expected benefits for those in the “Maintain the Status Quo” camp.
The wording here does not imply Taiwan is not an independent country…not if you have even a basic understanding of the issue.
(c) Recently, Chinese anti-secession law allows a Chinese military attack on Taiwan to prevent the island from seeking independence.
This has nothing to do with whether or not Taiwan can be seen as a sovereign nation or not. This does not prove that Taiwan is not a country, it just proves that the PRC does not see Taiwan as independent and is willing to issue a political threat. Me writing a document titled “anti-secession law” in which I authorize myself to use force against you should you “seek independence” does not mean you actually belong to me. This is a unilateral declaration of fact, not a representation of fact.
(d) The Olympics, which publically promotes sports over politics disallowed Taiwan to enter under even the Republic of China name. Taiwan was not allowed to play their national anthem and were registered as Chinese Taipei and prohibited to use their flag.
Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not Taiwan is a sovereign or independent country. If I get everyone to agree with me that you are not a person, are you suddenly not a person? The Olympics has always been political. The PRC and mainland Chinese should have seen this first hand last year. How The Olympics has treated Taiwan is all about politics and not about sports. Suggesting that this treatment is not about politics but about objective indisputable fact as above is ignorance at best and willful stupidity at worst.
2/3
(a) Based on the reasoning that Taiwan is not an independent country in itself, this would correlate to the fact that Taiwan is a renegade/rebel country.
No. First, you have not sufficiently established that Taiwan is not an independent country in itself. Without doing so, you cannot use it as a premise for further “reasoning”. Second, I don’t think proving Taiwan as not being an independent country would “correlate” to it being a renegade/rebel country. I believe it would correlate to Taiwan simply not being a country at all. Interestingly, your claim #1 argued that Taiwan is not a country, yet you refer to Taiwan as a country here. Did you mean “province”? Either way, argument #2/3a here does not support claim #2/3, it just restates it.
(b) Based on your definition:
(i) that Taiwan governs itself – this is not a distinguishing key factor of sovereignty – I could mention HK is the same but you are of course are emphasising the differences as being the key exceptions to why Taiwan is different. I’ll address this below.
For clarification, this commenter is disputing my previous assertion that Taiwan’s self-governance contributes to it meeting the definition of a sovereign state. I believe self-governance is very much an distinguishing key factor of sovereignty since it is part of the definition.
Some extra questions to challenge your comparison to Hong Kong: Does the PRC appoint the government leaders and personnel in Taiwan as it does in Hong Kong? Can the PRC unilaterally decide matters of governmental policy for Taiwan as it can for Hong Kong? If the PRC wanted to build a railroad on Taiwan territory, can it do so as it can do so on Hong Kong territory?
(ii) cannot be governed/controlled/influenced by outside forces such as Beijing
- this could be poor wording on your behalf, but I’m sure that you are relying on (iii) to pull you out of it. As far as I’m aware, Taiwan can be controlled and influenced in more than one way through both Chinese legislation and international pressure both economically and politically by the PRC.
Again, for clarification, this commenter is partially quoting my previous arguments and responding.
I acknowledge that my previous statement to which this commenter is referring to is indeed susceptible to disingenuous literal interpretation (and accusations of poor wording), but it should have been clear what my intended point is, that Taiwan governs itself. I will respond further below.
(iii) any more than most countries (key point ^^)
- Unfotunately, I dont think that this sneaky part of the sentence will help you here.
China osentsibly has more control over Taiwan than most other countries. Not only do they have overwhelming political support but they are legally entitled through their own legislation – which I assume also has international support – to force Taiwan from declaring independance, seeing that it would be an internal affair.
This isn’t sneaky. It’s only sneaky if you choose to disingenuously interpret my direct previous statement (and this statement) too literally. The point is that Taiwan self-governs but is free from or subject to largely the same external pressures and influence as most other sovereign states.
Does the PRC “ostensibly” have more control over Taiwan than most other countries? I prefer “influence” — even “intimidation” — over “control” but this is largely due to their rather unique, complicated, and ambiguous international status, not due to Taiwan belonging to the PRC. I, and most people, acknowledge and agree that that Taiwan is often largely at the PRC’s political mercy in the realm of international politics. But this has nothing to do with whether or not Taiwan meets the objective definition of being an independent/sovereign state.
Continuing, the PRC’s domestic political support to prevent, with force, Taiwan from declaring independence is a given. That domestic political support seeing it as an internal affair is also a given. But neither of these prove that Taiwan is not a sovereign state. That the PRC entitles itself to using force also proves nothing except that the PRC can unilaterally declare its own view and proclaim to others how it may react to certain conditions it sets for itself.
Next, there is little international support for the PRC’s anti-secession law from what I have seen. Given that you (the commenter) “assume” there is support, I take that you actually don’t know anything about whether or not there is support internationally. This is bad. One, other countries cannot dictate what legislation the PRC wishes to draft and enact for itself. If the PRC wanted to, it could pass a law declaring the United States to be a renegade province and even the Americans who take it seriously could not do much to overturn it. Two, the existence of that law or legislation does not change reality, just as that aforementioned law would not automatically make America a renegade province of the PRC. Three, outsiders’ inability to stop or change a nation’s legislation does not equate to their support.
Assuming that there is international support for China’s anti-secession law is strong evidence that of inexcusable ignorance concerning the anti-secession law’s reception in the international sphere. The reception I am aware of is of strong criticism of this legislation as a political gesture designed to threaten and intimidate a Taiwan that is rocking the boat and challenging the status quo that the PRC has, in practice, accepted and supported. Ask yourself when this legislation was made and in response to what. I can tell you it was not made in response to international requests and support.
The United States would be bound by treaty to protect Taiwan if this happens, however this is a separate matter.
I agree this is a separate matter. It is not necessary to discuss this to argue my position over your’s.
Concluding remarks:
The overwhelming debate about Taiwanese independance revolves around the acceptance of Taiwan being a region and not an independant country.
Maybe in your circles, not in mine nor my understanding of most circles of debate concerning Taiwan. The debate is not about “accepting” Taiwan as a region, but about the problem of how Taiwan should be treated in the international sphere: Whether as a region of the PRC to appease the PRC…OR…whether as an independent country as it actually is in practice.
As I mentioned in the previous post, there are political issues involved in the reason why Taiwan is not recognised as a country. However this does not change what is already considered a fact by the United Nations and most international organisations around the world.
I’m going to employ a fallacy to respond to this: Then why is the issue still so hotly contested by so many people?
Political expediency (or necessity) does not reflect unanimous, even popular, agreement with the claim that Taiwan is not an independent country. Your own statement above is illogical, even ludicrous. The fact that there are political issues involved in whether or not Taiwan is recognized as a country has everything to do with how political international organizations like the UN treat Taiwan’s international political status. The political issues have determined how the UN and other international organizations treat Taiwan. How they treat Taiwan is not separate from those political issues. That the UN and most international organizations around the world have chosen to compromise the definition of sovereignty does not change the definition of sovereignty, nor does it automatically change the fact that the Taiwan is an independent state.
I believe that the Peoples Republic of China is claiming sovereignty of Taiwan is justified.
I disagree. As stated at the beginning of this post, I do think there’s an emotional appeal for mainland Chinese to claim brotherhood with the people in Taiwan but I strongly disagree that the PRC, as founded and operated by the CCP, has any legitimate political or territorial claims on Taiwan. If one day they should take the island by force or Taiwan voluntarily reunites, then they’ll have a political and territorial claim. Not prior. Until then, it is still the political claim and territory of the state and government that formerly controlled mainland China.
(i) Firstly on the fact that Taiwan has not recognised as a sovereign country.
See above. I agree Taiwan is not “recognized” as a sovereign country, but I disagree that it isn’t. This is a crucial difference between our positions. Also, this point alone is insufficient to “justify” the PRC’s claim. Remember what came first. The claim came before the rescinding of recognition by other nations. Not the other way around. It was not that other nations did not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation and then the PRC laid a claim. It was the PRC making the claim first and then influencing, even coercing, other nations to not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country. Don’t get this mixed up.
(ii) The constitution of both the ROC and PRC recognises Taiwan as a province.
Yes, but the constitution of the ROC recognizes it as a province of the ROC, not the PRC. Nice try. Did you really think this through?
(iii) When the Republic of China was in control of Mainland, led by the KMT. They were able to exercise sovereignty over the Mainland. The Republic of China continued to claim to be the sole legitimate government of China even after losing the civil war.
While this is a positive statement which in itself is not relevant directly to the topic, we can still infer some important reasoning from it. If the Republic of China felt it could claim over the mainland, why could the PRC not claim sovereignty over Taiwan based on the same reasoning that a previous government which governed the nation of China now controls Taiwan – reverse logic.
Actually, the statement is definitely directly relevant to this topic. It has everything to do with how politics does not reflect reality, how political sovereignty/independence does not mirror de facto sovereignty/independence.
Yes, we can infer some important reasoning from it, but you are not going far enough. The ROC’s claim on the mainland was due to its previous control of the mainland. It saw the CCP takeover of the mainland as a coup that it would continue to fight with the expectation that, one day, it will reclaim its territory. The ROC did not base its claim on the previous Qing Dynasty government’s claim over mainland China. It based it upon it actually retaking territory from warlords and foreign powers and establishing governance over them. The PRC has never controlled or governed Taiwan as the ROC has controlled and governed mainland China. When the PRC came into existence, it did so without control of ROC-controlled Taiwan and it has never wrested control of that territory from Taiwan unlike, say, Hainan.
The PRC has no direct historical or territorial claim to the island of Taiwan. To have a claim, it must appeal to a previous government. If it appeals to the ROC, it cannot deny that the ROC still exists and controls Taiwan. If it appeals to the Qing Dynasty, its claim is one step removed from the ROC’s claim. It’s only entertain-able claim is to a persistent “nation” of China that is separate from from the CCP. But where does that leave the PRC? You see, the ROC can make the same claim, and it has de facto control of the territory in question.
I need to point out that based on reverse logic on Taiwan’s continous claim to sovereignty over the mainland; based on the current stance of the United Nations; based on Chinese legislation and its impact on Taiwanese sovereignty; and based on Taiwan’s own view that it is not an independent country, that it is safe to infer that Taiwan is not a country by any standard and thus is only a renegade province that belongs to the PRC at this stage.
Is that “continuous claim” still continuing? I do not believe Taiwan or the KMT maintains their claim. Quite awhile ago, it become obvious that they were never going to retake mainland China and they have effectively given up that claim. I argue that their claim is stronger than the PRC’s claim to Taiwan to illustrate how physical control of a territory is a fundamental component of determining sovereignty and legitimizing claims upon territory. I do not see or agree with the “reverse logic” you seem to see. Neither the PRC nor the CCP has ever physically controlled Taiwan so what legitimizes their claim? Furthermore, what makes their claim more legitimate than the ROC’s?
See above for my views on the “current stance of the United Nations” and “Chinese legislation and its impact on Taiwanese sovereignty”. As for Taiwan’s own view that it is not an independent country, I believe you are completely wrong because Taiwan strongly, without ambiguity, views itself as an independent country.
Given that I find none of your arguments to be persuasive in supporting your claims, I cannot agree with your inferred conclusion. I believe Taiwan is definitely a country by most standards. In fact, I believe you totally failed to argue why it isn’t a “country”. I definitely do not believe Taiwan is a “renegade province” belonging to the PRC in anyone’s eyes except for the PRC. I believe most people believe Taiwan to be a difficult conundrum that the people in Taiwan and China need to sort out for themselves, ideally peacefully.
Whether or not Taiwan is deemed an independent or sovereign country should first look to whether or not it meets the definition of these terms. You’re skipping that and saying “Taiwan isn’t independent or sovereign because China says so.” That’s an extremely unpersuasive argument. I’m willing to entertain and accept the fact that international bodies refuse to recognize Taiwan as an independent/sovereign country as a matter of accepting a political reality that is too difficult to change, but it is my position that Taiwan satisfies the objective definition of an independent/sovereign state.
Your comment about error of logic does not apply here. I would not say that Taiwan has always belonged to the PRC. However the ROC ceased to be a legitimate government upon the succession of the PRC which under the succession of states theory gives control to the PRC.
In general, don’t claim an accusation of error of logic (fallacy) does not apply, explain why it doesn’t. You haven’t.
Judging by your next statements, I strongly believe you have an inadequate understanding of the “succession of states” theory. The theory is as useful for the legitimacy of the ROC’s control over Taiwan as it is for the legitimacy of the PRC’s control over mainland China. It has little persuasiveness for proving the legitimacy of the PRC’s claim over Taiwan, at least relative to that of the ROC’s. More importantly, the “succession of states” theory may support the ROC ceasing to be the legitimate government of mainland China upon succession of the PRC but it does not support the cessation of the ROC being the legitimate government over the island of Taiwan.
Most importantly is that the constitution of the ROC states that Taiwan is a province of China which is not an independent country. As the PRC governs China, it also asserts sovereignty over the province which is Taiwan.
See above. This cannot possible be the “most important” argument for your position.
Yes, the PRC governs mainland China and, yes, it “asserts” sovereignty over Taiwan. But that’s about it. It “asserts”.
Concluding remarks
I believe that if you disagree with my statement that Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state, you must prove to me one of two things:
- Taiwan does not meet the definition of a sovereign state; or
- My understanding of the definition is wrong.
If you want to say the UN definition is different (is it really? or are they, again, compromising the definition to not piss off another member they can’t afford to piss off?), you still need to be intellectually honest and acknowledge the definition I am operating on before you explain your disagreement. If we cannot agree on what defines a sovereign state, we’re not going to agree on any issue of contention that depends on that definition.
Again, I am willing to be persuaded to change my position, but I will not be persuaded by appeal to authority and appeal to common practice fallacies. Go ahead and point out the problems or mistakes in my position or reasoning, but I will not be persuaded by an argument that boils down to: “Taiwan is a renegade province because China says so.”
-
A recent survey showed that 64.6% of respondents in Taiwan identified themselves as Taiwanese, 11.5% Chinese, while 18.1% both Taiwanese and Chinese. So what?
-
Why authoritarian China is defying Western democratic expectations by not failing & imploding…and how foreigners indeed interfere with its internal affairs.
-
Google.cn features manipulated & censored search results, but it still offers Chinese internet users a choice other than Baidu. Less choice is less freedom.
Taiwanese Identity Survey: False Choice, Nationalism, Regionalism 
America Interferes With China’s Internal Affairs, Yes, True, And…? 
Google In China Is Better Than No Google In China 
I’ll take your def for 100 Kai
“A sovereign state is a political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a geographic area and population”
Fine fine fine.
“which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state. ”
Without america, real threat or posturing, China would bury Taiwan.
“While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it difficult to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.”
It’s not just the UN, its about every major country in the world, barring some tin pot coconut-age islands. And MOST world leaders mouth China’s line and dont reconise Taiwan and i’m sure business leaders would nod in furious agreement as well. Intellectuals, ill give you, probably are mostly in your court, but who gives a fuck. The unwashed western public i think you’d be suprised to find, don’t care and probably don’t think Taiwan is seperate from China. Just a case study my parents (fairly well educated and travelled) thought taiwan was part of china, but strangely, thought Hong Kong was seperate. Im guessing this is not uncommon and your average punter will not be following the “de-facto” semantics. “Taiwan sounds like part of china yeah?…and china is big”
To recap, for external reconition
UN : No
Major countries: No
World Leader: No
Business CEOS: NO
Tin pot islands: Yes
Post-modern acedemics (with .00001% readership circulation): Yes
general western public: mostly don’t care/know but would tend to side with China, i reckon.
Soooooooo internal = win, external = i think lose.
Maybe you can say an “”abstract” de facto independent, sovereign state”. Sounds kinda conditional and something a crackpot cult could cook up.
I like your site.
Chris,
I’m willing to entertain this, but I think we need a definition for “unwashed western public”. :) My personal experience is that many of them do see Taiwan and China as separate, as they see the latter being the evil red commie bullying the poor democratic beacon of light. That said, we may run in different circles and our unwashed masses are different.
That is pretty strange. Where are your parents from?
I think I’ve already addressed the “recognition” issue. I acknowledge its importance, but my position is still that Taiwan is a sovereign state by definition. Like the Wikipedia article, we can make a comment about that being limited to abstract terms. Like my own admission, we can make a comment about how lack of recognition profoundly affects Taiwan internationally.
I believe most people, in politics and business, recognize that Taiwan is a de facto independent state but acquiesce to China’s demands because they have to continue doing business with China. It is the compromise I spoke of above. It a pragmatic decision, with real effects, but nonetheless a compromise on the definition of sovereignty.
I’m not asking people to say Taiwan is recognized as a sovereign state by the UN, international organizations, international businesses, etc. I’m asking them to acknowledge that considering Taiwan to be a sovereign state is not inconsistent with the definition.
Theoretically, any nation could be buried by a larger, stronger nation that wants it. But this doesn’t change its status of sovereignty.
Heh. I agree that this can be seen as an academic argument over semantics.
Cheers.
Splittist !!!
I’ve nothing to add really; lovely picture of playful pandas and a politically correct map complete with representative colour coding. What more could we possibly ask for?
When I was discussing news items with my students and had occasion to throw a map of China onto a PP slide, I would often include one (as many outside China do) that omits Taiwan. The conversation that ensued (within seconds, I might add) invariably included all the nonsense arguments of the chinaSMACK commenter you quote above.
No, Taiwan is not a de facto sovereign state, it is a province of ROC especially considering ROC also manages the outlying islands that constitutes Fujian province (not to mention they still claim the whole goddamn mainland and Mongolia). How can a state coexist with parts of another province and itself a province of ROC? (WTF?) The crux of the issue still comes down to the issue of two China’s, rather than China vs. Taiwan. Most Chinese still can’t grasp the fact that the concept of two China’s was created by the PRC, this issue would not have existed if a new China was proclaimed by Mao in 1949 (so in a way Mao was the separatist). This is also the reason why the PRC work so hard to tie its raison d’être with that of the republican era (as seen in The Founding of the Republic). Sun Yat-Sen have been easily labeled as a counterrevolutionary in Chinese history books if it was not for his link to the republican revolution, which the PRC so desperately seek ties to (in order to ground its legitimacy as the ruling body that evolved from the republican era, rather than spitting from it). Nor does PRC’s claims on Taiwan legitimate because Taiwan was never under PRC control (by PRC I mean the political body). ROC’s claim on the mainland on the other hand is legitimate because they actually controlled the mainland at one point.
Taiwan should not be some irredentist wet dream out of some sort of greater ethnic unity (if that’s the case should Singapore be part of China?). A clear division must be drawn between unity through oppression, and unity through consent. Taiwan’s ultimate destiny lies within the rights of its 23 million inhabitants and not assertion through force from another police body. It is on the part of the PRC to change its policies toward Taiwan to make it want to submit to its rule (unlikely), rather than dictating things because it says so.
Joe,
Sorry, my mistake here is in referring to the ROC as Taiwan. I used them interchangeably while I took pains to separate “China” and “PRC”. I believe it shouldn’t have been too difficult to understand what I meant in context though.
Dude, I had a really hard time understanding what you were trying to say here. I think there were some grammar mistakes or something.
I agree and I think that is what the PRC is largely seeking to do in the long-term minus some saber-rattling political posturing that occasionally happens in the short-term. I’m not sure how “unlikely” it is for Taiwan to dismiss reunification if China can get its act together and offer enough benefits and assurances to Taiwan. As one commenter on chinaSMACK suggested, I think a lot of people in Taiwan have a certain social superiority complex but would change their tune if the mainland became superior to them in almost every way…which, we likely agree, is not something that is likely to happen any time soon. One question is whether or not China can make the case for eventual reunification through self-improvement and self-change while there’s enough shared identity left in Taiwan. It is definitely possible that Taiwan society can develop to the point where it sees itself as far too different to even entertain the idea anymore.
Thanks for the comment.
ignore that I was drunk sorry lol
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
1.) I would like to begin by asking Kai to acknowledge that it is internationally recognised that the Peoples Republic of China has sovereignty over Taiwan. Without going into semantics, I believe that the stance of the UN and all major global committees clearly establish this point. With this aside, I will focus of the discussion around the defacto status of Taiwan.
2.) The definition of China shall be extended as the area of land including the Mainland and Taiwan which is currently under control of the current sovereign party (People’s Republic of China).
3.) I should state on the outset that the media has ALWAYS portrayed the idea of Taiwan ‘wishing to separate from China and to declare independence’ I believe that Kai felt I was drawing an implication from the characterisation of the political debate surrounding Taiwan. This is not the point I was conveying in point (b) of my previous comment. I was referring to the literal interpretation drawn from the phrases ‘wishing to separate’ and ‘declare independence’. Under a literal interpretation Taiwan would not need to ‘wish to separate from the PRC’ unless it was integrated. Taiwan would not need to ‘declare independence’ unless it were recognised as dependent.
I realise that the thrust of Kai’s reasoning is based upon the presumption that Taiwan is a de facto independent sovereign state. The idea of declaring independence would, under Kai’s interpretation, refer to declaring something that is not internationally recognised but in reality, exists. I do not agree with Kai’s assertion and I will give a concise reason below. However I want to first assert that a literal analysis of the wording used by the media would, in fact, imply what I have aforementioned. A literal interpretation also gives additional support for the idea of PRC control and should not be used in conjunction with the presumption which Kai has not conclusively justified. Kai’s approach in challenging my statement prior to conclusively determining the defacto status of Taiwan is poor and borders on the line of a logical fallacy.
4.) I shall discuss the various comments and rebuttals that Kai has made in a future post since I find them instructive, but first I shall deal with the substantive issues arising from Kai’s Blog. I shall divide my comments into the following topics:
(1) The issue of Sovereignty
(2) The issue of Recognition
(3) Ancillary remarks
I have written my comments in paragraphs and I have used italics and emboldening to add emphasis and clarity to my comments, but I understand that neither the paragraphs nor any of the italics or emboldening are likely to appear on the web site (although I note that when the comments are printed, at least the paragraphs appear). Anyway, as readers can see, I have numbered the paragraphs and put the headings in upper case.
5.) Topic (1) is set out below. Topics (2) and (3) will be posted separately
(1) THE ISSUE OF SOVEREIGNTY
(1.1) DEFINITION
1. A significant flaw in Kai’s blog is that he uses the definition in Wikipedia for the grounds of his argument. This would not matter if the definition was not an issue or were not relevant, but they are in issue and they are crucial to Kai’s argument. In particular, the Wikipedia definition states that:
The concept of sovereignty relates to a political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a geographical area.
(a) This definition found in Wikipedia is capricious. It explains sovereignty by using the word ‘sovereignty’ to define itself.
(b) A more serious issue is the absence of legal and factual consensus in the use of this definition to define sovereignty.
2. I propose that the use of sovereignty under the Wikipedia definition relates to ‘sovereignty’ that is used in the context of what is established by the authority of the United Nations and United Nations Resolutions. In contrast, any other definition would suffer from inadequate legal and international support.
For the purposes of this discussion, it would be grossly inappropriate to use a definition that is found in Wikipedia. It would also be misguided for a group of people to agree on a definition that is recognised between themselves despite a much more recognised doctrine existing that has defined the limits of international law.
3. The idea of sovereignty has perpetually changed and there is no explicit definition of what it constitutes. However, I am willing for the sake of entertainment to discuss Taiwan by expanding on the definition found in Kai’s blog.
If sovereignty regards supreme power in relation to a state, then the element of absoluteness is integral in its conception. The question regards whether the Republic of China has the exclusive unrestricted right to control every activity within Taiwan Island unfettered by the actions of the People’s Republic of China.
(i) SPORT
4. The Republic of China does not have an exclusive or unrestricted right to control to enter any major sporting competition under the name of Taiwan.
(ii) INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
5. The Republic of China has been denied access to the majority of large international corporations under its current title. It is also under political pressure to maintain its current status as part of China (Please read preliminary comments for the definition of China.) There is also explicit coercion that is enforced through legislation that is more than an inanimate influence on the decision making of the Republic of China.
6. The inability for Taiwan to control all aspects of its government, including but not limited to sports, international relations and the ability to exercise treaties is conclusive evidence that Taiwan is not a sovereign state.
(1.2) TAIWAN AS A PROVINCE OF THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA
7. Upon the founding of the People’s Republic of China on October 1 1949, the PRC obtained secession over the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China. It would be grossly irrelevant that the PRC had never set afoot in Taiwan. The civil war between the PRC and ROC was never legally concluded however both factions belong to the same sovereign country – China. As the sovereignty of Taiwan belongs to China, the secession of Taiwan should be agreed by the majority of Chinese citizens on the mainland rather than those living in Taiwan. Furthermore the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 also states that ‘the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations’.
8. I should make reader’s aware that the definition of China, as mentioned in the preliminary comments relates to the area of land Mainland and Taiwan that is governed by the sovereign government. If Taiwan was the sovereign government, they would also be able to claim sovereignty over the mainland; however clearly, this is not the case. I would like to poise the thought of readers to whether it would have made a difference if the Republic of China had at that stage relinquished their claim of sovereignty on the Mainland and established a new government pertaining to merely Taiwan and had indeed drawn up a constitution establishing the set boundaries and powers of its new territory. Although the possible outcome is beyond my scope of knowledge, I would suggest that Taiwan’s contemporary position would be fairly different to what it is now.
9. I would like to bring attention to Kai’s use of the words de facto sovereignty and de jure sovereignty. Although I must admit that it is quite entertaining to see those words taken directly from the Wikipedia page of the definition of sovereignty, I would also like to point out that they are incorrectly applied. For the sake of simplicity, I shall quote directly from the said page.
(a) De jure, or legal, sovereignty is the theoretical right to exercise exclusive control over one’s subjects.
(b) De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. It can be approached in two ways:
1. Does the governing power have sufficient strength (police, etc.) to compel its subjects to obey it? (If so, a type of de facto sovereignty called coercive sovereignty exists.)
2. Are the subjects of the governing power in the habit of obeying it?
10. As I explained in paragraphs 3-6, the Republic of China does not have De jure sovereignty as it does not exercise EXCLUSIVE control over subjects in all matters. Similarly, the Republic of China does not have de facto control over many facets of its own international obligations. The People’s Republic of China have the De Jure sovereignty over the international affairs of Taiwan and could if it wished to, assert to exercise exclusive domestic control, notwithstanding an extreme civil war.
11. As a matter of interpretation, it would not be incorrect to come to the logical conclusion that the People’s Republic of China has exclusive control over Taiwan. It’s exercise of its power is to allow the province to maintain its own government and CHOOSING not to interfere with the Province’s internal functions. I feel that it would not be far from the truth to hypothesise that if the PRC implementing a policy to radically change the government and structure of the ROC subjects would yield more costs than benefit. This situation is similar to Hong Kong. However given the geographic location and political tension, the discourse of reprimanding the ROC for every dissatisfied decision would certainly yield much unnecessary international attention. In my personal opinion, he PRC is wise to only exercise its De Jure sovereignty only when it is essential and this is what they have done.
Charles,
1. Please do not ask me to repeat what I have already have stated and you already should have read:
When you do this, it shows that you are not paying attention.
I am going to copy and paste a relevant passage from Wikipedia, mainly because I think it is inexcusable for you to not already know this stuff:
This has been a fundamental point in my discussion of Taiwan’s international status.
2. Sorry, WTF is this? I do not accept this premise. This is like arguing Creation by first forcing your opponent to accept that the world is “created”.
3. What media are you referring to? In my experience, the media has never portrayed Taiwan as “wishing to separate from China and to declare independence”. It has been portrayed as HAVING separated from China when the KMT government lost the civil war on the mainland and retreated there. It has portrayed it as a de facto independent nation denied recognition by the PRC. At best, your exposure to the media is inadequate. At worst, you are baldly misrepresenting the media in aggregate.
Your interpretation of “wishing to separate” and “declare independence” is not only ignorant of context in of itself, it is also premised on the above misrepresentation of the media. In other words, you drew an inappropriate conclusion from a false premise. I previously already explained to you why your interpretation is wrong, because you are willfully ignoring relevant context to make literal interpretations. Now I am also telling you that your very premise is wrong.
If you do not accept my word for it, please go ahead and provide me links to the media reports you are referring to that support your characterization of the media’s stance on Taiwan. I will be sure to match you link for link to show you otherwise. I am confident my sources will also be more credible.
4. The thrust of my reasoning is not based upon any presumption of Taiwan being a de facto sovereign state. I am not assuming or taking for granted that Taiwan is that. I have shown you what the definition of a sovereign state is and I have explained how Taiwan meets that definition. There is no presuming involved there. As I previously said:
You have done neither so far.
I do not believe “declaring independence” refers “to declaring something that is not internationally recognised but in reality, exists”. I believe independence exists when the subject in question exercises independence and is recognized as such by the practice of others, even if it is not recognized in statement. I refer back to the above Wikipedia excerpt:
I am saying that actions are louder than words.
I have to quote you here:
…and that literal analysis and interpretation would be completely divorced from reality. So stop it. You’re fabricating a lie and believing it.
I believe I have conclusively determined the de facto status of Taiwan. You are not arguing for why I have not. You’re just saying I haven’t. I believe you think if you say it enough, it’ll come true. I would rather you actually explain, again, the following:
You have not. You have not approached the definition of a sovereign state, not have you offered any arguments for why my understanding of the definition I have referenced is wrong. You just keep saying I’m wrong. Please do not accuse me of a logical fallacy without actually understanding what a logical fallacy is.
4. Are you copying my words from chinaSMACK?
5. Finally, we get to you addressing the definition of “sovereignty.”
a) If the definition of “sovereign state” uses the word “sovereignty”, it would behoove you to then look up the word “sovereignty”. I provided links to both. Even if I didn’t, you should take the initiative to do so. It is not “capricious” to define “sovereign state” with “sovereignty” because the concept of a “sovereign state” was built upon the notion of “sovereignty”. Did you look up the definition of “sovereignty?”
b) Uh, no. If you want to insist this, it would categorically undermine your entire position as well since your position depends on what constitutes “sovereignty” as well. You’re trying to call the definition of “sovereignty” I referenced into question without offering an alternative.
2. Oh, but you DO offer an alternative. Unsurprisingly, it is a definition that requires recognition by the United Nations and United Nations Resolutions. Sorry, I do not accept this definition. It is extraneous. It is, in fact, “capricious”. By accepting this definition, we would conclude that the PRC was not a sovereign nation prior to its acceptance into the UN.
This is paramount to justifying torture on a subject by simply recategorizing them as an “enemy combatant”.
Any other definition may suffer from inadequate legal and international support? Is meeting an objective definition by itself insufficient? If you I get everyone to declare that you are not a person, does that make you not a person?
Are we wading into philosophy here about what defines what? That we only exist according to how others perceive us?
And if so, I point back to “actions speak louder than words”. Most nations do not declare Taiwan to be an independent sovereign state, but in practice, they treat it as such. Then what, Charles? How do you want to explain this away?
I think the definition on Wikipedia is sufficient, and generally agreed upon by quite a lot of people. You’re trying to change or complicate the basic definition of “sovereignty” in order to stack the cards in your favor. This is unacceptable. This is intellectual dishonesty. Go look up your dictionaries for the word “sovereignty” and ask yourself if the UN definition is so “much more recognized” then why haven’t these dictionary definitions been amended to reflect international law? Why doesn’t Wikipedia reflect it if so many people, as you claim, agree with it?
Because they know that the UN compromises definitions for political expediency. It’s politics. It’s wordplay.
3. You stipulate that the ROC must be able to control every activity within Taiwan….
4. …and then you bring up the Olympics, an international event, not a domestic one.
5. …and you bring up international recognition again.
You’re not debunking your own stacked definition of “absoluteness”, “unfettered”, etc. You’re repeating yourself, not elaborating.
6. No. It is conclusive evidence that Taiwan’s international status is influenced by the PRC. It is not evidence of Taiwan not being a sovereign state. It is not even evidence of Taiwan not being able to control everything within Taiwan, which is what you ostensibly set out to do but then didn’t do.
7. You and the PRC thinks their founding results in the succession over the ROC. The ROC thinks otherwise. The founding of the PRC, I agree, results in a succession of control over the mainland. I disagree it results in a succession of control over Taiwan, given that the ROC maintains control over Taiwan.
You have tried to get around this fact by arbitrarily and unilaterally defining control of the mainland as control of “China” and “China” as “mainland + Taiwan”. This is intellectual dishonesty.
8. See above.
9. I did not incorrectly apply the words de jure and de facto. You did not prove that I did by simply accusing me and then quoting the Wikipedia page. You’re supposed to go on to show how I incorrectly applied them.
10. This is ridiculous. You’re going to an absurd extremity in interpreting “exclusive” and “control” to qualify as “sovereignty”, an extremity that the PRC itself does not meet. You’re not arguing that the PRC could control Taiwan’s domestic matters, “if it wished to”.
That’s like saying the United States could control the PRC’s domestic matters, “if it wished to”.
Except “wishing to” requires military conquest.
11. As a matter of interpretation, you can believe whatever the hell you want to believe.
Okay, I’ve responded to you. I think we’re going to have to be content to disagree with each other. We disagree on the very first step of this discussion, and it is with the definition of “sovereignty”. I do not think it requires UN/international recognition, you do. I have explained why I think necessitating UN recognition compromises the definition of sovereignty, as if (using an extreme example) a black man is only a person if white people say he is regardless of the fact that he meets the definition of person. You have been abundantly clear that your position depends on adding this UN requirement to the definition. Without agreeing on this, there is no way the rest of our discussion can ever see eye to eye. I will always see your arguments as being based on an arbitrarily stacked deck. You will always insist upon nothing less.
Kai,
I was planning to post a separate comment regarding the issues of recognition, however due to time restraints and the course of your reasoning, I am hesitant.
1. Please do not address my statements with a straw man argument.
In point one, I asked you to agree/disagree with the idea that it is internationally recognised that the Peoples Republic of China has sovereignty over Taiwan. You have not given me an answer.
My previous statement regards the issue of “INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION’. It does not regard the defacto status of Taiwan which you ‘assert’. Please do not divert attention to the latter. The latter has been discussed thoroughly in my previous comment.
2. Kai, the definition of China I have used is regarding the physical land encapsulating the mainland and Taiwan. The issue we are debating regards the sovereignty of Taiwan and the Mainland and not the landmass. I could use the word “LAND” and define that as including only the mainland and Taiwan. However, in this context, the word “China” as I have incidentally coincides with the UN definition, which is convenient for the sake of argument.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence
“Taiwan independence is a political movement whose goal is primarily to create an independent and sovereign Republic of Taiwan out of the lands currently governed by the Republic of China (ROC) (commonly known as “Taiwan”) and claimed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC).”
Creating an independent and sovereign Republic of Taiwan requires that initial dependence. If you still disagree with me on this point, then I have nothing further to add. The premise of point 2 deals with the literal interpretation of phrases used by the ROC regarding its position. This is an ancillary remark which does not need to be read in context of the main argument. Whether it is feasible in reality is a separate argument which is well addressed below, whether it is ‘divorced from reality’ is not contested here but is surely discussed in the main argument relating to Sovereignty.
4. Your blog outlines your point of view regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan. You cannot use something you assert as a statement to come to conclusions that would only exist under your reasoning. I use the word presumption because you are reasoning that Taiwan is a sovereign state, that is your opinion that and is not one that is recognized by any legal authority. I acknowledge that you have attempted to justify your opinion but using this as a fact to further argue your position is ignorant.
5. I should state in regard to your point 4 that I have not copied your words from ‘Chinasmack’. The imputation of your comment is to accuse me of plagiarism and to try to embarrass me. I find this to be irresponsible and defamatory.
6. A definition by the United Nations is not extraneous, it is agreed upon by 192 sovereign states. The definition you provided is accepted by the writers of Wikipedia. Furthermore, this definition would and does conclude that the PRC was not internationally RECOGNISED as the sovereign government of China prior it’s acceptance to the United Nations.
7. “If you I get everyone to declare that you are not a person, does that make you not a person?”
Not only is this a straw man argument but it is also poorly used. I should state that the issue of recognition is a complex and I wanted to address in a separate post. However, I am inclined to discuss it partially below.
Let me put your example into context with what we are discussing:
If you and I get the Australian Government to declare that you are not Australian, does that make you non-Australian?
First of all, there are administrative procedures within the constitution that prevent unconscionable conduct, denial of natural justice, protection of citizen’s rights that would prevent the Government from arbitrarily revoking your citizenship.
Similarly, it would be impossible for you to convince that Taiwan is the Sovereign government of China. Nobody would take you seriously. In relation to your example, it might be possible for you to convince your friends to label me as being ‘not a person’ however, it would be impossible to convince the world at large. Your example lacks substantive realism.
8. It states on your profile page that you hold a degree in Legal Studies. So you should understand that as a matter of law, if there was provision in an act that states that a man will only be considered as black if his body contains pigments in his skin are at a particular density’, then a dark man of African descent who does not meet the statutory requirements in the act would not be considered as black for the operation of the act. However this characterization would be limited to jurisdiction contained in the act.
9. However in the case of sovereignty of China, the United Nations definition of Sovereignty has international jurisdiction and is certainly more appropriate than a Wikipedia definition. And since the idea of sovereignty is a matter of law, it is wholly appropriate to cite the UN as a source of authority.
10. Regarding the comments about sovereignty, your Wikipedia definition still does not establish that that Taiwan is a sovereign state, since the ROC does not have supreme or independent control over its domestic or international affairs. De Jure sovereignty would require Taiwan to be able to enter into treaties and amend its constitution.
For the sake of novelty (the Wikipedia definition is cut and pasted below)
“De jure, or legal, sovereignty is the theoretical right to exercise exclusive control over one’s subjects”
11. The PRC has the THEORETICAL right to exercise exclusive control over Taiwan. You contrasted this with the US being able to use military coercion to the same end. The difference is that most developed nations recognize that the PRC has having actual sovereignty to exercise control over Taiwan. The United States do not.
“De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. It can be approached in two ways:
1. Does the governing power have sufficient strength (police, etc.) to compel its subjects to obey it? (If so, a type of de facto sovereignty called coercive sovereignty exists.)
2. Are the subjects of the governing power in the habit of obeying it?”
To apply this to our scenario, we can ask:
Does China have the governing power to prevent Taiwan to declare independence?
Can China prevent the ROC prevent Taiwan from entering into international treaties?
Is there coercive sovereignty?
The answer to all these questions is yes.
Is the government in Taiwan in the habit of obeying? Again the answer is yes.
Therefore even given your Wikipedia definition, you could not possibly argue that Taiwan has De Jure or De Facto sovereignty.
The colloquial definition of sovereignty is based on Supreme Authority. There are expanded definitions such as what you found in Wikipedia that have expanded this definition; however to use such an arbitrary definition would be inappropriate. The UN definition expands on the principle of Territoriality which connects to the concept of modernity deficient in your Wikipedia definition. I view the PRC as having sovereignty and choosing not to interfere with Domestic relations in the Strait. This is similar to the powers in the Australian Constitution that allows for the Commonwealth to override the express powers of the State in the event of war. While the example is not completely related, the idea I am conveying is that the PRC has the legal authority to intervene in the affairs of Taiwan. You are choosing to use the Wikipedia authority which you claim to be ‘agreed by most people’ but have not proved. You have also failed to apply the Wikipedia convincingly as you could not establish that Taiwan does in fact have de jure or de facto sovereignty; namely they do not have theoretical exclusive control. This discussion is getting tiring and I do not feel the need to respond further. I think it is clear that we will have to agree to disagree.
Charles,
I didn’t. When you accuse someone of using a straw man argument, you usually follow it up by explaining how their argument is a straw man argument.
Because you are not paying attention. I have stated clearly, multiple times, that I recognize that the PRC has used its power and influence to prevent official diplomatic recognition of the ROC as a sovereign state. My position and statement that Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state rests on the fact that it, in practice, both meets the definition of sovereignty and is largely treated as a sovereign state. It is a sovereign state in all but name. I re-emphasize again that actions speak louder than words. Paying lip service to the PRC is one thing, but how the ROC is actually treated in day to day international interaction is another. From Wikipedia:
“Since the ROC lost its United Nations seat in 1971 (replaced by the PRC), most sovereign states have switched their diplomatic recognition to the PRC, recognizing or acknowledging the PRC to be the sole legitimate representative of all China, though many deliberately avoid stating clearly what territories they believe China includes. As of January 2008, the ROC maintains official diplomatic relations with 23 sovereign states,[1] although de facto relations are maintained with nearly all others. Agencies such as the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office and American Institute in Taiwan operate as de facto embassies without official diplomatic status.”
My blog post is about the de facto status of Taiwan, which I both assert and have supported with a careful examination of the definition of sovereignty and an explanation of the international recognition issue. You are responding to my blog post. If anyone is diverting attention, it is you. You have not discussed many things, repeatedly, redundantly, but you have not sufficiently tackled, much less refuted, the points of my position despite claiming that you will.
I have repeatedly entertained your discussion of international recognition. I, along with others, such as Josh below have challenged the significance of the very international recognition you are oversimplifying. Have you addressed this? No, not yet. We’ll see if you do later in this comment of your’s.
From Wikipedia:
“the situation can be confusing because of the different parties and the effort by many groups to deal with the controversy through a policy of deliberate ambiguity. The political solution that is accepted by many of the current groups is the following perspective of the status quo: that is, to unofficially treat Taiwan as a state and at a minimum, to officially declare no support for the government of this state making a formal declaration of independence. What a formal declaration of independence would consist of is not clear and can be confusing given the fact that the People’s Republic of China has never controlled Taiwan since its founding and the fact that the Republic of China, whose government controls Taiwan, is still a sovereign state as it established at Nanjing in 1911 but her territory just limited to Taiwan province, Penghu, a part of Nansha islands and Diaoyu island. The status quo is accepted in large part because it does not define the legal status or future status of Taiwan, leaving each group to interpret the situation in a way that is politically acceptable to its members.”
More:
Multiple attempts by the Republic of China to rejoin the UN, no longer to represent all of China but just the people of the territories it governs, have not made it past committee, largely due to diplomatic maneuvering by the PRC, which claims Resolution 2758 has settled the matter. (See China and the United Nations.)
The PRC refuses to maintain diplomatic relations with any nation that recognizes the ROC,[4] but does not object to nations conducting economic, cultural, and other such exchanges with Taiwan that do not imply diplomatic relation. Therefore, many nations that have diplomatic relations with Beijing maintain quasi-diplomatic offices in Taipei. For example, the United States maintains the American Institute in Taiwan. Similarly, the government in Taiwan maintains quasi-diplomatic offices in most nations under various names, most commonly as the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office.
The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Republic of India, Pakistan and Japan have formally adopted the One China policy, under which the People’s Republic of China is theoretically the sole legitimate government of China. However, the United States and Japan acknowledge rather than recognize the PRC position that Taiwan is part of China. In the case of Canada and the UK, bilateral written agreements state that the two respective parties take note of Beijing’s position but do not use the word support. The UK government position that “the future of Taiwan be decided peacefully by the peoples of both sides of the Strait” has been stated several times. Despite the PRC claim that the United States opposes Taiwanese independence, the United States takes advantage of the subtle difference between “oppose” and “does not support”. In fact, a substantial majority of the statements Washington has made says that it “does not support Taiwan independence” instead of saying that it “opposes” independence. Thus, the US currently does not take a position on the political outcome, except for one explicit condition that there be a peaceful resolution to the differences between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
The primary fault of your “international recognition” argument is that you’re misrepresenting the unanimity and strength of those countries’ positions. You’re divorcing their statements and official positions from the necessary context of how these countries actually behave versus what they publicly say. You’re overweight the lack of official recognition and dismiss the facts of unofficial but effective recognition.
This is intellectual dishonesty, Charles. Whereas I acknowledge your arguments and endeavor to explain how they are not as persuasive as you present them to be, you categorically ignore my arguments and just repeat your arguments ad nauseum. Each time you do this, I have to repeat myself ad nauseum as well.
I do not agree with this definition and, again, this is you rigging the deck. The definition of the UK used to include the 13 American colonies, but does it now? No, because the territory of a nation changes. You cannot insist that “China” automatically represents both the mainland and Taiwan and then use it as a basis for your other arguments. The premise is faulty and subsequent conclusions reasoned with this premise are also faulty. I don’t care if you say “China” or “land”, it is your intellectual dishonesty that is unacceptable. This is not a valid premise I can agree upon and you have not made any arguments to persuade me to accept this that “China” should be defined as the mainland and Taiwan. You merely assert that it should be defined so. By what reasoning should I accept this assertion of your’s? You have not given any.
No, it doesn’t. You’re playing stupid and exploiting wordplay. Let me give you an example of your wordplay: If Taiwan is already dependent upon the PRC, why would the PRC have to “claim” it?
The context that you are conveniently ignoring with the above passage (which you’re NOT reconciling with passages elsewhere) is that the Taiwan Independence movement is seeking to eschew the current international de jure ambiguity of Taiwan’s status, clarifying it, establishing it, as the independent and sovereign Republic of Taiwan (note: not China). What they are “creating” is a new name for itself to represent the lands it (ROC) currently governs. You should’ve understood this just by a careful reading of the text you quote even if you neglected to understand it with the relevant context that this entire issue is embroiled in. Again, you’re playing stupid, Charles. You keep exaggerating cherry-picked statements and points without acknowledging or respecting for the context and rebuttals that temper them. Again, intellectual dishonesty.
Not entirely sure what you’re trying to say here.
First, this is actually my criticism of your position. Second, I’m not using something I assert. I’m using something I’ve clearly referenced and linked to (definitions of sovereignty, sovereign state), which you’ve yet to refute. The most you’ve done is say “your definition must include UN/international recognition”, to which I challenge the significance of UN/international recognition on the grounds that their official recognition is compromised by PRC political pressure.
The UN and other international bodies do not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state NOT because it doesn’t meet the definition of sovereignty, but because the PRC says they can’t. Think about this for a moment: What definition of sovereignty does the UN operate on? If you insist the definition of sovereignty requires UN recognition, then the UN judges a state’s sovereignty on whether or not it recognizes it as such? Does that make sense to you? You used the word “capricious”. THIS is capricious. You’re basically saying the UN judges a state to be sovereign or not on whether or not it judges a state to be sovereign or not. No, this is circular reasoning.
You want another example of someone using something they assert? Let’s go back to you asserting the definition of “China” as including the mainland and Taiwan” and then later using this definition to say “see, Taiwan belongs to the PRC”. No no no no, Charles.
I gave you a definition of “sovereignty”. I gave you multiple definitions from multiple sources that reinforce each other. You refuse to accept this definition and instead arbitrarily demand that the definition include UN recognition. I am not using something I assert. You are.
I am reasoning that Taiwan is a sovereign state because it meets the definition of sovereignty that I am aware of, a definition that I did not create, bastardize, or arbitrarily tack additional conditions to. It is my opinion, sure, but it is a supported opinion that is recognized by every nation and international organization through their conduct if not their lip service. I value behavior and action above mere words. Do you deny that international bodies continue to deal with Taiwan diplomatically in everything but name? One small example to slam home my point: Why do people need Taiwan-issued visas in order to visit Taiwan? Why not PRC-issued visas? Because there is still de facto diplomatic recognition.
I see you have not yet understood what de facto means, Charles.
I think I’ve been very up front with berating you because I cannot tolerate your intellectual dishonesty. I already warned you that I would be blunt in my post. I did indeed suggest that you plagiarized me because characterizing your arguments as “instructive” was indeed something I said on chinaSMACK. That you feel the same way in reverse is fine, but it was a throwaway comment of mine to begin with, to maintain the continuity of me responding to you point by point.
So the definition of “sovereignty” the United Nations uses is “a state that is recognized as sovereign by the United Nations”? See above.
The definition I offered is accepted by a known and respected reference source, along with all the other definitions I linked to by way of a “define:” Google search. The definition you offered is not only something you arbitrarily asserted, it is also one you idiotically described as being employed by the UN, which is impossible given that the UN would not employ a definition so retarded that it defines itself.
The definition employed by international law is actually the Montevideo Convention, which I argue the ROC has met. (I’m laying some traps here for you.) The PRC’s position is that the UN should supersede the Montevideo. In other words, the PRC argues that the UN should be able to arbitrarily confer or rescind “sovereignty” as it pleases. Now why would the PRC push for this? Because it has influence in the UN. The PRC is essentially advocating that sovereignty not be determined by definition but by their influence. Instead of an objective criteria, they benefit from an arbitrary one. Convenient, isn’t it?
Well, I happen to think it is a great (though of course admittedly exaggerated) representation of your argument and what the PRC argument boils down to, as I have explained above, several times. It is not a straw man argument until you show me how your position does not rest on “Taiwan is only a sovereign state if others (in this case, the UN) say it is”. Will you show me how it is not? Or are you intellectually honest enough to admit fault here?
You say this a lot but I’ve never seen you actually follow-through with that “separate” post. I suspect you more or less use this to excuse yourself from addressing rebuttals.
You have to define “Australian”. Is it defined by place of birth? Or is it defined by state-recognized citizenship? I define “Australian” as the former and it will always be valid for me to call an Australian person an Australian even if you get the Australian government to remove his citizenship.
You’re arguing that the definition should be the latter. I recognize that officially recognized citizenship has profound effects on an individual, but it does not invalidate me saying a person born in Australia is Australian.
This is irrelevant. Stop wasting time and get to your point.
By “you”, are you referring to me? If so, this would be a great example of you using a straw man argument. I have not and am not trying to convince anyone that Taiwan is the sovereign government of China, nor am I trying to convince anyone that the ROC is the sovereign government of the PRC.
Oh. My. God. THIS was your point? Your defense is “well, you can’t get everyone to say I’m not a person!”??? Are you serious, Charles?!?
You have completely missed the significance of my analogy, which is the important difference between meeting an objective definition/criteria versus an arbitrary whim. This is similar to the difference between rule by law and rule by fiat.
This has nothing to do with substantive realism and has everything to do with the faulty logic of your reasoning.
Okay, first, like above, you missed the point of the analogy. Second, I’m going to bring this analogy back home into our main subject of Taiwan: Here, the Montevideo Convention is the provision that defines statehood. Taiwan is the dark man of African descent who, actually, DOES meet the statutory requirements of this act. The PRC’s position, and your’s, is to say the UN, as judges, can arbitrarily eschew/ignore/supersede the Montevideo Convention and declare Taiwan to not be defined as a state.
Do you want me to tell you what Resolution 2758 actually says and the limitations of what it means in the real world?
We’re not talking about the sovereignty of the PRC, we’re talking about the sovereignty of Taiwan/ROC. Don’t confuse the two. That is, again, intellectual dishonesty. You’re trying to weasel your rigged definition of “China” back into your argument. The controversy here, as limited to the issue of Taiwan’s official international de jure status, is whether the Montevideo Convention should be used or whether the UN can indeed supersede it and substitute definition by whim.
My position is that Taiwan is indeed a sovereign state, having met the Montevideo Convention in addition to the basic definition of “sovereignty” but I recognize that in the real world, the UN, as influenced by the PRC, has consciously discarded both the Montevideo Convention and the basic definition of “sovereignty” in order to appease the PRC. Again, this is politics trumping objective definitions.
Sovereignty is not a matter of law, Charles. Sovereignty is a matter of definition with implication upon law. You have not successfully argued that Taiwan fails to meet the definition of sovereignty. Instead, you have repeatedly insisted that the PRC be allowed to influence the UN to ignore the definition of sovereignty, that we accept the words of an influenced UN over a common objective definition that we all still abide by except with regards to the Taiwan issue due to PRC political coercion.
Uh, no. You’re applying an unfair double-standard. Many other countries would fail the same “supreme or independent control” standard you apply to Taiwan. Again, Taiwan not being able to enter in the Olympics under its preferred name or not being recognized officially in the UN is a product of politics, not a product of it not meeting the definition of sovereignty. You’re willfully ignoring this distinction.
Even Wikipedia states that Taiwan meets the definition of sovereignty. Do you need me to cite all those passages you’re pretending don’t exist or can you owe up to your own misrepresentation?
No, it doesn’t. You’re misinterpreting the word “theoretical”. The PRC has a theoretical right to exercise exclusive control over Taiwan, only in its own eyes, in legislation it unilaterally drafted. It does not have that right in the eyes of Taiwan. You’re misrepresenting the definition you quote. Most developed countries pay lip service to the PRC. They do not “recognize that the PRC has having actual sovereignty to exercise control over Taiwan”, they “acknowledge.” They do not “support”, they “take note”.
You should already know this from your research but the fact that you can make such blatant misrepresentations is evidence of you either not researching or, again, being shamelessly and intellectually dishonest.
No, to apply this to our scenario is to ask if the ROC government has police power to compel its citizens to abide by its laws. To apply this to our scenario is to ask if the citizens of Taiwan are in a habit of obeying the ROC government. The answer to these questions is yes. hence, the ROC has de facto sovereignty.
The PRC cannot prevent Taiwan from declaring independence. It can dissuade it. The PRC cannot prevent Taiwan from entering international treaties, it can dissuade others from allowing it to enter. This is not coercive “sovereignty”, this is coercive “international politics”.
Not having a choice is not obeying. It’s not having a choice.
Oh, but I did, and I did so respecting the Wikipedia definition, instead of misrepresenting it and using faulty arguments and reasoning. Of course, I recognize that you either truly may not see your own reasoning as fault or you’re intellectually dishonest. Either way, I can’t convince you of what I find apparent about your arguments.
Uh, no. Arbitrary is you suddenly declaring that the “colloquial” definition of sovereignty is “Supreme Authority” without actually offering any references to that being the case or even explaining what that actually means.
WTF? Clean up this sentence, elaborate, and offer links.
Which I find utterly unsupported. See above.
Yes, the example is bad and no, the PRC does not have legal authority to intervene in the affairs of Taiwan. It has countries paying it lip service. This “legal authority” is a unilaterally declared theoretical authority that has never been tested. It’s like the United States unilaterally claiming it has legal authority to intervene in the affairs of Cuba, having enough influence to convince everyone else to agree, yet never actually acting upon it. Does it really have the authority? Is it really legal? We won’t know until it is tested. What we do know is that Cuba, like Taiwan, will deny and reject this both this authority and the legality of it, which means neither the United States, nor China, has de facto sovereignty if the supposed “subjects” are not in a habit of obeying it.
True, to a degree. I point to the fact that the definition has not been changed despite Wikipedia being openly editable by the general population and I point to the fact that the definition matches definitions offered by the multitude of other reference works and dictionaries that I have linked to, and that others have linked to as authoritative by virtue of how Google manages its index. Furthermore, I have argued why your definition involves circular reasoning and is subject to political manipulation, setting aside an objective criteria for one dictated by political influence. Note that the PRC does not seek to change the definition of sovereignty, its efforts are aimed at coercing the UN and other international bodies from apply the definition specifically to Taiwan.
Says you.
This isn’t a discussion. This is you ignoring me and lying to my face.
Okay.
One last thing, just for fun, why does the PRC talk of “reunification” if, by your insistence, the PRC and Taiwan is not separated?
Oh, and if you should respond, I’d appreciate if you responded by quoting what you’re responding to. Use HTML blockquotes, please.
Kai,
I would like to firstly outline my interest in hearing your reply to my last comment regarding your straw man argument.
Lastly I would like to point out to you why I may choose to ignore any further comments that you may choose to make below.
1. You claim that I am being intellectually dishonest by omitting to respond to certain ‘Wikipedia evidence’ which you cut and paste.
Generally I would not waste my time responding to vestigial comments that lack substance. However since this will likely be my last post, I will entertain you by addressing what you have written.
The Wikipedia excerpt you posted states:
“The political solution that is accepted by many of the current groups is the following perspective of the status quo: that is, to unofficially treat Taiwan as a state and at a minimum, to officially declare no support for the government of this state making a formal declaration of independence. ”
The reason why I have not address this is because:
a.) it does not state what ‘many’ of the specific groups are
b.) you have not applied this to the definition of sovereignty and why unofficial recognition is important.
c.) it does not state the magnitude of recognition
d.)while it states that one solution is to unofficially treat Taiwan as a state, the other solution is not a minimum as it is not even related to the first. I find this wording to be terrible.
e.) I am not going to rebut everything written on Wikipedia unless you stop being lazy and start extracting only what is useful.
2. Next you state this:
“I do not agree with this definition and, again, this is you rigging the deck. The definition of the UK used to include the 13 American colonies, but does it now? No, because the territory of a nation changes. You cannot insist that “China” automatically represents both the mainland and Taiwan and then use it as a basis for your other arguments. The premise is faulty and subsequent conclusions reasoned with this premise are also faulty. I don’t care if you say “China” or “land”, it is your intellectual dishonesty that is unacceptable. This is not a valid premise I can agree upon and you have not made any arguments to persuade me to accept this that “China” should be defined as the mainland and Taiwan. You merely assert that it should be defined so. By what reasoning should I accept this assertion of your’s? You have not given any.”
Let me summarise and comment what you have written:
a. You stated your disagreement and accuse me of rigging the deck – you have come to a conclusion first without disclosing your reasoning – this is poor prose.
b. You give the definition of UK without disclosing the source or citing its relevance. In contrast, I gave contemporary definition of China from the UN, which can be found on your fabled Wikipedia. I have chosen the definition carefully and expanded on the reason behind its use. You have simply spent five minutes to construct a worthless reply.
c. You have mentioned that my definition of China must be the same as yours. I mentioned that I could use the word ‘LAND’ for example instead and it wouldn’t change the rest of my position. You simply disagreed without a good reason.
I’m not going to continue to dissect every useless line that you have written since I can evaluate from we have already discussed that it won’t be necessary. I will let the readers make up their mind of the gist of the argument. The remainder of this comment will be written in dot point to save me time.
Next, Wikipedia is not reliable as a source of legal authority for the propositions that you are attempting to use. The word ‘deliberate ambiguity’ and ‘diplomatic maneuvering’ clearly show the author’s bias. How the author is able to prove ambiguity is deliberate is beyond what I can see. I’m sure that ‘diplomatic maneuvering’ is also a deliberate play on words to suit the author’s needs. It’s called disingenuous wording and a subjective analysis rather than a recollection of facts. As I’m sure you’re aware, if you were to read the PRC’s position of Taiwan, you would find strong words to the contrary.
“No, it doesn’t. You’re playing stupid and exploiting wordplay. Let me give you an example of your wordplay: If Taiwan is already dependent upon the PRC, why would the PRC have to “claim” it?”
- Simple answer: if something is independent then it cannot become independent of its own independence. A person can still claim something regardless of whether it is or isn’t. If I wanted to be nitpick, then I would point out that The words in the Wikipedia states that China has claimed (which is past tense) and means that the PRC may have claimed sovereignty even when not in power. However in this example, I won’t even need to delve into this.
“Sovereignty is not a matter of law, Charles. Sovereignty is a matter of definition with implication upon law. You have not successfully argued that Taiwan fails to meet the definition of sovereignty. Instead, you have repeatedly insisted that the PRC be allowed to influence the UN to ignore the definition of sovereignty, that we accept the words of an influenced UN over a common objective definition that we all still abide by except with regards to the Taiwan issue due to PRC political coercion.”
- Kai are you ignoring that if sovereign is a matter of definition with implication with law. Then by construing the law, we are able to identify whether a state is sovereign or not.
I also love how you use the word PRC political coercion as if you could label any form of PRC control as ’simply coercion’. By your means, I could argue that all forms of government which has influence over it’s citizens as coercion. I submit that the use of the word ‘coercion’ is useless unless it has any legal meaning. Here it clearly doesn’t.
“No, it doesn’t. You’re misinterpreting the word “theoretical”. The PRC has a theoretical right to exercise exclusive control over Taiwan, only in its own eyes, in legislation it unilaterally drafted. It does not have that right in the eyes of Taiwan. You’re misrepresenting the definition you quote. Most developed countries pay lip service to the PRC. They do not “recognize that the PRC has having actual sovereignty to exercise control over Taiwan”, they “acknowledge.” They do not “support”, they “take note”.”
The PRC is recognised by the UN to have sovereignty, the constitution of the ROC is not required to have the same clauses allowing it to be governed. You once again cannot legally prove that developed countries pay lip service to the PRC without disclosing a legitimate authority, which you are not capable of doing. And please, try and find the difference between acknowledge and recognise, they are more or less the same meaning that is sharing the meaning of ‘understanding’.
The PRC cannot prevent Taiwan from declaring independence. It can dissuade it. The PRC cannot prevent Taiwan from entering international treaties, it can dissuade others from allowing it to enter. This is not coercive “sovereignty”, this is coercive “international politics”.
- your argument here is like saying Kai can’t prevent Charles from receiving gifts from his uncle, Charles can prevent his uncle from giving a gift. Or similarly, Charles hasn’t lost, he has simply not won. A bad play on words.
“Uh, no. Arbitrary is you suddenly declaring that the “colloquial” definition of sovereignty is “Supreme Authority” without actually offering any references to that being the case or even explaining what that actually means.”
- Check your own Wikipedia reference – it states that in its first sentence.
“Not having a choice is not obeying. It’s not having a choice. ”
- Uh.. did you read over what you just wrote.
A similar example would be ” I didn’t obey the laws the government, I simply didn’t have a choice’
Kai, I simply cannot be bothered replying to every nuance of text you bother to copy and paste without going to the effort of applying or refining. I will conclude this comment by giving an analysis of what you and I have asserted.
Kai:
Taiwan is not independent because the PRC says so
Charles:
The stance of the UN and China have recognised Taiwan is independent.
Kai
Taiwan is its sovereign state because it has its own government and does not have to appeal to China to make decisions
Charles
1. Taiwan’s sovereignty does not arise from Kai’s definition because the UN defines what a sovereign state is. Without recognition by the UN, there is no legal benefit of claiming sovereignty. For example. It is legally irrelevant that you think you are Australian if the government does not.
2. Taiwan does not have sovereignty anyway because the ROC cannot govern Taiwan exclusively without undue coercion by the PRC restricting its ability to enter into international agreements, treaties and any reform to it’s own DOMESTIC constitution.
I will refuse to respond further to any comments that you are making because it is clear that it will be a waste of time. I will let readers make up their mind about the conclusion drawn from our positions.
I would like to point out that the last comment written was not proof read, and rushed to completion. I acknowledge that it contains several grammatical errors.
Lastly I forgot to respond to your last two comments namely:
“One last thing, just for fun, why does the PRC talk of “reunification” if, by your insistence, the PRC and Taiwan is not separated?”
One can construe reunification as regarding an amendment of the ROC constitution would integrate PRC legislation to override ROC legislation as to reflect the sovereignty of the PRC. Declaring independence from the PRC cannot be construed any other way without sounding ridiculous.
“Oh, and if you should respond, I’d appreciate if you responded by quoting what you’re responding to. Use HTML blockquotes, please.”
I don’t know how but I acknowledge it would be useful for the purpose of clarity.
Final comments:
I’d like to discuss this more frankly with you but I agree neither with the substance or form that you have based your discussion.
The most I could gather from your argument is that:
Taiwan should be considered a sovereign state independent of the PRC because it’s government has de jure and de facto sovereigty.
You do not acknowledge explicitly that de jure sovereigty requires ‘exclusive’ control because it does not benefit you. You conveniently ignore that the inability for the ROC to enter into treaties is a sign of non-exclusive control over its power to control external affairs and thus fails to qualify the ROC as having De Jure sovereigty.
Instead you create a strawman argument giving a REASON why the ROC does not have exclusive control despite the fact that I have not asked for one. You feel that by answering an question that was never asked you somehow refuted my claim that the ROC does not have exclusive control. This is intellectual dishonesty.
The argument you put forth pivots around the fact that Chinese control = political coercion, I do not accept this because the way you use the word ‘coercion’ is not objective. When other countries agree with China, it becomes, in your terms, ‘lip service’. When other countries recognise Chinese Sovereigty, it becomes international politics. You claim a lot but there is not a lot of authority to back it up.
In your last comment, the mention of Wikipedia as being open to editing by everyone is silly. You are attempting to justify your position that Wikipedia by praising it’s neutrality. However this is a disengenous statement since people with experience with it know that Wikipedia is hardly neutral. Do a google search if you want a concise answer, you know I’m right.
I feel that your argument fails on two grounds:
1.) You fail to convince me that your wikipedia definition supercedes the authority of the UN in determing the sovereigty of a nation. The UN definition does take into account the idea of territoriality and modernity (I’ll leave you to look it up in the Stanford Encyclopedia referring sovereigty).
2.) I feel that in failing point 1, you have already failed to establish a valid argument. For the purposes of entertainment, I also gave you a chance to establish your view on sovereigty on your definition. You still failed.
3.) I feel that your responses are disengeous and relate to unsubstantiated personal opinions that are neither backed up by law or explained sufficiently in your response. And just as a note, using wikipedia and google define: does not make them ‘authoratative’ simply “by virtue of how google manages it’s index’ *rolls eyes at stupid attempt on a play of words used in that quote* Nor do I feel that using the word ‘coercion’ changes the concept of control since coercive control is also a form of control. I also refuse to accept that coercive control suddenly becomes ‘international influence’ instead of control simply because you want it to.
Charles,
1. LoL.
2a. No it isn’t poor prose. It’s called establishing your position and then elaborating. Would you like me to quote where you’ve done the same?
2b. I gave you a contemporary definition of “sovereignty”, quoted it, and provided you a link it on Wikipedia, and a link to other internationally recognized and respected dictionaries with matching definitions. You gave me a definition of China that you pulled out of your ass and now suggest that it is from the UN, and can be found on the surprisingly non-fable Wikipedia. Charles, given that I graciously did all the work of providing you links, I think you can return the favor and provide me a link to Wikipedia (at least) where it states that “The definition of China shall be extended as the area of land including the Mainland and Taiwan which is currently under control of the current sovereign party (People’s Republic of China)”. When, and if, you can, I’ll be sure to provide you tons of links that contradict it and explain how you’re reading more into what is actually there.
2c. I said our definition of “sovereignty” must be agreed upon first because otherwise, we would automatically reject each others’ arguments given our disagreement on that definition. I disagreed with your definition of China, as referenced above. You said you could substitute “land” instead, which I don’t see how that makes any sense, much less difference.
Which propositions are you referring to?
In other words: “This peer-edited and reviewed reference material includes something I don’t like, hence I will accuse it of bias and not acknowledge it.”
One way is to show how statements are carefully crafted, where similar words are substituted expressly for their slight differences in meaning. But yes, this is beyond what you are willing to see.
And those facts would be? And how are you going to stop me from accusing your play on words (which I’ve repeatedly highlighted you doing) as being “disingenuous wording” and “subjective analysis” rather than a “recollection of facts”? Charles, I can play your game all day…just to piss you off.
No shit! Why do you think I emphasized Wikipedia containing the PRC’s position?!? I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised with the PRC having “strong words to the contrary” against a facts that do not benefit it. I expect it! You should too! That’s why I’ve repeatedly admonished you for not knowing your opposition’s positions and arguments and instead playing dumb the entire way through.
You did not any make sense to me here. Must be your poor prose.
Sorry, this doesn’t make sense either. We don’t need a law to determine if a state is sovereign or not when there is a definition to check against. When that law is in contradiction to the definition, then we need to ask why. You’re not asking why. You’re just accepting the law over the definition. I’m asking why and the answer is because the law (which law are you referring to anyway? Montevideo? UN consensus? Is UN consensus a law? Or an authority? You have no idea what you’re talking about) is manipulated by politics. To an extreme, we can say definitions can be manipulated by politics too. But are you going to accuse the definition of sovereignty I referenced as being manipulated by politics? If so, I’d love to hear your arguments.
Is that how I use it? No, not really. I’m simply saying the PRC threatens to not recognize nations that recognize the ROC. It’s saying “if you don’t do what I say, I won’t play with you.”
Ooookay. Any evidence or sources I provide, you accuse of bias. I cannot prove anything to you other than what you already believe.
And yet it was such a big deal for the Americans drafting it…I wonder why. Maybe it has something to do with that “deliberate ambiguity” thing…?
Uh, no. It’s more like “Kai can’t prevent Charles from accepting gifts from his uncle, Kai can prevent Charles’ uncle from giving Charles gifts.” …which is not the least bit similar to “Charles hasn’t lost, he has simply not won”.
The first sentence is: “Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory.” It does not say “The colloquial definition of sovereignty is based on Supreme Authority.” What is a capitalized “Supreme Authority”, Charles? Is that a title for a concept that you’re invoking without explanation of what it means or reference…as I accused you of arbitrarily declaring?
Yes, did you?
Right back at you!
Uh, this is not what I asserted. I asserted “Taiwan is a de facto independent, sovereign state.”
What? This is not what you have asserted either. I believe you meant “dependent” or “not independent”?
I asserted Taiwan is a sovereign state because it meets the definition of sovereignty.
It’s not “my” definition, it’s “the” definition. You haven’t offered an alternative basic definition of sovereignty. You’ve only asserted that it must include UN recognition. I’ve stated that renders the definition of “sovereignty” illogical due to circular reasoning.
There’s plenty of legal benefits for claiming sovereignty absent UN recognition, because the most important recognition is by the state’s own subjects/citizens. The PRC lacked UN recognition for 22 years yet it maintained sovereignty in the eyes of its subjects. Are you sure you want to go down this road?
Furthermore, who said there must be a legal benefit anyway? You’re slipping that in when I never said it was a requisite. Claiming sovereignty has whatever value or benefit the claimant ascribes to it. I can value thinking myself to be Australian regardless of whether the government does or doesn’t. It is part of my own identity, defined by me, valuable to me. I don’t have to give a shit about legal benefits.
I don’t believe the definition of sovereignty has any stipulations on constitutions. You’re making shit up. You haven’t read the Montevideo Convention yet, have you?
I sure hope so!
Charles,
Okay, and what are they?
Why would the ROC constitution matter if the ROC is not an independent, sovereign state? If the PRC already has sovereignty over Taiwan, why bother amending an irrelevant constitution to reflect something that the PRC already states to be true?
Do you know what sounds ridiculous? You saying what you did. I’m waiting for it to dawn upon you how you’ve undermined your own position by doing so. Reunification, by definition, isn’t necessary if China already has sovereignty over Taiwan as you have insisted. Reunification itself evidences the de facto independence of Taiwan and its sovereignty over itself. I’m sure you’re going to try to find some way to reconcile your dissonance, but I’m sure I’m going to laugh.
Click on the link I volunteered and be enlightened.
I’m being very frank. You are too. Neither of us agrees with each other on each other’s substance or form. I find your arguments to be ignorant of the opposition’s arguments and that ignorance to stem from intellectual dishonesty. You have, of course, counter-accused me of the same. Neither of us will be able to convince the other of the validity of our accusations.
I made very clear in my blog post what first needs to be resolved: the definition of sovereignty. You had the shamelessness to skip this, ask me to either agree or disagree that the PRC is internationally recognized as having sovereignty over Taiwan, and then have the gall to accuse me of evading the question when I declined to answer in the form you wanted in order to trap me in a position that does not represent me. You misrepresented my response as a straw man argument (the irony is mind-blowing here) instead of recognizing how much face I was giving you by not immediately pointing out how much of a loaded question it was in the first place. You even misrepresented my response as misrepresenting your position, in what is one of the most ridiculous jumps of logic I’ve ever seen. I can go on and on…but you won’t acknowledge it, just as you’re sure I won’t acknowledge your accusations.
I’d rather you quote me instead of summarizing. You have a tendency to misrepresent. I wrote a lot to accurately communicate my position. Don’t oversimplify it.
Wrong. You’re applying double-standards with “exclusive”. By the standard you’re applying here on Taiwan, no country would meet it. The meaning of exclusive here is that the inhabitants of Taiwan recognize the ROC as the exclusive government of them and Taiwan, just as the inhabitants of mainland China recognize the PRC as the exclusive government of them and mainland China. The unfair standard you’re trying to apply here is, the ROC does not have exclusive control because the PRC can influence it. By your unfair standard, I can say the PRC does not have exclusive control either because other countries can influence it as well. This is, again, intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Wrong. The ROC has the ability to enter into treaties. That the PRC can influence other nations to not enter into treaties with the ROC does not mean the ROC lacks this ability. You are making a jump in logic. No country has the level of “exclusive” control over external international affairs that you are unfairly applying on Taiwan here.
You do not know what a straw man argument is. Stop saying it. I don’t have to have your permission to elaborate on my criticism of your loaded question. You don’t ask for a reason because you don’t want a reason. That reason weakens your desired and oversimplified as to be inaccurate conclusion.
Charles, do you really want me to list all the questions you’ve answered that I didn’t ask? Don’t be stupid.
No, the argument I put forward pivots around the definition of sovereignty. The rebuttal I put forth against your argument that the ROC cannot be a sovereign state because it is not internationally recognized pivots around international recognition being compromised by PRC influence, coercion, political maneuvering, etc. take your choice. Again, I’d prefer you quote me instead of misrepresent me.
You didn’t accept it when I used the word “influence” either. What word would you like me to use when the fact is, you cannot accept my rebuttal at all regardless of what word I use because your position depends on misrepresenting the international recognition as being made by nations who did so without being prompted and without being threatened to lose diplomatic recognition from the PRC if they chose the option the PRC does not like. Your argument hinges upon “Taiwan is not a sovereign state recognized by the UN because the UN says so and the UN says so because they don’t think Taiwan is a sovereign state” when, in reality, it is “Taiwan is not a sovereign state recognized by the UN because the UN says so and the UN says so because the PRC will not play with anyone who doesn’t say agree with it.”
No, it becomes “lip service” when countries agree with China in words but not in action and behavior. It is “lip service” when countries have embassies but do not call them “embassies” because China forbids them to do so.
No, when other countries must deny Taiwan’s sovereignty officially in words (but not in unofficial action) because the PRC has used its own political recognition as a political bargaining chip, it is international politics.
I feel the same way about you, darling. Maybe worse.
It is arguably more neutral than you or the PRC, which was my point. The people who contributed to Wikipedia for this subject know and argue the PRC position better than you. Hell, I argue the PRC position better than you do. Both Wikipedia and I are familiar with the PRC position. You, however, are not familiar with the other side’s position or, as I’ve suggested, you’re pretending you don’t know. I can’t prove either, but I can and have repeatedly shown how your statements reflect an ignorance of your opposition.
LoL, you’re kidding me? The Wikipedia definition also takes into account the idea of “territoriality” and “modernity”. In fact, I don’t think you actually understand what they mean, Charles. Did you bother to read the references cited in the Wikipedia definition? It INCLUDES the Stanford Encyclopedia entry for sovereignty!
I can’t believe you threw that out there like a trump card.
I’m not trying to convince you that the “Wikipedia” definition of sovereignty supersedes the authority of the UN. I’m saying the definition of sovereignty itself should supersede the whim of the UN members when it comes to the validity of calling or thinking of Taiwan as a sovereign state. I see Taiwan as meeting the definition and I trust that definition over the mere say-so of the UN, hence I feel comfortable in saying Taiwan is a sovereign state. It meets my criteria. You’re arguing that I cannot think this way or say what I think, requiring that I subscribe to your position that no one can think or say Taiwan is a sovereign state because the UN does not recognize it as such. When I tell you why I don’t recognize the UN as superseding my own ability to judge whether Taiwan meets the definition of sovereignty, you begin repeating yourself ad nauseum.
Says you.
Says you.
Like above, more authoritative than you or the PRC. We could have a discussion on what defines “authoritative” but we won’t agree.
Dude, you’re so confused. You’ve totally lost the plot on what “coercion” was originally referring to or which term came first, and you’ve now inserted it into another issue. I’ll play with you just to mess with your mind. If coercive control is also a form of control, then you agree that the PRC controlled the UN member nations to officially not recognize Taiwan as it wished, right?
Okay, I’m really excited to see your response. This is actually started to get really fun because of how confused you are. No doubt, you’ll accuse me of the same, but oh well!
Oh yeah, I read over your reply this morning… Just to make you sound stupid, I’d like to rebut some things which you have tried to make out which are of course false.
“Do you know what sounds ridiculous? You saying what you did. I’m waiting for it to dawn upon you how you’ve undermined your own position by doing so. Reunification, by definition, isn’t necessary if China already has sovereignty over Taiwan as you have insisted. Reunification itself evidences the de facto independence of Taiwan and its sovereignty over itself. I’m sure you’re going to try to find some way to reconcile your dissonance, but I’m sure I’m going to laugh.”
Easy answer: Do you know the difference between State and Commonwealth constitution? If you do, then do you realise the benefit in amending the state constitution to accommodate the Commonwealth constitution to be more representative of the reality that exists (PRC sovereigtny)?
Charles,
LoL!
Whew, just upgraded our WordPress install. While uploading all the files, I took some time to do more background reading on some of the things you, Charles, mentioned, just to be sure I wasn’t missing something or misunderstanding anything.
What I realized was that your position largely echoes all of the “The PRC position” sections on Wikipedia, whereas mine echoes everything else. I feel like our discussion here is a complete waste of time. I should’ve just pointed all of us to an appropriate Wikipedia article from the beginning. I should’ve said “what I think is this section and what Charles thinks is that section”.
Charles, is it okay if I just link you to Wikipedia for a convenient summary of this issue, including both sides of it, with a ton of footnotes? You can continue to disagree, but I just don’t think I can tolerate you pretending certain facts, truths, realities, arguments, points, etc. don’t exist.
Kai, I have read only the first part of your response and I am already feeling repugnant to read further. I can clearly see that you are persisting in being EITHER being deliberately ignorant or simply having problems in basic comprehension. I will not respond to any more of your comments until we can come to common ground on the first point.
Let me make it so clear what a strawman argument is and apply it to position. This way it could not be more clear what you are doing.
The theory of a strawman argument is that:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents position Y.
Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.
Person A can be Charles
Statement X is to ‘agree/disagree with the idea that it is internationally recognised that the People’s Republic of China has sovereignty over Taiwan.’
Person B is Kai
Kai does not answer the question in the form that the question is being asked by either:
a.) Agreeing that it is internationally recognised that the People’s Republic of China holds sovereignty over Taiwan.
b.) Disagreeing that it is internationally recognised that the People’s Republic of China holds sovereignty over Taiwan.
Instead person B presents statement Y – in this case Kai has presented that he has stated multiple times that:
a.) He recognizes that the PRC has used its power and influence to prevent official diplomatic recognition of the ROC as a sovereign state
b.) His position and statement is that Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state rests on the fact that it, in practice, both meets the definition of sovereignty and is largely treated as a sovereign state
Person Y (Kai) presents his part (a) and (b) which is a misrepresentation of what Person X (Charles) is asking and refuting it. Thus giving the appearance that Person X’s (Charles’) position has been refuted.
Person X is not concerned with ‘HOW the the PRC has used its power and influence to prevent official diplomatic recognition of the ROC as a sovereign state’ or how the ROC acts in practice.
In conclusion, Kai is presenting a strawman argument.
Charles,
Right, you’re accusing me of what I accused you. Fantastic.
I can’t believe you just explained what a straw man argument is and then proceed to show how you utterly don’t understand what it is.
This is a straw man argument:
Charles says the PRC has sovereignty over the ROC.
Kai says Charles says the PRC has sovereignty over the Philippines.
It is not a straw man argument when Kai challenges the position Charles has. I’m not misrepresenting key points in your position, I’m questioning and attacking key points in your position, notably how that “international recognition” was secured and how it cannot be taken at face value. This is not a straw man argument.
You’re asking a loaded question, Charles, and no sane person would answer it as you want them to because that insults their intelligence. Like me, they’re going to ask you to clarify the question and offer an answer that is contextualized and qualified.
Your question is worded to trick me into answering in such a way that it will misrepresent or fail to accommodate my actual position. Not falling for that is not a straw man argument. My answer does not misrepresent what you’re asking or your position. My answer clarifies the extent to which I agree or disagree with your question or proposition.
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT IS.
To quote your own words:
I can’t believe you just read my definition of what a straw man argument is and then proceed to show how you utterly don’t understand what it is.
No it isn’t, the Philippines and the ROC in this context (no context) is not sufficient to characterise this as a strawman argument. In fact you havent even elaborated on the context of the argument nor implied the essential characteristics that make it a strawman argument. Your example is useless.
My proposition is in fact a question which requires a yes/no answer. You attempted to answer my question with your own theory which is not substantiated and conveniently evades the question. You then provide your own explanation on sovereigty which is unnecessary to answer my question. You have conveniently evaded answering my question to talk about an issue of sovereignty that was dealt with in the body of the discussion. Therefore you have used a strawman argument.
What is clear here is that “YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A STAWMAN ARGUMENT IS”
Charles,
LoL. Okay, I didn’t illustrate steps 3 and 4 of the straw man argument. The reason is because I was showing you how you didn’t get step 2 right. I was showing you what constitutes a misrepresentation or distortion of a position in a straw man argument. Your arguments did not show how what I said was a straw man argument because, I offered, you don’t actually understand what it is or you were too hasty to accuse me of it.
A straw man argument is not the complicated mess you made it out to be. I did not distort your position and then attack that distortion and then claim your position is false/wrong. I identified your initial question as a leading question and answered it with qualified answers based upon the factors to be considered. I’ve explained this already. See above.
And it is, in fact, a loaded question:
“Loaded question, also known as complex question, presupposition, “trick question”, or plurium interrogationum (Latin, “of many questions”), is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy.[1] It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda.[1] An example of this is the question “Are you still beating your wife?” Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[1]
…
A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question “Do you still beat your wife?” would be either “I have never beaten my wife” or “I have never had a wife.”[6] This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the askers of said questions have learned to get around this tactic by accusing the one who answers of “dodging” the question. A rhetorical question such as “Then please explain, how could I possibly have beaten a wife that I’ve never had?” can be an effective antidote to this further tactic, placing the burden on the deceptive questioner either to expose his tactic or stop the line of inquiry.”
You asked a loaded question. I challenged it. You accused me of dodging/evading the question. I challenged it. You continue to accuse me of dodging/evading the question.
See above and no, that is not a straw man argument.
Heh.
Just another quick thing Kai, just so readers don’t get brainwashed by your creative wording let me point out a fallacy in your entire argument which I probably didn’t emphasise well enough or you managed to deliberately ignore and shift the weight on the issues that you wanted to bring attention to.
1. You continually quote Wikipedia as your Supreme Authority despite the fact it is clearly bias –
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_bias_in_Wikipedia
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6954
http://wikipediabias.com/
come on, I just did a google search and I didn’t read the articles to know that it exists. The bias can be attributed to the target demographic that edit the articles, the fact that a moderator can simply decide to delete or add information that other users have added, etc. Please, don’t pretend that you don’t know that Wikipedia isn’t a valid source. A definition can only be read in light of it’s authority and it’s clear the UN is the authority on International Law including the definition of sovereigty, so your argument fails on this ground alone. I’d like to see you cite Wikipedia in any legal argument other than your own blog. I know Wikipedia cites references but have you checked the validity of its sources or are they mainly news websites, which themselves did not disclose their source? You are being lazy Kai, and it shows.
2. You are being intellectually dishonest by attempting to claim that words like ‘deliberate ambiguity’ or ‘paying lip service’ is a fact when it is in fact an opinion. For example, if I praise my superior in work, this can be interpreted as being a ‘modest compliment’ or ‘paying lipservice’. They two words describe an action and each word adds a hint of bias. You are trying to pretend that they are neutral.
Grow up Kai, your entire argument falters on flaws which you have tried to cover up by disengenous wording. I’d like to see you get out of this one.
I question your ability to accept given facts:
The word ‘deliberate ambiguity’ and ‘diplomatic maneuvering’ clearly show the author’s bias.
In other words: “This peer-edited and reviewed reference material includes something I don’t like, hence I will accuse it of bias and not acknowledge it.”
- No because Wikipedia is bias and because the author has interpreted the actions of the PRC to be “DELIBERATELY” ambigous, an arbitrary claim which he would not be able to prove.
“One way is to show how statements are carefully crafted, where similar words are substituted expressly for their slight differences in meaning. But yes, this is beyond what you are willing to see.”
- By your reasoning, any carefully crafted statement where similar words are substituted with words that don’t mean the same thing may be called ‘DELIBERATELY AMBIGOUS’, where you fail to define how you come to the conclusion it is deliberate or how ambiguity enters the equation when different words are used with different means – albeit being slightly different.
“As I’m sure you’re aware, if you were to read the PRC’s position of Taiwan, you would find strong words to the contrary.
No shit! Why do you think I emphasized Wikipedia containing the PRC’s position?!? I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised with the PRC having “strong words to the contrary” against a facts that do not benefit it. I expect it! You should too! That’s why I’ve repeatedly admonished you for not knowing your opposition’s positions and arguments and instead playing dumb the entire way through.”
- You miss the point of my example, which is to outline that bias refers to the description annoted to the words where the same fact could be referred to as ‘deliberate ambiguity’ by one author or simply ‘unanimous albeit silent acknowledgement of the PRC position’
“- Simple answer: if something is independent then it cannot become independent of its own independence. A person can still claim something regardless of whether it is or isn’t. If I wanted to be nitpick, then I would point out that The words in the Wikipedia states that China has claimed (which is past tense) and means that the PRC may have claimed sovereignty even when not in power. However in this example, I won’t even need to delve into this.
You did not any make sense to me here. Must be your poor prose.”
An example of what I mentioned in my last post about this being a rushed comment with grammatical and wording mistakes. Let me clarify:
Being independant and dependant are mutually exclusive
Being able to claim is not exclusive of actual or non actual possession.
Is that clearer for you?’
I could be content by dissecting your arguments all day long since as of yet you haven’t really substantially written anything that is really credible. You are simply reciting Wikipedia as the law and since your opinion is the same as the Wikipedia definition, you must be right.
“Sorry, this doesn’t make sense either. We don’t need a law to determine if a state is sovereign or not when there is a definition to check against. When that law is in contradiction to the definition, then we need to ask why. You’re not asking why. You’re just accepting the law over the definition. I’m asking why and the answer is because the law (which law are you referring to anyway? Montevideo? UN consensus? Is UN consensus a law? Or an authority? You have no idea what you’re talking about) is manipulated by politics. To an extreme, we can say definitions can be manipulated by politics too. But are you going to accuse the definition of sovereignty I referenced as being manipulated by politics? If so, I’d love to hear your arguments.”
- You are misreading my argument – the definition is derived by the law. Ie in some legal acts it may be stated that all things that are not x are y, where x could refer to one thing and y is defined in relation to x. Here the UN proposition is x. The UN is also the basis of international law and since the sovereigty of a country has legal implications on international jurisdiction, then the UN definition should supercede your “Wikipedia” definition. The definition you are asking for is not the legal authority on sovereigty nor is it internationally recognised as you may like to believe. And yes, the UN definition supercedes the Montevideo definition which is reconised by a substantially small amount of countries – but you already know the answer and simply asking a rheotorical question.
Yes and I acknowledged this and explained why I disagreed with your definition.
I even entertained your definition by applying it to the facts and yet I still could not agree with you.
I understand your position very well and I’m not even slightly bothered how it might compromise it. In fact, I find what you are stating is shameless, by asking me to rescind a question simply because it may ‘misrepresent’ your position.
I see.. and are you implying that a question that sets up the basis of the main topic ’sovereignty’ could make you ‘misrepresent’ your position, so I should not be allowed to ask it?
No, I correctly identified your response as misrepresenting my question. The logical fallicy that you fall into is assuming that my preliminary comment is the basis of my entire argument, which it is not.
The jump of logic is how you can fail to answer one of my questions and claim that I have misrepresented your
Oh. My. God. ARE you seriously trying to say that the UN not recognising Taiwan as an independent state is the same as your friend not recognising me as a person!”??? Are you serious, Kai.
- Coercion describes an action – this is subjective – it does not hold any legal signficance and does not affect the legal status of the PRC or ROC. You are arguing on a subjective term that I do not agree with.
I do not recognise that China coerce the UN to officially recognise Taiwan. I believe the UN did not recognise Taiwan according to the definition of Sovereigty and the application of that defintion to Taiwan.
Speechless Kai?
You are not misrepresenting my position in your comparison. You are intentionally ignoring the fact that the legal definition of sovereigty must be read from the authority of the UN and not Google by using the words.
Sorry, I’m reading over your comments again but I still can’t help but point out how blatantly you failed in trying to convince me that:
the virtue of how google manages its index makes wikipedia and google the authority on what constitutes sovereignty.
Ill have a good laugh at that one for a while while you rush now to see how you can counter quote me to divert attention from your stupidity.
This is the correct quote, the last one was a typo.
‘I’m not trying to convince you that the “Wikipedia” definition of sovereignty supersedes the authority of the UN. I’m saying the definition of sovereignty itself should supersede the whim of the UN members when it comes to the validity of calling or thinking of Taiwan as a sovereign state. I see Taiwan as meeting the definition and I trust that definition over the mere say-so of the UN, hence I feel comfortable in saying Taiwan is a sovereign state.’
You are misrepresenting my position in your comparison. You are intentionally ignoring the fact that the legal definition of sovereigty must be read from the authority of the UN and not Google by using the words.
Sorry, I’m reading over your comments again but I still can’t help but point out how blatantly you failed in trying to convince me that:
the virtue of how google manages its index makes wikipedia and google the authority on what constitutes sovereignty.
Ill have a good laugh at that one for a while while you rush now to see how you can counter quote me to divert attention from your stupidity.
Charles,
Pretty much what I’ve been questioning of you since the beginning. What a surprise.
And the UN and its member states aren’t biased? That they won’t contradict the very definition of sovereignty in order to avoid not being diplomatically recognized by the PRC? That they’re willing to maintain embassies with Taiwan but name them something else in order to appease the PRC? Charles, don’t be silly. Your position is full of arbitrary claims that cannot be proven. The UN position is an arbitrary claim by itself, proven only through appeal to its own authority, which is, as I’ve said, circular reasoning.
No, as I said, this is beyond what you are willing to see. Thanks for misrepresenting my reasoning again though.
No, I disagree with the conclusion you’re trying to advance with your example. Given how much you miss the point of my examples…
Bad prose. Both would be susceptible to accusations of bias, btw.
Charles, you’re writing more than me. Maybe it would behoove you to slow down and proofread before hitting submit.
No, but I’m pretty sure you’re undermining some of your previous arguments here. If I were you, I’d think long and hard before continuing down this road.
I AM content dissecting your arguments all day long since, as of yet, you haven’t really substantially written anything that is really credible either.
Charles, what I have written is credible to many. What you have written is credible to many as well. My many is different from your many.
No, I don’t recite Wikipedia as the law, I cite Wikipedia as a useful reference for this issue. You ignore the definition of sovereignty and appeal to the UN position on Taiwan because it matches your opinion. The problem is, the UN position does not change the definition of sovereignty, it makes an exception for specifically Taiwan by PRC demand. Wikipedia is indeed susceptible to bias, but so is the UN, as evident by the aforementioned exception it makes for Taiwan due to PRC political influence. Both the UN and the PRC recognize the Montevideo Convention, except the PRC demands that it in the case of Taiwan, it is inapplicable “or else I won’t play with you”. So everyone who wants to play with the PRC make the exception in order to continue playing with the PRC.
Charles, you’re overstepping the limits of the UN recognition argument. It doesn’t change the definition of sovereignty, it changes it specifically for Taiwan. This is the “political expediency” I mentioned from the beginning. Again, you don’t know the limits of your own arguments.
Charles,
Am I?
What legal authority defined the word “law?” How about “the”?
See above. The UN position has not changed the definition of sovereignty. It has made an exception for Taiwan. This exception does not supersede the definition of sovereignty, whether in Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia or whatever, it only states what the UN’s official position is with specific reference to Taiwan alone.
The definition I am referring to is fact internationally recognized (go check your dictionary, or a dictionary from any other country, and the balance will be in agreement). The exception for Taiwan is also internationally recognized by the UN as a political compromise.
You’re confusing recognition with signatories. The Montevideo does have a small set of signatories but it is recognized by nations that are not signatories. You should already know this, unless you didn’t actually do any research. Again, you’re propping up the UN position on Taiwan as a definition of sovereignty when it is an exception. If you believe there is a UN definition on sovereignty that is different from what I have already referenced, please quote and link.
Charles,
I too acknowledge your international recognition argument and why I disagreed with the extent of your application and argument.
I have entertained you as well, Charles, and I still cannot agree with you either. Must we really belabor this mutual fact?
I don’t think you understand my position at all actually. I didn’t ask you to rescind your question, I explained how your question misrepresents my position and is a loaded question. You’re actually misrepresenting my statements as a request right now.
I disagree.
You’re misrepresenting your question.
How did I assume your preliminary comment is the basis of your entire argument and which logical fallacy would that be?
Don’t rush, Charles, finish your sentence.
I see you’re still demanding that I answer your loaded question in a form that inadequately represents my position.
Charles,
I’m seriously laughing at your “substantive realism” defense against my analogy.
Charles,
Coercion certainly holds legal significance. Ask any court of law.
Or are you going to accuse them of bias?
Of course it does. If, as you say, the UN determines international law, and the PRC can coerce other member nations to rule a certain way over Taiwan, it affects the legal status of the ROC.
Okay, offer an alternative and we’ll see. You refused “influence.” Of course, I’d much prefer that you offer an alternative definition for “sovereignty” as originally requested.
And seriously, hasn’t it already become abundantly clear that I think you’ve been arguing on subjective terms and facts I do not agree with this entire time? Silly.
OMG. Wait.
Did you mean “I do not recognise that China coerce[d] the UN to officially [not] recognise Taiwan”?
If so…can I edit my original blog post to include this as the summation of your position? That you do not think the PRC coerced, influenced, or politically maneuvered (whatever) the UN to not recognize Taiwan? That you think the UN did not recognize based upon an objective definition it applied to Taiwan?
Can you quote and link me to that objective definition the UN is using too? Thaaanks.
Actually, overwhelmed with joy.
Charles,
Oh, so I’m not misrepresenting now?
Charles, I’ve offered you the chance to provide us with “the legal definition of sovereignty” as “read from the authority of the UN”. You haven’t come through.
Right back at ya!
Ooooh, my feelings are hurt.
Charles,
Please continue to accuse me of what I accuse you.
I don’t claim Wikipedia as my “Supreme Authority” (CAPS again, eh?), I claim it as a handy reference. What I do continually claim is that the UN, a body that has compromised the basic definition of sovereignty for political ends, is more biased than Wikipedia, a reference source that openly presents both the PRC, ROC, and other perspectives on this controversy.
I based my assessment of Taiwan on whether or not it meets a definition. You have, over the course of your comments, gone from ignoring the definition, amending the definition with circular reasonining, to offering an alternative definition you didn’t realize is the same thing, to now attacking Wikipedia.
You know what I already know to exist. What you don’t know are the limitations of your argument.
See previous.
Like you’re trying to pretend the UN member states are neutral?
Uh huh.
I PERSONALLY think that the UN probably is influenced by the PRC but this is my OPINION. I cannot actually PROVE that the UN is bias because I have no substance to base those claims but I can conclude that it is exercising a legitimate authority of international law.
I can CONCLUDE that particular quotes on wikipedia ARE bias. Without disclosing why, you cannot assert that the UN is bias because of your ‘opinion’
Charles,
Strange, I thought you PERSONALLY thought:
Isn’t that a contradiction? (sets more traps)
No one is saying the UN doesn’t exercise a legitimate authority of international law. We’re saying the UN’s official stance on Taiwan is an exception to the definition of “sovereignty”. We accuse it of bias because it doesn’t reconcile with what we believe to be proper, which is the same motivation behind you accusing Wikipedia of bias.
I did disclose why, from the very beginning. It is bias because it compromised the definition of sovereignty in order to appease the PRC to the detriment of an ROC that meets the definition. In doing so, I can CONCLUDE that the UN’s official stance reveals bias amongst the member states involved.
I do not merely assert on the basis of my opinion, but I understand that’s how you prefer to view my points.
What kind of coercion? What degree of coercion? Legitimate or illegitimate coercion? How can you prove coercion in this case? Put it into context son.
It doesn’t because you haven’t proved there is coercion and mere political influence does not equal coercion.
Yes, thank you for correcting my typo.
Charles,
Coercion. You’re splitting hairs.
We’ve been down this road before. See previous comments.
So, will you give your blessing for me to update my original blog post to reflect that you have clearly stated that you do not recognize that the PRC has coerced the UN to not officially recognize Taiwan, and that you believe the UN does not recognize Taiwan because they feel Taiwan doesn’t meet their definition of sovereignty?
I think it would save future readers a lot of time in determining the extent of your position.
I’m still waiting for this general UN definition of sovereignty you keep invoking.
Just as Kai goes on to describe in his detailed reply, Charles, arguing for a position based on the PRC using coercion to force other nations to agree with them amounts to using duress to extract a confession from a prisoner. Just as how in that situation the confession is invalid, in this situation, the recognition status of Taiwan internationally is invalid and does not relate to the actual discussion.
I’m not sure why you would echo the PRC position (eerily, almost verbatim) from Wikipedia when it is clearly based on coercive political tactics (which, I might add, clearly contradicts the widespread claim that the PRC never interferes in other countries’ affairs) and logical inadequacies.
Along your line of logic, I can also say: arguing for a position based on Taiwan using geographic obstacle and external force to solidify its “de facto independence” amounts to defending the ownership of stolen goods, therefore is also invalid.
Also:
- I’m having a hard time imagining a hundred more countries including the US and USSR could be coerced by PRC.
- If the international recognition status of Taiwan is invalid, why would Taiwan complain so much about it?
- PRC does not recognize Taiwan as a foreign country, therefore negotiating on Taiwan’s recognition is not interfering with other countries’ internal affairs.
Let’s examine what you said a little bit closer.
amounts to defending the ownership of stolen goods
How so? This might be justifiable if, after the KMT was defeated in the Civil War, they disbanded into a gang of bandits. But in light of the fact that the KMT is still in existence and has established a functioning government predicated on a constitution that existed prior to the CCP, it would be just as easy to say that the CCP’s exercising external force to solidify it’s independence on the mainland amounts to the defending of stolen goods.
1) The USSR, I doubt needed to be coerced in light of the USSR’s (and now Russia’s) close relationship with China. Also, as one of six permanent members of the UN, I would think it would have been extremely easy for China to coerce countries seeking membership. The US is the only country that I have a difficult time seeing being easily coerced. However, given that diplomatic relations weren’t established with Beijing until 1979, after Deng Xiaoping and his liberalizations began to take effect, it was probably American foresight that carried that decision.
2) Seriously? Obviously the Taiwanese complain about it because it would make it much easier for them to operate if there weren’t trade embargoes against them.
3) It is still interfering with other countries’ internal affairs if they’re using coercion to make other countries echo their position. Their own position on the matter is irrelevant.
You apparently are arguing about who steals from whom. I’m glad you are not defending the point that:
Because one person is currently taking hold of one object and for various reasons at least for a moment no other people is able to take it away from her, then she owns that object.
Isn’t this the essential thesis of the “de facto independence / sovereignty” argument? It’s not about the fact who’s taking hold of the object but about the legitimate ownership. If Kai’s statement is about Taiwan’s current state of self-governance then few people would care to argue. But when the wording like independence and sovereignty is thrown in, it’s not about the semantics of these wording anymore. It’s more about what the wording implies, entails, and affords.
- Countries recognize PRC out of their own self-interest. You’d do better blaming these countries’ selfishness than PRC’s tactics. If the coercion from China is so powerful, why would small countries like Palau and Nauru still stick with Taiwan?
- So the international recognition does carry some validity? I had though by just declaring it invalid it would just go away.
- Interesting! When you say coercion, does that include telling the other countries there are consequences interfering China’s internal affairs? So China should let all the other countries interfering with its own internal affairs and must not respond accordingly. If China does then China is interfering with other countries’ internal affairs. I had thought such a great logic only comes from Sarkozy! Would you like to substitute China in the above sentences with your own country?
CnInDC,
You need to define “ownership”. Then, you need to explain what you meant by “stolen goods” above. You are the one who suggested that Taiwan is “stolen goods”. If it is, who stole and from whom?
No.
And…? We’re waiting for it….
I’d say its about the semantics and that what the wording “implies, entails, and affords” will get some people (like you and Charles) really upset. Why? Because of your own subjective reading of what those words imply, entail, or affords.
When I say Taiwan meets the definition of sovereignty, I’m saying Taiwan meets the definition of sovereignty. However, your reaction is colored by what you think sovereignty “implies, entails, and affords.” You’re no longer evaluating whether or not Taiwan actually meets the definition, you’re reacting against the possibly implications of it meeting the definition, and how much you don’t like those possible implications.
That’s not my fault. I can’t control that. What I’ve said isn’t false. You just don’t like it.
This is WHY I said, you need to prove to me how it doesn’t meet the definition or how my understanding of the definition is wrong.
Charles has said many things, but the most important and relevant thing he has responded with is that he doesn’t accept the definition of sovereignty I am measuring Taiwan to. He believes the “UN recognition” must replace or be added to that definition. In response, I explain why I don’t don’t accept “UN recognition” as a replacement or addendum to the definition of sovereignty.
Yes! We CAN blame these countries for their selfishness! But their self-interest does not mean the PRC is blameless. This is precisely politics! The PRC has something these countries want and it is threatening not to give it to them unless they do as the PRC demands.
Why would small countries like Palau and Nauru stick with Taiwan? Either because they’re not selfish or because Taiwan is offering them something that China isn’t. Because they’ve calculated that they’d get more benefit from the option they’ve chosen over the other option. Are you seriously asking this question?
You’re misrepresenting. Who said declaring it invalid would make it go away? Who wants it to “just go away”? The international recognition has real world consequences, no one is denying that. What we are arguing is its suitability as a substitute for the basic definition of sovereignty.
See above.
CnInDC,
What? How is Taiwan “stolen goods”? Stolen from whom? From the PRC that did not exist? No. From the PRC that never had possession of Taiwan? Also no. Taiwan could not have been “stolen” from the PRC if the PRC never possessed it.
Qing Dynasty had possession of the mainland and Taiwan territories. Under the succession of states theory, the ROC revolution succeeded it. It took possession of the mainland and Taiwan territories. A civil war broke out and the CCP wrestled the mainland territories away from the ROC, forcing the ROC to retreat to Taiwan. The CCP succeeded the ROC on the mainland, but it never succeeded the ROC on Taiwan. The PRC conquered parts of the ROC’s territory. The ROC lost parts of its territory. Both sides have maintained control of their respective conquered or remaining territory. Both states and governments continue to exist with territory under their control.
When you’re the world’s single largest potential economic market, a nuclear power, the world’s factory, the world superpower’s largest creditor, etc. etc. etc., it isn’t that hard to throw your weight around.
The recognition status of Taiwan internationally is a poor substitute for whether or not Taiwan meets the fundamental definition of “sovereignty” because it is compromised by politics. Why wouldn’t Taiwan complain about it? Don’t you complain about the politics that hurt you?
What? I’m going to interfere in your private affairs with Josh and say I’m not interfering because I don’t recognize Josh as a person? Huh?
See my above comment. Again I’m glad you’re on who steals from whom argument. That I can entertain but it does not see to align with your wikipedia definition. According to that definition, whoever holds an object owns it.
“What? I’m going to interfere in your private affairs with Josh and say I’m not interfering because I don’t recognize Josh as a person? Huh?”
Well, I can certainly argue with you that Josh is indeed a person not a dog, and esp not your dog. However most countries have already recognized “中华人民共和国是中国唯一合法政府” and “台湾是中国的一部分”, therefore the ground for such arguments does not exist, and these countries’ relation with Taiwan is not their internal affairs.
CnInDC,
In a way, yes. Kinda like how the PRC owns mainland China because they hold it now. If you want to get cute with this “possession = ownership” rhetoric, I will play: You need to define ownership.
Then you need to start down the path of questions that begins with: Is what I hold owned by someone else?
See above.
CnInDC, tell me, how does Taiwan fail to meet the definition of a sovereign state so that my statement “Taiwan is a de facto independent, sovereign state” false?
If my memory is correct, this whole concept that Taiwan has been a de facto independent sovereignty for 60 and more years was invented not long ago to get Ma elected.
If the “de facto independence/sovereignty” rhetoric does not imply, entail, or afford anything other than stating the fact that Taiwan is currently self-governed, why not just call it self-governance, or even autonomy? I’m sure the pro-green mob won’t let Ma pass on that.
If you must insist on the semantics, I suggest you change your subtitle to “Taiwan is a de facto independent, sovereign state because Wikipedia says so as of 25 September 2009 at 08:25″.
CnInDC,
No, and I’m not going to repeat what you already have been referred to.
Why NOT just call it for what it is?
Cute.
I PERSONALLY think that the UN probably is influenced by the PRC but this is my OPINION.
Strange, I thought you PERSONALLY thought:
I do not recognise that China coerce[d] the UN to officially [not] recognise Taiwan.”
Isn’t that a contradiction? (sets more traps)
1. Define influence
2. Put it into context – ie influence what?
3. = wtf?? Charles was being deliberately ambiguous?! Oh damn! ^^
We’re saying the UN’s official stance on Taiwan is an exception to the definition of “sovereignty”.
No, you are saying that it is an exception to sovereigty.
I accept the Un’s official stance as being according to it’s definition of sovereigty.
I It is bias because it compromised the definition of sovereignty
No it doesn’t use a compromised definition of sovereigty – you are making things up.
Charles,
1. Influence.
2. Influence UN member states’ official position on the recognition of Taiwan.
3. I don’t think you can claim to have been deliberately ambiguous after admitting that you made typos and grammatical errors in the passage in question.
No, I’m not. I said the UN’s official stance on Taiwan is an exception to the definition of sovereignty. Either challenge the statement or accept it, don’t change it. When you do, you risk making a straw man argument.
…a UN definition of sovereignty you have repeatedly alluded to but have not produced despite my repeated requests. I, on the other hand, freely offer you quotes and links to the definition of sovereignty I am operating under.
Then what’s the definition? I showed you dictionary definitions of sovereignty that you reject, saying they do not represent the UN definition of sovereignty. So what is the UN definition of sovereignty? Quote and link please.
Okay, whatever you say.
It’s your blog, you can do what you like. However the chances are you are not going to state it as it is, without adding a whim of your own subjectivity and explaining why its false, but please go ahead.
1. Choose a definition and state the authority
2. Did I say this or did you just pick this because it suited what you imagined my argument to be?
3. Sure I can ^^
Kai, I find it sad that I have go through and show you how to correctly write a comprehensive answer. While its been fun to refute the obvious mistakes in your blog, doing it consistently over and over again is tiring. You have to be more precise and careful in constructing the sentences so that you cover yourself from criticism rather than expecting other people to dissect everything you write and criticise why your reasoning cannot be used.
I get the impression that you are wishfully hoping that no one picks out your mistakes and that people who disagree with you end up working with your faulty reasoning.
When a discussion results in both parties unable to reach a conclusion on even trivial, secondary matters of form and evidence, its clear that a mutual view on the primary topic will not be reached. Please feel free to say the same thing back.
I feel there is enough substance in the discussion already for readers to make up their own mind of whether Taiwan is a sovereign state. I have reiterated my position over and over while outlining the fallacies of your reasoning. I belive that you feel you have done the same.
However, I simply do not have the time to continue posting comments to rebut what I perceive to be a unproductive discussion of the topic. I will however leave this discussion by concluding that I have justified in my comments that:
a) I disagree with your definition of sovereigty
b.) Even if I did agree your definition of sovereigty, I would still not come to the same conclusion.
Lastly:
c.) I find it laughable how you label a legitimate question as being ‘loaded’ because you are afraid of misrepresenting your own position.
d.) I do not agree with your use of wikipedia without acknowleding the exact source, explaining its relevance and it’s bias or legal authority.
e.) I found that your statement that
to sound ridiculously stupid.
I would not be suprised if you would write a similar response satirically availing that you have somehow won this argument. However a reading of the discussion in whole, would evidence a much different conclusion.
Charles,
Okay.
1. What authority do you invoke when you use the word “choose?”
2. You asked: “influence what?” I answered. Perhaps you can rephrase your question?
3. Uh huh.
Right.
…and you are different how? Charles, everything you say here I can say right back at you. The conversation was over a long time ago, from the moment you rejected the definition of “sovereignty” and substituted a UN version that you refuse to produce. Since then, we’ve been amusing ourselves by insulting each other. I accuse you of this or that, you accuse me of this or that, we insert some insults here and there, blah blah.
How many times have you said you’re tired now? I think I said it once, maybe none. You’ve said it maybe at least three times. Tell me, Charles, why are you still here?
You’re essentially repeating what I said from both my blog post and my first response to you, before you ever said anything remotely like this. I will indeed say the same thing back, but with the benefit of having said it first and the amusement of you trying to appropriate it:
“I think we’re going to have to be content to disagree with each other. We disagree on the very first step of this discussion, and it is with the definition of “sovereignty”. …Without agreeing on this, there is no way the rest of our discussion can ever see eye to eye.”
You’ve said this like three times now. How many times do our readers need to be reminded that you feel there is enough substance in the discussion for them to make up their own mind?
You’ve also said this several times now. Yet apparently, you have plenty of time to continue posting comments. Early on in this conversation, I already stated I’m here to entertain you.
a) Yes, we know this. You just never offered us, quoted, or linked us to that supposed UN definition you’re using.
b) Is that so? You’ve definitely never explained this one, much less “justified it” in your comments.
c) I see you don’t understand what a “loaded question” is despite me linking you to its definition.
d) I do not agree with you not offering sources at all for your supposed “UN definition”, amongst other things.
e) That’s fine. I feel likewise about your statements. Tit for tat, I get it.
Oh the irony of Charles suggesting that I will claim to have won the argument when he himself then immediately suggests that he has won the argument. Sweet sweet irony!
I tend to chuckle when this argument comes up – given how the same folks that are involved in this argument usually turn deaf, dumb, and blind when I ask about the history of Mongolia and the P.R.C. stance on that “independent state”.
Sorry, but this really boils down to an old Cold War situation that the U.S. has thoroughly muddled – as opposed to the old Soviet Union/current Russia that made it’s position bloody well clear for all in the room to see.
You seem to suggest that Taiwan should be let go for the same reason/logic Mongolia went independent? If that’s the case I’d chuckle too.
I totally agree with your 2nd paragraph, but would also like to point out that China is in a different situation now so nothing already being done is as irreversible as people thought. Many Chinese look at things in a long historic perspective and tend to agree what Luo Guanzhong said in the opening of the “Romance of the Three Kingdoms”: 话说天下大事，分久必合，合久必分.
True, in terms of human history – borders are a very dynamic thing to behold – espeically in the case of China, from the Warring States period to today’s P.R. China.
What China (prefixed, suffixed, etc.) will look like in the future – it will probably be something for our grandchildren to debate.
@Kai – You are quite right in most of your arguments. The key one is that any neutral observer will note that Taiwan is a de facto indepedent state. This much is obvious, even to Chinese officials and academics responsible for the formulation of Taiwan policy. After all, nobody (barring the odd unqualified zombie) argues that the PRC government has any DIRECT control over any meaningful facet of life in Taiwan except a formal declaration of independence (see 1500+ missiles pointing across the Straits etc).
With regard to Taiwan’s de jure status: two points that you may wish to note:
1) The UN is in no position to recognise the status of any state, region or territory. People who say that the UN recognises that Taiwan is a part of the PRC or that the ‘official UN position’ is such-and-such are ignorant. The UN has no legal capacity to make such a proclamation. Where proclamations have been made, they have come from individuals/bodies within the UN secretariat who (guess what…) have no capacity to make such declarations. Imagine: a Chinese (or other) diplomat gets a job at a UN agency (many Chinese crave this for the ten-fold increase in salary) and he suddenly gets the right unilaterally to determine international law? A ridiculous and ignorant suggestion. No, it is the MEMBERS of the UN through the General Assembly or other groupings that take their own positions on recognising the status of other states (there are many interesting examples: Kosovo etc). And let’s be clear: there is no UN consensus.
2) So, the question then becomes: which ‘major nations’ recognise Taiwan as an independent state? OR, more interestingly, which ‘major nations’ recognise Taiwan as a part of the PRC? The answer to both questions is: very few. If you have time, you may be interested in looking up the Taiwan policies of the US, Japan, Russia (the exception – see Kosovo etc), France, UK, Germany, Canada and other major nations/economies.
Where does this leave Taiwan? In a diplomatic limbo – most states would like to recognise independence but refrain from doing so from a political calculation of the balance of trade and investment benefit.
But don’t let anybody (especially PRC propagandists/apologists) kid you. Taiwan is not de jure independent, but neither is it de jure a part of the PRC. Taiwan is de facto independent. The point for me is that Hong Kong and Taiwan have been oases of relative prosperity, cultural vibrance, freedom and fairness on the edge of a bullying, authoritarian, horribly corrupt and often poorly governed PRC. They have shown a path of economic and political development that most mainland Chinese, sensible as they are, aspire to. Long may that continue, and good luck to the Taiwanese, whatever path they may choose in the future.
Moules,
1) I understand and agree with your distinction. I gather we were (or at least I was) using “UN” more as shorthand.
2) I understand this too. Throughout the discussion with Charles, I repeatedly reference the ambiguity of Taiwan’s status, deliberate with the very “political calculation of the balance of trade and investment benefit” you mention.
Thanks for the comment.
Here’s a few points I would like to add:
People can argue 1000 years about who’s version of legality is acceptable, but I also argue that China’s concept of nationalism is the main problem. In general, I see China (in a political and social sense) constantly looking backward (toward a mythological history that is half-true, half-invented), rather than looking forward (to a new future in which China will change). It was never the same, big state that was always ruled by one central government for 4000 years. But the Communist Party needs to keep that myth alive to validate itself. China’s borders have changed a lot in its history, and in the modern day everyone will profit if we evolve with changing times, rather than try to recreate ancient empires.
1) China’s ancient heritage makes China’s “identity” but you never find Taiwan in it. None of the ancient authors, poets, religious figures, painters, etc. are from Taiwan. There was never a Confucius from Taiwan, a Li Bai from Taiwan. If you look at everything that makes the essential national culture, national consciousness of China….nothing is from Taiwan. If someone is to claim that Taiwan is an essential part of China, they should also consider this.
2) It’s true, people moved to Taiwan from China, but Chinese people moved to many places. States don’t exist for ethnic reasons alone, they also exist for historical reasons.
3) It makes no sense to assume that Taiwan people must worship China so much. Americans and Australians don’t need to “be returned to England” even though so much of the core of their culture comes from England; similarly Taiwan’s greatest achievement is that it doesn’t need “hero worship” to define itself.
Taiwan was a part of China for only one dynasty, but even at this time it was akin to an “outer part” of China–Chinese paternalism extended over this “wild” area for the first time in 1683, and while China extended a neighboring province to claim it (Fujian), provincial borders of China also changed in the past (Guangxi was not a province until Ming dynasty; Yunnan’s borders have fluctuated into other areas; some provinces don’t even exist anymore: XiKang, Suiyuan, etc.). In the end, Taiwan was considered something like a “normal” province of China for only 10 years (1885-1895).
China also engaged in suzerain-vassal state relations with many places, and today insists this can translate into direct sovereignty over it. China picks and chooses what land is “sacred” and “always part of it”, but ignores other places: Kachin State (in Burma), the Pamir Mountains, Mongolia is an independent state (although China continued to claim it as a sacred part of China for decades into the twentieth century), and all of “Outer Manchuria” (now owned by Russia) are conveniently ignored. Heck, Vietnam was considered a province of China in ancient times called Annan Province (for about 1000 years!) and it was briefly “reclaimed” in the Ming Dynasty.
So I would say, China’s borders change a lot in history, but China wants to ignore that when convenient. China is also deeply insecure, even about its own self. It spent most of the 20th century rejecting itself and destroying itself, while at the same time trying to “build a new China.” While this was all happening, Taiwan was on the outside. Taiwan should come back to China? Come back to what? It was an irrelevant part of the outer areas of China for one dynasty, and it developed itself being separate from China. For this reason, I don’t see Taiwan ever “becoming a part of China” unless China forcefully conquers it. Taiwan is Taiwan, and that is enough. It’s a lesson that China needs to learn for itself.
In fact ,taiwan belonging to China is an undoubtable fact.It can’t be a little common sense to understand any more .The only thing i wanna say:all of the discussions are meanless.Because Taiwan must return to the motherland one day .