Talk:Political status of Taiwan/Archive 1

message: OK,let's get it straight.
both Republic of Mongolia and PRC were new countries that were Independent from ROC
in late 1940's. THAT IS A HISTORIC FACT NO ONE CAN DENIES.so it is OK if ROC abandons its constitution and gives recognition to Republic of Mongolia ,PRC,and republic of taiwan.Why not? These three countries can be all considered as the successors of ROC.  Republic of Mongolia and PRC have no right to stop ROC from giving recognition to republic of taiwan because they were both Independent from ROC.LET ALONE the Treaty of San Francisco signed in 1951 Japan gave up the ruling right over Taiwan ,but Japan didn't give it to any other country. Therefore Taiwan does no belong to any other country.the only reason that PRC don't accept this is due to their greed for land and wealth of Taiwan.that's why PRC don't want to give up attacking taiwan by forces because they know they won't get the land and wealth without military annexation.
As for their propaganda one China policy, the presupposition is that the controversy must be solved peacefully, but they ignored this on purpose. If PRC don't publcly give up attacking taiwan by forces, why should taiwan accept it?
 
 "The PLAAF is also large and powerful enough that it has the ability to control essentially all of Taiwan's airspace."
This seems to be an opinion , and not a fact. I do not believe that is true.
---- Wenzi 06:03, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)
Rev. Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church, had recommended to Taiwan long ago to drop its claim of sovereignty over all China and to drop the name "Republic of China" as well. When his recommedation was ignored, Taiwan lost its seat in the UN as well as nearly all its international recognition. (I'm not sure how to work this into the article.) --~~
Good edit, Jiang. The enry is now well balanced and does not take sides. Tannin
I changed the article to emphasis that what makes the
situation interesting is that people not only disagree about what the situation *should be*, there is a deep disagreement over what the situation *is*.  In addition, its interesting since everyone seems to not object to the current situation because its not defined completely.
----
218.170.12.135 added the text below to the Politics of Taiwan article and I reverted it out. It blatantly violates the NPOV policy. However, I think some of this information can be salvaged, particulately the last two paragraphs. But we will need the PRC's counter arguments. "The Question of Sovereignty" should be a new subsection. Mention of the Cairo conference were already addressed in Talk:History of Taiwan and is irrelevant. Jiang 08:03 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The Question of Sovereignty:
Viewing the sovereignty over Taiwan has never been an exact science and the modern world of the pre-WWII era seemed to view sovereignty as conquering or occupying un-conquered land. The western colonial powers viewed all territory NOT occupied by Spain, France, Portugal, Holland, Germany, Britain, Russia and later America, as free under the rights of manifest destiny and even China was considered open to colonial expansion. Before the colonial era, it is important to note that Taiwan has been inhabited by a non-Chinese, Malayo-Polynesian people for as long as 50,000 years. Taiwan remained entirely under indigenous control until 1430, when small Hakka settlements sprung up, but it wasn?t until 1624 that the whole of Taiwan was claimed in the name of the King of Holland. The island of Taiwan changed hands by force in 1662, when Cheng Cheng-gong, a half Chinese /half Japanese mercenary evicted the Dutch to use the island as a base of operations and launch attacks against the Qing empire in an attempt to rescue the Ming. After an epic naval battle, Cheng was defeated and for the first time Taiwan was under the control of the Qing. The importance of Taiwan to the Qing was underscored by the Kang xi and Yongzheng Emperors, both proclaiming that Taiwan was not a part of China, and further punctuated by the Qing taking until 1887 to claim Taiwan as a province of China, a condition that would last only eight years when, after a brief conflict in Korea, China signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895. The Treaty of Shimonoseki signed Taiwan and it?s dependencies and the Pescadores from China to Japan ?in perpetuity and full sovereignty.? Upon the outbreak of the Pacific War in 1941, Japan had turned Taiwan into a modern state. Chiang Kai Sheck had consolidated power throughout most of China that had not fallen to the Japanese and the Republic of China, established in 1912, was the recognized government of China. 
In 1943, Roosevelt invited Churchill and Chiang to Cairo for a joint declaration on the allies intention for territory that was not yet liberated. Paragraph 3 states that ?Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the First World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." The purpose for the joint declaration was mainly to distract the world from the importance of the ?Big Three? (Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin) in Tehran later in the year. The first problem, and not the least, with the Cairo Declaration is that the declaration was made for territory yet to be liberated and thus the allies had little legal ground to give away territory they were not in possession of. The second problem is that Taiwan was ceded ?in perpetuity? to Japan and in contract law it is binding, a condition which can only be altered through another contract by Japan to give up the colony. The territory of Taiwan was not stolen in an act of war and cannot be compared to Japan?s occupation of Manchuria, which was the result of direct aggression; rather Taiwan was ceded by a proper treaty. Finally, The first Sino-Japanese war ended in 1895 and thus Taiwan had been part of Japanese territory for 19 years before WWI. The Potsdam Declaration merely seconds the Cairo Declaration and therefore it suffers from the same legal flaws.
The Treaty of Peace with Japan (1951) recognized the pending legal question of Taiwan and thus in the wording of the document the framers merely include the sentence explaining that Japan relinquishes ?all right, title, and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores." Nowhere in the document does Japan retrocede Taiwan to the Republic of China. The treaty does state in its preamble that Japan would "in all circumstances conform to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and strive to realize the objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," which includes respect for the self-determination of peoples and adherence to UN General Assembly resolutions. One of these resolutions, G.A. Res. 1514 (XV) (1960), spells out specifically principles relating to the independence of former colonies like Taiwan. The Republic of China was in essence chosen by the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers (SCAP) to liberate Taiwan and merely stayed. The Treaty of Peace with Japan in the leading document in the surrender of Japan, so thereby any other document signed by Japan regarding territory is superceded by the original Treaty of Peace.
After a brutal occupation of Taiwan in 1945, the ROC established the ROC on Taiwan upon losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, claiming to be the representative government of the whole of China, including Outer Mongolia and Tibet. The Nationalist government called itself the Republic of China on Taiwan and that was essentially what it was, a government in exile in a foreign land the same as the Tibetan government in exile in India or the French government in exile during WWII. Since the R.O.C. claimed to represent all of China according to the 1912 constitution of the R.O.C, The native Taiwanese (The term ?native? here means the people present on Taiwan before 1945) had no representation at the ratification of the R.O.C. Constitution and until 1996, Taiwan could be considered separate from the R.O.C. The status of the alien KMT?s illegal annexation of Taiwan was resolved after the first free elections in 1996 in which the people of Taiwan had the opportunity to elect a representative government. Regardless of the current acceptance of the R.O.C., the reasoning behind the acceptance still leads to dispute and further division from China as discussed below. 
Taiwan?s current status in the world community is that of a State enjoying defacto (in-fact) independence as opposed to dejure (in-law) independence. According to the Montevideo Convention of 1933, the most cited source for the definition of statehood, a state must possess the following criteria: (a) A permanent population (b) a defined territory (c) government; and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Taiwan adheres to each of the above criteria as Taiwan has a permanent population of 23 million people, though it could be argued that 8% are not permanent because they wish to go back to China and view their tenure on Taiwan as a lengthy transient period. Taiwan has a defined territory, with water creating a clear and distinct border from other landmasses. There is a current and functional government that has been in operation for 55 years, though 43 of those years were acting above the Constitution. Taiwan has diplomatic relations with 23 other nations and enjoys a seat in the WTO, APEC and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. To further the argument, Taiwan has a permanent military capable of self-defense. Size is not an issue as Vatican City and Monaco (each less than 1 mile sq.) or Nauru ( 8 miles sq.) are fully accepted as states. Proximity is not a factor either as countries like Botswana are completely surrounded by another state, even Palestine enjoys an observer seat in the United Nations. One mitigating factor for why Taiwan is not recognized, as a sovereign state is the fact that Taiwan has not declared itself to be one, and under the current circumstances feels it would not be wise to do so. 
China has drawn many analogies from recent unification schemes including North and South Korea, East and West Germany and Hong Kong?s retrocession to China. The analogies provided by China are not analogous to the situation between China and Taiwan as with the Koreas and Germany, having been established countries divided by 20th Century conflict. Taiwan?s links to China were never as solid as the Korean situation as the border between the two Koreas was the first border physically impeding travel between the two sides. Unlike the above analogies, Taiwan has always been physically separated from China and only recently has it been claimed by China as a province, yet the isolation of the island meant that it figured very little to the Chinese concept of territory until after 1949. To relate Taiwan to Hong Kong is also erroneous for the fact that Hong Kong was leased to Britain for a set period and all parties understood the document was legally binding and thus a return to China had always been anticipated. Taiwan had been ceded in perpetuity and thus there is no set legal document calling for its union with China.
----
I changed the poll numbers since I thought that have U on one side and status quo or independence on the other was a bit unfair. 
There is a journal article that I once read that gave poll numbers for a series of questions that I thought was one of the most objective descriptions of public opinion on Taiwan.  It had about twelve different questions which did a good job of illustrating the complexity of public opinion and why asking one or two questions gives you misleading answers.
---User:Roadrunner
-----
Changed description of Lee's theory.  The most important part of Lee's two state theory was that PRC and ROC where not part of the same Chinese nation.  In marked a departure from one country, two governments which Lee had proposed in 1993.
--User:Roadrunner
-----
Would be nice to see a timeline written by a knowledgeable historian of how exactly the ROC's stance has changed since 1949.  The article currently only hints at the old stance that one day, the ROC would retake the mainland.
:It would be nice to see an addition outlining MacArthur's interference and PRC reaction (attacks in Korea), the US supply of Taiwan with many landing craft and other weaponry, and Chiang Kai-shek's personal vows to land in China.  Maybe something about the US (Kissinger and Nixon) using Mao's relationship with the Soviet Union to their advantage, shifting recognition from ROC to PRC.  Stargoat 14:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: The People's Republic of China government never pledged gives up to the military force solve the Taiwan problem, but Republic of China in very long period of time also always expressed will be able the military force to counter-attack the mainland. Between both banks erupts the war possibility to be not allow to neglect, also isone ofEast Asian situation important focal points. 
According to the present Taiwan's national defense capability, counter-attacks the mainland the opportunity to be miniscule, butmainland China military powerunceasingly strengthened in recent years, the majority person believed mainland China had the ability under the premise which the foreign military force did not involve, in the short time "liberated" Taiwan with the military force. According to the Taiwan Department of Defense's view, mainland China at present had 450missilesto aim at Taiwan, these missiles had the ability to hit in the Island of Taiwan the majority of goals, in addition China's air force, the navy also had the ability to control Taiwan after the war breaks out the sea area as well as the air supremacy. But the American Department of Defense's report believed that, mainland China at present lands Taiwan's ability not too to be also enough, but already was allowed effective military blockade Taiwan. 
Mainland China government attacked for the military force to set up three prerequisites:The Taiwan independence, the Taiwan developmentnuclear weaponas well as have the foreign influence to involve the Taiwan problem. The majority person believed, Taiwan once the announcement independence, Chinese lieutenant general does not hesitate all prices to solve the Taiwan problem with the military force. But also has the Taiwan independence public figure to believe that,in 2008will be the Taiwan independent most good opportunity, because in 2008Beijingwill holdthe Olympic Games, the Chinese government will not be able easily to touch Taiwan sea the tense atmosphere. But the American government also publicly indicated, if the Taibei aspect will announce the independence, is regarded does the provocation, at the appointed time US will not be able to dispatch troops into battle involves the Taiwan sea war. 
The Taiwan aspect also believed, in did not announce under the independent condition,USwill be able to protect Taiwan. The Taiwan authority pointed out,United States Congressin 1970 the end of ages through "Taiwan Relations Law" on explicitly listed the American government to defend Taiwan the duty. Taiwan some kiss the Taiwan independence the public figure further pointed out,in 1996Taiwan Straits missile crisisperiod, US on once sent out twoaircraft carriersto the Taiwan Straits patrol, demonstrated US defended Taiwan the determination. But also some people suspected US whether is willing but to join battle for Taiwan with mainland China. 
Taiwan itself also is strengthening the national defense strength, Taiwan always is American munitions important purchase business.After in 2000Chen Shuibian comes on stage also proposes "beyond the border the decisive battle" the national defense concept, but Taiwan's missile also has the ability to attack mainland China coast some important cities. 
Although the Taiwan Straits eruption war possibility does not allow to underestimate, erupts the war opportunity or quite lowly in the short-term. Regardless of is Taiwan or mainland China or US, all is not willing to see the Taiwan Straits situation is intense. 
:Chinglish perhaps?  I'll take a whack at it later today.  Stargoat 14:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs some work, especially some wikifing and maybe NPOVing, but I'm out of time right now.  It really sounds like a war geek wrote it. If someone could fix that I would be grateful.  Stargoat 22:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The military force solves the Taiwan problem

message: I am Taiwanese and though I am Taiwanese my race is certainly Chinese, no majority believe they are only Taiwanese. The only real Taiwanese here are the native people. I'm am Taiwanese but I'm also Chinese and all of us know this. Don't post "facts" you make up.
Polls aren't made up things.  Don't assume to know the position of the people until they have spoken.--naryathegreat 00:24, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
:Neither should you represent the view of Taiwan's population. How dare you? ---Tp kde 01:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what Mababa said. ---Tp kde 05:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong 

message: I am unconvinced that Taiwan cession should be merged into this article. Taiwan cession deals with a very specific topic, is not a bad article, and merging it into this page would just bloat this page. Certainly, this page should link to Taiwan cession, but that separate article can discuss the Taiwan cession in more detail. —Lowellian (talk) 01:02, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
:I fully support your suggestion. I believe the Taiwan cession can be further elaborated. At the same time, since the Taiwan's political status highly depends on how international treaties are interpreted and whether the Laws of war are considered into this interpretation, at least an excerpt of the Taiwan cession article should exist on Political status of Taiwan, not just a link though.Mababa 03:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see what information would belong there and not here. Can you elaborate? Discussion of the relevant treaties must be given here. There's no point in leaving any of it out. --Jiang 03:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The "idea of undetermined cession" is fully relevant to the political status of Taiwan. We can always split things out later but everything currently at Taiwan cession looks relevant to me so I'm still not sure what would be not. Other mentions would belong at history of Taiwan. --Jiang 09:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with Taiwan cession

message: Is there a reason this article is separate from foreign relations of Taiwan? Reading the two articles, there seems to be a large amount of overlap in what they discuss. I've recently added the 2004 developments section to this page, and I feel like it should also belong on the foreign relations of Taiwan page. In fact, in general, when I want to add something to either article, I find myself unsure which one I want to add it to, and I dislike copying and pasting from one article to the other, because maintaining the same text in two articles is not a very good plan. Is there anything on this page that couldn't also go on the other article? My suggestion would be to merge this article into foreign relations of Taiwan—the biggest problem seems to be that it would be a big job, since both are pretty fairly developed and well-organized articles. Thoughts from other Wikipedians? —Lowellian (talk) 09:25, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
:No. Foreign relations discusses the ROC's relations with other governments. It does not discuss the status of the ROC/Taiwan itself. For example, the 1992 consensus, Jiang Zemin's 8 pt policy and Chen Shui-bian's Four Noes are aimed domestically. To declare cross-relations to be "foreign relations" is POV. The domestic positions in Taiwan and the relative military strength of the sides is also not relevant to the issue of foreign relations.
:As for the "2004 developments" section, it gives lopsided coverage to the past few days, which, in my opinion, should not be stressed give the lack of coverage elsewhere. The comments were not international headline material. We also left out events that happened early in the year. There is no mention of the referendum or government statements during the time of the presidential election in the section. We should start an article on U.S.-ROC relations and move the "2004 developments" section to there. The PRC's various white papers and announcements made over the years need to be incorporated into the short "Position of the PRC" section. --Jiang 09:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another merger proposal

message: There is also an article on Asia Times that makes the observasion that there is no major shift in the legislature except that the PFP lost ten of its legislature seats to the KMT.  THe PFP is furious about this.
Also one should not equate the legislative elections as a real referendum on any issue.  This is because the election has a weird voter allocation system.  For example, if there are twenty candidates running for ten legislative seats in a district, the top ten candidates get the seats regardless of the number of votes they get.  So it could be possible that the #1 candidate gets the majority of the voter's ballots in that distruct and perhaps the #10 candidate got only 1% of the popular vote.  I heard on the webcast of the ICRT coverage of the legislative elections that the parties had to use very weird strategies to deal with this awkward system.  One particular party would ask their supporters to vote for a certain candidate based on their birthday or ROC ID card # in order to make sure that most of the party's candidates make it within the top ten.
A constitutional amendment that was passed by the Legislative Yuan proposes to eliminate this voter allocation system and make candidates from different parties to compete for only one seat.  This amendment needs to be ratified by the National Assembly in the next couple of months.
I'm a pan-green supporter, but it will be interesting to see if there will be a proper evolution in the checks and balances between the President/Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan. Allentchang 04:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that the pan-green was expected to annihilate the pan-blue in the elections so the executive and the legislative yuans can work in sync to push pan-green agenda. So I guess it can be equated to referendum on issues somewhat. Chen's two referendums were defeated during the presidential election even though he won, and he's been trying to bring them back ever since. Well, apparently he's gonna meet a lot of oppositon because of the pan-blue majority. Altogether the pan-blue nominated 169 candidates, and the pan-green nominated also nominated 169, so I'm sure changes in vote allocation would have had some effect. And yes, you should go check out the KMT website as it has the vote allocation system all charted out for you. Some counties use the voters' birth month, some counties with two candidates divide the vote equally between male and female, and some counties ask you to vote for those who need help. Really neat stuff:) Wareware 02:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  no major shift