Talk:Political status of Taiwan/Archive 3

message: As Loren pointed out above, the prior consensus was to characterize the ROC as a de facto independent state.  I don't see anything wrong with that as a description of the facts.  Of course, not everybody is happy about those facts, and the various positions about what should be the case, or what could be the case in the future are also discussed in the article.  But we also have a duty to describe what is factual and real at the moment.  The reality is this: there is an independent political entity, the ROC, which exercises sovereign control over Taiwan island, Mazu, Jinmen, Penghu, etc.  It doesn't matter what you prefer to call this political entity ("Republic of China", or "the Taiwanese authorities"), I don't see how anyone could reasonably dispute the fact that it is de facto independent. We need to start with a description of facts, and then move on to describe how various parties' views, perceptions, plans, wishful thinking, propaganda, etc. affirm, depart from, distort, deny, ignore, or embellish those facts. I see absolutely no reason to change the current working consensus in this regard. --MarkSweep✍ 22:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The current consensus

message: This posting can boil certain people's emotions, and I would caution these people in terms of a emotional control system to maintain their negative feedback system rather than to let positive feedback overwhelm them.
Since I wrote the section about Freudian slips, let me add my own comments: a cigar is just a cigar.  True, there is a government that tries everything it can do (including getting its citizens to file lawsuits over mental anguish ) in making everyone say that a cigar is a p______.  But, when you try to use the object under dispute, it functions as cigar and not a p_____.  Still, somehow we have a dispute about this cigar and therefore have an article getting different group's point of views about this entity.  Saying that the cigar is a p_____ and that all other point of views on this matter must be squashed and surpressed sounds like the practice of a certain authoritarian communist regime that never apologizes, assumes that it itself is always correct, and purges people for their free speech despite having a "Hundred Flowers Bloom" campaign.
It also sounds like Emperor Nero forcing everyone to hear him sing in concert and to praise his talent even though certain people try to politely leave saying that they have a heart attack or is about to give birth to a baby.
I recently altered the term "de-facto" into "functional."  In the past, I also altered references to "de-facto" and made them "in practice" or "effective."  Better to use a little more baihua (vernacular language) when subsitution of words are easy and non-wordy.
The People's Republic of China is a one-party people's democratic dictatorship that despises buercratic feudalism, supports socialism with Chinese characteristics, and talks about peace while pointing 700 missles at Taiwan (perhaps I should start a category on Chinese oxymorons or Chinese contradiction terms).  In any case, in terms of ONLY political thought (but at this point, not economic or social), it is a type of Borg collective with the Communist Party has the Borg Queen: anything the borg queen says, all the Chinese people also say as Borg drones.  Only when the borg drones regain their political individuality and humanity would I possibly buy the claim that all people in China do believe that Taiwan must be part of China.
Allentchang 02:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick comment: I am from Singapore, and I generally do not agree with Taiwanese independence (but I do not agree with unification either unless the PRC turns truly democratic). Am I a Borg drone, or is my government effectively a provincial government of the one based in Beijing?--Huaiwei 15:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huaiwei, I think the distinction here is this: Being an advocate for eventual unification (as you are) is very different than being one who insists on unification at all costs and under all circumstances (which I think was what Allentchang was referring to with the "Borg drone" comment).  The question is this: would you advocate that China attack Taiwan if Taiwan, after a fair and democratic plebiscite, declares independence?  Further, would you advocate that Singapore assist China in that attack if China makes such an attack?  I hope your answers to both of those questions (and particular the latter) is no.  If that is the case, there's your distinction.  (For the record, as a Taiwanese-born "BSR" (i.e., local Taiwanese ancestry) American, I do not support Taiwan independence, but I support the right to declare Taiwan independence if it is the will of an informed people.)  --Nlu 18:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A cigar is just a cigar 

message: I attended a lecture on the PRC-ROC dispute about Taiwan held by professor Tom Hart of the Stockholm School of Economics earlier this week as a part of my Mandarin class at Stockholm University. He explained to us that he had been looking for information to prepare for the lecture and that he was very pleased with the content he found here at English Wikipedia. He focused particularly on this article and said "there is not a word in there I didn't agree with", and that's a direct quote.
His own POV is slightly pro-ROC in the sense that he believes that the political status should be decided by the citizens of Taiwan, but other than that I got the impression that his lecture was very objective. I don't know about you guys, but I could love to get comments like that from a college professor on articles I had worked on.
Peter Isotalo 14:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic praise 

message: The title of this article and the introductory paragraphs are clear telling readers that this article is about the political status of Taiwan, i.e. the main part of the ROC. Nevertheless some materials down the article talks about the political status of the ROC in the international arena, e.g. its foreign relations, diplomatic recognitions. Even worse many other articles are pointing at this article regarding the political status of the ROC. Is there any way that the matter can be better defined? — Instantnood 08:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Political status of Taiwan & political status of the ROC

message: PRC's conception of territorial integrity and the UN's (everyone else's) doesn't appear to be the same if anyone bothered clicking the link.  Thus:
:The position of the PRC is that the ROC ceased to be a legitimate government upon the founding of the former on October 1, 1949 and that the PRC is the successor government of the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China, with the right to rule Taiwan under the succession of states theory based on the UN Charter which advocates states' rights to territorial integrity. Whether the ROC, on the other hand, still has the legitimacy to retake the mainland is not widely accepted, but disputed.
has been commented out.  China's "right" would be against someone else like, let's say the US, promoting an independence movement in Taiwan, not against the ROC.  IN FACT, again, if anyone bothered reading, if it were applicable against the ROC, then the ROC in Taiwan is a legitimate state!!!  Fuck, no one reads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs) 
:I don't see why that paragraph needs to be commented out. It's reads like a neutral, accurate description of the PRC's position to me.  It doesn't matter whether you or anyone else agrees with that position.  The PRC has consistently and aggressively advocated that position for a long time, and so it needs to be documented. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the paragraph says "the position of the PRC is that... based on the UN Charter." Thus, it is the PRC's interpretation of the UN Charter. sounds neutral to me. --Sumple (Talk) 22:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commented out "territorial integrity" 

message: I'm curious why theses slips-of-the-tongue are classified as Freudian slips, which are mispronouncements that (may) reflect what the person is thinking about. It seems to me some of these slips are more likely to be due to simple habit of referring to states/territories as countries, rather than an underlying belief of Taiwan being a separate country. This would almost certainly be the case with the Chinese premier. In any case, we don't know what they are actually thinking, so I think it's a bit presumptuous to think they're all Freudian slips. --Sumple (Talk) 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freudian slips 

message: I hope that the Republic of China continues to prosper and remain free, and I also hope that one day Communist China will be able to experience the same freedoms also.
Good Wishes to Taiwan
pal, remember that ROC is now considered by radical pro-independent taiwanese as a illegal government and they evet want to overthrow it! Just call that island taiwan.--StrikeEagle 02:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Wishes for the free Republic of China (Taiwan) 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4758410.stm
I'd like to invite everyone involved in this discussion to read the above article, especially the first and fourth (last) interview.  I was born in Taiwan originally and return to visit at least once or twice a year.  I think the opinions expressed in the BBC article is pretty accurate in describing how many in Taiwan feels.
For the pro-unification camp (pan-blue), many believe in eventual reunification under democratic terms.  But very few will support absorbing Taiwan into PRC as a province, under single-party CCP rule.  If we look at past proposals put forth by the PRC government, they usually involve high degree of local autonomy, with Taiwan maintaining its own armed forces, and no PLA forces stationed in Taiwan.  This reflects a realistic approach to the dispute from the PRC side, as they know even pro-unification supporters in Taiwan do not like the idea of being ruled by the CCP.
For the pro-independence camp (pan-green), if you look at the last (fourth) interview, this reflects the extreme pro-TI view where people knew for fact that they were originally from China, but seek to distance thesmelves as far as possible from being "Chinese".  There are even pro-TI web sites out there claiming that "Taiwanese" is its own race.
However silly that might be, I'd like to point out that many people in the US were originally from England, yet they do not consider themselves English, or European.  It's also said that 1 in 8 child born in Taiwan today are from inter-racial/ethnic mix (Taiwanese-Vietnamese/Cambodian/?).  So realistically it's not impossible for a distinct Taiwanese identity to develop and become majority-view over time.
On the other hand, with the economic reforms in China and gradual opening of PRC-ROC/Taiwan trade and direct-travel, there is also a trend of eventual economic integration between the two sides -- if not already integrated, considering the number of Taiwanese companies with factories in China.  Also, approx. 1 to 1.5 million Taiwanese now live and work in China, and there is an increase of PRC-ROC marriages over the past decade.  How will this economic and demographic shift affect the politics on two sides in the future, I cannot say for certain.  But it'd be an interesting development to watch.
In closing, I'd like to say that it's quite sad to see Han-decendents going at each other's throats over the TI-issue.  It's about as bad as the Japanese-bashing from China and Korea.  At this rate, I think it'd be another 50+ years before we catch-up to the Europeans and form some kind of Pan-Asia Economic Union.  --
Adeptitus 00:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend reading this BBC article 

message: Independence advocates point out that at the end of World War II, allied powers agreed that the Republic of China was to "temporarily occupy Taiwan, on behalf of the Allied forces" under the authorization from General Douglas MacArthur's General Order No. 1 of September 2, 1945.
Where do these claims keep coming from? There is only one instance mentioning Taiwan (Formosa) in the actual document: Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers - General Order no. One (September 2, 1945):
* 1 a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16 north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
The order given clearly states that the Japanese in Taiwan are to surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. Where is the evidence to support the claim that ROC was only to "temporarily" occupy Taiwan on behalf of the allied powers? See also Talk:Taiwan#Political status for references which clearly shows:
* Japan accepted defeat in WWII on the conditions that included giving Taiwan and the Pescadores to the ROC.
* Japan had clearly stated to the PRC in 1972, that they maintain their stance under "Article 8 of the Postsdam Proclamation" which recognizes sovereignity of Taiwan by the ROC.
Taiwan independence supporters even go so far as to claim that Taiwan is an overseas territory of the United States, See: http://www.taiwanadvice.com Let's stop the misinformation please. — Nrtm81 11:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your analysis unfortunately totally ignores the laws of war.  According to the laws of war, the disposition of territory, i.e. the specifications of a territorial cession, are made in a post war peace treaty.   Such specifications of a territorial cession are not made in Proclamations, Declarations, or in the Surrender Documents.   Moreover, according to the laws of war, the surrender of Japanese troops in Taiwan on Oct. 25, 1945, can only be regarded as the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan, there is no valid claim to a "transfer of sovereignty to the ROC" on that date.  In regard to the concept of military occupation, it is a "transitional period," or a period of "interim status."  Hence, the claim that the ROC is exercising control over Taiwan temporarily is absolutely correct.  Later in the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty, the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan was not awarded to the ROC, hence Taiwan remains under the jurisdiction of the conqueror and principal occupying power -- the United States of America.  This is not misinformation, it is the truth.   Hmortar 10:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me point out to you that after the San Francisco Peace Treaty signed on September 8, 1951 (coming into effect on April 28, 1952, the Republic of China concluded their own Peace Treaty with Japan (Treaty of Taipei signed April 28, 1952) that recognized the ROC's sovereignity of Taiwan. Japan didn't conclude a treaty with the PRC until September 29, 1972 (Joint Communiqué where it stated to the PRC that although Japan now recognized the PRC as "China", Japan maintains its stance that Taiwan is ruled by the ROC "entity". Stop spreading misinformation that Taiwan's status was not resolved. In reality, Taiwan has no option, it can only delay the time until the PRC annexes the island. I don't support the PRC but let's not create a fantasy situation that doesn't exist and has no evidence to support it. (Independence supporters are grabbing at straws) — Nrtm81 10:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is total misinformation.   The Treaty of Taipei did not, in any way, shape, or form, recognize ROC sovereignty over Taiwan.  Article 2 of this Treaty (which came into force on Aug. 5, 1952) clearly states: "It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands." So ....... when we consider that as of April 28, 1952, Japan had already renounced all claims over Taiwan, there is no way that the Treaty of Taipei (which came into force on Aug. 5, 1952) could make any further disposition of these areas. In regard to Article 10 of the Treaty of Taipei (nationality issues), there is an excellent essay on the internet which explains the details, and overviews the legal complications.  See -- http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/rcitizen6.htm 
Hmortar 01:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Independence supporters use many baseless claims such as Taiwan is still part of Japan or is part of USA. It's certainly interesting to hear their views but ultimately there's a complete lack of evidence to support any of their claims. Can someone fix the sentence in the article? — Nrtm81 11:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "There are no international legal documents which show that the sovereignty of Taiwan has ever been transferred to the ROC.   The ROC in Taiwan is merely a government in exile." Please demonstrate evidence by balance of authorities. Note WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. A statement about international "legal documents" or lack thereof is not acceptable to Wikipedia unless it can be backed up by reliable sources. --Sumple (Talk) 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of sovereignity 

message: I added the NPOV tag some time ago, and had someone ask me about it on my Talk page.  After I reviewed it, I decided that I had added the tag after too many hours of reading.  :-)  I am not convinced that it is NPOV, I just can't point to what exactly is the problem.  I've also come to the conclusion that it might just be some poor word choices that give it the ... the ... TONE of a POV.  I know that's vague, but that's the best I can say right now. Mdotley 20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV in "Position of ROC" 

message: I thought I had seen that Taiwan had recognised the independence of Mongolia, and  seems to point in that direction. Does anyone know any more details of the development after 2002? Mlewan 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolia's status