Originally posted by alize:I don't understand some of the others' pro-unification views here.
The closest parallel to the issue is the Korean peninsula. It's like saying that North Korea's invasion was justified, or that American intereference in a future invasion is unjustified.
The PRC and Taiwan were born of civil war over 50 years ago. There has been no internationally recognized claim by one over the other, or recognition of the right of use of force. Grievances and causes of division are not recognised, especially where hostilities have ceased for so many years. Only the principle of self determination has been upheld, whether it is for unification, independence or the status quo.
Hosting American bases are a following and secondary issue for Europeans, Koreans, Japanese or Turks to decide on their own.
The US recognized ROC before 1971, after that it recognizes PRC. UN seat for China was represented by ROC before 1971, after that it was PRC. That is international recognication. The fact remains, PRC and ROC, mainland China and Taiwan are ONE country. So outsiders, such as the US should stay out of the dispute within the same country.
The european and the US still believe that selling opium to China was justified. What benefits them if mainland China were unified with Taiwan?
If the principle of sell determination is to be upheld, then the independence of China should be respected, the Chinese, and the Chinese alone should decide how China should unify. Don't think the chinese, on either side, want to go to war with one another.
Originally posted by alize:I like this reply. IF (two parties are free to enter a war) THEN (all other parties are free to take sides.)
It is never free to enter a war, you need to buy weapons first. It is the weapons suppliers who decide, will they provide the weapon free? The US don't have to take sides, they can supply weapons to both sides. How about selling F35 to the PLA?
Originally posted by sgdiehard:The US recognized ROC before 1971, after that it recognizes PRC. UN seat for China was represented by ROC before 1971, after that it was PRC. That is international recognication. The fact remains, PRC and ROC, mainland China and Taiwan are ONE country. So outsiders, such as the US should stay out of the dispute within the same country.
The european and the US still believe that selling opium to China was justified. What benefits them if mainland China were unified with Taiwan?
If the principle of sell determination is to be upheld, then the independence of China should be respected, the Chinese, and the Chinese alone should decide how China should unify. Don't think the chinese, on either side, want to go to war with one another.
All of which reduces Taiwan from recognized government of mainland China to the status of a disputed territory. A disputed territory still retains the right to plot its own course through its own referendum. It is for Taiwanese, Timorese, Falklands Islanders etc to vote for themselves. Whether they vote or don't vote war is not sanctioned.
This prevails over whether the world sees one China or two, or whether the Chinese people are even a homogenous people.
If anyone can resurrect a 50+ year old pre-colonial or imperial claim, or claim that a people of one colour belongs in one country, every country would have a case against each other. Indonesia would soon apply that principle to Singapore based on historical empires.
For me Taiwan as independent state will just be a pawn of the U.S to contain China and block China's rise.
I support China's rise in order to check U.S hegemonism.
Originally posted by Dalforce 25:For me Taiwan as independent state will just be a pawn of the U.S to contain China and block China's rise.
I support China's rise in order to check U.S hegemonism.
That is an interesting point.
An independent Taiwan needs USA to guarantee its security, only as far as China does not recognise its independence.
If China recognizes independent Taiwan, USA has no leverage on Taiwan. Taiwan will probably trade more with PRC than with USA, perhaps ending up as a PRC satellite state.
But it won't because Tibet and Xinjiang will follow.
Originally posted by alize:If China recognizes independent Taiwan, USA has no leverage on Taiwan. Taiwan will probably trade more with PRC than with USA, perhaps ending up as a PRC satellite state.
But U.S will bring it's military bases back to Taiwan and meddle in the region and China's affairs in order to block and check China's influence.
Originally posted by alize:All of which reduces Taiwan from recognized government of mainland China to the status of a disputed territory. A disputed territory still retains the right to plot its own course through its own referendum. It is for Taiwanese, Timorese, Falklands Islanders etc to vote for themselves. Whether they vote or don't vote war is not sanctioned.
This prevails over whether the world sees one China or two, or whether the Chinese people are even a homogenous people.
If anyone can resurrect a 50+ year old pre-colonial or imperial claim, or claim that a people of one colour belongs in one country, every country would have a case against each other. Indonesia would soon apply that principle to Singapore based on historical empires.
Taiwan is undisputably part of China, before 1971, the US recognized ROC as the legitimate government, after that PRC. This is different from north and south korea where both as recognized! Falkland is never a disputed part of Argentina, that is why the British went to war!
Taiwan was under the japanese colonial rule because China lost the first sino japanese war. Is Japan making a claim on Taiwan now? The imperial Qing dynasty was overthrown, and China became a republic in 1911, is the Qing dynasty resurrected now and making a claim for Taiwan? You are thoroughly confused with the China history.
Chinese is never a people of one colour, china was ruled even by minorities such as the mongolian and the manchurian. and PRC never claim Taiwan on the basis of one colour people. You can find many non Han Chinese in Yunnan province, you think they should be independent?
Originally posted by sgdiehard:Taiwan is undisputably part of China, before 1971, the US recognized ROC as the legitimate government, after that PRC. This is different from north and south korea where both as recognized! Falkland is never a disputed part of Argentina, that is why the British went to war!
Taiwan was under the japanese colonial rule because China lost the first sino japanese war. Is Japan making a claim on Taiwan now? The imperial Qing dynasty was overthrown, and China became a republic in 1911, is the Qing dynasty resurrected now and making a claim for Taiwan? You are thoroughly confused with the China history.
Chinese is never a people of one colour, china was ruled even by minorities such as the mongolian and the manchurian. and PRC never claim Taiwan on the basis of one colour people. You can find many non Han Chinese in Yunnan province, you think they should be independent?
How Chinese is Taiwan? Taiwan was Ainu and Ryukyu before annexation by the Qing, before the KMT retreated there. Exactly how "Chinese" is Taiwan?
I raised the Falklands and Koreas to show that it is for the inhabitants to decide by referendum who to belong to, not for any colonial or pre-colonial power to decide. Which is why UN Command fought in Korea, and Britain is bound to return the Falklands when they so vote.
UN de jure recognition of authority over the sum of mainland and island landmass simply passed from Taipei to Beijing in 1971. Taiwan previously claimed the entire landmass on the basis of having governed it after 1911 and 1945. Beijing claims the entire landmass as heir to the Qing government, including Taiwan as an ex-Qing province, despite never having established Communist jurisdiction on Taiwan. Independence advocates have a stronger case than Beijing, if Taiwan's inhabitants so choose.
Independence is not ruled out just because the UN, US or anyone lumps two lands together and recognise "One China" or "Two Koreas", is it?
"One China" is a mere principle based on common colour and cuture, lacking any bearing on the wishes of Taiwan's, Xinjiang's or Tibet's inhabitants. As you showed, this basis is questionable. It is conveniently espoused by most nations wishing not to antagonise Beijing, and a handful of smaller nations who rather recognise Taipei. Your Yunnanese or other "Chinese" peoples are free to seek their path whether independence or autonomy or union. Are you saying it is compusory?
Originally posted by alize:How Chinese is Taiwan? Taiwan was Ainu and Ryukyu before annexation by the Qing, before the KMT retreated there. Exactly how "Chinese" is Taiwan?
I raised the Falklands and Koreas to show that it is for the inhabitants to decide by referendum who to belong to, not for any colonial or pre-colonial power to decide. Which is why UN Command fought in Korea, and Britain is bound to return the Falklands when they so vote.
UN de jure recognition of authority over the sum of mainland and island landmass simply passed from Taipei to Beijing in 1971. Taiwan previously claimed the entire landmass on the basis of having governed it after 1911 and 1945. Beijing claims the entire landmass as heir to the Qing government, including Taiwan as an ex-Qing province, despite never having established Communist jurisdiction on Taiwan. Independence advocates have a stronger case than Beijing, if Taiwan's inhabitants so choose.
Independence is not ruled out just because the UN, US or anyone lumps two lands together and recognise "One China" or "Two Koreas", is it?
"One China" is a mere principle based on common colour and cuture, lacking any bearing on the wishes of Taiwan's, Xinjiang's or Tibet's inhabitants. As you showed, this basis is questionable. It is conveniently espoused by most nations wishing not to antagonise Beijing, and a handful of smaller nations who rather recognise Taipei. Your Yunnanese or other "Chinese" peoples are free to seek their path whether independence or autonomy or union. Are you saying it is compusory?
why keep bringing race into the equation?
china wants to reclaim taiwan because taiwan is part of china. we are talking about territory here.
the reason why china wont allow taiwan independence is because other areas will want it too. china always use the word 主� coz they have the right over taiwan.
and china is COMMUNIST not democractic. so the people are NOT FREE to seek their path as you put it.
of course having said all this taiwan is free to resist. thats why china may resort to force. of course other countries may interfere. but then there is always a price to pay. are the americans or UN willing to pay the price?
do you think they really care? its all about interest. democracy is just an excuse.
Why continue to sell weapons to Taiwan?
They long wish to have permanent U.S. base there, for long term strategic cover.
Originally posted by alize:How Chinese is Taiwan? Taiwan was Ainu and Ryukyu before annexation by the Qing, before the KMT retreated there. Exactly how "Chinese" is Taiwan?
I raised the Falklands and Koreas to show that it is for the inhabitants to decide by referendum who to belong to, not for any colonial or pre-colonial power to decide. Which is why UN Command fought in Korea, and Britain is bound to return the Falklands when they so vote.
UN de jure recognition of authority over the sum of mainland and island landmass simply passed from Taipei to Beijing in 1971. Taiwan previously claimed the entire landmass on the basis of having governed it after 1911 and 1945. Beijing claims the entire landmass as heir to the Qing government, including Taiwan as an ex-Qing province, despite never having established Communist jurisdiction on Taiwan. Independence advocates have a stronger case than Beijing, if Taiwan's inhabitants so choose.
Independence is not ruled out just because the UN, US or anyone lumps two lands together and recognise "One China" or "Two Koreas", is it?
"One China" is a mere principle based on common colour and cuture, lacking any bearing on the wishes of Taiwan's, Xinjiang's or Tibet's inhabitants. As you showed, this basis is questionable. It is conveniently espoused by most nations wishing not to antagonise Beijing, and a handful of smaller nations who rather recognise Taipei. Your Yunnanese or other "Chinese" peoples are free to seek their path whether independence or autonomy or union. Are you saying it is compusory?
Exactly how "Chinese" is Taiwan? you have to ask the taiwanese...that is not something for any outsider to decide!! and who define "One China" , what is "大ä¸å�Ž" ? ask the Chinese, living in Harbin, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet......
If the UN is not the organization that recognizes sovereignty of nations, who does?
Who is saying that the Tibetan, the minority tribes in Yunan (there is no such people as Yunnanese) want to be independent? Has the Taiwanese voted to be independent?
In a civilized world, the minorities and the majorities are expected to be working together for the common good, the outsiders should stay out. period.
Originally posted by Dalforce 25:But U.S will bring it's military bases back to Taiwan and meddle in the region and China's affairs in order to block and check China's influence.
well, it all depends on whether the US can continue to food the bill for more military bases! Not sure in the short term China's military influence would increase, but the US influence is set to reduce, unless somebody want to pay for their presence.
Originally posted by sgdiehard:Exactly how "Chinese" is Taiwan? you have to ask the taiwanese...that is not something for any outsider to decide!! and who define "One China" , what is "大ä¸å�Ž" ? ask the Chinese, living in Harbin, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet......
If the UN is not the organization that recognizes sovereignty of nations, who does?
Who is saying that the Tibetan, the minority tribes in Yunan (there is no such people as Yunnanese) want to be independent? Has the Taiwanese voted to be independent?
In a civilized world, the minorities and the majorities are expected to be working together for the common good, the outsiders should stay out. period.
Note the UN does not endorse "One China". It is only endorsed by individual states who recognise Beijing or Taipei. The UN will not act for independence or union, but will act against an invasion.
The UN is as ready to admit two Chinese states as when it admitted two Korean or German states (two states, one nation), because it is not compulsory for only one state to exist.
You just defined "One China" as a race-based construct. If outsiders are to stay out, what your Chinese in Harbin desire, has no bearing on where the Taiwanese wish to belong to. Too bad if Harbinese are unhappy in their minds, just because in their minds "One China" is a highly emotional concept for them.
US dun sell then buy Russian or even buy from Chinese
Originally posted by dragg:US should start minding their own business.
they should stay out of other countries' affairs.
i hope china/taiwan and north korea/south korea can unite.
ai li huan lo
Originally posted by TehJarVu:
ai li huan lo
ya. same to you.
shake leg yo lampa all day making swift statements
Originally posted by alize:Note the UN does not endorse "One China". It is only endorsed by individual states who recognise Beijing or Taipei. The UN will not act for independence or union, but will act against an invasion.
The UN is as ready to admit two Chinese states as when it admitted two Korean or German states (two states, one nation), because it is not compulsory for only one state to exist.
You just defined "One China" as a race-based construct. If outsiders are to stay out, what your Chinese in Harbin desire, has no bearing on where the Taiwanese wish to belong to. Too bad if Harbinese are unhappy in their minds, just because in their minds "One China" is a highly emotional concept for them.
What do you think if the 1.2 billion Chinese in mainland China say to the 23 million Chinese in Taiwan "too bad if you are unhappy to be part of China"? What is value of things like "loyalty", "sovereignty", "brotherhood", ....to you, are these not emotional feelings, or all about with $ n Cents?
If you know the difference between ä¸å�Žæ°‘æ—�， ä¸å›½äººï¼Œå�Œèƒžï¼Œ... you won't use the word "race" to describe the chinese in different places.
血浓于水，慎哉�
How come everything int he worls is Chinese territory?Tibet, Taiwan,Part of India, Vietnam etc.
In an open war for sure Taiwan is screwed.
One more point is though US is weaker, US Army/Defence is not. And not for a long time to com. Period.
Originally posted by Bio-Hawk:How come everything int he worls is Chinese territory?Tibet, Taiwan,Part of India, Vietnam etc.
In an open war for sure Taiwan is screwed.
One more point is though US is weaker, US Army/Defence is not. And not for a long time to com. Period.
no part of india is chinese territory, kashmir is disputed between india and pakistan, vietnam is not part of china, though strong chinese cultural influence. there are many smaller countries around china have been living in peace with china with no dispute, so long if they have never been colonies to the west.
US army will be a strong force for many years to come, but they can't afford to have too many fronts, they have never won a prolonged war in the far east, except for the use of atomic bomb, they will have to revalue how they want to commit their forces to areas that are close to their benefit, hope they should realize they better have more friends than potential enemies.
Originally posted by sgdiehard:What do you think if the 1.2 billion Chinese in mainland China say to the 23 million Chinese in Taiwan "too bad if you are unhappy to be part of China"? What is value of things like "loyalty", "sovereignty", "brotherhood", ....to you, are these not emotional feelings, or all about with $ n Cents?
If you know the difference between ä¸å�Žæ°‘æ—�， ä¸å›½äººï¼Œå�Œèƒžï¼Œ... you won't use the word "race" to describe the chinese in different places.
血浓于水，慎哉�
This emotional construct in the minds of China's population, some of whom live in the opposite end of China, is not a recognised principle for union under a foreign government.
It flies in the face of every principle of law and respect for Tawainese populations's rights.
You might as well declare Singapore as China's province too, based on the number of ethnic Chinese and PRC citizens here, or better still based on China's populations sentiments.
Sharing the same heritage is enough for me, I don't need to share the same President.
The Communist Party has never set foot on Taiwan island. The non-Chinese Ainus and the Ryukyu Kingdom ruled it before the Qing and the KMT. (Whereas the KMT has ruled all of China). It is as non-PRC as Singapore.
While China's rise may be a good thing, you should hope they start by following the law.
Originally posted by sgdiehard:no part of india is chinese territory, kashmir is disputed between india and pakistan, vietnam is not part of china, though strong chinese cultural influence. there are many smaller countries around china have been living in peace with china with no dispute, so long if they have never been colonies to the west.
not really, almost all of her neighbours have disputes with her, only problem is China has a bigger stick.
plus another thing you have to consider is, despite all the claims of being a peaceful giant of a civilization by China herself. She certainly didn't grow to that size by being friendly
thoughout her history, she has never been peaceful, only weak. or invading others when strong.
Originally posted by alize:This emotional construct in the minds of China's population, some of whom live in the opposite end of China, is not a recognised principle for union under a foreign government.
It flies in the face of every principle of law and respect for Tawainese populations's rights.
You might as well declare Singapore as China's province too, based on the number of ethnic Chinese and PRC citizens here, or better still based on China's populations sentiments.
Sharing the same heritage is enough for me, I don't need to share the same President.
The Communist Party has never set foot on Taiwan island. The non-Chinese Ainus and the Ryukyu Kingdom ruled it before the Qing and the KMT. (Whereas the KMT has ruled all of China). It is as non-PRC as Singapore.
While China's rise may be a good thing, you should hope they start by following the law.
I'm not sure what's the percentage but you often hear about PRC's leaving china because they want more freedom and democracy. younger ones go about saying they feel oppressed in their own country.
but what if democracy turns around and bitch slap them in the face.
if parts of china like tibet and xinjiang voted for independence instead, they were not, were never part of the whole chinese culture thing beyond getting invaded every now and then by the chinese.
but when in comes to democracy the "han chinese" majority would very likely use democracy to vote to crush the democracy of the minority.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
not really, almost all of her neighbours have disputes with her, only problem is China has a bigger stick.
plus another thing you have to consider is, despite all the claims of being a peaceful giant of a civilization by China herself. She certainly didn't grow to that size by being friendly
thoughout her history, she has never been peaceful, only weak. or invading others when strong.
there are 14 countries with borders with China. Mongolia, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Afganistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, not including Japan. Over the last 200 years, which do you see have dispute with China and were given the big stick by China?
Actually, China were stuck by many small sticks from the countries from the west thousand of miles away. They robbed the imperial palace, made settlements in many provinces (that is why all the european architecture in shangdong, shanghai...), and sold opinium to the chinese. They lost wars and gave away Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan.
Map of China were never drawn until the Qing Dynasty, when emperor kangxi (the fourth emperor of the qing dynastry) wanted to know how far he needed to stretch his army to protect his people. that was around 1700, around the same time as the beginning of the UK and when the whites are killing the red indian and fighting among themselves in the american continent (for territories, I suppose). Since then had China expanded?
china had a long history, with written records, it began from Xia Dynastry at about 2100 BC. Wars were fought when dynasty changed, but within the same dynasty, qing dynasty stretched from 1644 to 1911 (267 years), Ming dynasty from 1368 io 1644 (276 years), song dynasty from 618 to 907 (289 years), just to name a few....these are known as the golden age, peace and prosperity, 太平盛世. And outside of China, within these period of time, how many of the neighboring territories were annexed to China? even the Cheng Ho expedition, have they colonized any one single island they visited?
the Kingdom of great britain started in 1707, 304 years to date, when did the irish stopped bombing in Belfast, how many military conquests went under the william jack, here and far, making colonies and "taking" resources?
the USA were independent in 1776, 235 years to date. They never fought among themselves since, but before that, they slaughtered the native indians, chased the red coat back to the other side of the atlantic, and then fought a civil war themselves. Since then, can you count how many wars they fought on others territories? and, when did they free the negro from slavery?
china is not an aggressive country. just because they are communist people tend to think they are no good.
how many countries have US fought with or attacked already? libya, afghanistan, vietnam, korea, iraq, sudan.... and the list goes on. how many of these wars are justifiable? either they kaypoh or they attacked out of their own interest.
yet they complain when china upgrade their military.
its all propaganda.