China and Taiwan

What I dislike about being Chinese most is that the Chinese are the most disunified race there is in this whole wide world. When you tell someone you are Chinese, they want to ask which part, so then they judge you for your economic status automatically based on where you are from, and treat with you respect or scorn, based on where you are from. I wish I was any race other than Chinese, such as the Koreans, because then when you tell someone about your ethnic origion, they will know and they will respect you.

I truly wish that China will be unified, so that when you say you are Chinese, there is no longer any segregation, or misunderstandings of its meaning. Why the Taiwanese want to be known as Taiwanese, and the HK race wants to have its own title HK? Because they think they are better than Chinese, because they think they deserve more respect and they have more money than the Chinese. Its the only reason, all the excuses based on political grounds are a load of rubbish used to disguise these two facts.

HK and the Taiwanese people disgust me. When I hear people say they are from HK or Taiwan, it disgusts me.

I used to have a very good friend who was Han Chinese but from Cambodia. We used to spend hours discussing these issues. He was uncanny. He could tell a Chinese person their region of origin simply by the way they spoke. But he was very tolerant. A lovely bloke. He's in Perth now, owns several businesses there. I learned a lot from him.

James
In regards how people refer to themselves Londoners for example also being English and also being British was discussed earlier in the thread (page three)

Making obviously inflamatory statements, such as comming to a thread discussing Taiwan and China and making an openly racist statement like,

This is known as internet trolling (see Internet troll ).

Okay Michael I get the message

Michael_S please do not think I am ignoring you but I not be able to give you a reply until end of November. Sorry for the delay.

Oh and by the way:



After that long nice introduction, it's my turn to say to you:




I'm pleased that you have such an excellent grasp of English, but please, no need for long introductions like this in future replies.

Dear all:

The thread seems to have resulted into broken and misunderstood arguments as well as personal attacks. To clear this thread up, I now put forward the totality of my arguments in response to other posts, defending China's position in context of China-Taiwan dispute. Some arguments will quote other posts and varied resources. I will acknowledge the sources.

The thread and all participants appear to have confused what are two very different, but related questions:

- What is Taiwan's status - independent or territory currently AND
- If territory, does it have the right to become of independent status?

I will refer to these two questions as the first conflict and the second conflict respectively. I also argue that Taiwan is a territory and it does not have the right, unless the Chinese Communist Party of China grants such right, to be independent.

Despite the objections to sharonpipi's thread, I agree with her first argument - "go over the Chinese history." Because the underlying foundation of my arguments are also based on the modern history of China from 1900 onwards and slightly before, I will start with the main facts of the relevant history:

1. GENERAL HISTORY (my knowledge with additions and corrections derived from Microsoft Encarta)

During the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese Wars, Japan defeated China in 1895. As a result, China was forced to cede Taiwan (which was already part of China, as explained below) to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki. However, after Japan's defeat in WWII, they returned the island back to China. I quote China's ambassador to Australia Madame Fu Ying - legally speaking, the question regarding Taiwan's status is already solved - it is China's territory. The first conflict was never a conflict.

But the question arises, how did the second conflict develop?

In 1912 the last Qing Emperor was removed from the throne due to the efforts of Sun Yet Sen and the Republic of China was established in mainland China. In 1928 The Nationalist party (hereinafter referred to as GMD) defeated the Communists and northern warlords to reunite China which at this time included the island of Taiwan.

During the years 1934-1935, Mao lead the Chinese Communists (Hereinafter referred to as the CCP) in the Long March where they regrouped as a stronger force to defeat the GMD, accumulating into a civil war. The Civil War was interuppted two years later by the Japanese invasion into mainland China during World War Two. The CCP and GMD united to fight the common enemy.

1946 shows the defeat, surrendor and withdrawal of Japanese forces from mainland China, and the civil war continued with renewed fighting. The GMD were defeated, there was the establishment of the CCP, the People's Republic of China (PRC). The GMD with some two million followers withdrew to the island of Taiwan and the Republic of China (ROC) was established.

(End of relevant factual history)

Because of the history of the civil war and two conflicting governments the original question was never ever about the status of the island of Taiwan. The main question was who was the legitimate representative of China? Both PRC and ROC claim to be the legitimate government of China and as Pepito has said: claim sovereingty over all Chinese territories on the mainland and the island Taiwan. Michael_S has put forward the argument that Taiwan has not had any serious claims to China. Can I assume that he means "mainland" China? If so, what is meant by "serious claims" is a moot point, but according to Wikpedia, there is indeed a recognised dispute over mainland China and the two competing claimaints are PRC and ROC.

2. FIRST ARGUMENT - CCP is the legitimate government.

Whether or not this was a disputed or an agreed point, I now put forward my first claim: the CCP is the legitimate government. Of who will come later. Before 1949, Taiwan was one territory of China and under the rule of the Nationalists who were in the midsts of the civil war and Japanese invasion. In and after 1949 the CCP are the established winners of the civil war. By defeating the prior government they established themselves as the next legitimate government after the Nationalists. It is submitted that the civil war can be analogised to an election between two parties - who wins the election is the legitimate government. In this case, it was the CCP.

4. THE ARGUMENTS

Addressing now the second conflict, I have classified the relevant arguments or points by all posters in the following categories for the sake of order:

- Taiwan is of defacto country status
- Different cultures
- Points regarding US invovlement
- Public policy
- The question of war?

I will address these in turn.

5. TAIWAN IS OF DEFACTO COUNTRY STATUS.

One particular argument supporting Taiwan independence that has arisen again and again throughout this thread is

1) despite Taiwan being an island of China, the CCP has never controlled or goverened the island of Taiwan and
2) the island is a de-facto independent sovereign country with characteristics similar to other independent countries as opposed to an island belonging to China and thus is a nation in its own right, minus formal recognition as such.

In light of the above historical facts pointing to the status of Taiwan as an island/territory of China, and nothing disputing this history, it seems the above arguments are rendered incompetent to dispute my answer to the first conflict. But as regards to the second conflict - ie: should the island of Taiwan become independent because it is already of an indepndent nature - these are significant arguments supporting Taiwan becoming a country in its own right. I put forward the following counter arguments (my own knowledge and corrections/additions derived from Microsoft Encarta.)


Firstly Chinese governments/dynasties (which are the equivalent of ancient Chinese governments), although not the CCP (and its proclaimed PRC) have goverened this island, even if for short and broken periods due to continued Western and/or Japanese interference and invasions. Periods of government are as follows:

- AD 603: China undertakes expedition to island of Taiwan
- 17th Century: Chinese Ming Dynasty defeated by the Manchurians who drive the governing Dutch away (note that the Dutch had taken possession of the island from the Portuguese who had taken possession from? The Chinese.) Immigration from mainland China to Taiwan increases.
- Manchurian operation commences over the territory of Taiwan. Note that in 1858 two ports had to be opened to foreign ships under the Treaty of Tianjin in 1858 after China lost the Franco-British Opium War but Manchurian government was never interrupted.
- 1895 - Taiwan as an island of mainland China was ceded to Japan under the Shimonseki Treaty (above) but Japan handed the island back in 1945.

So Chinese government over the island have always existed. But the question arises - does it have to be the CCP to govern the island before the PRC can lay an already legitimate claim to it, as many posters here have argued. Or will predecessor government operations on the island suffice? Until there are reasonable arguments against the latter, I submit that as long as there was Chinese government operations continuing up till 1949, no one can argue that Taiwan wasn't governed as part of the mainland.

Secondly, in regards to claims that the CCP and the proclaimed PRC never goverened the island of Taiwan, consider the fact that it was impossible for the CCP to do so, as opposed to a "failure" to do so. 1949 sees the GMD taking refuge to the island and establishing their own governments and elections systems, however illegitimate. There was never an opportunity for the CCP to attempt government over the island which claimed to have its own legitimate government back then and even more so now. The claim of non-government by the CCP is not a foundation for independence of the island, merely an irrelevant fact.

Thirdly in regards to the defacto country argument, I have already submitted counter arguments against this which have not been constructively demonstrated as incorrect. Each state and territory of Australia, whether the joined states and territories or the physically seperated Tasmania, has similar features to those of the Taiwanese islands, the significant ones being:

- a state premier who is the equivalent of the federal Prime Minister but in the state context
- a state government who is different from the national federal government (the former are the Labour Party, the latter is the Liberal-Coalition)
- indepndent legislatures with power to make independent state laws, whether they are the same or different or even directly contrary to the Federal laws
- collection of state taxes and rates
- their own flags and state emblems.

However each state, despite these strong factors pointing towards indepndence prima facie, are recognised, never as a country in its own right, but a territory of one federation - Australia. And despite the federation of Australia have similar factors, it is still formally recognised as an empire or colony only of Britain but with the permission of Britain to be a Commonwealth of Australia. Taiwan has not been granted a similar permission from the CCP and until then, despite their defacto country status, it is submitted they cannot be recognised as an independent country but only what they are now - a territory of China.

Finally, two analogys were put forward previously in this thread - Monaco/France and HK/China. It appears that Monaco is an independent sovereign state in its own right so that renders it an inappropriate analogy already. I do note however, that the principality was granted its independence by the French in 1861 and thus has their legal right to be indepndent. The island of Taiwan has not been granted similar permission.

Regarding HK and China, I have been directed to the terms and conditions of the handover, the significant points of which I had studied before putting forward the analogy. My analogy has not been effectively disputed or criticised and thus I put it forward again, with the relevant details:

At the point of handover in 1997, the British political structure imposed upon HK was rightly replaced by the Chinese governing apparatus, in accordance with HK's new status as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China. In its nature of a SAR, HK was given the power and nature as a defacto indepndent state - the SAR government lead by the Chief Executive (currently Donald Tsung); elections and its own flag which, like Taiwan, is presented seperately from the PRC during international events such as the Olympics. However, the basic status of HK, despite these characteristics is that of a territory of mainland China.

In summary: the second claim that the island of Taiwan appears as a defacto independent state is also not a foundation for independence of the island, merely an irrelevant fact.

6. DIFFERENT CULTURES

This is an argument than can be disposed of quickly. The argument supporting indpendence basically appears to be that Taiwan cultures are unique, different and indepndent from those of China. ^JB^ has addressed this argument directly - "that is nothing, nearly every country has ethnic cultures." Again if states and territories and islands of countries were to argue indepndence basic on the differences of culture, every single piece of land would be granted independence as soon as it indicated such intention. Differences in culture per se is not a foundation for independence.

7. US INVOLVEMENT

USA involvement (I shall now refer to it as interference) is another major point but not so much argument toward any side, in the context of the second conflict. Before I address this issue, there is something I want to flag for all posters: what on earth does the internal issues of the PRC have to do with the USA? Or is it just another example of their increasing nature to be world busy-bodies? Like what Destiny X said - US involvment will do no good other than US interest. I shall address the motive of their western interference as well as issues relating to possible war in my later posts.

It seems that the US is in rather difficult circumstances here. Their current policy is that the PRC is the legal government of China, that Taiwan is part of China and are against any attempt by the DPP (or more specifically President Chen) towards indepndence will be frowned upon. On the other hand, the USA's actions, attitudes, agreements all indicate, despite their no-no policy, that they recognise Taiwan as an independent state in its own right. But in the end, only three words are needed - go away, USA.

8. PUBLIC POLICY ARGUMENTS

The question has also been posed - what is China's real motive for wanting to keep Taiwan. I would correct that as "what is China's motive for wanting to keep what is theirs?" Suddenly very self explanatory. But this is a category I classify as public policy. I will address those defending independence then put forward some defending China's position. Of course these will not be exhaustive as "public policy" is such a broad category, new arguments will always arise.

Firstly in regards to the general public of Taiwan not wanting a Chinese government - this didn't appear to be the case in the 2004 elections. When President Chen was announced as the winner of the election and by the skin of his teeth, there was a very significant uproar by the supporters of the GMD and its then leader Lian Jian, who is recognised as pro-mainland China. Sit-ins, demonstrations and police arrests etc etc. To say the protests looked similar to the 1989 Tiananmen protests wouldn't be an exaggeration. It didn't appear back then and it doesn't appear now that President Chen's views are shared by the "general public." Also question the legitimacy of the election overall. Vote rigging was a possibility in everyone's mind. Tsk tsk. Taiwan isn't as democratic as it claims to be.

Secondly there is the claim that the CCP and the proclaimed PRC do not represent the people of Taiwan, and their right to be represented in times of international crisis. The example put forward by Michael_S is the outbreak of SARS. The CCP had actually sent medical experts to Taiwan to analyse the health situation there: as I understand it, Chen's government actually refused permission for the experts to enter. Therefore, how do you expect any right to representation for an island who doesn't recognise and refused the very government they now criticises for failure of representation?


Having addressed these, mainland China's public policies arises, specifically the following:

- other border/territorial disputes
- Chinese country and people's values
- The need for unity of the Chinese

As well as the Taiwan dispute, China is involved a number of other border and territorial disputes, most notably the diaoyutai with Japan and the Nansha Qundao with many of its Asian neighbours. It has been put forward by many academics that the island of Taiwan, if successfully independent, would act as a dangerous, effective and international precedent for China's prospective defeat in the other border and territorial claims. To let go of Taiwan which is most definetly Chinese territory would certainly encourage the disputing Asian neighbours involved in the other claims to force China into concessionary positions with regards to the other territories.

Don't say this is the position of the CCP or that we have been brainwashed by the government. That is an insult. These are personal opinions of the Chinese people. Chinese people have died for the diaoyutai islands (the most famous is the death of David Chang) and the most recent spate of fierce anti-Japanese protests in China were not only based on the right-wing government's refusal to acknowledge and apologise for WWII attrocities but also due to the contraversial diaoyutai dispute.

Many westerners believe that Taiwan should be independent, based on western (mainly American) values of freedom and democracy. This belief appears to neglect two facts:

- that the island of Taiwan is an issue for China, the internal issues of China and
- China has separate and different values which should be respected also.

As shown above, Taiwan has been a part of Chinese recorded history ever since AD 603. It has been the subject of numerous wars and the cause of numerous deaths. China is always being asked to respect freedom and democracy - which are American values. The US fought for it, they value it as part of American history. We fought for Taiwan why not value our history?


My third point in public policy is linked to the second point regarding values and arises directly from James84's post, despite objections to his language - the need for unity of the Chinese people. Indeed it is true the Chinese (including the Taiwanese, the HK people and Chinese nationals who reside in our Asian neighbours such as Singapore and Malaysia whatever they refer to themselves as) seem like the most disunified race in the world.

Going back to a point I made earlier in this thread, that I object to HK people being able to call themselves HongKongers. Michael_S, I agree with you that people in other parts of the world refer themselves also seperately, London people are Londoners and NY people are New Yorkers. But have you noticed why I object to Hongkongers calling themselves as such, while I do not object to people from Shanghai calling themselves Shanghainese or Beijing people calling themselves "Beijing ren" when asked? It is not because I am an A**hole as you implied.

In the examples you referred to, although there is reference to you as being from one particular part of a country and others referring to themselves as from another part, but do you not agree that there is an underlying or implied assumption that you all mean you belong to the one country? New Yorkers and Hawaiins are all Americans, no matter what they call themselves. Londoners and Liverpudlians are all English no matter what you call yourselves. All of you acknowledge you are of the one country, despite the difference in technical names.

But when people call themselves Hongkongers or Taiwanese or Chinese, there is no longer the underlying assumption that all these people are still one national - Chinese - but the underlying and erroneous assumption of three different countries. Hongkongers see themselves as HONGKONGERS only, Taiwanese see themselves as TAIWANESE only. Only the mainland Chinese, Beijing ren and Shanghainese see themselves as Chinese. And that is what I objected to - and still object to - when I raised this point. It is the disunity - one country, but so many different people who do not acknowledge their basic roots. Why should we encourage this disunity? The phrase "united we stand, divided we beg" stands true here. Who are we to question it?

9. THE QUESTION OF WAR

Finally, the looming question of outbreak of war. The general tide of emotion in this thread, and as ^JB^ and Michael_S pointed out respectively - in mainland China and Taiwan - is hope of a peaceful solution and extreme reluctance of the crisis of war. But, as you can see above, Taiwan is too important to China in all respects. China has offered negotitations and talks with Chen only under a "one country, two systems formula" which China rightfully has the power to request and which Chen wrongfully refused, insisting on Taiwan independent sovereignty. Such insistence already has closed up possibility of talks between the two governments and thus forced China into the possibility of war, in the form of the contraversial Anti-Succession Act. Like the USA who had to fight for independence, if Taiwan wishes independence, they either negotiate under the "one country two systems" (which they are) or fight for and win what they believe in.

Michael_S, as for General Zhu's comments, he has confirmed that his views on war are his own personal views, and not those of the governments. If you want a response, seek him out.

10. CONCLUSION AND CURRENT SITUATIONS:

In summary to my long contribution, I now answer the question some posters have put forward: what arguments can be presented to justify China's stance they should have a mandate to invade Taiwan? Really the question should be can Taiwan establish the onus upon them to prove their right to independence, but answering the first question:

- if DPP and President Chen continue their current policy
- all of the above.

For Taiwan to be formally recognised as China's is not the push of the CCP. It is the Chinese people's wish. As Madame Fu Ying said: "The Chinese people cannot accept and tolerate [Taiwan independence]. It's like we have inherited a house from our ancestors together, and we are brothers. We may dislike each other. We may fight. We may close doors to each other, but we cannot tear down the roof. We have to keep what we have inherited from our ancestors."

Well, that's quite a bit of writing. I've been wondering where to start given that it will take a great deal of time to address all the inaccuracies , partially submitted facts and insubstantial conclusions. I guess lets start at the beginning , your selective overview of history.

1. GENERAL HISTORY

I think we can say there was quite a bit of history before 1894 . We see no mention of the Dutch, I presumed from this point (Line one) on although presented as an unbiased factual account, I would be reading only the tailored facts that you determined would further your argument.

In fact The island's modern history goes back to around 1590, when the first Western ship passed by the island, and Jan Huygen van Linschoten, a Dutch navigator on a Portuguese ship, exclaimed "Ilha Formosa" (meaning "Beautiful island"), which became its name for the next four centuries.

During that time the new Manchu emperors were not eager to extend their rule over the island. They were "inland" people with little knowledge of the offshore islands and even less skill at naval warfare. In fact should be noted that in the 1870's Taiwanese pirates captured American, Japanese and French ships passing the island, these governments protested to Peking, but the Manchu emperor said: "Taiwan is beyond our territory."

In fact the first claim to Taiwan from China came in 1887, when the Manchu Imperial authorities decided to declare Taiwan to be a "province" of their Empire: they wanted to outmaneuver the Japanese, who were expanding their influence to the South.

An interesting point by the way is that in 1930's At that time the Chinese Communists under Mao Tse-tung were vying for control over China with Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists. In an interview with American reporter Edgar Snow, Chairman Mao said: "...we will extend them (the Koreans) our enthusiastic help in their struggle for independence. The same thing applies for Taiwan" (p. 110 in Red Star over China, by Edgar Snow).


And you may note from your own post (your start of history) that less than 10 year later the Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed ceding Taiwan to Japan. What you fail to say or make note of is that this was signed in perpetuity , which was quite different to Hong Kong's new Territories lease for 99 years (perpetuity means forever).



Actually, no. In 1951-52 the Allied Powers and Japan formally concluded World War II by concluding the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The formal result of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is thus that the people of Taiwan should determine the future status of the island based on the principle of self-determination. This Treaty is thus the first, and the last, international treaty of the 20th Century which deals with the status of Taiwan.

In conclusion up to this point is thus that Taiwan was an occupied part of Imperial China for only eight years. Not "always", as the KMT and the Chinese Communists are claiming. (As a note to any other readers brave enough to be following, KMT is the correct reference for the Kuomintang, not GMT , GMT being better suited used for Greenwich Mean Time)


Ok I'll leave the History lesson for now, so I can get a chance to answer at least a few other classic posts before this one no doubt will need further clarification.

OK. This is YOUR argument and YOUR claim which I respect. I have never at any point in this thread denied YOUR right to make a claim, but would like to discuss based on the facts alone.



You may be refering to a breif period during WWII in 1943, when the Allied Powers held the Cairo Conference, and on one sleepy afternoon in the hot Cairo sun, they decided to agree with Chiang Kai-shek's request that Taiwan be "returned to (Nationalist) China." This text found its way into the Cairo Declaration, but of course occurred without any presence or agreement of representatives of the Taiwanese people.When the War actually ended in 1945, the Allied powers agreed that Chiang's troops would "temporarily occupy Taiwan, on behalf of the Allied forces."

In 1949, Chiang Kai-shek lost the war on the mainland, and fled to Taiwan, where he established the remainder of his regime. For the next four decades, the people of Taiwan lived under Martial Law, while the KMT attempted to maintain the fantasy that they ruled all of China, and would some day "recover" the mainland. The Chinese mainlanders who came over with Chiang Kai-shek constituted only 15 percent of the population of the island, but were able to maintain themselves in a position of power over the 85 percent native Taiwanese through tight control of the political system, police, military, educational system and media.




Err no. If we were to define "legitimate government" as the ones who collect taxes, make laws and overall govern. Then Taiwan already has its own "legitimate government" in the DPP, and this whole thread is moot. The other definition being international recognition, in which case China became a part of the UN in 1971. Sorry , you can't have it both ways. (As an interstering side, because China had no representation in the UN until 1971, much like Taiwan today. Following your argument prior to 1971 the government of China was not a legitimate one, would you agree?)

However does resolution 2758 say anything about Taiwan's status or Taiwan's representation ? Not at all. Resolution 2758 dealt only with the question who was representing China in the United Nations, not with the question of Taiwan's representation, which was and is a separate issue, to be dealt with as a follow up on the decisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951-52.

What does the communiqué say, and what does it mean ? In the 1972 communiqué the US "acknowledged" the Chinese position that there is but one China, and that Taiwan is part of China. Does this wording mean that the US, and other nations using similar wording, "agree" with the Chinese position ? Of course not. It merely states that these nations took note of the Chinese position, but did not give their own position on the matter. "Acknowledge" means simply "taking note of" but not necessarily "agreeing" with someones position.

In any case, these communiqué's between the United States and China are of little relevance to Taiwan. Firstly, they were simply statements at the end of a meeting, and were not ratified, either by the US Congress or by the international community, and thus do not have the weight of a Treaty. Secondly, most importantly, they were made without any involvement or representation of the people of Taiwan, and can thus not have any validity in determining the future of the island.



Again of no importance even if one were to accept the analogy since neither the Communists or the KMT would be able to satisfy the conditions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

It seems we go from 2. FIRST ARGUMENT to 4. THE ARGUMENTS
, normally point 3 would follow point 2 , you know 1,2,3 and so on. Anyway 4. the arguments only state a few reasons for why Taiwan should be independent which I agree with and you will aim to put forth claims to refute, so lets move on to .

5. TAIWAN IS OF DEFACTO COUNTRY STATUS.


Well, since I have gone over the points to explain why Taiwan is not an island of China I won't recap in this post, but only state even if at any time in history there was a claim signing the Treaty of Shimonoseki 1895 in perpetuity renounced thier right to Taiwan for all time. Meaning The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 stating people of Taiwan should determine the future status of the island based on the principle of self-determination is the only treaty signed in the 20th century regarding Taiwan and the one which should be now followed.

The CCP has never controlled or goverened the island of Taiwan is just fact plain and simple.



And I am not disputing , but stating that the facts presented by you were incomplete and thus twisted to fit your argument. My previous two posts have also contained historical facts you neglected to mention and no the above arguments are far from being rendered incompetent.



Now this is nonsense plain and simple. According to your own post a sentence before you had said,



So you seem to have forgotton that the Chinese government has not "always" existed over the island in the space of a sentence or two. Besides as pointed out in the response to your history Taiwan was an occupied part of Imperial China for only eight years. Thats it!!!



Again to state the two important omited and incorrectly stated facts were the Shimonseki Treaty was signed in perpetuity. And that it was not handed back to China (see earlier post response to general histroy).



And you may submit, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny as was explained in my response to your first argument.



Actaully if we want to talk semantics, the member of the UN and representitive of the legitimate government of China was that of Taiwan based KMT , not until 1971 was China's government able to replace the Taiwan based government . Ironically, it was the KMT that helped form the UN not the CCP.

This answer will continue in point 5 cont...

removed by Michael, multiple post

I find it interesting that so many "democratic" countries (mine included) refuse to recognise Taiwan as a country. It's mainly economics that permits this hypocracy to continue.