TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Taiwan's Independence

Go To

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#251: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:02:36 PM

See, it seems to me that your argument is flawed. You're saying this attitude is happening because the country we're talking about isn't western. And I'm saying you're right, in that all the countries I think you're counting as Western are more or less democratic.

edited 7th Apr '12 9:03:10 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
blueflame724 Since: May, 2010
#252: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:02:45 PM

[up][up] Well, I think the question of unification is silly as well. And it's not as simple as KMT supports unification, DPP supports independence. Many KMT members support independence, and Ma was supported by many Taiwanese businessman. Pardon the pun, but they didn't want to change horse in midstream.

And we shouldn't be using the US government to represent our views here. There are many different priorities motivating them as well.

I'll just be honest here; I'll never really understand the arguments for unification. Closer relations fine, but not unification.

edited 7th Apr '12 9:03:00 PM by blueflame724

I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#253: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:09:54 PM

Well, I can't see unification happening at the moment, just as I'm not seeing China going to suddenly go democratic tomorrow.

What I can see, however, is unification as one of the many incentives for China to improve.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#254: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:14:42 PM

@ Ultrayellow

What I was trying to point out was a difference in opinion based on the allegiance of a country, not of its government structure. I don't think Balkanisation should be based on the level of democracy of a country. That is a poor way of making decisions and is likely only to get a lot of people killed over nothing (and certainly does not promote further democracy). What comes to mind here is Georgia, where we backed their military and their government, despite the obvious lack of democracy in the area.

I'm with Ira, unification is a big factor in promoting democracy, not the other way around.

abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#255: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:17:46 PM

I read Ira's comment as "In order to allow the possibility of unification, China will have to make reforms to make that wish come true." Meaning, nothing of sort happens until Taiwan knows China is in the clear.

Now using Trivialis handle.
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#256: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:21:48 PM

[up] Yup. And it is like a prize that China can have when she makes reforms. "You can have Taiwan when you're a democracy! Don't you want it? Delicious delicious Taiwan." tongue

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#257: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:22:03 PM

Well it's not like I was ever suggesting China take Taiwan by force. I had put out the idea of a fifty year long plan of unification, whereby the governments normalise laws between one another as they move forward. Both face issues with democratising their country, they should do it together.

IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#258: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:24:49 PM

Well, got to admit Taiwan did a better job at it than China at the moment.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#259: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:24:59 PM

But doesn't China rate way lower? So maybe China should catch up to Taiwan before they become more democratic together.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#260: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:34:30 PM

Certainly, I wouldn't want to suggest that China not be just as democratic, but they don't have to be equal. You only need China to be democratic enough that Taiwan gets a SAR that is respected like Macao and Hong Kong. Afterall, if big China is willing to let totally defenceless pieces of land do their own thing, I should think that a massive not-invadeable place like Taiwan can get a SAR.


Maybe I should just restate my point so everyone knows where I stand.

The argument for independence is that Taiwan can then be democratic.

My argument is that independence, de-facto or official, is a flashpoint for war and that if there is not progress toward unity, it will lead to a decrease in democracy or the stagnation of progress of it. Due to the history, ethnicity and proximity of the lands, I don't think it feasible that they could really maintain close relations without thinking that they used to be one country.

So I think slow democratisation as a route to unification is the best deal and most stable. I don't think that trying to gain independence to gain something that can be gained through unification as well is a strong enough argument, given that it's less likely to spur democracy.

edited 7th Apr '12 9:37:40 PM by breadloaf

abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#261: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:36:35 PM

No, I think China really should prove itself by catching up all the way. It's up to the Taiwan people to decide and determine whether they want to give up their rights and citizenship.

Now using Trivialis handle.
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#262: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:39:21 PM

First off, I'd like to say that I'm opposed to all nationalism, not just Chinese nationalism.

Second, let me clarify my last post. Cassie said "unless China is an agressor, let none of its lands get taken by underhanded means". Well, during the Chinese Civil War, the Communist Party was the agressor, and it ended up seizing most of China's lands (not sure whether you'd call it "underhanded", but it wasn't done through legal channels at any rate). Given that, shouldn't Cassie regard the PRC has an illegitimate government and want the government it overthrew to take back its ancestral lands?

For the record, I do not support the Republic of China taking back the mainland. I'm just pointing out that it's hypocritical to say overthrowing the PRC's control is automatically wrong when the PRC itself only came into being by overthrowing the previous government.

Third, just as I don't support the ROC taking back the mainland, I don't support the PRC taking Taiwan. The two regions have been operating independently for over 60 years now; the phrase "water under the bridge" comes to mind. Do you also feel that Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, and all the other former Soviet states should go back to being one country? Or what about America? Do you think the United States government should be overthrown and control given back to the aboriginal tribes? Or maybe you'd like to see Europe, the Middle East, and northern Africa go back to being Italian territories, like they were during the Roman Empire?

Now, if the people of Taiwan chose to unify with China, that'd be a different matter. But as long as public sentiment in Taiwan is against unification, then they shouldn't be forced into it.

And I still don't get why declaring independence would supposedly start a war. Taiwan's already independent in everything but name; is China really going to go to war for the sake of a name?

edited 7th Apr '12 9:44:47 PM by RavenWilder

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#263: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:51:01 PM

Well I mean, war may or may not happen but hostility and rampant militarism WILL happen.

If Georgia is willing to attack Russia, it wouldn't surprise me for there to be conflict over in Taiwan over the long-term if they try to establish greater and greater independence.

But of course any number of wild things could occur in the next 50 years that dynamically shifts the regional politics. It's difficult for me to say what China might do to encourage unification but while I like soft friendly tactics like democratisation, it's just as likely that China starves Taiwan economically unless they accept unity.

IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#264: Apr 7th 2012 at 9:51:46 PM

The two regions have been operating independently for over 60 years now; the phrase "water under the bridge" comes to mind. Do you also feel that Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, and all the other former Soviet states should go back to being one country? Or what about America? Do you think the United States government should be overthrown and control given back to the aboriginal tribes? Or maybe you'd like to see Europe, the Middle East, and northern Africa go back to being Italian territories, like they were during the Roman Empire?

The comparisons are only valid if those countries are talking about doing the things that you're talking about. Taiwan and China are currently talking about how to solve their problems.

Now, if the people of Taiwan chose to unify with China, that'd be a different matter. But as long as public sentiment in Taiwan is against unification, then they shouldn't be forced into it.

No one here is saying that they should be unified, right now, regardless of what the people think. What we're saying is that the possibility of unification acts as an incentive for democracy in China.

And I still don't get why declaring independence would supposedly start a war. Taiwan's already independent in everything but name; is China really going to go to war for the sake of a name.

Holy crap BIG YES. China doesn't want other regions to get ideas.

edited 7th Apr '12 9:57:14 PM by IraTheSquire

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#265: Apr 7th 2012 at 10:31:31 PM

How would it give other regions ideas? Taiwan's already independent from China in every way that counts, and the rest of the world knows this; what difference does referring to it as independent in official paperwork make?

abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#266: Apr 7th 2012 at 10:44:56 PM

Official paperwork does say that China "would" act in intervention if Taiwan becomes fully disjoint.

Now using Trivialis handle.
GhostStalker from NYC Since: Nov, 2010
#267: Apr 7th 2012 at 11:02:52 PM

And I still don't get why declaring independence would supposedly start a war. Taiwan's already independent in everything but name; is China really going to go to war for the sake of a name?

There's a difference between de facto independence and de jure independence. Taiwan may be de facto independent, but in the international community, including the US and the UN, it has no standing ever since the UN handed the Chinese Security Council seat over to the PRC in the 70s. It's the reason that Taiwan cannot represent itself as Taiwan or the Republic of China in any international sporting event, needing to refer to itself as Chinese Taipei instead. Taiwan declaring de jure independence would be a breach of the PRC's One China policy, and cause an absolute shitstorm in Beijing. War most certainly would be declared. Now, the US has a defense treaty with Taiwan, so that would drag them into the conflict, whether they like it or not.

China holds Taiwan to be a breakaway province of China as a whole, where the Nationalists ran to after losing the Civil War in the late 40s. They want to eventually reclaim the area, and peaceful reconciliation seems like the best course of action right now, especially taking into account the American defense treaty with Taiwan. There's also the fact that Taiwan is currently a minor cash cow for China, as Taiwanese industrialists and businessmen invest in the mainland and China is able to sell a large number of goods there. If war were declared, China would also lose access to its largest market for its goods, the US, as they would be dragged into the war as well. Militarily reclaiming Taiwan is not an option, especially with the state the world economy (not to mention China's) is at right now, and Taiwan would not attempt to try anything by declaring independence either. The stakes would be way too high, too many negatives and not enough positives.

As for why China wants to reclaim Taiwan, they have a big thing about not allowing territories to break away if they can help it. Part of it is because of the whole "Century of Humiliation" mindset they developed around the latter years of the Qing up to the establishment of the PRC. China was kicked around by foreign powers through the Opium War, the Unequal Treaties era, the Taipings, the Boxer Rebellion, the Sino-Japanese Wars, the Warlord Eras, World War II, and the Chinese Civil War, and all that combined to greatly impact the PRC leadership's mindset, having them focus on strengthening their country so no foreign powers could ever kick them around again. They also lay claim to all areas of China that were formerly part of "Greater China" according to the former dynasties as a result of this mindset. These areas include Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Taiwan. Also, to be fair, the political entity known as East Turkestan is effectively a state made up only to justify the independence of Xinjiang, which I find to be incredibly dubious.

There's also practical reasons for not giving up these territories. The immense mineral wealth in Xinjiang is one, including the abundance of rare earth metals in the region. Also, Tibet is the origin of most of Southern China's river systems. With water rights being a pretty big future flashpoint, according to many political scientists and historians, especially since Northern China is drying out and the PRC is undertaking massive water diversion projects from the south in order to help keep the area hydrated, no sane government is going to give that up without a fight.

That being said, I mostly agree with the Dalai Lama trying to get more autonomy for Tibet, while still under the auspices of the PRC. I don't agree with the people who want an independent Tibet, and I don't agree with the PRC labeling the Dalai Lama a subversive revolutionary. For one, the Lama has given up temporal power, stating that he does not want to be head of any proposed Tibetan theocracy, devolving power to an elected official instead. He remains the spiritual head of the movement and the Tibetan Buddhists, but that's it. You have to remember that Tibet was an oppressive Buddhist theocracy before China rolled in during the 50s, and it was the dispossessed Tibetan aristocracy that attempted the revolution in the 70s that led to the Dalai Lama fleeing to India. I would not wish to see a return to that kind of governance.

That is not to say that the PRC is doing everything right, though. Kidnapping Lamas and installing their own handpicked one as the latest reincarnation of the Panchen Lama? That's kinda shady right there. Flooding the outer "autonomous regions" with Han Chinese via incentives is kinda shady as well, effectively performing cultural genocide there against the native populations, or at least marginalizing them. There's also the problem that there's a significant Tibetan population in China outside of Tibet proper, in areas of Sichuan Province and other areas. Its here that the latest news of Tibetan self-immolations come from. If anything is to be done peacefully, there has to be significant give and take between the two sides, and I'm pretty sure the PRC isn't really all that interested in negotiating at the moment.

Full disclosure, I am an American born Chinese, with family still living in China and Hong Kong. I may have picked up some of my opinions from my family, but I also had amazing college professors for Chinese political science and Chinese history, and I like to read a lot, so I'd figure myself informed enough to have an effective opinion on this subject. Sorry about the wall of text.

edited 7th Apr '12 11:03:07 PM by GhostStalker

When you kill one, it is a tragedy. But when you kill ten million, it is merely a statistic. -Josef Stalin
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#268: Apr 8th 2012 at 12:41:49 AM

How would it give other regions ideas? Taiwan's already independent from China in every way that counts, and the rest of the world knows this; what difference does referring to it as independent in official paperwork make?

Matters not. As long as China sees it that way she will go to war. Whether that really is the case in reality does not matter.

As for why China wants to reclaim Taiwan, they have a big thing about not allowing territories to break away if they can help it. Part of it is because of the whole "Century of Humiliation" mindset they developed around the latter years of the Qing up to the establishment of the PRC. China was kicked around by foreign powers through the Opium War, the Unequal Treaties era, the Taipings, the Boxer Rebellion, the Sino-Japanese Wars, the Warlord Eras, World War II, and the Chinese Civil War, and all that combined to greatly impact the PRC leadership's mindset, having them focus on strengthening their country so no foreign powers could ever kick them around again. They also lay claim to all areas of China that were formerly part of "Greater China" according to the former dynasties as a result of this mindset. These areas include Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Taiwan.

Haven't thought of it that way. Though I'm curious as to what about the territories that was given to Russia (north of Manchuria to the sea) and Mongolia herself, since both were part of the Qing Empire.

There's also practical reasons for not giving up these territories. The immense mineral wealth in Xinjiang is one, including the abundance of rare earth metals in the region. Also, Tibet is the origin of most of Southern China's river systems. With water rights being a pretty big future flashpoint, according to many political scientists and historians, especially since Northern China is drying out and the PRC is undertaking massive water diversion projects from the south in order to help keep the area hydrated, no sane government is going to give that up without a fight.

Interesting. I always thought that Tibet and the mountainous ranges around are just militarily important to China (no sane country would want a foreign power right next door with such defensive land).

That being said, I mostly agree with the Dalai Lama trying to get more autonomy for Tibet, while still under the auspices of the PRC. I don't agree with the people who want an independent Tibet, and I don't agree with the PRC labeling the Dalai Lama a subversive revolutionary. For one, the Lama has given up temporal power, stating that he does not want to be head of any proposed Tibetan theocracy, devolving power to an elected official instead. He remains the spiritual head of the movement and the Tibetan Buddhists, but that's it. You have to remember that Tibet was an oppressive Buddhist theocracy before China rolled in during the 50s, and it was the dispossessed Tibetan aristocracy that attempted the revolution in the 70s that led to the Dalai Lama fleeing to India. I would not wish to see a return to that kind of governance.

That is not to say that the PRC is doing everything right, though. Kidnapping Lamas and installing their own handpicked one as the latest reincarnation of the Panchen Lama? That's kinda shady right there. Flooding the outer "autonomous regions" with Han Chinese via incentives is kinda shady as well, effectively performing cultural genocide there against the native populations, or at least marginalizing them. There's also the problem that there's a significant Tibetan population in China outside of Tibet proper, in areas of Sichuan Province and other areas. Its here that the latest news of Tibetan self-immolations come from. If anything is to be done peacefully, there has to be significant give and take between the two sides, and I'm pretty sure the PRC isn't really all that interested in negotiating at the moment.

See, this is where I get frustrated about the Communist Party. Why can't they just sit down and talk with the Dalai Lama?

edited 8th Apr '12 1:13:27 AM by IraTheSquire

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#269: Apr 8th 2012 at 2:28:58 AM

There's a difference between de facto independence and de jure independence. Taiwan may be de facto independent, but in the international community, including the US and the UN, it has no standing ever since the UN handed the Chinese Security Council seat over to the PRC in the 70s. It's the reason that Taiwan cannot represent itself as Taiwan or the Republic of China in any international sporting event, needing to refer to itself as Chinese Taipei instead.

Taiwan has no official standing in the international community, but other countries do plenty of business with them anyway; they just deny doing so on official records to placate China.

Really, this whole thing seems so . . . petty. While China may not like Taiwan's independence, they've shown that they're willing to accept it as a working arrangement, and have done so for the past 60 years. If they reverse that policy just because Taiwan officially declares itself independent, then that means they're willing to kills thousands, maybe millions of people just to protect their own image. It's "style over substance" taken Beyond the Impossible. Even World War I was fought for less idiotic reasons.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#270: Apr 8th 2012 at 2:34:48 AM

Well there's no sane reason to sit down and talk with Dalai Lama. He represents a group of people that were never good to Tibet, so why would they ever bother? As far as any Chinese are concerned, he's not a good person to do anything with. They should sit down and talk with Tibetan communities, not a religious faction living in exile.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#271: Apr 8th 2012 at 2:51:47 AM

See, I don't get that attitude, either. Countries should be willing to have diplomatic talks with anyone. I know China's far from the only country that does this; it seems like every country in the world has their own diplomatic blacklist, and I think they're all stupid for doing so. If you have major disagreements with someone and resent the amount of power they wield, that's all the more reason to sit down and talk with them; otherwise how can relations ever get better?

Cassie The armored raven from Malaysia, but where? Since: Feb, 2011
The armored raven
#272: Apr 8th 2012 at 3:03:49 AM

[up] The world isn't an easy place, and certainly not human relationship. And about the treatment towards Taiwan being 'style over substance' , I heavily disagree : this whole mess was stemmed from which kind of governing system is to be placed on both mainland China and island Taiwan. The civil war was a way to determine that, and it ended up in failure. Right now the current method is the best method : to leave the island in democratic autonomy

Taiwan and China together in one map and representation is still the best way of living together, and it isn't the first time it has happened. Long time ago, before there was Vietnam, it was called Dali. Instead of colonization, China sought allied development. It was through mutual benefiting prospects policies that other countries around China moved together in peace. It wasn't until the Western navy came that everything became screwed up, but this debate will have to be stopped here lest this thread be derailed

And what's so bad about how things are going now? Taiwan is a province with most privilleges of a country, but that's all it is : an island province. You don't get to decide what's a complete China and what's a suitable Taiwan : it's something that has to be answered in the future. Instead of being opposing factions, the mainland and the island is being opposite neighbours, and what's the problem in that?

[up][up]You also forgot to mention that Dalai Lama is also just a perpetuative cog that poses to continuate the power grip over Tibet in a religious way. And like you said, it's far from what Tibet needs, environmentally, economically or politically

And in the same respect, China engaged in a plan to pour billions into forestization of Xinjiang : a plan that's mutually beneficial to locals and the coastal cities (I need not remind you the losses caused by sandstorms that went from there). What did China get in return? Uyghur riots. Classy

edited 8th Apr '12 3:08:48 AM by Cassie

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#273: Apr 8th 2012 at 6:48:11 AM

My point is that declaring Taiwan independent wouldn't change the way things are now; it's acknowledging the way things are now. Fact of the matter is, Taiwan is an independent country, with its own government that doesn't obey, listen to, or derive authority from the one in the mainland. That makes it independent, regardless of what official documents say. And I just find it ludicrous that admitting something everyone knows to be true is supposedly enough to start World War III.

Look, if the people in both countries can come to a reunifcation agreement that they're satisfied with, then that's great. I despise political division. But first they've gotta stop all this posturing and accept reality.

edited 8th Apr '12 6:48:59 AM by RavenWilder

Cassie The armored raven from Malaysia, but where? Since: Feb, 2011
The armored raven
#274: Apr 8th 2012 at 7:37:45 AM

[up]But you just don't want to accept the fact that Taiwan's democracy is like other developed nations out there : it runs on a system only inspired by voting, but not actually democratic. Worse, should Taiwan be independant right now, it would quickly fall under American control, a fact repeatedly theorized and plausible in effect. War with Taiwan will take place shortly after that, China against America-controlled Taiwan

The debate in this thread wouldn't have lasted as long if it weren't for Taiwan authorities repeatedly BUYING American firepower, repeatedly violating Central Government's charters about this. Strings are being pulled for Taiwan to give in to such deals, otherwise Taiwan would've opted for buying China-made firepower instead

Being blunt here: For the last time, Taiwan is NOT a country. Never was, never will be. It might be but it will be caught in flames of war

edited 8th Apr '12 7:38:52 AM by Cassie

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...
blueflame724 Since: May, 2010
#275: Apr 8th 2012 at 7:46:39 AM

[up] Seriously, who are you(or maybe more accurately, we) to say what is beneficial for Xinjiang? And I don't see any benefit to just ignoring the Dalai Lama either.

EDIT: Taiwan will never be country? That's a bold claim to make.

edited 8th Apr '12 7:47:56 AM by blueflame724

I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things

Total posts: 1,170
Top