6 ms·

An important bit of context to this comment is that the official name of Taiwan is "the Republic of China", as opposed to "The People's Republic of China". Acco

by robjan 8y ago

An important bit of context to this comment is that the official name of Taiwan is "the Republic of China", as opposed to "The People's Republic of China". According to international treaties there can only be one China. The nationalist party claims that the Taiwanese government is the government of all of China and is not, as the comment may seem to suggest, "pro China"

koube 8y ago
I want to clear up some terminology here. The revolution was between the Communist party and Nationalist party. The Nationalist party, the Kuomintang, has it's roots in China, consider themselves Chinese, and consider themselves the true government of China as they were in the past. They only claim this officially. Of course people in reality know that they don't actually have any control of China and have zero chance of regaining it in the future. Typically they are descendants mainland Chinese. This is the blue party. In an extreme simplification, they can thought of as the republican party. Usually older people, more conservative, more friendly to China, and consider themselves more Chinese. (Extreme extreme oversimplification.) There is also the Green party, which grew in opposition to the kuomintang. They were not as involved in the revolution and I think they care even less about sovereignty over China than the blue party, who as I mentioned, already care very little about it. The green party members are typically descendants of families that were in Taiwan before the revolution. In an extreme simplification, they can be thought of as the democratic party. Usually younger people, more liberal, less friendly to China, and consider themselves more Taiwanese. (Extreme extreme oversimplification.) I don't have enough knowledge to elaborate past the very very basics but I thought I would clear up some of the differences, and point out that both parties care little about sovereignty over China. Also, the grandparent comment I think made a good distinction by specifying "taiwanese nationalist" and "chinese nationalist", removing ambiguity about what the "nation" in "nationalist" refers to. The capital-n Nationalist party does claim sovereignty over China, but only in an official capacity and they are indeed more pro-China.
- ykhorizon 8y ago
  If someone needs more history background, you can check out this article https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34729538 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34729538
- eric-hu 8y ago
  I'm not an expert on the subject either, but I believe they Taiwanese government is in a stalemate with China over Taiwan's "Republic of China" title. Taiwan can't get it's own seat as a country in the UN because of the "China" in its title. On the other hand, any attempt to remove China from its title would provoke China. China would see it as a gesture towards independence and sovereignty. Some fear China would react with hostility in that case. Some anti-independence Taiwanese see it as the best way to keep the peace.
  - garmaine 8y ago
    Taiwan had its own seat as a country in the UN. They were a founding member and had a permanent seat on the security council. The UN has just adopted the "one china" policy and recognized the PRC victory in the Chinese civil war as legitimate. The UN is wholly recognizing the PRC's claims here. In fact, Taiwan tried to (re-)join the UN in 2007 under the name of "Taiwan", dropping the "Republic of China" bit entirely. No dice. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
    - CogitoCogito 8y ago
      Honestly, what are you talking about? At which point has the UN accepted the PRC's claims to Taiwan or the PRC victory? There hasn't even been a peace treaty signed so how could that be possible anyway. Without knowing all the UN's history, I 100% totally don't believe that the UN has recognized the PRC's claims, simply since the US itself hasn't actually accepted those claims and the US is on the security counsel (thereby capable of blocking such a motion). Both the PRC and the ROC would have long ago been seated in the UN if there never were a position for "China" on the security counsel. That position allowed the ROC to block the PRC's seat in the UN when it represented "China" and it then allowed the PRC to block the ROC's seat later when it represented "China". The reason that the representation for "China" was switched to the PRC from the ROC was because that step was possible procedurally within the UN's rules even though the ROC was against it. In other words, due to a procedural quirk the ROC could keep the PRC from being seated as a separate country, but couldn't keep its own representation from being switched. After that point the PRC could play the same games. If there were no seat for "China" on the security counsel or if the rules were different or simply if the ROC would have allowed it at the time, both the ROC and the PRC would have seats in the UN. But none of this means that the UN accepts the PRC's claims to Taiwan. edit: The downvoting is a bit disturbing. I'm quite honestly curious if there is anything factually wrong with what I've written. My suspicion is that these facts do not match the false assumptions of some HN readers and that they'd rather hide it away instead of confronting it directly.
CogitoCogito 8y ago
> According to international treaties there can only be one China. This statement is a little odd. Both the PRC and the ROC refuse to have diplomatic relations with any government that has diplomatic relations with the other. (A policy started by the ROC by the way, but now clearly is pushed more strongly by the PRC.) However, there is no legal reason why a country couldn't have relations with both the PRC and the ROC. They are simply two different countries with a border dispute. The fact that both their official names have China in them is entirely irrelevant. But yes it's good for people to keep in mind that the PRC is usually colloquially referred to as China and the ROC is usually referred to colloquially as Taiwan (often to the consternation of ROC citizens in other ROC-controlled islands like Kinmen). Keeping in mind that these are two different countries makes statements made by their respective governments easier to understand.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Well, no. Every single international body has always recognized one China, referred to as China. The UN, the WTO, the Olympic Committee, etc. wouldn't be caught dead referring to the ROC by its legal preferred name. It's why we have fictions like "Chinese Taipei." Taiwan would probably does not care about its Qing-era claims one way or another; the only reason the status quo is maintained by both parties is that it allows the PRC to ignore what is de facto a breakaway independent province. Being okay with Taiwan existing as just Taiwan is a slippery slope that could potentially lead to Catalan-style separatism not only in Tibet and Xinjiang, but in strong regional centers of power like Guangdong and the Shanghai area.
  - CogitoCogito 8y ago
    > Well, no. Every single international body has always recognized one China, referred to as China. The UN, the WTO, the Olympic Committee, etc. wouldn't be caught dead referring to the ROC by its legal preferred name. It's why we have fictions like "Chinese Taipei." > Taiwan would probably does not care about its Qing-era claims one way or another; the only reason the status quo is maintained by both parties is that it allows the PRC to ignore what is de facto a breakaway independent province. Being okay with Taiwan existing as just Taiwan is a slippery slope that could potentially lead to Catalan-style separatism not only in Tibet and Xinjiang, but in strong regional centers of power like Guangdong and the Shanghai area. You start by writing "Well, no", but literally nothing in your reply contradicts anything in mine.
garmaine 8y ago
It's more complex than that. This is 2018 not 1949, and the nationalist party in Taiwan is the pro-friendly-relations-with-the-PRC party, as historically ironic as that is. A big instigator of the Sunflower Movement was free trade and market integration treaties the nationalist government was making with the PRC, which got them thrown out of power.
dixie_land 8y ago
There is only one "China" but two governments at a civil war. The Chinese civil war never ended since there was no treaty or truce signed, and neither party is able to assume complete control over the territory. Also an interesting anecdote: the ROC claim of the Chinese territory also includes the country of Mongolia since it was allowed independence by the communist party to appease the Soviets.
- taobility 8y ago
  >and neither party is able to assume complete control over the territory. Do you believe PRC doesn't have enough military force to conquer Taiwan right now?
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    There's a difference between raw firepower and political, economic, social, etc. realities that complicate a military campaign.
    - taobility 8y ago
      like when Russia invaded Crimea and how the rest world responded?
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        I thought that Crimea might be brought up. In lieu of a full strategic assessment, which others are better qualified to deliver, I’ll spare you a longer response in favor of some quick points: 1. Unlike with Ukraine and Russia, Taiwan is not connected to China by land. Amphibious invasions are by default incredibly hard to pull off. China’s blue water fleet might not be up to the task yet. At least, not without sustaining a large amount of casualties over a period of time, which could lead to negative public opinion back at home and sapping the war effort- a non-military, political dimension as I mentioned. 2. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan’s political system is much more stable. The sort of widely-disputed election that led to the Euromaidan protests and the conflict does not seem to take place in Taiwan. The post-1949 waishengren are not analogous to the Donbass separatists; the PLAN can’t just sneak arms to them and expect them to rise up against the Taiwanese government. Like South Korea, Taiwan has a democracy that is prone to activism and demonstration, but is fundamentally viewed as legitimate. 3. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is more economically developed country. Among the many effects of that anything that affects it will have a larger affect on world markets than what happened to Ukraine. Of course, China is also much more tightly integrated into the global economy than Russia is, so it’s anyone’s guess as to if anyone will bother to sanction a militarily aggressive China. 4. Regardless of the current administration’s ambivalence towards its allies, the U.S. has had long-standing defensive commitments to protect Taiwan. The U.S. Seventh Fleet is right there. I’m not saying that China couldn’t wage an aggressive war against Taiwan, nor that they couldn’t win. I’m just saying that it’s a much more complicated situation- indeed, an unprecedented situation- that all us armchair speculators and latter-day Tom Clancy’s cannot foresee.

by robjan 8y ago

koube 8y ago

I want to clear up some terminology here. The revolution was between the Communist party and Nationalist party. The Nationalist party, the Kuomintang, has it's roots in China, consider themselves Chinese, and consider themselves the true government of China as they were in the past. They only claim this officially. Of course people in reality know that they don't actually have any control of China and have zero chance of regaining it in the future. Typically they are descendants mainland Chinese. This is the blue party. In an extreme simplification, they can thought of as the republican party. Usually older people, more conservative, more friendly to China, and consider themselves more Chinese. (Extreme extreme oversimplification.) There is also the Green party, which grew in opposition to the kuomintang. They were not as involved in the revolution and I think they care even less about sovereignty over China than the blue party, who as I mentioned, already care very little about it. The green party members are typically descendants of families that were in Taiwan before the revolution. In an extreme simplification, they can be thought of as the democratic party. Usually younger people, more liberal, less friendly to China, and consider themselves more Taiwanese. (Extreme extreme oversimplification.) I don't have enough knowledge to elaborate past the very very basics but I thought I would clear up some of the differences, and point out that both parties care little about sovereignty over China. Also, the grandparent comment I think made a good distinction by specifying "taiwanese nationalist" and "chinese nationalist", removing ambiguity about what the "nation" in "nationalist" refers to. The capital-n Nationalist party does claim sovereignty over China, but only in an official capacity and they are indeed more pro-China.

ykhorizon 8y ago
If someone needs more history background, you can check out this article https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34729538 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34729538
eric-hu 8y ago
I'm not an expert on the subject either, but I believe they Taiwanese government is in a stalemate with China over Taiwan's "Republic of China" title. Taiwan can't get it's own seat as a country in the UN because of the "China" in its title. On the other hand, any attempt to remove China from its title would provoke China. China would see it as a gesture towards independence and sovereignty. Some fear China would react with hostility in that case. Some anti-independence Taiwanese see it as the best way to keep the peace.
- garmaine 8y ago
  Taiwan had its own seat as a country in the UN. They were a founding member and had a permanent seat on the security council. The UN has just adopted the "one china" policy and recognized the PRC victory in the Chinese civil war as legitimate. The UN is wholly recognizing the PRC's claims here. In fact, Taiwan tried to (re-)join the UN in 2007 under the name of "Taiwan", dropping the "Republic of China" bit entirely. No dice. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
  - CogitoCogito 8y ago
    Honestly, what are you talking about? At which point has the UN accepted the PRC's claims to Taiwan or the PRC victory? There hasn't even been a peace treaty signed so how could that be possible anyway. Without knowing all the UN's history, I 100% totally don't believe that the UN has recognized the PRC's claims, simply since the US itself hasn't actually accepted those claims and the US is on the security counsel (thereby capable of blocking such a motion). Both the PRC and the ROC would have long ago been seated in the UN if there never were a position for "China" on the security counsel. That position allowed the ROC to block the PRC's seat in the UN when it represented "China" and it then allowed the PRC to block the ROC's seat later when it represented "China". The reason that the representation for "China" was switched to the PRC from the ROC was because that step was possible procedurally within the UN's rules even though the ROC was against it. In other words, due to a procedural quirk the ROC could keep the PRC from being seated as a separate country, but couldn't keep its own representation from being switched. After that point the PRC could play the same games. If there were no seat for "China" on the security counsel or if the rules were different or simply if the ROC would have allowed it at the time, both the ROC and the PRC would have seats in the UN. But none of this means that the UN accepts the PRC's claims to Taiwan. edit: The downvoting is a bit disturbing. I'm quite honestly curious if there is anything factually wrong with what I've written. My suspicion is that these facts do not match the false assumptions of some HN readers and that they'd rather hide it away instead of confronting it directly.

CogitoCogito 8y ago

> According to international treaties there can only be one China. This statement is a little odd. Both the PRC and the ROC refuse to have diplomatic relations with any government that has diplomatic relations with the other. (A policy started by the ROC by the way, but now clearly is pushed more strongly by the PRC.) However, there is no legal reason why a country couldn't have relations with both the PRC and the ROC. They are simply two different countries with a border dispute. The fact that both their official names have China in them is entirely irrelevant. But yes it's good for people to keep in mind that the PRC is usually colloquially referred to as China and the ROC is usually referred to colloquially as Taiwan (often to the consternation of ROC citizens in other ROC-controlled islands like Kinmen). Keeping in mind that these are two different countries makes statements made by their respective governments easier to understand.

bobthepanda 8y ago
Well, no. Every single international body has always recognized one China, referred to as China. The UN, the WTO, the Olympic Committee, etc. wouldn't be caught dead referring to the ROC by its legal preferred name. It's why we have fictions like "Chinese Taipei." Taiwan would probably does not care about its Qing-era claims one way or another; the only reason the status quo is maintained by both parties is that it allows the PRC to ignore what is de facto a breakaway independent province. Being okay with Taiwan existing as just Taiwan is a slippery slope that could potentially lead to Catalan-style separatism not only in Tibet and Xinjiang, but in strong regional centers of power like Guangdong and the Shanghai area.
- CogitoCogito 8y ago
  > Well, no. Every single international body has always recognized one China, referred to as China. The UN, the WTO, the Olympic Committee, etc. wouldn't be caught dead referring to the ROC by its legal preferred name. It's why we have fictions like "Chinese Taipei." > Taiwan would probably does not care about its Qing-era claims one way or another; the only reason the status quo is maintained by both parties is that it allows the PRC to ignore what is de facto a breakaway independent province. Being okay with Taiwan existing as just Taiwan is a slippery slope that could potentially lead to Catalan-style separatism not only in Tibet and Xinjiang, but in strong regional centers of power like Guangdong and the Shanghai area. You start by writing "Well, no", but literally nothing in your reply contradicts anything in mine.

garmaine 8y ago

It's more complex than that. This is 2018 not 1949, and the nationalist party in Taiwan is the pro-friendly-relations-with-the-PRC party, as historically ironic as that is. A big instigator of the Sunflower Movement was free trade and market integration treaties the nationalist government was making with the PRC, which got them thrown out of power.

dixie_land 8y ago

There is only one "China" but two governments at a civil war. The Chinese civil war never ended since there was no treaty or truce signed, and neither party is able to assume complete control over the territory. Also an interesting anecdote: the ROC claim of the Chinese territory also includes the country of Mongolia since it was allowed independence by the communist party to appease the Soviets.

taobility 8y ago
>and neither party is able to assume complete control over the territory. Do you believe PRC doesn't have enough military force to conquer Taiwan right now?
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  There's a difference between raw firepower and political, economic, social, etc. realities that complicate a military campaign.
  - taobility 8y ago
    like when Russia invaded Crimea and how the rest world responded?
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      I thought that Crimea might be brought up. In lieu of a full strategic assessment, which others are better qualified to deliver, I’ll spare you a longer response in favor of some quick points: 1. Unlike with Ukraine and Russia, Taiwan is not connected to China by land. Amphibious invasions are by default incredibly hard to pull off. China’s blue water fleet might not be up to the task yet. At least, not without sustaining a large amount of casualties over a period of time, which could lead to negative public opinion back at home and sapping the war effort- a non-military, political dimension as I mentioned. 2. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan’s political system is much more stable. The sort of widely-disputed election that led to the Euromaidan protests and the conflict does not seem to take place in Taiwan. The post-1949 waishengren are not analogous to the Donbass separatists; the PLAN can’t just sneak arms to them and expect them to rise up against the Taiwanese government. Like South Korea, Taiwan has a democracy that is prone to activism and demonstration, but is fundamentally viewed as legitimate. 3. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is more economically developed country. Among the many effects of that anything that affects it will have a larger affect on world markets than what happened to Ukraine. Of course, China is also much more tightly integrated into the global economy than Russia is, so it’s anyone’s guess as to if anyone will bother to sanction a militarily aggressive China. 4. Regardless of the current administration’s ambivalence towards its allies, the U.S. has had long-standing defensive commitments to protect Taiwan. The U.S. Seventh Fleet is right there. I’m not saying that China couldn’t wage an aggressive war against Taiwan, nor that they couldn’t win. I’m just saying that it’s a much more complicated situation- indeed, an unprecedented situation- that all us armchair speculators and latter-day Tom Clancy’s cannot foresee.