4 ms·

It’s not “dusting off historical documents” it’s official government policy on both sides of the straight that there’s “one China”. One could argue that the on

It’s not “dusting off historical documents” it’s official government policy on both sides of the straight that there’s “one China”. One could argue that the only reason why the ROC hasn’t declared independence is because they’d fear that it would provoke an attack from across the straight, but the reality is that independence is not a cut and dry issue in Taiwan. Take some time to actually educate yourself on the issue before advocating for nuclear war.

ethbr0 6y ago
Taiwan has been Dutch, Han, Qing, Japanese, and ROC. Any appeal to history is nine^H^H^H^Hten dashes of propaganda. > it’s official government policy on both sides of the straight that there’s “one China” That's an oversimplification. The KMT / Pan-Blue believe there's "one China" in the sense that they believe the PRC is an illegitimate government, currently occupying mainland Chinese territory that belongs to the ROC. The DPP / Pan-Green believe there are two Chinas, with Taiwan as an independent entity from the mainland PRC. Their current official position is that this state of affairs already exists, and therefore there is no need to make any declarations or changes from the status quo. So in summary, about one half of Taiwanese political power considers the communist government as illegitimate, and the other half considers Taiwan independent. Which I would guess is fairly different from what the PRC defines "one China" as.
- comte7092 6y ago
  This is the nuance I was calling for. Yes, there are different definitions on both sides of the straight. And while the independence side has gained strength in recent years, the official stance has been that China and Taiwan are a part of one country, however defined, and, to my knowledge, no official government act of the ROC has been promulgated to the contrary. As I stated in my original reply, independence isn’t a cut and dry issue. To assert that these claims are “dusty” historical claims in light of what you’ve written here is disingenuous. Edit: I should add that there is only one government in Taiwan, the ROC. The stances of the individual political parties cannot be taken as synonymous with the stance of the ROC itself. To do so would be as ludicrous to say that there’s no right to an abortion in the United States, because 1 of the two major political parties opposes it. The most that can be said is that both abortion in the US and independence in Taiwan are controversial and delicate political issues within each respective jurisdiction.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    > to my knowledge, no official government act of the ROC has been promulgated to the contrary The 1999 "Resolution on Taiwan's Future," since elevated to DPP party platform, is crystal clear on "two Chinas."
    - comte7092 6y ago
      Party platforms are not official government policy.
      - ethbr0 6y ago
        In representative democracies with regular elections? They kind of are.

ethbr0 6y ago

Taiwan has been Dutch, Han, Qing, Japanese, and ROC. Any appeal to history is nine^H^H^H^Hten dashes of propaganda. > it’s official government policy on both sides of the straight that there’s “one China” That's an oversimplification. The KMT / Pan-Blue believe there's "one China" in the sense that they believe the PRC is an illegitimate government, currently occupying mainland Chinese territory that belongs to the ROC. The DPP / Pan-Green believe there are two Chinas, with Taiwan as an independent entity from the mainland PRC. Their current official position is that this state of affairs already exists, and therefore there is no need to make any declarations or changes from the status quo. So in summary, about one half of Taiwanese political power considers the communist government as illegitimate, and the other half considers Taiwan independent. Which I would guess is fairly different from what the PRC defines "one China" as.

comte7092 6y ago
This is the nuance I was calling for. Yes, there are different definitions on both sides of the straight. And while the independence side has gained strength in recent years, the official stance has been that China and Taiwan are a part of one country, however defined, and, to my knowledge, no official government act of the ROC has been promulgated to the contrary. As I stated in my original reply, independence isn’t a cut and dry issue. To assert that these claims are “dusty” historical claims in light of what you’ve written here is disingenuous. Edit: I should add that there is only one government in Taiwan, the ROC. The stances of the individual political parties cannot be taken as synonymous with the stance of the ROC itself. To do so would be as ludicrous to say that there’s no right to an abortion in the United States, because 1 of the two major political parties opposes it. The most that can be said is that both abortion in the US and independence in Taiwan are controversial and delicate political issues within each respective jurisdiction.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  > to my knowledge, no official government act of the ROC has been promulgated to the contrary The 1999 "Resolution on Taiwan's Future," since elevated to DPP party platform, is crystal clear on "two Chinas."
  - comte7092 6y ago
    Party platforms are not official government policy.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      In representative democracies with regular elections? They kind of are.