4 ms·

> The issue is, the CCP sees Taiwan as theirs when in reality China belongs to Taiwan. What on earth is this supposed to mean? I'm no fan of the Chinese gover

by nl 5y ago

> The issue is, the CCP sees Taiwan as theirs when in reality China belongs to Taiwan. What on earth is this supposed to mean? I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but trying to claim it is illegitimate seems a pretty big stretch.

tomrod 5y ago
Why?
- neom 5y ago
  I also don't understand your comment. I went so far as to quickly skim through the history of Taiwan and I don't understand why you said China belongs to Taiwan?
  - nl 5y ago
    I expect his argument is that the former national government of mainland China fled to Taiwan during the revolution. This is true, but it doesn't make a strong argument for legitimacy. Former governments flee countries frequently, and unless there is a rapidly implemented plan to try to get them back into power they are generally ignored. Taiwan is better viewed as a breakaway state than having any legitimate stake in the government of mainland China.
    - anonymousiam 5y ago
      One could even argue that the agreement Great Britain had for the 100 year lease of Hong Kong was with the Nationalist (Taiwan) government and not the PRC.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        In any case, the treaty is broadly illegitimate as a colonial treaty nowadays.
        samus 5y ago
        Whether it is colonial or not does not matter for legitimacy. A blanket rejection of treaties on the basis of being colonial and unfair would invalidate all border agreements between former colonial countries. Of course, the international community can condemn treaties and push for decolonialization, but in most cases this is foiled by the refusal of the colonial power to give up the claim. Examples: Falkland islands, West Sahara, Goa (reconquered by India using military force). In many cases, it is advantegeous for both parties to seek a peaceful decoloniazation treaty, which becomes a part of international law and formal basis for the future claim on the decolonized territory.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        It has a huge impact in practice. The international community will look much more favourably on a country that violates a colonial treaty with its former Metropolis than with any other country. In practice, colonial era treaties are less legitimate. No one except the parties directly materially affected care.
      - nl 5y ago
        > the agreement Great Britain had for the 100 year lease of Hong Kong was with the Nationalist (Taiwan) government and not the PRC This appears to be a difficult argument to make in a consistent way. HK was ceded to GB a the Treaty of Nanking[1] which was between the UK and the Qing Dynasty Chinese government. It was later expanded in 1897, again with the Qing Dynasty. That Dynasty collapsed in the early 20th century. That was followed by the warlord era, and then the nationalist government in the 1930s. That lasted until defeated by the Communist government in 1949. So there were only around 20 years the Nationalist government governed mainland China, and it was long after the treaty ceding HK. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking
        anonymousiam 5y ago
        So the smart thing for the British government to have done would have been to declare the treaty invalid when the PRC came to power. GB could have claimed Hong Kong in perpetuity and the PRC would not have dared to stand up to GB in that era.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    Why were the Fourth Republic upstarts allowed to take control from the Vichy regime? De Gaulle's people ran for the hills and lost any claim to their old territory.
- nl 5y ago
  Well apart from over 70 years of mostly stable government (with Tiananmen square being the exception) they are broadly recognized by most countries and the UN and have been for close to 50 years. There's little evidence of support in China or even in Taiwan for the idea that the Taiwan government are the legitimate government of mainland China, and Taiwanese ambition is pretty much limited in practical terms to self government. Indeed, I don't believe Taiwan claims China in anyway I can find reference to.
  - anonymousiam 5y ago
    See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Yuan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Yuan
  - taf2 5y ago
    Fair - perhaps because all opposing voices have been disappeared… it is after all one party.
    - nl 5y ago
      Talk to Chinese emigrants. Plenty don't support the CCP as the government of China. Few support Taiwan as having any claim.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Aeolun 5y ago
> I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but trying to claim it is illegitimate seems a pretty big stretch. That’s exactly what the Chinese government is doing though. Isn’t that a bit of a stretch too? China claims Taiwan just as Taiwan (more or less seriously, but I doubt with any will to ever try and recover it) claims China. Or more like they both claim to be the legitimate government of greater China.
- nradov 5y ago
  Possession counts for a lot more than theoretical legal legitimacy. Who is physically in control of the bulk of Chinese territory?
  - salawat 5y ago
    Might does not make right in questions of rule of law. Unless it's barbarism then. At that point I'm pretty sure the biggest functional nuclear stockpile wins though.
    - Dah00n 5y ago
      >Might does not make right in questions of rule of law Sure it does. The laws are written by those who can enforce them. That is by definition those with Might. If that is barbarism then all of earth is under barbarism (and I'd argue that this is true). History is full of good examples. The Nuremberg trials is a great example of Might Is Right. The exact same laws used against the Nazis never were enforced on US citizens.
      - salawat 5y ago
        Rule of law does not have baked into it that laws are written by the mighty, or even that they can or will be enforced, consistently or otherwise. Merely that laws exist, can be made, and unmade, and should be followed. After all, there was a reason the Founders advised that it was a great evil to put a law on the books that couldn't be reasonably enforced due to the tendency to deligitimize the authority in question.
nullc 5y ago
> What on earth is this supposed to mean? The Republic of China was the government of China from 1912 until 1949 when it was overthrown by the CCP and retreated to Taiwan. Until at least 1971 the UN recognized it as the legitimate government of all of China. The poster's comment is outdated, but that's the historical background -- and why it's less crazy than you might have assumed without knowing the history.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  I remember my mind being blown when I read about internal Taiwanese politics and learned that both parties are more or less anti-independence. The liberals / doves think it would provoke China, and be too high a price to pay for something that's already de facto truth. But the conservatives / hawks argue against it because they deny the legitimacy of the PRC, so why would Taiwan need to declare it's independence from rebels in its own country?
  - account42 5y ago
    > The liberals / doves think it would provoke China, and be too high a price to pay for something that's already de facto truth. This does not make them anti-independence, just not suicidal.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  There is more relevant history: when the ROC retreated to Taiwan, they killed a lot of the upper crust of the Taiwanese already on the island. Truth is, while Japan treated Korea fairly bad, they treated Taiwan as an almost province, so that fostered a lot of distrust between the KMT and the Taiwanese on the island before they arrived, leading to atrocities. The pre-1949 Taiwanese distrust the mainlanders a lot (represented by both the ROC and PRC). Most Taiwanese would rather refer to throw off the legacy of the ROC completely, but doing so would be considered an act of war by the PRC.

by nl 5y ago

tomrod 5y ago

Why?

neom 5y ago
I also don't understand your comment. I went so far as to quickly skim through the history of Taiwan and I don't understand why you said China belongs to Taiwan?
- nl 5y ago
  I expect his argument is that the former national government of mainland China fled to Taiwan during the revolution. This is true, but it doesn't make a strong argument for legitimacy. Former governments flee countries frequently, and unless there is a rapidly implemented plan to try to get them back into power they are generally ignored. Taiwan is better viewed as a breakaway state than having any legitimate stake in the government of mainland China.
  - anonymousiam 5y ago
    One could even argue that the agreement Great Britain had for the 100 year lease of Hong Kong was with the Nationalist (Taiwan) government and not the PRC.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      In any case, the treaty is broadly illegitimate as a colonial treaty nowadays.
      - samus 5y ago
        Whether it is colonial or not does not matter for legitimacy. A blanket rejection of treaties on the basis of being colonial and unfair would invalidate all border agreements between former colonial countries. Of course, the international community can condemn treaties and push for decolonialization, but in most cases this is foiled by the refusal of the colonial power to give up the claim. Examples: Falkland islands, West Sahara, Goa (reconquered by India using military force). In many cases, it is advantegeous for both parties to seek a peaceful decoloniazation treaty, which becomes a part of international law and formal basis for the future claim on the decolonized territory.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        It has a huge impact in practice. The international community will look much more favourably on a country that violates a colonial treaty with its former Metropolis than with any other country. In practice, colonial era treaties are less legitimate. No one except the parties directly materially affected care.
    - nl 5y ago
      > the agreement Great Britain had for the 100 year lease of Hong Kong was with the Nationalist (Taiwan) government and not the PRC This appears to be a difficult argument to make in a consistent way. HK was ceded to GB a the Treaty of Nanking[1] which was between the UK and the Qing Dynasty Chinese government. It was later expanded in 1897, again with the Qing Dynasty. That Dynasty collapsed in the early 20th century. That was followed by the warlord era, and then the nationalist government in the 1930s. That lasted until defeated by the Communist government in 1949. So there were only around 20 years the Nationalist government governed mainland China, and it was long after the treaty ceding HK. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking
      - anonymousiam 5y ago
        So the smart thing for the British government to have done would have been to declare the treaty invalid when the PRC came to power. GB could have claimed Hong Kong in perpetuity and the PRC would not have dared to stand up to GB in that era.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Why were the Fourth Republic upstarts allowed to take control from the Vichy regime? De Gaulle's people ran for the hills and lost any claim to their old territory.
nl 5y ago
Well apart from over 70 years of mostly stable government (with Tiananmen square being the exception) they are broadly recognized by most countries and the UN and have been for close to 50 years. There's little evidence of support in China or even in Taiwan for the idea that the Taiwan government are the legitimate government of mainland China, and Taiwanese ambition is pretty much limited in practical terms to self government. Indeed, I don't believe Taiwan claims China in anyway I can find reference to.
- anonymousiam 5y ago
  See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Yuan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Yuan
- taf2 5y ago
  Fair - perhaps because all opposing voices have been disappeared… it is after all one party.
  - nl 5y ago
    Talk to Chinese emigrants. Plenty don't support the CCP as the government of China. Few support Taiwan as having any claim.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Aeolun 5y ago

> I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but trying to claim it is illegitimate seems a pretty big stretch. That’s exactly what the Chinese government is doing though. Isn’t that a bit of a stretch too? China claims Taiwan just as Taiwan (more or less seriously, but I doubt with any will to ever try and recover it) claims China. Or more like they both claim to be the legitimate government of greater China.

nradov 5y ago
Possession counts for a lot more than theoretical legal legitimacy. Who is physically in control of the bulk of Chinese territory?
- salawat 5y ago
  Might does not make right in questions of rule of law. Unless it's barbarism then. At that point I'm pretty sure the biggest functional nuclear stockpile wins though.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    >Might does not make right in questions of rule of law Sure it does. The laws are written by those who can enforce them. That is by definition those with Might. If that is barbarism then all of earth is under barbarism (and I'd argue that this is true). History is full of good examples. The Nuremberg trials is a great example of Might Is Right. The exact same laws used against the Nazis never were enforced on US citizens.
    - salawat 5y ago
      Rule of law does not have baked into it that laws are written by the mighty, or even that they can or will be enforced, consistently or otherwise. Merely that laws exist, can be made, and unmade, and should be followed. After all, there was a reason the Founders advised that it was a great evil to put a law on the books that couldn't be reasonably enforced due to the tendency to deligitimize the authority in question.

nullc 5y ago

> What on earth is this supposed to mean? The Republic of China was the government of China from 1912 until 1949 when it was overthrown by the CCP and retreated to Taiwan. Until at least 1971 the UN recognized it as the legitimate government of all of China. The poster's comment is outdated, but that's the historical background -- and why it's less crazy than you might have assumed without knowing the history.

ethbr0 5y ago
I remember my mind being blown when I read about internal Taiwanese politics and learned that both parties are more or less anti-independence. The liberals / doves think it would provoke China, and be too high a price to pay for something that's already de facto truth. But the conservatives / hawks argue against it because they deny the legitimacy of the PRC, so why would Taiwan need to declare it's independence from rebels in its own country?
- account42 5y ago
  > The liberals / doves think it would provoke China, and be too high a price to pay for something that's already de facto truth. This does not make them anti-independence, just not suicidal.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
There is more relevant history: when the ROC retreated to Taiwan, they killed a lot of the upper crust of the Taiwanese already on the island. Truth is, while Japan treated Korea fairly bad, they treated Taiwan as an almost province, so that fostered a lot of distrust between the KMT and the Taiwanese on the island before they arrived, leading to atrocities. The pre-1949 Taiwanese distrust the mainlanders a lot (represented by both the ROC and PRC). Most Taiwanese would rather refer to throw off the legacy of the ROC completely, but doing so would be considered an act of war by the PRC.