NationStates

One Free Taiwan^TM

Ethel mermania wrote:

Tuthina wrote:Probably a good proof that most people in NS should not be entrusted with authority of any significant kind, considering the ramification of how many suggest to further that particular agenda.

We will wind up in a war with China eventually, may as well call them now.

I found that unlikely unless either PRC is being chased to a corner or, arguably even worse, become truly democratic before the rabid nationalism and idealism that still seem to dominate Chinese political landscape waned.

Emperyo wrote:I do have a feeling this is a ploy to root out users who use Chinese propaganda on NS.
Side note: Though I do know full well that the only thing Communist about China is their party.

The name of their party you mean. Their party is not Communist at all, despite the name.
Regardless of the party that rules China, the people of Taiwan have a right to choose, and neither the US nor Beijing can choose for them.

It would be preferable if the two Chinas would recognize each other and let the world recognize both nations. But is very undesirable that the United States or some other external force tries to tell those nations what to do. We can ask China and Taiwan to recognize two Chinas but the decision has to be made by the involved nations themselves. Using military force to push the agenda will probably result in suffering and possible loss of life, which should be avoided.

Thermodolia wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:Anyone notice the similarities between Taiwan's situation and Puerto Rico's?

No because there are 0

Well, they are both surrounded by water. They both have mountains..... pretty women....

Did I say pretty women?

Ethel mermania wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:No because there are 0

Well, they are both surrounded by water. They both have mountains..... pretty women....

Did I say pretty women?

Ok that's about where the similarities end

Tuthina wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:We will wind up in a war with China eventually, may as well call them now.

I found that unlikely unless either PRC is being chased to a corner or, arguably even worse, become truly democratic before the rabid nationalism and idealism that still seem to dominate Chinese political landscape waned.

The current government encourages and whips up that nationalistic feeling.

Thermodolia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Well, they are both surrounded by water. They both have mountains..... pretty women....

Did I say pretty women?

Ok that's about where the similarities end

They both drive on the right too...

Ethel mermania wrote:

Tuthina wrote:I found that unlikely unless either PRC is being chased to a corner or, arguably even worse, become truly democratic before the rabid nationalism and idealism that still seem to dominate Chinese political landscape waned.

The current government encourages and whips up that nationalistic feeling.

Fittingly, we have an idiom describing just that. As far as I can tell, the general population have since become more nationalistic than the government can reign. Seeing that it tend to be a self-perpetuation cycle, removing the current government would not magically stop nationalism from existing. If anything, it would probably be more similar to removing the brake on nationalism of the population by removing the autocracy that oppress them.

Why not both? Free China!

Tuthina wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
The current government encourages and whips up that nationalistic feeling.

Fittingly, we have an idiom describing just that. As far as I can tell, the general population have since become more nationalistic than the government can reign. Seeing that it tend to be a self-perpetuation cycle, removing the current government would not magically stop nationalism from existing. If anything, it would probably be more similar to removing the brake on nationalism of the population by removing the autocracy that oppress them.

Possibly, but this government uses it to control the population, and has no interest in teachijg its people the truth. So to expect the government to stop using the tool of nationalism is just sillh.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Tuthina wrote:Fittingly, we have an idiom describing just that. As far as I can tell, the general population have since become more nationalistic than the government can reign. Seeing that it tend to be a self-perpetuation cycle, removing the current government would not magically stop nationalism from existing. If anything, it would probably be more similar to removing the brake on nationalism of the population by removing the autocracy that oppress them.

Possibly, but this government uses it to control the population, and has no interest in teachijg its people the truth. So to expect the government to stop using the tool of nationalism is just sillh.

Yes, but at the same time, removing them at this moment and give the power to the general population, which seems to be the common proposal for plans pertaining to topple PRC, is quite likely to only make the situation worse unless the successor state is significantly weakened and contained. Of course, in the eyes of surviving residents of China, it probably would look a lot like the 19th century all over again, and might become another breeding ground for even more revanchism.

Personally, I suspect the best solution is probably to support PRC and keep it in power long enough so that it figures out something else that would pacify the population better. In a sense, it might worth sacrificing Taiwan in the process if enough nationalistic sentiment hinges on it.

Tuthina wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
Possibly, but this government uses it to control the population, and has no interest in teachijg its people the truth. So to expect the government to stop using the tool of nationalism is just sillh.

Yes, but at the same time, removing them at this moment and give the power to the general population, which seems to be the common proposal for plans pertaining to topple PRC, is quite likely to only make the situation worse unless the successor state is significantly weakened and contained. Of course, in the eyes of surviving residents of China, it probably would look a lot like the 19th century all over again, and might become another breeding ground for even more revanchism.

Personally, I suspect the best solution is probably to support PRC and keep it in power long enough so that it figures out something else that would pacify the population better. In a sense, it might worth sacrificing Taiwan in the process if enough nationalistic sentiment hinges on it.

Kissenger would be proud. (And I do not mean that as an insult).

That said I do not see any incentive for the PRC to do so.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Tuthina wrote:Yes, but at the same time, removing them at this moment and give the power to the general population, which seems to be the common proposal for plans pertaining to topple PRC, is quite likely to only make the situation worse unless the successor state is significantly weakened and contained. Of course, in the eyes of surviving residents of China, it probably would look a lot like the 19th century all over again, and might become another breeding ground for even more revanchism.

Personally, I suspect the best solution is probably to support PRC and keep it in power long enough so that it figures out something else that would pacify the population better. In a sense, it might worth sacrificing Taiwan in the process if enough nationalistic sentiment hinges on it.

Kissenger would be proud. (And I do not mean that as an insult).

That said I do not see any incentive for the PRC to do so.

You are too kind.

As for incentive for PRC, I think a possible one would be their realisation of nationalism among the population becoming increasingly difficult to control. While the government still occasionally rile up nationalist sentiment, it appears that more and more often the government have to put down the resulting chaos and riots. If the situation continued to deteriorate (which it probably will), the government will have to seek other ways to divert the people from both domestic issues and nationalism itself - if they have not already begun the process.

Of course, the big question is what would be the substitute: communism or socialism with Chinese characteristics obviously did not work, nationalism becomes too difficult to reign, and reconstruction of Chinese traditions did not seem to be making a lot of progress either. A small comfort is probably that with the rise of young, middle class generation who have ample contact with the outside world, and the death of the older generation that lived through the age of nationalism, the sentiment could wind down in the following decades.

Tuthina wrote:

Lhagatse wrote:What makes you believe that I didn't read the string of comments? Just because Crockerland posited his question, that doesn't somehow make his point innately unassilable. Reductio ad absurdum does not make for wholesome arguments. While I understand the point being made, I think the ISIS example is inplying a moral quandary that shouldn't exist.

Crockerland asked whether ISIS should exist with popular support. I'm arguing that his question itself is inherently fallacious on grounds of (a) ISIS is being presented as a distasteful option, implicitly on grounds of shocking human rights abuses and (b) ISIS not actually enjoing domestic support because of said abuses.

The fact of the matter is that the very abuses ISIS perpetuates, that permits it to be presented as the distasteful option, innately precludes it from actually having said support from the populace. ISIS, almost inherently, cannot have the support of the populace save by threat of force. It is an illogical hypothetical that cannot ocurr, and by positing it in a way that forces one to equivicate supporting Taiwan with dupporting ISIS, you're asking a tremendously unfair question.

Asking if he'd support a widely-supported ISIS is not at all like asking if he supports Taiwanese independence. Crockerland was attemtping to undermine his position with an illogical hypothetical. Crockerland's question is like asking a McDonald's frycook if he would torture dogs to death because they do torture dogs at Yulin dog meat festival, and the frycook also works with meat. Clearly ISIS is a very different situation, and to be asked fairly, thq question requires some nuance instead of drawing crude parallels that forces us to endorse a group that engages in ethnic cleansing on sheer hypothetical.

Also, apologies for bad spelling. This was written on a phone. I am currently out.

Except that the original statement of Salandriagado, as you would no doubt notice if you read the entire string of comments, is that popular mandate is the only qualifying factor for whether independence of a polity is permissible. As such, the scenario that, while stretching credibility given the use of the Islamic State, posited by Crockerland would still be a valid question that emphasise on the absurdity of what Crockerland consider to be a badly-justified statement. While it is obviously that the action of the government of Republic of China is nowhere as contemptible as that of Islamic State, the flaw lie not in Salandriagado's stance on Taiwan independence, but the methodology, or lack thereof, of supporting that view. For all we know, Crockerland might as well support "free Taiwan" as much as Salandriagado.

You're still not getting my point; I understand that the question was initially asked to raise a moral quandary, as to why the single criterion of "if the people will it" is invalid. I'm saying that the question itself, however, is fallacious. The question is posed in a way where ISIS is implicitly understood to be distasteful. But, as we've seen via news filtering in from the Middle-East, ISIS' nature--the atrocities that it commits-- render it fundamentally impossible for ISIS to cultivate popularity with a significant portion of the population.

Crockerland's question then implies that by supporting self-determination, one must logically be able to support ISIS, despite ISIS being a fringe group with little domestic support in all but the most fringe and rural populations (and a tenuous support even there). ISIS, by its nature, cannot actually meet Salandriagado's criterion in the real world. Hypothetically, yes, ISIS could win popular support in Iraq and Syria, but without a significant shift in its treatment of locals, (the same treatment that both defines our hatred towards and cultivates local fear towards ISIS) it's a ridiculous hypothetical at best. Either the nature of the people living under ISIS control must turn exceptionally radicalised and masochistic, or the nature of ISIS must fundamentally change for there to be said popular mandate.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at here is that ISIS isn't a good counterfactual to use here, because it implies that ISIS is somehow able to cultivate the local support it needs to govern and be considered legitimate in Salandriagado's eyes, which a reasonable person would probably not consider as rational while typing Salandriagado's initial assertion. I understand that as a hypothetical, it doesn't need to pass all levels of scrutiny, and then I might just be pedantic here, but I still maintain that the question itself is flawed. I would've taken no issue with, say, if posed as a question of national security, or of the 17 secession movements rocking modern-day Spain, in which case I would've probably agreed that mandate of the people isn't enough to justify the fragmentation of a nation.

Thermodolia wrote:The RoC, the true name of Taiwan, is the true government of china. The PRC is a rebel force in control of ROC territory.

This is pretty much what I think.

Tuthina wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
Kissenger would be proud. (And I do not mean that as an insult).

That said I do not see any incentive for the PRC to do so.

You are too kind.

As for incentive for PRC, I think a possible one would be their realisation of nationalism among the population becoming increasingly difficult to control. While the government still occasionally rile up nationalist sentiment, it appears that more and more often the government have to put down the resulting chaos and riots. If the situation continued to deteriorate (which it probably will), the government will have to seek other ways to divert the people from both domestic issues and nationalism itself - if they have not already begun the process.

Of course, the big question is what would be the substitute: communism or socialism with Chinese characteristics obviously did not work, nationalism becomes too difficult to reign, and reconstruction of Chinese traditions did not seem to be making a lot of progress either. A small comfort is probably that with the rise of young, middle class generation who have ample contact with the outside world, and the death of the older generation that lived through the age of nationalism, the sentiment could wind down in the following decades.

That's a maybe on a long term game. The chinese are much better at Long term games than we are.

Tuthina wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
Possibly, but this government uses it to control the population, and has no interest in teachijg its people the truth. So to expect the government to stop using the tool of nationalism is just sillh.

Yes, but at the same time, removing them at this moment and give the power to the general population, which seems to be the common proposal for plans pertaining to topple PRC, is quite likely to only make the situation worse unless the successor state is significantly weakened and contained. Of course, in the eyes of surviving residents of China, it probably would look a lot like the 19th century all over again, and might become another breeding ground for even more revanchism.

Personally, I suspect the best solution is probably to support PRC and keep it in power long enough so that it figures out something else that would pacify the population better. In a sense, it might worth sacrificing Taiwan in the process if enough nationalistic sentiment hinges on it.

Sadly, this might be the only viable option. Most Chinese, I know from experience, cannot imagine a future without the PRC (it's simply ingrained in the collective Chinese imagination as deeply as the American constitution is to Americans), so removing the PRC in of itself is not an option. Taiwan's best option, to be honest, is to be subsumed via a Hong-Kong style arrangement, though I suspect that the Taiwanese would still balk at PRC domination of their proud democratic tradition. Still, I imagine that they'd eventually be able to get used to it.

I think it's worth pointing out, for the betterment of the discussion at large, that the very existence of Taiwan has seen as a symbol of the Century of Humiliation and has an extremely emotional overtone for the Chinese populace. The issue is simply intractable for China. Trying to defend Taiwan is essentially tantamount to war with China (whether one finds this to be a catastrophe or not). I would rather not see the world economy plummet, though, and I suspect none of you do, either. This isn't China just being angry and bellicose; it's a real foreign policy goal that the PRC cannot afford to back down on.

I strongly feel that there should be a Free Taiwan.

China is a large country, with over 1.3 billion people. Every person is weighed down by the authoritarian government. China's loose industrial regulations result in major pollution to the point where the air conditions are toxic and where factory workers are given little to no safety precautions when working on hazardous machinery.

Taiwan wants to free itself from this oppressive and inefficient government, and I strongly support Taiwan's decision to do so.

Dmitry II wrote:I strongly feel that there should be a Free Taiwan.

China is a large country, with over 1.3 billion people. Every person is weighed down by the authoritarian government. China's loose industrial regulations result in major pollution to the point where the air conditions are toxic and where factory workers are given little to no safety precautions when working on hazardous machinery.

Taiwan wants to free itself from this oppressive and inefficient government, and I strongly support Taiwan's decision to do so.

Your normative views won't change the fact that there is a huge power imbalance between the two, or the fact that the PRC cannot afford to permit Taiwanese independence.

I'm not saying Taiwan shouldn't be independent from a moral point of view: I'm saying that Taiwan's situation is pretty dire at best.

Emperyo wrote:I've noticed the overwhelming support for Taiwanese independence in the polls.
If China were not communist, it would be the reverse.

Nope. Some of us actually support self determination.

Cetacea wrote:

Crockerland wrote:
Maybe you should actually read the conversation before trying to add to it. Salandriagado claimed that the only thing that needed to be considered was the will of the majority of people in Taiwan, so Taiwan not being a terrorist enclave occupying bits of another country would, according to Salandriagado, be irrelevant, hence the whole point of my post.

Obviously Taiwan is in no way equivalent to ISIS, that's the entire point of the question, because they are nothing alike, and Salandriagado's method for determining a state's right to secede grants benign democracies like Taiwan and the the control zones of terrorist organizations like the Islamic State, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, etc. the same right to independence; Salandriagado even confirmed that he would support ISIS independence if the majority of IS residents supported it.

um I did read it and still don't think its valid. This is page 12 of a discussion on Taiwan Nationhood and raising ISIS ignores the fact that ISIS isn't a nation and has no 'people'. I agree with his/her Yes if the majority of people in a nation overwhelmingly want a certain outcome then it should be granted (I stated earlier that 80% of the people of Taiwan consider themselves Taiwanese and that to me is the only criterion)

It would be the same criterion for Daesh - if 80% of the people living in the area they control identify themselves as ISILites and overwhelmingly want to be a state then sure. That doesn't mean Daesh can't still be condemned for human rights abuses and foreign nations can't still attempt exterminate them with extreme prejudice. Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Cuba, Israel even North Korea have a right to exist...

One of these states is not like the others
One of these states has LGBT rights, womens' rights, a score of "free" from freedom house, and a democratically elected government.

Lhagatse wrote:Crockerland asked whether ISIS should exist with popular support.

To which the person I questioned answered in the affirmative.

Lhagatse wrote:I'm arguing that his question itself is inherently fallacious on grounds of (a) ISIS is being presented as a distasteful option, implicitly on grounds of shocking human rights abuses and (b) ISIS not actually enjoing domestic support because of said abuses.

The fact of the matter is that the very abuses ISIS perpetuates, that permits it to be presented as the distasteful option, innately precludes it from actually having said support from the populace.

Not inherently correct, the Gaza strip voted in favor of Hamas.

Lhagatse wrote:ISIS, almost inherently, cannot have the support of the populace save by threat of force. It is an illogical hypothetical that cannot ocurr, and by positing it in a way that forces one to equivicate supporting Taiwan with dupporting ISIS, you're asking a tremendously unfair question.

I never equivocated supporting Taiwan with supporting ISIS. I support Taiwan, and I don't support ISIS.

I said, as I have already clarified, that the claim that the only thing that needs to be considered in a state's independence is the view of the majority of that state's residents would lead to a support for ISIS independence if the majority of the people in territory controlled by the Islamic State supported it. And again, as I have already pointed out, Salandriagado, who I said this to, agreed with me.

Lhagatse wrote:Asking if he'd support a widely-supported ISIS is not at all like asking if he supports Taiwanese independence.

I guess if you take that completely out of context and ignore the conversation that was occurring then yes, I guess it would be.

Lhagatse wrote:Crockerland was attemtping to undermine his position with an illogical hypothetical. Crockerland's question is like asking a McDonald's frycook if he would torture dogs to death because they do torture dogs at Yulin dog meat festival, and the frycook also works with meat.

If the frycook had said that killing animals for food was okay because the majority of people in America supported it, and had confirmed that he would torture dogs to death if the majority of people in China supported it, then that would be an equivalent question.

Lhagatse wrote:Clearly ISIS is a very different situation,

The entire point of my post being that ISIS and Taiwan are not similar, but that the method used by Salandriagado could easily make them similar if support for ISIS independence rose in the area it controlled.

Lhagatse wrote:and to be asked fairly, thq question requires some nuance instead of drawing crude parallels that forces us to endorse a group that engages in ethnic cleansing on sheer hypothetical.

Again, as I have already explained, the entire point of my post was that they are not the same, and even if they both had the majority of their populations supporting them, Taiwan is the only one of the two that should be free in my opinion.

We should recognize the independence of Taiwan from China the same way the world recognizes the US's independence from Britain.

Taiwan is a part of the greater Chinese nation, so it is of One China, however, to say that Taiwan is 'governed by the PRC' would be very innaccurate. I would say Taiwan is a part of China, but a free and autonomous part of it, which governs itself even in matters of foreign policy. Its a co-equal part of China with the People's Republic, and its special economic areas.

Its a complicated relationship, but overall Taiwan is China.

Noraika wrote:Its a complicated relationship, but overall Taiwan is China.

No it's not

Taiwan is no more China than Tibet or Vietnam is China