Taiwan is a Province of the PRC

[A Mafan]

A smattering of random thoughts:

 

- I don't really see that Taiwan "allows" China to speak for them on the international stage. The US basically threw Taiwan under the bus in the UN for some reason (I think it was because China had nukes and/or we thought we could exploit a Sino-USSR rift by doing so), and China has used that prominence in the UN to force all other international organizations to refuse to recognize Taiwan. Taiwan has been trying to get recognition in any international organization as a pretext/prelude to get UN membership. China is adamant about blocking them from membership, even in groups like the World Health Organization, where China has no power to enforce any policies or deliver aid in the event of a pandemic.

 

- There are all sorts of mainland Chinese artistic treasures in the National Museum in Taiwan. These treasures are clearly Chinese. If Taiwan is not a part of China, shouldn't they return those treasures to where they were stolen from? Lots of Taiwan historical movies and television shows (like Seven Swords) are set in Mainland in China, using language originating on mainland China. Even the so-called "native" Min-Nan Hua originates from the mainland. Linguistically, historically, culturally, Taiwan's source is undoubtedly China. (...then again, we tell stories of Robin Hood in the US.)

 

- On the other hand, I can only define sovereignty as the ability to enforce laws and collect taxes over a geographical area, and the PRC absolutely does not have sovereignty over Taiwan from that perspective.

 

- The official US policy is that we want the issue to settled peacefully. Independence, (re)unification, eternal ambiguity...it doesn't matter, as long as force is not used to bring about or in reaction to changes to the status quo. I think that actually makes good sense.

 

My wife gets pissed at me for saying that Taiwan is, for all intents and purposes, a separate country. My father-in-law says that if Taiwan declares independence, China will go to war. When I ask why, he says that, historically, Taiwan is a part of China. I said, isn't 40 years ago part of history? Why is 40 years ago less valid than 70 years ago? Or even more clearly, why is 70 years ago more important than 2000 years ago when Taiwan wasn't part of China? (same argument comes up about the Spratlys...China had zero presence there until they took some islands from Viet Nam, then found some pottery there from 300 years ago and make the same b.s. history claim) And if "history" is so important, then why shouldn't PRC surrender to Taiwan, because in 1946, the Communists were ruled by the Nationalists, no? And why don't they go to war with Russia over Vladivostok, or start a war to re-unify outer Mongolia (also part of China at some point in history)? Viet Nam was part of China, too, for a while...

 

The point being, that just because ownership existed at one point in time in history doesn't mean you have a claim on it now. Or else Mongolia should be given all of China due to their conquest in the 1100s (the Yuan dynasty), or China should be split up into lots of little countries (as it was several times during history). I doubt they'd stand for that, either.

 

Maybe, in the end, that is the actual point: a nation, long united, must split; and long divided, must unite. That's the opening line from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. So maybe PRC's point is that this is just one of the divided periods, and someday they have to get together again, due to common blood, language, culture antecedents, etc. Put that way, maybe it works better as a belief than as a logical argument.

[knloregon]

Hey AM, broad and creative thinking on the subject.

 

"..Even the so-called "native" Min-Nan Hua originates from the mainland. Linguistically, historically, culturally, Taiwan's source is undoubtedly China. (...then again, we tell stories of Robin Hood in the US.) .. " suggesting that among your examples Tibet has a stronger case---indigenous culture, language and Theocratic form of government (prior to PRC take over ---(but who here supports a Theocracy?). And while (land) 'ownership' is a matter addressed at the end of WW2 (The State of Israel, for instance) --- does Taiwan measure up, culturally to either Tibet or Israel?

 

As aboriginal people go, I'm not in favor of land repatriation in Oregon (ie. my house).

[knloregon]

"..Quite a few Chinese have compared the free Tibet movement to be similar to Lincoln fighting to keep the union together during the Civil War..." I also have heard that from several sources, Griz--- in the classrooms of China, its taught that yes, Lincoln freed the slaves---but also, preserved the Union. ------which, unfortunately, is more than is often taught in AMERICAN classrooms

[Beachey]

Maybe I have been in China too long but really see the PRC's side of this. Taiwan; officially the Republic of China; traces its history to 1912 implying that it still the legitimate government of all of China. The UN Security Council seat was held by Taiwan until 1971 again denying the legitimacy of the PRC for another 20 plus years after the PRC was running the country .

 

From the PRC's perspective, recognition of Taiwan whether in the UN or other world organization opens the possibility to the illegitimacy of the PRC government.

 

As someone mentioned above, Kissinger's book speaks extensively about this and pragmatically there is no good solution so the easiest solution is to ignore it and deal with those issues that can be solved.

 

I also believe the likely resolution to this issue when (if) the PRC moves to a less Communist and more Democratic(?) form of government that Taiwan will become some type of SAR similar to Hong Kong.

[A Mafan]

My mother-in-law (the least political, least strident person I can imagine) says that one thing makes it clear Taiwan is part of China: when Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists fled mainland China, why did they go to Taiwan? Why didn't they go somewhere else? Why couldn't they go somewhere else?

 

...obviously, because Taiwan was part of China then.

[A Mafan]

Maybe I have been in China too long but really see the PRC's side of this. Taiwan; officially the Republic of China; traces its history to 1912 implying that it still the legitimate government of all of China. The UN Security Council seat was held by Taiwan until 1971 again denying the legitimacy of the PRC for another 20 plus years after the PRC was running the country .

 

From the PRC's perspective, recognition of Taiwan whether in the UN or other world organization opens the possibility to the illegitimacy of the PRC government.

 

As someone mentioned above, Kissinger's book speaks extensively about this and pragmatically there is no good solution so the easiest solution is to ignore it and deal with those issues that can be solved.

 

I also believe the likely resolution to this issue when (if) the PRC moves to a less Communist and more Democratic(?) form of government that Taiwan will become some type of SAR similar to Hong Kong.

"denying the legitimacy of PRC for 20+ years"

...hmmm, that's a good point that I didn't consider.

But I guess I don't fully understand why it has to be a zero-sum game. We split from England; it didn't mean our existence as a nation made England illegitimate. Scotland is considering splitting from the UK; if they do, it won't make the UK illegitimate. East Germany didn't make West Germany illegitimate, but when the time was right, they peacefully reunited.

 

Personally, I think they will reunite when China owns enough of Taiwan's economy that the PRC can say, "Re-unite, or we will nationalize all your mainland factories/capital/technology." Owning "enough" of Taiwan's economy will be when a significant portion of Taiwan's economy is fully invested in and fully dependent on Mainland China, but only constitutes a small fraction of PRC's economy. The ultimatum will come when the PRC has its own economy strong enough that it can take a 2-3% hit on its GDP without much of a problem.

 

That could happen as soon as 5-6 years from now, but probably within 20. I originally thought military action would come around 2014, when several new PRC weapons systems were scheduled to come on-line, but in a lull of US weapons' development (before the US next-generation weapons systems were online and fully integrated). But the US has made some jumps in information/intelligence that have filled the gaps, and the world economic slowdown has exposed housing bubbles in China as well as slowing their economy to concerning levels, so I think that pushes things off a few more years.

[A Mafan]

Hey AM, broad and creative thinking on the subject.

 

"..Even the so-called "native" Min-Nan Hua originates from the mainland. Linguistically, historically, culturally, Taiwan's source is undoubtedly China. (...then again, we tell stories of Robin Hood in the US.) .. " suggesting that among your examples Tibet has a stronger case---indigenous culture, language and Theocratic form of government (prior to PRC take over ---(but who here supports a Theocracy?). And while (land) 'ownership' is a matter addressed at the end of WW2 (The State of Israel, for instance) --- does Taiwan measure up, culturally to either Tibet or Israel?

 

As aboriginal people go, I'm not in favor of land repatriation in Oregon (ie. my house).

 

When there was the UN vote on the Palestinian state, I was really surprised to see China vote for it. Because the PRC has been in existence only about as long as modern Israel, and it was formed by taking over territory from the Nationalists. Insisting on Palestine's sovereignty due to "history" (there's that self-serving reference again) merely strengthens Taiwan's claim to co-exist with the PRC, I would think.

 

At least, that's how I would argue it in the UN.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but I actually don't have much of a problem with Tibet being a part of China. I wouldn't have a problem with it being separate, either...but the Dalai Lama invited the PRC in. Maybe that was stupid of him to trust the Communists, but he did it. And Tibet had been a part of China previously, and had been separate previously.

 

Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks that the world map gelled at the end of WWII and should never be changed again.

 

I just don't think you can solve injustice by creating new victims.

 

I believe in war ONLY to create more freedom.

 

But I also do believe that wars do mean something. People died, blood was shed. At least one side believed the issue was worth fighting, killing, and dying over...and the other side thought it was worth spending their own lives and blood to resist. And then one side had enough, and acquiesced. The result was purchased with lives. For good or ill, the result has been cemented in blood. That price should not be overturned lightly, especially not due to nationalistic/regionalistic fervor that rises and ebbs for all sorts of reasons...but often due to small groups of people stirring up "righteous" anger in pursuit of personal power or glory.

 

There are some things that suck in Tibet right now. There are some things in Tibet that are far better under the Communists than they were without them.

 

Unless people are actually being brutally repressed, I'm not too keen on supporting separatist movements. Too many things like that are subject to whims and fashions and passions of the moment, rather than being well-thought out.

[Beachey]

"denying the legitimacy of PRC for 20+ years"

...hmmm, that's a good point that I didn't consider.

But I guess I don't fully understand why it has to be a zero-sum game. We split from England; it didn't mean our existence as a nation made England illegitimate. Scotland is considering splitting from the UK; if they do, it won't make the UK illegitimate. East Germany didn't make West Germany illegitimate, but when the time was right, they peacefully reunited.

 

 

But Scotland wouldn't take the position that it was the legitimate government of the UK. It would declare itself separate. Taiwan has never really done that. East/West Germany is a different case as they were split by foreign powers.

 

Interesting that you mention the American colonies splitting from England. I wonder what would happen if Taiwan made its own Declaration of Independence. If it recognized the legitimacy of the PRC to rule the mainland but said it was declaring its independence as a new nation formed in 1949. The PRC would freak but you wonder if they would truly attack Taiwan. I don't think Taiwan would do it because they are as committed to the 'One China' concept as the PRC. In a way, Taiwan is still trying to save face rather than admit they actually lost the civil war in 1949.

[Mick]

A Mafan - as usual, your analysis of an issue is thorough and well-reasoned. One thing, however, I wasn't aware of and maybe you can enlighten me a bit. You mentioned that the Dalai Lama invited the PRC in. I wasn't aware of that. And please understand, I am not arguing the point here. I am just seeking clarification. When did he do this?

[Randy W]

A Mafan - as usual, your analysis of an issue is thorough and well-reasoned. One thing, however, I wasn't aware of and maybe you can enlighten me a bit. You mentioned that the Dalai Lama invited the PRC in. I wasn't aware of that. And please understand, I am not arguing the point here. I am just seeking clarification. When did he do this?

 

This article doesn't give him such an active role

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chamdo

[knloregon]

"...Interesting that you mention the American colonies splitting from England. I wonder what would happen if Taiwan made its own Declaration of Independence. If it recognized the legitimacy of the PRC to rule the mainland but said it was declaring its independence as a new nation formed in 1949. The PRC would freak but you wonder if they would truly attack Taiwan. I don't think Taiwan would do it because they are as committed to the 'One China' concept as the PRC. In a way, Taiwan is still trying to save face rather than admit they actually lost the civil war in 1949. .." --Beachey

 

This is exactly the scenario that most parties fear---the KMT in Taiwan, the US and of course, PRC. But there is in fact, among the political opposition in Taiwan, a movement to do something like this, and its got fairly strong backing, particularly among the indigenous Taiwanese population (pre-KMT refugees). Nothing would clear the current fog of policy ambiguity faster than such a declaration. My opinion is that China would almost certainly invade, and quite rapidly---its known that PRC already has many agents in Taiwan, and their first strike on infrastructure could seriously damage Taiwan's military response, particularly related to coordination. I have to believe that PRC would want a blitzkrieg ---- get over and end it fast, before America could formulate a response, either militarily, or politically.

 

But its the fog clearing question: Does America go to war with China over protection of Taiwan? Or does it say to the successful political opposition in Taiwan---don't think for a minute that we have your back militarily, because war with China isn't worth your independence movement? Naturally, the usual Red scare baiters in the US would launch the Shame On You---political offensive, China crushing a Democracy, and spreading Communism in East Asia. Who's next? (sound familiar?)

 

So America's Declaration of Independence was different. America was prepared to take on the Giant (England at that time) ---Taiwan, without our backing, is not.

[A Mafan]

A Mafan - as usual, your analysis of an issue is thorough and well-reasoned. One thing, however, I wasn't aware of and maybe you can enlighten me a bit. You mentioned that the Dalai Lama invited the PRC in. I wasn't aware of that. And please understand, I am not arguing the point here. I am just seeking clarification. When did he do this?

I'm having a difficult time finding the reference so far. It was about 10 years ago that the Dalai Lama said in an interview that he regretted inviting the Chinese into Tibet, because he was young and too excited about the promise of Communism.

 

Now most of the articles I can find don't even mention the 17-point agreement he signed. Those that do always put it in the context of being a forced agreement.

 

While that actually makes sense, I can't help but feel that history has been scrubbed on this topic to leave an intended impression. It is easy to find many articles about the Dalai Lama expressing his belief in Communism...and then easy to find other hagriography-ish articles that claim those are all PRC propaganda.

 

My understanding was that the Dalai Lama did fall for the glittering "promise" of Marxist Socialism/Communism, and asked the PRC to come in and help his country develop. But then things when the Communists started acting like totalitarians always do, and deeply regretted his naivety.

 

I'll keep searching, but I'm just not sure I can find actual proof.

[A Mafan]

"denying the legitimacy of PRC for 20+ years"

...hmmm, that's a good point that I didn't consider.

But I guess I don't fully understand why it has to be a zero-sum game. We split from England; it didn't mean our existence as a nation made England illegitimate. Scotland is considering splitting from the UK; if they do, it won't make the UK illegitimate. East Germany didn't make West Germany illegitimate, but when the time was right, they peacefully reunited.

 

 

But Scotland wouldn't take the position that it was the legitimate government of the UK. It would declare itself separate. Taiwan has never really done that.

Taiwan abandoned that claim back in 1991:

While much of this structure remains in place, the authorities on Taiwan in 1991 abandoned their claim of governing mainland China, stating that they do not "dispute the fact that the P.R.C. controls mainland China."

 

As much as I have always disliked Chen Shui-bian, I do think he was right on name "rectification".

[A Mafan]

"...Interesting that you mention the American colonies splitting from England. I wonder what would happen if Taiwan made its own Declaration of Independence. If it recognized the legitimacy of the PRC to rule the mainland but said it was declaring its independence as a new nation formed in 1949. The PRC would freak but you wonder if they would truly attack Taiwan. I don't think Taiwan would do it because they are as committed to the 'One China' concept as the PRC. In a way, Taiwan is still trying to save face rather than admit they actually lost the civil war in 1949. .." --Beachey

 

This is exactly the scenario that most parties fear---the KMT in Taiwan, the US and of course, PRC. But there is in fact, among the political opposition in Taiwan, a movement to do something like this, and its got fairly strong backing, particularly among the indigenous Taiwanese population (pre-KMT refugees). Nothing would clear the current fog of policy ambiguity faster than such a declaration. My opinion is that China would almost certainly invade, and quite rapidly---its known that PRC already has many agents in Taiwan, and their first strike on infrastructure could seriously damage Taiwan's military response, particularly related to coordination. I have to believe that PRC would want a blitzkrieg ---- get over and end it fast, before America could formulate a response, either militarily, or politically.

 

But its the fog clearing question: Does America go to war with China over protection of Taiwan? Or does it say to the successful political opposition in Taiwan---don't think for a minute that we have your back militarily, because war with China isn't worth your independence movement? Naturally, the usual Red scare baiters in the US would launch the Shame On You---political offensive, China crushing a Democracy, and spreading Communism in East Asia. Who's next? (sound familiar?)

 

So America's Declaration of Independence was different. America was prepared to take on the Giant (England at that time) ---Taiwan, without our backing, is not.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I disliked Chen Shui-bian so much; he seemed willing to martyr US military lives along with his own in his quest for purely local political victories.

 

That's why I like the US' "no opinion on independence/unification, as long as its peaceful" policy. It tells the PRC to not overreact to the small stuff, and tells Taiwan not to deliberately stick their fingers in China's eyes for the fun of it.

 

The reason I think the PRC will use a financial method to force re-unification is because the Chinese don't like risk, their people won't be happy with masses of 'only sons', even in a presumed victory, and the Taiwanese have shown preference for caring more about standard of living issues than pretty much anything else (that's a long story to explain, tho).

 

But when push comes to shove, as much as I like the mainland Chinese society/people/culture and don't really like Taiwan society/people/culture much (sorry if that offends anyone), I still back Taiwan for one reason:

I will not tolerate the PRC deciding to go to war, resulting in (tens/hundreds of) thousands of deaths to put a free, democratic Taiwan under their authoritarian control for the purpose of shoring up their continued authoritarian domination of mainland China. And that's the scenario I see most likely to result in a cross-Strait war.

[Mick]

A Mafan - as usual, your analysis of an issue is thorough and well-reasoned. One thing, however, I wasn't aware of and maybe you can enlighten me a bit. You mentioned that the Dalai Lama invited the PRC in. I wasn't aware of that. And please understand, I am not arguing the point here. I am just seeking clarification. When did he do this?

I'm having a difficult time finding the reference so far. It was about 10 years ago that the Dalai Lama said in an interview that he regretted inviting the Chinese into Tibet, because he was young and too excited about the promise of Communism.

 

Now most of the articles I can find don't even mention the 17-point agreement he signed. Those that do always put it in the context of being a forced agreement.

 

While that actually makes sense, I can't help but feel that history has been scrubbed on this topic to leave an intended impression. It is easy to find many articles about the Dalai Lama expressing his belief in Communism...and then easy to find other hagriography-ish articles that claim those are all PRC propaganda.

 

My understanding was that the Dalai Lama did fall for the glittering "promise" of Marxist Socialism/Communism, and asked the PRC to come in and help his country develop. But then things when the Communists started acting like totalitarians always do, and deeply regretted his naivety.

 

I'll keep searching, but I'm just not sure I can find actual proof.

Thanks for the effort in tracking down sources regarding the Dalai Lama asking the Chinese in. Without a doubt, the history is slanted one way or the other, depending on who is telling the story. I am trying to track down how old the Dalai Lama would have been in 1950. He was fairly young I am sure. I think he remained in Llasa until 1959, and then fled to India. Don't waste any time trying to track down the source. I was just curious as I had never heard that point made before. And Randy, thanks for your posted link. It adds to the perspective and in any case, it seems the Chinese were going to come in, invited or not.

 

*** Note: Just found out the Dalai Lama was born in July 1935, which would have made him 15 in 1950. I wonder to what depth he might have understood Communism at such a tender age??? Also, at age 15 was he actually "in control" of the country, or was there a proxy in charge until he came of age?

Edited December 14, 2011 by Mick (see edit history)