Jump to content

Talk:Political status of Taiwan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

OK,let's get it straight. both Republic of Mongolia and PRC were new countries that were Independent from ROC in late 1940's. THAT IS A HISTORIC FACT NO ONE CAN DENIES.so it is OK if ROC abandons its constitution and gives recognition to Republic of Mongolia ,PRC,and republic of taiwan.Why not? These three countries can be all considered as the successors of ROC. Republic of Mongolia and PRC have no right to stop ROC from giving recognition to republic of taiwan because they were both Independent from ROC.LET ALONE the Treaty of San Francisco signed in 1951 Japan gave up the ruling right over Taiwan ,but Japan didn't give it to any other country. Therefore Taiwan does no belong to any other country.the only reason that PRC don't accept this is due to their greed for land and wealth of Taiwan.that's why PRC don't want to give up attacking taiwan by forces because they know they won't get the land and wealth without military annexation. As for their propaganda one China policy, the presupposition is that the controversy must be solved peacefully, but they ignored this on purpose. If PRC don't publcly give up attacking taiwan by forces, why should taiwan accept it? 

"The PLAAF is also large and powerful enough that it has the ability to control essentially all of Taiwan's airspace."

This seems to be an opinion , and not a fact. I do not believe that is true.

Wenzi 06:03, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

Rev. Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church, had recommended to Taiwan long ago to drop its claim of sovereignty over all China and to drop the name "Republic of China" as well. When his recommedation was ignored, Taiwan lost its seat in the UN as well as nearly all its international recognition. (I'm not sure how to work this into the article.) --~~

Good edit, Jiang. The enry is now well balanced and does not take sides. Tannin

I changed the article to emphasis that what makes the situation interesting is that people not only disagree about what the situation *should be*, there is a deep disagreement over what the situation *is*. In addition, its interesting since everyone seems to not object to the current situation because its not defined completely.

218.170.12.135 added the text below to the Politics of Taiwan article and I reverted it out. It blatantly violates the NPOV policy. However, I think some of this information can be salvaged, particulately the last two paragraphs. But we will need the PRC's counter arguments. "The Question of Sovereignty" should be a new subsection. Mention of the Cairo conference were already addressed in Talk:History of Taiwan and is irrelevant. Jiang 08:03 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The Question of Sovereignty: Viewing the sovereignty over Taiwan has never been an exact science and the modern world of the pre-WWII era seemed to view sovereignty as conquering or occupying un-conquered land. The western colonial powers viewed all territory NOT occupied by Spain, France, Portugal, Holland, Germany, Britain, Russia and later America, as free under the rights of manifest destiny and even China was considered open to colonial expansion. Before the colonial era, it is important to note that Taiwan has been inhabited by a non-Chinese, Malayo-Polynesian people for as long as 50,000 years. Taiwan remained entirely under indigenous control until 1430, when small Hakka settlements sprung up, but it wasn?t until 1624 that the whole of Taiwan was claimed in the name of the King of Holland. The island of Taiwan changed hands by force in 1662, when Cheng Cheng-gong, a half Chinese /half Japanese mercenary evicted the Dutch to use the island as a base of operations and launch attacks against the Qing empire in an attempt to rescue the Ming. After an epic naval battle, Cheng was defeated and for the first time Taiwan was under the control of the Qing. The importance of Taiwan to the Qing was underscored by the Kang xi and Yongzheng Emperors, both proclaiming that Taiwan was not a part of China, and further punctuated by the Qing taking until 1887 to claim Taiwan as a province of China, a condition that would last only eight years when, after a brief conflict in Korea, China signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895. The Treaty of Shimonoseki signed Taiwan and it?s dependencies and the Pescadores from China to Japan ?in perpetuity and full sovereignty.? Upon the outbreak of the Pacific War in 1941, Japan had turned Taiwan into a modern state. Chiang Kai Sheck had consolidated power throughout most of China that had not fallen to the Japanese and the Republic of China, established in 1912, was the recognized government of China.

In 1943, Roosevelt invited Churchill and Chiang to Cairo for a joint declaration on the allies intention for territory that was not yet liberated. Paragraph 3 states that ?Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the First World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." The purpose for the joint declaration was mainly to distract the world from the importance of the ?Big Three? (Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin) in Tehran later in the year. The first problem, and not the least, with the Cairo Declaration is that the declaration was made for territory yet to be liberated and thus the allies had little legal ground to give away territory they were not in possession of. The second problem is that Taiwan was ceded ?in perpetuity? to Japan and in contract law it is binding, a condition which can only be altered through another contract by Japan to give up the colony. The territory of Taiwan was not stolen in an act of war and cannot be compared to Japan?s occupation of Manchuria, which was the result of direct aggression; rather Taiwan was ceded by a proper treaty. Finally, The first Sino-Japanese war ended in 1895 and thus Taiwan had been part of Japanese territory for 19 years before WWI. The Potsdam Declaration merely seconds the Cairo Declaration and therefore it suffers from the same legal flaws.

The Treaty of Peace with Japan (1951) recognized the pending legal question of Taiwan and thus in the wording of the document the framers merely include the sentence explaining that Japan relinquishes ?all right, title, and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores." Nowhere in the document does Japan retrocede Taiwan to the Republic of China. The treaty does state in its preamble that Japan would "in all circumstances conform to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and strive to realize the objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," which includes respect for the self-determination of peoples and adherence to UN General Assembly resolutions. One of these resolutions, G.A. Res. 1514 (XV) (1960), spells out specifically principles relating to the independence of former colonies like Taiwan. The Republic of China was in essence chosen by the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers (SCAP) to liberate Taiwan and merely stayed. The Treaty of Peace with Japan in the leading document in the surrender of Japan, so thereby any other document signed by Japan regarding territory is superceded by the original Treaty of Peace.

After a brutal occupation of Taiwan in 1945, the ROC established the ROC on Taiwan upon losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, claiming to be the representative government of the whole of China, including Outer Mongolia and Tibet. The Nationalist government called itself the Republic of China on Taiwan and that was essentially what it was, a government in exile in a foreign land the same as the Tibetan government in exile in India or the French government in exile during WWII. Since the R.O.C. claimed to represent all of China according to the 1912 constitution of the R.O.C, The native Taiwanese (The term ?native? here means the people present on Taiwan before 1945) had no representation at the ratification of the R.O.C. Constitution and until 1996, Taiwan could be considered separate from the R.O.C. The status of the alien KMT?s illegal annexation of Taiwan was resolved after the first free elections in 1996 in which the people of Taiwan had the opportunity to elect a representative government. Regardless of the current acceptance of the R.O.C., the reasoning behind the acceptance still leads to dispute and further division from China as discussed below.

Taiwan?s current status in the world community is that of a State enjoying defacto (in-fact) independence as opposed to dejure (in-law) independence. According to the Montevideo Convention of 1933, the most cited source for the definition of statehood, a state must possess the following criteria: (a) A permanent population (b) a defined territory (c) government; and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Taiwan adheres to each of the above criteria as Taiwan has a permanent population of 23 million people, though it could be argued that 8% are not permanent because they wish to go back to China and view their tenure on Taiwan as a lengthy transient period. Taiwan has a defined territory, with water creating a clear and distinct border from other landmasses. There is a current and functional government that has been in operation for 55 years, though 43 of those years were acting above the Constitution. Taiwan has diplomatic relations with 23 other nations and enjoys a seat in the WTO, APEC and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. To further the argument, Taiwan has a permanent military capable of self-defense. Size is not an issue as Vatican City and Monaco (each less than 1 mile sq.) or Nauru ( 8 miles sq.) are fully accepted as states. Proximity is not a factor either as countries like Botswana are completely surrounded by another state, even Palestine enjoys an observer seat in the United Nations. One mitigating factor for why Taiwan is not recognized, as a sovereign state is the fact that Taiwan has not declared itself to be one, and under the current circumstances feels it would not be wise to do so.

China has drawn many analogies from recent unification schemes including North and South Korea, East and West Germany and Hong Kong?s retrocession to China. The analogies provided by China are not analogous to the situation between China and Taiwan as with the Koreas and Germany, having been established countries divided by 20th Century conflict. Taiwan?s links to China were never as solid as the Korean situation as the border between the two Koreas was the first border physically impeding travel between the two sides. Unlike the above analogies, Taiwan has always been physically separated from China and only recently has it been claimed by China as a province, yet the isolation of the island meant that it figured very little to the Chinese concept of territory until after 1949. To relate Taiwan to Hong Kong is also erroneous for the fact that Hong Kong was leased to Britain for a set period and all parties understood the document was legally binding and thus a return to China had always been anticipated. Taiwan had been ceded in perpetuity and thus there is no set legal document calling for its union with China.

I changed the poll numbers since I thought that have U on one side and status quo or independence on the other was a bit unfair.

There is a journal article that I once read that gave poll numbers for a series of questions that I thought was one of the most objective descriptions of public opinion on Taiwan. It had about twelve different questions which did a good job of illustrating the complexity of public opinion and why asking one or two questions gives you misleading answers.

---User:Roadrunner

Changed description of Lee's theory. The most important part of Lee's two state theory was that PRC and ROC where not part of the same Chinese nation. In marked a departure from one country, two governments which Lee had proposed in 1993.

--User:Roadrunner

Would be nice to see a timeline written by a knowledgeable historian of how exactly the ROC's stance has changed since 1949. The article currently only hints at the old stance that one day, the ROC would retake the mainland.

It would be nice to see an addition outlining MacArthur's interference and PRC reaction (attacks in Korea), the US supply of Taiwan with many landing craft and other weaponry, and Chiang Kai-shek's personal vows to land in China. Maybe something about the US (Kissinger and Nixon) using Mao's relationship with the Soviet Union to their advantage, shifting recognition from ROC to PRC. Stargoat 14:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I added a section not too long ago at Chinese_Civil_War#The_War_after_1949. It may have some relevance here. --Jiang 21:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Section was removed from main article. Please rewrite it and add it back. --Jiang

The military force solves the Taiwan problem

The People's Republic of China government never pledged gives up to the military force solve the Taiwan problem, but Republic of China in very long period of time also always expressed will be able the military force to counter-attack the mainland. Between both banks erupts the war possibility to be not allow to neglect, also isone ofEast Asian situation important focal points.

According to the present Taiwan's national defense capability, counter-attacks the mainland the opportunity to be miniscule, butmainland China military powerunceasingly strengthened in recent years, the majority person believed mainland China had the ability under the premise which the foreign military force did not involve, in the short time "liberated" Taiwan with the military force. According to the Taiwan Department of Defense's view, mainland China at present had 450missilesto aim at Taiwan, these missiles had the ability to hit in the Island of Taiwan the majority of goals, in addition China's air force, the navy also had the ability to control Taiwan after the war breaks out the sea area as well as the air supremacy. But the American Department of Defense's report believed that, mainland China at present lands Taiwan's ability not too to be also enough, but already was allowed effective military blockade Taiwan.

Mainland China government attacked for the military force to set up three prerequisites:The Taiwan independence, the Taiwan developmentnuclear weaponas well as have the foreign influence to involve the Taiwan problem. The majority person believed, Taiwan once the announcement independence, Chinese lieutenant general does not hesitate all prices to solve the Taiwan problem with the military force. But also has the Taiwan independence public figure to believe that,in 2008will be the Taiwan independent most good opportunity, because in 2008Beijingwill holdthe Olympic Games, the Chinese government will not be able easily to touch Taiwan sea the tense atmosphere. But the American government also publicly indicated, if the Taibei aspect will announce the independence, is regarded does the provocation, at the appointed time US will not be able to dispatch troops into battle involves the Taiwan sea war.

The Taiwan aspect also believed, in did not announce under the independent condition,USwill be able to protect Taiwan. The Taiwan authority pointed out,United States Congressin 1970 the end of ages through "Taiwan Relations Law" on explicitly listed the American government to defend Taiwan the duty. Taiwan some kiss the Taiwan independence the public figure further pointed out,in 1996Taiwan Straits missile crisisperiod, US on once sent out twoaircraft carriersto the Taiwan Straits patrol, demonstrated US defended Taiwan the determination. But also some people suspected US whether is willing but to join battle for Taiwan with mainland China.

Taiwan itself also is strengthening the national defense strength, Taiwan always is American munitions important purchase business.After in 2000Chen Shuibian comes on stage also proposes "beyond the border the decisive battle" the national defense concept, but Taiwan's missile also has the ability to attack mainland China coast some important cities.

Although the Taiwan Straits eruption war possibility does not allow to underestimate, erupts the war opportunity or quite lowly in the short-term. Regardless of is Taiwan or mainland China or US, all is not willing to see the Taiwan Straits situation is intense.

Chinglish perhaps? I'll take a whack at it later today. Stargoat 14:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This needs some work, especially some wikifing and maybe NPOVing, but I'm out of time right now. It really sounds like a war geek wrote it. If someone could fix that I would be grateful. Stargoat 22:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some confusion seems to have arisen here ...

The Wikipedia on the Treaty of Shimonoseki states:

"It ended the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) in favour of Japan. In the treaty China recognized the independence of Korea and renounced any claims, ceded the southern portion of Fengtien (current Shenyang, Liaoning) province, the islands of Formosa (or Taiwan) and the Pescadores Islands to Japan. China also paid Japan a war indemnity of 200 million Kuping taels, and opened various ports and rivers to international entry and trade."

When it was abolished at the end of the war and later raffirmed in the UN, none of the lands were 'reassigned' to the original owners. It was just understood that they reverted.

Why is it that all other land claimed in this treaty ended up back in Chinese control including Manchuria, Shenyang and Liaoning but due to he interference of the USA, Taiwan was exempt from this return of real property?

The very constitution of Taiwan most recently adjusted in 1996 to allow for the 'free elections' giving Chen his power is filled with the land claims of the ROC which included Tibet, Manchuria, the 16 provinces and overseas Chinese.

While in the power of the ROC, China accepted the ownership of Taiwan which they occupied and declared martial law.

In '71 when the ROC was asked to leave the UN Chamber and Beijing took their seat, Taiwan was not allowed to re-enter as an independent nation since Taiwan had represented themselves as not only the righful government of China but that Taipei was the very seat of the country.

Taipei HAS NEVER issued a declaration of independence from the mainland.

While America has supplied them with arms for a number of years, they have politically given support to the one China policy and have only gone as far as saying that they would prefer that the claim be 'settled peacefully'.

Majority now identify themselves a Taiwanese

This comment is probably no longer true. "The Taiwanese localization phenomenon appears to have taken root with a larger percentage identifying as Taiwanese or Taiwanese first Chinese second, although majority still identify themselves as both Taiwanese and Chinese." In the last year or so , polls have shown over 50% of the taiwanese identify them selves as taiwanese only.

Wrong

I am Taiwanese and though I am Taiwanese my race is certainly Chinese, no majority believe they are only Taiwanese. The only real Taiwanese here are the native people. I'm am Taiwanese but I'm also Chinese and all of us know this. Don't post "facts" you make up.

Polls aren't made up things. Don't assume to know the position of the people until they have spoken.--naryathegreat 00:24, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Neither should you represent the view of Taiwan's population. How dare you? ---Tp kde 01:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the opinion poll conducted by MAC in 2000, 45% consider themselves as Taiwanese only. Now it is four years later. What do you think? I wonder if MAC either stopped or hided the opinion poll result so that it would not be too stimulative to PRC since I can not find the result anywhere in MAC website. Or perhaps it is only me can not find the data? Mababa 04:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what Mababa said. ---Tp kde 05:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


There's a lot of other places to get these poll results (though mainly in chinese) I'm posting details from the newer ones up

On PRC government's "Three-If" condition which will trigger the between the mainland and Taiwan

the following text may have to be modified:

Notwithstanding this, the PRC government has issued three triggers for an immediate war with Taiwan. These three conditions are:

  • A Taiwanese declaration of independence, or
  • Taiwanese development of nuclear weapons, or
  • Direct foreign influence in Taiwan.

comparing with:

  • if a grave turn of events occurs leading to the separation of Taiwan from China in any name, or
  • if Taiwan is invaded and occupied by foreign countries, or
  • if the Taiwan authorities refuse, sine die, the peaceful settlement of cross-Straits reunification through negotiations.


According to the PRC government's white paper text (page: http://www.gwytb.gov.cn:8088/detail.asp?table=WhitePaper&title=White%20Papers%20On%20Taiwan%20Issue&m_id=4 , see the paragraph just above the headline "IV."), the three conditions will force the mainland government to use military force:

However, if a grave turn of events occurs leading to the separation of Taiwan from China in any name, or if Taiwan is invaded and occupied by foreign countries, or if the Taiwan authorities refuse, sine die, the peaceful settlement of cross-Straits reunification through negotiations, then the Chinese Government will only be forced to adopt all drastic measures possible, including the use of force, to safeguard China's sovereignty and territorial integrity and fulfill the great cause of reunification.

So the three conditions do not include the "nuclear weapons' development" but include "refuse negotiations indefinitely".

After the Pacific war ,in the Treaty of San Francisco signed in 1951 Japan gave up the ruling right over Taiwan ,but Japan didn't give it to any other country. Therefore Taiwan does no belong to any other country and preserve the right to hold a referendum to decide the future status of its own.

People's republic of China, the last main communist country, knows that there is no way Taiwan would want to become part of it if this referendum were hold. And therefore it won't allow this referendum to be hold because It is very likely that Taiwan people will get rid of those things which the Chiang Kai-shek imposed upon Taiwan. SO this is really ironic because in the past these communists wanted to eliminate Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang.Of course they don't want thoese things to be changed before they are ready to annex Taiwan.

On the other hand, unfortunately there are much more disputed territories for people's republic of China. For example, Diayutoi islands,just now part of Japan, is considered as its territory by People's republic of China. Besides almost all the islands in South China Sea ,ranging from straits of Malacca to the Strait of Taiwan, are also considered as its territory as well. In fact, their final goal is to control the sea-lane of east Asia and dominate east Asia ,controlling Japan by cutting its oil suply line and threatening USA by using Taiwan as a military base. The history has told us their goal very clearly if anyone remember the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979. After the war People's republic of China claimed that it invaded Vietnam because of Vietnamese Invasion of Cambodia. However, their claim is in vain because their true intention is to prevent another powerful country showing up in Southeast Asia, which could disserve their future plan to dominate East Asia.The Army of People's republic of China quickly withdraw from Vietnam simply because they knew they were not strong enough and Soviet Union just would not allow it. Without Soviet Union no doubt they would like to take over the whole Vietnam as what they had done in Tibet if they were strong enough.They will reach the goal step by step. For now their target is Taiwan,and Diayutoi islands is the next target after Taiwan. After these it's south China sea islands, especially Spratly Islands. I bet the tendency of realizing this goal is getting more and more urgent because these communists continuously play the card of nationalism to justify their regime. these communists know they would not be at charge without the card.

No one will feel at ease when a badman points at you with guns, especially you don’t know when this bastard will pull the trigger.What's worse,the dictator still tries to threaten the peace by buying more guns from many other countries. I think the current situation of Taiwan is really similar to the situation of Czechoslovakia in 1938. If the world still adopt appeasement like Munich Agreement ,it is very likely that these communists will try futher as Hitler tried to built up his Riech after Munich Agreement.

Merging with Taiwan cession

I am unconvinced that Taiwan cession should be merged into this article. Taiwan cession deals with a very specific topic, is not a bad article, and merging it into this page would just bloat this page. Certainly, this page should link to Taiwan cession, but that separate article can discuss the Taiwan cession in more detail. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 01:02, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I fully support your suggestion. I believe the Taiwan cession can be further elaborated. At the same time, since the Taiwan's political status highly depends on how international treaties are interpreted and whether the Laws of war are considered into this interpretation, at least an excerpt of the Taiwan cession article should exist on Political status of Taiwan, not just a link though.Mababa 03:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I really don't see what information would belong there and not here. Can you elaborate? Discussion of the relevant treaties must be given here. There's no point in leaving any of it out. --Jiang 03:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One reasons I can think of to keep a separate entry for Taiwan Cession: Taiwan cession invokes the idea of undetermined cession which follows the precedence of Cuba cession. The interpretation would be quite delicate and probably would involve some supreme court decisions. Therefore, the entry could be expanded on this aspect and this may not be the common interest for the general public who are interested in learning the current Taiwan political status. [1] To put all these information together with other discussion on political status of Taiwan would be too long I believe. If one can nicely put everything together without losing the focus while keeping pertinent information, I would not insist my opinion. However, if too many things have to be trimed, I would rather keep the pages as it is.Mababa 05:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "idea of undetermined cession" is fully relevant to the political status of Taiwan. We can always split things out later but everything currently at Taiwan cession looks relevant to me so I'm still not sure what would be not. Other mentions would belong at history of Taiwan. --Jiang 09:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Another merger proposal

Is there a reason this article is separate from foreign relations of Taiwan? Reading the two articles, there seems to be a large amount of overlap in what they discuss. I've recently added the 2004 developments section to this page, and I feel like it should also belong on the foreign relations of Taiwan page. In fact, in general, when I want to add something to either article, I find myself unsure which one I want to add it to, and I dislike copying and pasting from one article to the other, because maintaining the same text in two articles is not a very good plan. Is there anything on this page that couldn't also go on the other article? My suggestion would be to merge this article into foreign relations of Taiwan—the biggest problem seems to be that it would be a big job, since both are pretty fairly developed and well-organized articles. Thoughts from other Wikipedians? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 09:25, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

No. Foreign relations discusses the ROC's relations with other governments. It does not discuss the status of the ROC/Taiwan itself. For example, the 1992 consensus, Jiang Zemin's 8 pt policy and Chen Shui-bian's Four Noes are aimed domestically. To declare cross-relations to be "foreign relations" is POV. The domestic positions in Taiwan and the relative military strength of the sides is also not relevant to the issue of foreign relations.
As for the "2004 developments" section, it gives lopsided coverage to the past few days, which, in my opinion, should not be stressed give the lack of coverage elsewhere. The comments were not international headline material. We also left out events that happened early in the year. There is no mention of the referendum or government statements during the time of the presidential election in the section. We should start an article on U.S.-ROC relations and move the "2004 developments" section to there. The PRC's various white papers and announcements made over the years need to be incorporated into the short "Position of the PRC" section. --Jiang 09:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, you have convinced me that political status of Taiwan should be kept separate from the foreign relations article. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 05:23, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


Your New edit

Jiang, can you somehow explain the ratinale of your new edits? It seemed to me the earlier edit and title was clearer for the readers to understand every parties' position on this debate.Mababa 04:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We only make headers when there are at least a couple of good-sized paragraphs in the section. Otherwise, the table of contents will become to cumbersome. I removed:
Thus, the retrocession day proclaimed by Chen Yi (Kuomintang) on Dec 25, 1945 would be null in this sense. Furthermore, since the Cairo declaration was in fact an unsigned press communique, its legal effectiveness was questionable.
We never said the Cairo Declaration had legal force. We said the instrument of surrender and peace treaties did. Chen Yi made no legal declaration, I believe. Retrocession day is a holiday, not a transfer of sovereignty.
Since both China were not invited to participate this treaty, and thus were not being defined as the Allied Powers in article 23a, the Chinese governments were legally prohibited from being benefited from Taiwan's sovereignty according to Article 25.
The San Franicsco treaty did not confer any benefits in regards to Taiwan. Japan just renounced sovereignty. The benefit (handing sovereignty over to another power) was never given. --Jiang 07:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is a misunderstanding here. It was in the Treaty of San Francisco where Japan legally disposed Taiwan sovereignty. Not in anywhere else. Sure, the benefit (handing sovereignty over to another power) was never given as the terms stated renounce. However, both China were legally prohibited to any gain what so ever because of this dispostion. Thus, the sovereignty either being hold by the bellingrant occupation or the residents in Taiwan. I am afraid you still did not give a legitimate rebuttal to remove this line. I do not care that much about the Cairo thing. BTW, the term stolen was verbatimly cited from the press communique. Please restore that part too.:)Mababa 07:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not here to "rebut" anything. If it was not a benefit, then they were not barred from obtaining it. I don't see your point. I would really like to see a neutral source making the arguments your are making. Otherwise, it's primary research. We cannot use the word "stolen" without putting it in quotation marks since the word has POV connotations. --Jiang 07:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have read this argument long time before and I can not remember where it came from. However, I would be happy to cite it next time when I come across materials with a similiar claim. Put the question aside, this is really a plain interpretation of the terms in the treaty; but for the formality, I will see what I can find.Mababa 07:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just put the quotation marks. Thanks for your reminding.Mababa 07:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After my second thought, I would suggest you to put back the lines about the Cairo declaration, too. Even if you personally do not use it as an argument for sovereignty claim, the press in PRC still use it as the handle for claim. To say no one use it to make claim is probably not true.Mababa 07:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not claiming it as an argument. Unless we claim some people are arguing it, then there's no point in presenting a counter argument. Oh, and dont ever use the phrase "some people" --Jiang 07:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, then let's expand it a bit and bring in the positions of the PRC's claim about the Cairo Declaration and also present the other side to make a balanced story. There is no reason to hide what is believed by many people in PRC and not present it in Wikipedia.Mababa 07:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Now, would you mind telling me when is adquate to italianize words? I am also confused. What is wrong about "some people?" Many thanks.Mababa 07:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We italicize the emphasize. When we want to quote, quotation marks suffice. Italics are not necessary and can be inappropriate. Words like "some people", "many people" etc. are essentially unattributed. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms --Jiang 08:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. It is certainly great to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. I thought about the retrocession paragraph on Chen Yi and still think it should be included. Reason one: If the surrender instument of Japan was the paper give the legal force of retrocession, then the date of retrocession is indeed the day of surrender. And, this positon is indeed used by the PRC official "On October 25, 1945, the Chinese government recovered Taiwan and the Penghu Archipelago, resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan.............. PRC naturally should fully enjoy and exercise China's sovereignty, including its sovereignty over Taiwan."[2]

Of course, I did not explain who made such retrocession day and I actually should have done that. Even though you do not believe that Chen Yi made a legal proclaimation and you do not agree that day was the transfer of sovereignty, this is nevertheless used or implicated by PRC's white paper on Taiwan and make that day more than a holiday. I think we should present the postion from both side on this issue in Wikipedia as they are part of the core argument of retrocession. If you have no opinion on this, I will add it into the article some time later.Mababa 06:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opinion poll

May I ask who this Chen Yunhan is in manderin? And perhaps the source of the study? Just being curious. Thanks.Mababa 07:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Chu Yunhan (朱雲漢) is a professor of political science at Academia Sinica. He has written extensively on this, but the numbers I'm citing come from the July/August 2004 issue of Asian Survey.

Roadrunner 07:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I apologize if I made something un-necessary. But is his name spelled as Chu Yunhan or Chu Yun-han? I thought since he comes from Taiwan, it should be spelled with an dash and therefore changed it in the article; but if he spells it without a dash, we should respect his own will.Mababa 08:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how he spells it, and I don't have any preference either way. His studies are very interesting. Basically, there was a huge shift from a Chinese-only identity to Taiwanese-only/Taiwanese and Chinese in the early 1990's, but since then the numbers have stayed constant. The data point that young people tend to more often have mixed identities also is interesting.

Roadrunner 08:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, we need to be *very* careful with poll data. There are a huge number of numbers which are being thrown around. Roadrunner 08:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. A highly interesting issue focusing on Taiwanese identity. I checked on the spelling and it turned out to be the one with a dash. I wonder if you happen have read other articles in the same issue? Are they equally interesting? :) Thanks a lot!!Mababa 08:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Here is an interesting provisional paper. There are two surveys that track identity and political thought from 1992 to 2004. What I find interesting is that the dual identity response has stayed pretty constant for 14 years as has people's attitudes about Taiwan's political statu

http://www.dur.ac.uk/chinese.politics/papers%20conference%20Brussels/Day%20Dongching%20paper.pdf

Roadrunner 08:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again for your information. Undeniably, the dual identity response stayed at a stable number. However, one has to recognize that the pure Chinese identity dropped steeply. There is no way for those lost number to shift directly into pure Taiwanese identity, therefore these lost must have infused into the dual identity block. Since the dual identity block stayed level with all these infusion, there must be a net flow shifting from dual identity into pure Taiwanese.

Not necessarily. Another interpretation is that you have a lot of old waishenren who died off in the 1990's who are being replaced by younger Taiwanese with dual identity. I think that if you look at the Asian Survey article, this makes more sense. Another impact is that in the late 1980's, martial law was lifted, and people are starting to say what they thought all of this time. Personally, I don't know of many people in Taiwan whose opinions on the topic have changed very much.
Hmmm... I will probably have to read the article in detail to be more convinced by the generation argument proposed in the paper. Considering the net pupulation growth rate in Taiwan is so low, the number of generation faded away can be translated into the number of the new generation. In this sense, the total population would be a fixed number. If we hypothesize every demised mainlander has one progeny which choose to recognize the dual identity, then number of the supporter of dual identity should grow instead stay level and the pure Taiwanese identity should stay leve instead of increase. Unless, we belive the pure Taiwanese is more fruitful then the mainlander. Considering a net growth of 10% (from 27.1% in 1993 to 38% in 2002) spanning 10 years, the pure Taiwanese residents has to have a overall higher growth rate more than 0.5% higher per year than all the other identity. Which may or may not be true. Perhaps DPP has made a secret special food formula for independence supporters to give them birth advantage? :D Mababa 01:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


You also have to take into account age structure. The early 1990's, were a time when the old generation of WSR started dying off, but their children are already old enough to be counted. The other interesting thing is that there was a huge shift between 1986 and 1993, but the numbers have stabilized since about 1998. What is also the case is (and these numbers come from the Asian Survey article and is consistent with my personal experience) is that younger someone is, the more likely they are to have a dual identity and less ideologically committed to either independence or unification.
Sure, the younger, the more gullible. Eventually, one would develop one's opinion then they would committed to one of the choices. Based on my personal experience, too.Mababa 01:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it gullibility. One large factor is that younger Taiwanese have simply not been involved in the WSR versus BSR conflict as much as their parents. A 60 year old WSR is very different from a 60 year old BSR. A 20 year old WSR is almost identical to a 20 year old BSR. Also younger Taiwanese tend to get their information from a much larger source of information and have much more diverse social contacts than their parents.
06:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you on all your statement. The younger generation are less exposed to the white heated conflict and thus are easier for them to make fair and balanced judgement. However, one would have consider the fact that it takes time for a youngster to learn, to get exposed to one topic and formulate one's idea. Once they learned the history in a more neutral stand point, sooner or later they will make their own political position in this cross strait debate.
I don't see any particular reason why young people in Taiwan should choose one side or another as they grow older. It seems possible, even likely, that as time passes the political and social context will change so that the old divisions and arguments just won't make any sense. Also, one needs to be careful about the idea of neutral history. Everyone likes to think that their version of history is neutral and their opponents are biased. My experience is that when you get exposed to different versions of history (as younger people in Taiwan are), you start believing that all versions of history are biased, and history becomes less of a motivating factor in decisions making.
Roadrunner 07:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Even if they choose to assume a dual identity, it does not necessarily mean that they wouldpay their loyalty to both side. When I read the "Chu Yunhan" paper, I found one amazing point which he tried to claim that the younger generations who are more susceptible to teaching material manipulated by ruling party still chose a dual identity as opposed to the older generation. However, if one really seriously think about how long the DPP have started to rule, one would find that the oldest generation under DPP would still be in elementry school! Then, look at the current 38% Taiwanese who chose single identity, these are the generation undergone most severe political brainwash. But still they matured and choosed an identity which is opposite to what they have been tought.
Actually no. If you look at the Asian Survey article, people who choose single Taiwanese identity tend to be older people. My guess as to why is that there is a lot of "martial law" effect, that people in the 1980's and early 1990's felt a lot of pressure to give the "politically correct" answer which might not have reflected what they really felt. This would explain the massive shift between 1986 and 1992.
Roadrunner 07:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no much opinion on this comment. Your suggestion can well be true but it is equally likely that these brainwashed citizens shifted or aroused their political position against what they have been instilled.Mababa 09:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In order to make what Chu or you proposed, one would have to have long term study and follow up on each individual. Otherwise, it is something common to an immature youngster to be indifferent since they are not deeply exposed to the topic and pretend they are neutral.
My experience with young people (i.e. less than 35 years) is that they are not immature, and that their political opinions are very well thought out. Many of them have decided after looking at all of the issues to resolve the U/I conflict by trying to come up with a third way or compromise solution. A lot of this has big implications for political strategy. Basically, you are in a good position if you convince the young people, and treating young people as if they are immature, brainwashed, or dismissing their beliefs don't reflect a great deal of thought, turns people off. This is especially bad because people in their 20's have very volatile political beliefs and unlike their elders are less likely to be iron votes for anyone.
You are suggesting attitudes turns people away, not the ideology. If people fickles on their position, it is usually a sign of immature or guillable. What if there is a study indicating that as people get older, it is less likely for them to make friends with different political point of view, would you still make the same argument with your experience? Of course, I can not find such a study off hand. However, this is based on my experience.Mababa 09:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually my experience has been that lack of ideological certainty is not necessarily a bad thing. Taiwan would be in serious trouble if most people were extremely ideological, and it's essential to have a lot of people who aren't too ideological to have a functional democratic system. One problem with these sorts of studies is that one needs to separate age effects from generational ones. Does someone believe something because they are 30 year old or because they were born in the 1970's? Roadrunner 18:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I know people are less interested in politics, but I am not sure what it means by lacking ideological certainty. Does it mean people do not think critically or people are more open minded? Having position toward one way or the other does not necessarily make one lose his tranquility in making political decision, thus does not constitute extreme position. I guess you are implying pan-green supporters tend to be more extreme and ideological; pan-blue supporter or unification supporters are less extreme? Both may or may not be true.Mababa 05:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My experience with really young people is that historical arguments really don't influence them that much. They tend to see DPP history as biased as KMT history, and both equally irrelevant to their life and political decision making. What does really influence a lot of 30 year olds I know is economic opportunity in mainland China, and this accounts for the fact that urban 30 year olds tend to be the strongest pan-blue supporters. Roadrunner 07:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is actually only one urban area with many young middle class people gathered in Taiwan, Taipei, which is known to be a pan-blue city already. Even PRC claims that many Taiwanese bussinessman are actully secretly pan-green supporter. The economic opportunity is not that decisive on one's position, I believe.Mababa 09:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not decisive (I know of some green businessmen), but it helps. If the PRC had remained stuck in the 1960's, and there was no business between Taiwan and the PRC, Taiwan would be gone already. Business between PRC and Taiwan doesn't guarantee that people will have pro-PRC attitudes, but it makes attitudes toward the PRC much more favorable than they would be if it didn't exist. Again, we aren't talking about anyone being wildly pro-Beijing, we are talking about moving from total hatred to moderate dislike. Also, even the green businessman with a factory in Dongguan is going to be much more reluctant to start a war than a green farmer in Tainan. Roadrunner 18:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also have the strong suspicion (based on personal experience) that opinions toward the PRC government have improved between 1986 and 2004. Very few people in Taiwan are enthusiatic supporters of the PRC, but the center of opinion has turned from visceral hatred to moderate dislike. Something that I think has been a major factor in Taiwanese opinion is that in 1986, unification was some sort of distant prospect that no one took seriously, while in 2004, its clear that if there was support for unification that it would happen.
Roadrunner 01:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your are really optimistic.:) Mababa 01:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not really. I'm very deep blue, but I don't have the "history and destiny are on our side, as the inevitable rise of Taiwan consciousness means that independence is inevitable" attitude that is common among many pan-green supporters. The problem with that attitude is that it ignores a few of the trends which suggest that history and destiny isn't on the side of the pan-greens.
Roadrunner 06:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
With all my respect, I believe only opportunists and politicians follow trends without seeing right or wrong. They seek personal benefit and welfare. That's totally fine and okay; this is a democratic country and everyone's choice are equally valued. However, if one really really look back to what our older generation has gone through, and also plan for our future generation, one would see that we need more than being an opportunist or a politician.
I don't think so. One problem with traditional Chinese thinking is that it always puts emphasis on a savior or a visionary rather than talking about systems in which flawed, selfish, and opportunistic ordinary people manage to muddle through. Roadrunner 07:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I felt my point of view has somehow been schewed. What you are suggesting is the idolization. This acmed at both Chiang's times when they lead ROC. What I was saying is the statemanship in the western country. Mababa 09:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We need statemanship. We need to make our best before we give in to the "trend." We need to offer an enviroment to our future generations where all the truth are being told, a place where they learn how to tell right from wrong. Unreasonable things will never be tolerated. Everyone can tell themselves, "I have done my best." I personally do not believe a trend can help us to make it where we want to be. Every person lives on his own. If one do not work for your ownself, it is certain that one can only follow others' footsteps(trend).Mababa 06:58, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The trouble with this view is that different people believe in different things. I happen to be a strong unificationist, and I personally think that Taiwan should give in to the trends that favor unification. I respect the opinions of people who disagree with me, but I still disagree with them. Part of respecting people who disagree is to recognize that people who disagree are very smart intelligent people who have good reasons for disagreeing, and convincing people is more than "educating them with the truth." The idea that many (not all) pan-green have which is that they have a monopoly on the truth, and that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or uninformed is a serious weakness. Roadrunner 07:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You and I choose what we want to believe and I respect what you believe. I have no much opinion on this. As for your pan-green experience, I can only say that it is unfortunate for you. Not all people are like this.
The problem is that what you and I believe is irrelevant if it is not the truth. Roadrunner 18:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is my own interpretation: both pure Chinese and dual identity has actually being compressed. This is something changed internally and not necessary would reflect fast enough on the external decision: decisionon political status.  :)

What's interesting is that most of the polls that asked detailed questions find that most Taiwanese tend to be in favor of independence under some conditions and unification under others. One of the more interesting results is that polls consistently show that the main reason people are against independence is fear of military action by the PRC. Barring a Soviet-style collapse in the PRC, this is unlikely to change anytime soon.

It would be interesting to see further follow up on this topic. Many thanks for these interesting references.

It's relevant for the article, because one fact is that Taiwanese have some very highly complex beliefs about national identity, and you have to be careful about quoting polls that oversimplify what people actually believe. This has a lot of impact on future prospects. The standard TI intepretation of the poll results is that people are becoming more independence oriented and have a stronger Taiwan identity, however there are very good reasons for thinking that the actual situation is far more complicated than that. What would be interesting is to do a longititudal study and ask what people believed five years ago. I suspect that if you do that you will see that the main shifts are due to generational shifts.
Roadrunner 22:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mababa 09:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hello Roadrunner, I did a little research on Chu Yun-han (朱雲漢) and learned that he is actually a pan-blue supporter/scholar, who was actually invited by KMT to participate the 2004 Legislative Yuan election, but he refused it. Further, he actively participated the political debates on the referendum issues. I would suspect that his position has fell out of the spectrum of neutral and I would be more conservative on treating his research result. Especially this paper is an 2004 paper using out dated data (more than two years older).

Just because a social scientist has opinion (i.e. is human) doesn't invalidate the results of his research. What is important is to provide enough information about his information and methodology so that one can critique it. Also, one of the links above seems to be a link to his findings with a data point for 6/2004. Roadrunner 16:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was very interesting to chat with someone who has a opposite conviction. As you mentioned, none of these conversation contents are important. Let's wait and see how the cross strait reality evolves in the comming next few years.Mababa 02:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the 12/11 election seems to strongly confirm Chu Yun-han's findings that there hasn't been any basic attitude shift in Taiwanese opinions on identity since the mid-1990's. This sort of explains a lot of the strong reaction that pan-Green has toward the results of the election. If Chu Yun-han is right (and 12/11 suggests that he is) and there hasn't been and isn't any basic shift in attitude toward "Taiwan consciousness," then this destroys a lot of the most basic assumptions that pan-Green strategy is based on.
Conversely, I bet there were a lot of pan-blue like myself that breathed a huge sigh of relief at yesterday's election, because one could easily imagine a situation in which it turned out Chu was wrong. Part of the reason I feel better today is that I try to get a broad perspective on information, and this involves reading a lot of pan-Green/Taiwan independence material. It is very psychologically difficult to constantly read things saying that your party (KMT) is doomed, you are out of touch with reality, you are mentally unbalanced for having the beliefs that you do, people are turning away from your beliefs, the tide of history is against you, you are becoming a dinosaur, and that in a few years everything you believe in will disappear. The scary thing is that after a while, you almost start believing it, and when everyone starts to believe it, then it becomes true.
What the 12/11 election result indicate is that a lot of the optimism of pan-green was misplaced. The KMT is not going to disappear anytime soon, and for the forseeable future there is going to be a significant segment of Taiwanese population that is attracted to pan-blue ideology. What this means is that everyone is just going to have to sit down and figure out how to live with people who just disagree with them. Roadrunner 16:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It must be difficult for you to read these heart breaking essays. I am sure you must feel a great relief. To me, it is only a battle, even though a larger one. :)07:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

no major shift

There is also an article on Asia Times that makes the observasion that there is no major shift in the legislature except that the PFP lost ten of its legislature seats to the KMT. THe PFP is furious about this.

Also one should not equate the legislative elections as a real referendum on any issue. This is because the election has a weird voter allocation system. For example, if there are twenty candidates running for ten legislative seats in a district, the top ten candidates get the seats regardless of the number of votes they get. So it could be possible that the #1 candidate gets the majority of the voter's ballots in that distruct and perhaps the #10 candidate got only 1% of the popular vote. I heard on the webcast of the ICRT coverage of the legislative elections that the parties had to use very weird strategies to deal with this awkward system. One particular party would ask their supporters to vote for a certain candidate based on their birthday or ROC ID card # in order to make sure that most of the party's candidates make it within the top ten.

A constitutional amendment that was passed by the Legislative Yuan proposes to eliminate this voter allocation system and make candidates from different parties to compete for only one seat. This amendment needs to be ratified by the National Assembly in the next couple of months.

I'm a pan-green supporter, but it will be interesting to see if there will be a proper evolution in the checks and balances between the President/Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan. Allentchang 04:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point is that the pan-green was expected to annihilate the pan-blue in the elections so the executive and the legislative yuans can work in sync to push pan-green agenda. So I guess it can be equated to referendum on issues somewhat. Chen's two referendums were defeated during the presidential election even though he won, and he's been trying to bring them back ever since. Well, apparently he's gonna meet a lot of oppositon because of the pan-blue majority. Altogether the pan-blue nominated 169 candidates, and the pan-green nominated also nominated 169, so I'm sure changes in vote allocation would have had some effect. And yes, you should go check out the KMT website as it has the vote allocation system all charted out for you. Some counties use the voters' birth month, some counties with two candidates divide the vote equally between male and female, and some counties ask you to vote for those who need help. Really neat stuff:) Wareware 02:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan status quo

Taiwan is now an occupied territory under Chinese administration(ROC), not an independent state. The occupying authority is the government of Republic of China. It is an illegitimate government of China since 1971. The PRC is the legitimate Chinese government since 1971.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_status_of_Taiwan/Archive_1&oldid=1158205294"