| Author |
Topic:
China and Taiwan for dummies.
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
9/18/07 9:39pm
Subject:
RE: China and Taiwan for dummies.
|
Well, I'd call Taiwan an unofficial state. One, albeit, that needs to reunify with China.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon
Registered:
Dec '00
|
Date Posted:
9/18/07 9:45pm
Subject:
RE: China and Taiwan for dummies.
|
Ender_Sai posted:
The US ought say nothing publicly, least it be misread.
E_S
Random curiosity, but is that a typo or simply yet another word that members of the former British Empire spell differently from Americans?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
9/18/07 11:26pm
Subject:
RE: China and Taiwan for dummies.
|
Jediflyer posted:
Taiwan, as it is now (no international recognition) is not a state.
So exactly what was the rationale behind other countries withdrawing recognition for the ROC? What's there to say that the One China policy needs to be there? Is there a reason why we shouldn't support Taiwan aside from China trying to strongarm it into its control, or are we just giving up on them now that we don't need a Cold War proxy?
As far as I know, a state that's existed for long enough may as well be recognized, even if the legality of its creation is somewhat sketchy....otherwise the United States, Israel and many other countries probably wouldn't exist. Reunification, like when East Germany joined back with the West, should only occur if the participating entities agree to it, and Taiwan doesn't look like it does.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Septhaka
Registered:
Nov '06
|
Date Posted:
9/20/07 10:34pm
Subject:
RE: China and Taiwan for dummies.
|
Ender Sai posted:
Though, given that Taiwan is at best a de facto, rather than de jure, state I'd be hard pressed to see how they'd think they'd get UN member status...
You seem to be unequivocally stating Taiwan is not a de jure state. Its fair to say this is not without question as there are arguments for the proposition that Taiwan is currently de jure sovereign.
-----signature-----
Leaving these boards effective 9/30/07
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
9/20/07 10:39pm
Subject:
RE: China and Taiwan for dummies.
|
Well, it is and it isn't.
By the purest terms, under the international legal standard for statehood (set forth in the Montevideo Convention of 1933), it's not because it's not recognised.
However, law is defined also by practise. If you don't remedy something under law, it becomes accepted. eg if we sign a contract and you violated a condition and I don't hold you to it, the contract is considered changes.
Deeds, that is, affect laws.
So if Taiwan is treated as a state, then you're right, it is a de jure sovereign.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Septhaka
Registered:
Nov '06
|
Date Posted:
9/20/07 10:59pm
Subject:
RE: China and Taiwan for dummies.
|
|
I think the Taiwan sovereignty supporters arguments are a bit more sophisticated. I think its safe to say Taiwan's status is in dispute. Some would say it is de facto state, others would say it is a de jure state. The weave of treaties, conventions, interpretive principles ("uti possidetis" is a favorite), etc. is complex. Wikipedia has a good article showing the tangled web of documents and events. No wonder this is such a mess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Taiwan
-----signature-----
Leaving these boards effective 9/30/07
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
9/21/07 1:00am
Subject:
RE: China and Taiwan for dummies.
|
Oh certainly, and that's an additional consideration.
Though for many Taiwanese, the issue isn't about law so much as keeping the status quo. Which threw me at first but when they explained it it made sense.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
11/1/07 8:36am
Subject:
RE: China and Taiwan for dummies.
- Date Edited:
11/1/07 8:49am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Alpha-Red
|
Ender_Sai posted:
However, law is defined also by practise. If you don't remedy something under law, it becomes accepted. eg if we sign a contract and you violated a condition and I don't hold you to it, the contract is considered changes.
This one makes me think of Iraq. It always felt ridiculous to me how President Bush charged Saddam with genocide and all that when we sat on our hands watching him strafe/bomb his own people, only to bring up the issue ten years later in a shoddy casus belli.
Ender_Sai posted:
Though for many Taiwanese, the issue isn't about law so much as keeping the status quo. Which threw me at first but when they explained it it made sense.
How exactly does the status quo benefit them? Does this mean that even if China decided tomorrow, "oh what the heck you guys can have an independent country" they still won't go for it?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
11/1/07 1:58pm
Subject:
RE: China and Taiwan for dummies.
|
You have to understand how important saving face is to Chinese people.
To lose face for them is far worse than for us. It's without comparison in the Western world. But it drives so much of China's interaction with the world.
For example, China's policy of non-intervention, and insisting domestic matters are nobody's business, are born out of a real concern that if a precedent was set to criticise the record of, say, Sudan, then there's nothing to stop a criticism of China. The inevitable outcome would be a loss of face.
It's why the US government gets no traction with Beijing where the Australian government does. We have appropriate levels of deference, respect and humility and we don't tell them what they're doing wrong. The US, however, frequently causes China to "lose face".
To give you an example of how important it is, I'll give you a personal anecdote. I lived in Taiwan as a teacher during what was perhaps the best year of my life. As an English teacher, I had to try and teach complex English grammar to people who come from a much simpler, much more straightforward grammar structure. I also had a Chinese co-teacher with me in class.
If a student didn't understand a concept, the student wouldn't put their hand up and ask. Why not? They'd lose face. So they'd tell their parent. The parent wouldn't talk to be, because I'd lose face and so would they. So they'd tell my Chinese co-teacher, but she couldn't tell me because I'd lose face. So they'd tell the head Chinese teacher, who couldn't tell me because I'd lose face and she'd lose face being responsible for people who couldn't communicate their concerns. So the Head Chinese Teacher would tell the school Administrator (i.e. boss), who couldn't tell me because she'd lose face and so would I. So the Administration would tell the head foreign teacher, who'd tell me.
Trusting that this happened more than once and for something as mundane as why does the verb "to go" become "went" in the past tense, and you start to get an idea for how much face matters.
So, why do the Taiwanese and Chinese like the status quo?
Nobody loses face.
Cross-straight relations have never been better. Trade is facilitated by enterprising businessmen. Flights now go from Taipei to the mainland for Chinese New Year. Taiwanese supervisors and businessmen now head up divisions in Shanghai and Fujian, passing on the know-how accrued through years of running businesses with a Western focus in Taiwan.
So on that front, it's fine. It's peaceful. Nobody loses face.
The problems only occur when Chen Shui-bian tries to rock the boat.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Django211
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
11/2/07 6:42am
Subject:
RE: China and Taiwan for dummies.
|
To add to what Ender says, the Chinese also want to "give face". You don't want to make someone look foolish. When people argue often times you can hear "give me some face" as a means to placate a tense situation. They don't want to back someone into a corner.
As a simple example look to the world of sports. Yao Ming has been criticized since he came to the NBA for not taking the ball strong to the hoop all the time & dominating other centers he towers over. Having seen him play on the Shanghai Sharks I can tell you that isn't something he is used to. He never learned to just take the ball & dominate his opponents and forget what his opponents, teammates & crowd think of him. Despite being overwhelmingly more talented than everyone around him. Now he is learning the American style but is nowhere near where his critics wish him to be. Yao is used to giving face to his opponents & teammates, unfortunately in the NBA it has little use.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
1/31 11:36am
Subject:
RE: China and Taiwan for dummies.
|
I dunno, I can't see this "saving face" thing to be a particularly healthy practice. China obviously has issues to work out, and for people over there to stick their heads into the sand isn't helping. With regard to the Taiwan independence thing, really the only people causing China to lose face are the hardliners who call for the use of military force and even nuclear confrontation with the United States to achieve their ends.
If the Chinese are so concerned about losing face over Taiwan, then why not just let them form their independent country? There's so much less shame involved in admitting a mistake and reversing course than there is in stubbornly trodding down the same path even when you know it's wrong. Given time, the fact that they have an identical culture will probably mean that they'll reunite peacefully in the future anyway, just like how East and West Germany merged back into one state.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
