[zenbob]

Is there any argument why Taiwan should be treated as anything other than a normal, independent country? I know that China wants to claim sovereignty, but a want is not an argument. I don't mean this as a rhetorical question--I am curious if there is any coherent argument here?

[elefanten]

From the perspective of any one given actor/organization, the coherent argument might be "we don't want to piss of China".

But to the spirit of your question, no there's no argument that's externally valid. The CCP has claims relating to it's legitimacy, security and territorial claims. They are not widely viewed as credible, but China has insisted on making Taiwan a red line issue so everybody else has to pretend like these claims might be legitimate.

At the end of the day it's a very large political entity trying to take complete control of a much smaller one against it's will. It's colonialism plain and simple.

[platinumrad]

>It's colonialism plain and simple.

It's really not that plain or simple. Any population that might have a claim to being "indigenous" to Taiwan has already been colonized by the Dutch and the Portuguese, then the Qing dynasty, then the Japanese, and finally the ROC, which is the sovereign entity that governs Taiwan today. If anything, the transition from Japanese to KMT rule was rather brutal and colonial, although Taiwan is a rather healthy democracy today and the current ruling faction, the Pan-Greens, have historically fought against that legacy.

[dis-sys]

although Taiwan is a rather healthy democracy today and the current ruling faction, the Pan-Greens, have historically fought against that legacy.

you must be kidding yourself. just looking at news happened in the last 72 hours

-A Dupty commissioner of ROC's Transitional Justice Commission openly instructed his men to launch political attacks against a key KMT party candidate, he also urged MPs from his own party to assist him. He further pointed out that his vision for the ROC's Transitional Justice Commission is the Eastern Depot [1] style secret police. His passionate speech was secretly recorded by a member from his own party and released to the public. Your favourite pan-green forces want Eastern Depot [1] style secret police to be re-installed, yet you choose to troll here that they are progressive and better than KMT. What a bloody joke!You have to wonder what happens if the tap was not released to the public.

[A2017U1]

> Eastern Depot [1] style secret police

There no link provided but you mean the Eastern Bureau? A historical 600 year old police force? Comes across as a strange reference to make regarding current affairs.

Doesn't every country have departments within their intelligence community that operate relatively away from the public eye. Seems quite uncontroversial to me without them breaking laws, perverting justice or other nastiness.

[dang]

HN is not a place for political or nationalistic flamewar and you've been posting a lot of such comments. If you keep doing that we're going to have to ban you, so please stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[07d046]

If you read through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan , there are a lot of issues, like exactly who Japan surrendered to, and the status of the governments of China and Taiwan given that they were opposing sides in a civil war that never officially ended. There are those on Taiwan who believe that they are the rightful rulers of all China. My take on it is that Taiwan, China, and even the US can argue their claim to having sovereignty over Taiwan, but in the end, it will come down to balancing "possession is nine tenths of the law" against "might is right".

[cknight]

The official position of both governments (mainland and Taiwan) is that there is only one country called China, and it is made up of both the mainland and Taiwan. Of course your average Taiwanese citizen is unlikely to hold such a position, but I'm just looking at this at an official level to start.

From the mainland government's perspective, that country is the People's Republic of China, governing from Beijing. For Taiwan, that country is the Republic of China, currently governing from Taipei having fled the mainland. The civil war has never officially ended, and each lays claim to the others territory as the rightful owner.

This is the basis of the "One China Policy" that you might read about every now and then. The vast majority of countries around the world switched to recognising the PRC instead of the ROC many decades ago, and the PRC offers financial incentives for doing so, which matters to small countries, notably in the Pacific. They also threaten the opposite for anyone who recognises the ROC instead, or more recently, any entity that lists Taiwan as anything other than part of China.

Airlines were recently threatened by the PRC for listing Taiwan as a separate country instead of a region - I believe most capitulated. This is the key argument you are looking for at least in the context of corporations such as Apple, who seems to think they're big enough to stand up on this one. Qantas on the other hand, backed down immediately.

Beyond corporations though, more generally, it is not so much about China claiming sovereignty over Taiwan - it is about the opposite being the case as well. At the point where Taiwan renounces its claim on the mainland, China will consider it the first official step on the path to Taiwan's independence. It has repeatedly said that this is a red line it will not allow Taiwan to cross without a forceful response. Another red line, for example, being Taiwan's possession of nuclear weapons.

I believe Taiwan could have declared independence in the 1990s and come out on top in any military confrontation with the PRC. However, there was not enough support amongst the population at the time[1] - most people considered themselves "Chinese" as opposed to "Taiwanese". That is now starting to reverse, but IMO Taiwan is no longer in a position to successfully defend itself if the PRC decides to act. The US has given no guarantees it would defend Taiwan in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence.

So to sum up: Taiwan is not treated as a normal independent country by most entities because the PRC has enough clout (economically and militarily) to threaten those who wish to do so.

[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/0...

[skh]

Excellent write up. I’ll add to your remarks that at times the official policy of the United States has been a one China policy.

[Leary]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758

[suyash]

Apple did the right thing, why cave to China's political agenda.

[ASalazarMX]

They should do the same with Palestine so they piss off the other side as well.

[anothergoogler]

Would the opportunity come up? Palestine's GDP is $12B, Taiwan's is $1.1T.

[justicezyx]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Taiwan

Taipei skyline.jpg Taipei skyline. Currency New Taiwan dollar (NT$) NT$29.2 per US$ (Apr 2018) Fiscal year Calendar year Trade organizations WTO, APEC, ICC and others (as Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu) Statistics GDP Nominal: $571.5 billion

[sdinsn]

> PPP: $1.177 trillion

[anothergoogler]

That is the nominal GDP, Palestine's nominal GDP is $4B.

[dis-sys]

Taiwan's GDP counts for around 4% of the Chinese GDP, to give you more context, Chinese GDP growth slowed down to 6.8% pa, that is still creating 1.5 times of the entire GDP in Taiwan every 12 months.

using your logic here, please don't argue further more, otherwise you'd be arguing with yourself - who care about the tiny island called taiwan.

[jdavis703]

It wouldn't call it "propaganda." Countries routinely have territorial disputes. I get China is viewed as a competitor to American interests, but the situation in Taiwan is historically complex. It would be like if Texas or California unilaterally seceded from the U.S., various countries would recognize or not recognize their legitimacy as an independent nation.

[rangibaby]

It would be like if the US had a civil war and one side retreated to Cuba

[erikpukinskis]

Wouldn't it be like if the U.S. first annexed Cuba, and then had a civil war where one side retreated to it?

[inawarminister]

Indeed. Only a few have any thoughts about the native Taiwanese, both Aboriginal and Han.

[rangibaby]

Another country’s colony. Spain in Cuba’s case, Japan in Taiwan’s

[07d046]

It's more like if there was a communist revolution in the US followed by a civil war, with the anti-communists ending up holding Texas or California and establishing their own government there. The Chinese Communist Party has never ruled Taiwan, and Taiwan hasn't officially seceded.

[dis-sys]

your analogy is missing the most politically critical part -

the 1943 Cairo Declaration explicitly stated that Taiwan belongs to China and it should be "restored" to China. it is a part of the post-WWII world order.

[lev99]

The Republic of China was in control of Taiwan when they lost the Chinese Civil War to The Communist Party of China.

When the Republic of China retreated to Taiwan they did not have to file for asylum or apply for a Visa. Taiwan was part of China. The Communist Party is declaring when they won the civil war they gained control over all of China, including Taiwan.

This is the narrative for Taiwan not having sovereignty, and not necessary my own views.

[brazzledazzle]

As an outsider that seems like sour grapes. If they truly did win complete control then they would have taken control of Taiwan soon after the end of their Civil War.

[platinumrad]

The thing is, the war never officially ended.

Another way to look at it is if the Confederacy never surrendered to the union and instead retreated to Cuba and became the dominant political force on that island.

[perennate]

I don't think Confederacy ever cared to control all of U.S.

So this analogy might work better if Confederacy was the one who won, and Union retreated to Cuba.

Today, Cuba happens to be a highly desirable location (strategically, or for resources, or etc.). So Confederates, who now control continental U.S., want to maintain their claim on it.

Meanwhile, nowadays a majority of the people in USA (a government which controls only Cuba) consider themselves Cubans, and almost no one in USA cares about regaining control of continental U.S.

But Confederates feel that, if USA renounces control of continental U.S., it would be a step towards USA independence, which would further weaken Confederate claim over Cuba. So they pressure USA to keep referring to themselves as "USA" instead of "Cuba". Additionally, they think that the "one America" stance depends to some extent on USA retaining continental U.S. in its official borders. (But in reality, no USA citizens, aka Cubans, care about these borders continuing to include continental U.S.)

[platinumrad]

The KMT were the losers, like the Confederacy, but the CCP were the rebels, like the Confederacy. At the end of the day, both sought to control all of China, so I don't think it matters which side is which in this analogy.

I almost feel like control of Taiwan is more a matter of national pride for the PRC than geopolitics at this point. Yes, the PRC would love to get the USA out of the South China Sea, but there are already American forces in Japan that aren't leaving anytime soon. Yes, the PRC would love to add Taiwan to its territory, but it should be mostly happy enough just to continue building economic ties. However, both the government and the people see possession of Taiwan as unfinished business and this is what I think drives their dramatic reactions in cases like this Apple incident, which is what I was trying to illustrate with the analogy.

[true_religion]

Yes, and rather than the comfederacy who was trying to ceded, Taiwan holds that they are they legitimate Chinese government.

[rib3ye]

The Qing Dynasty annexed the island but was forced to give it up to the Japanese after the Sino-Japanese war. Their historical claim is debatable, but so is the RoC's occupation, imo.

[thebrettd]

You are not wrong, this is a complex issue. I just can't help but point out your username here :)

[dis-sys]

read the 1943 Cairo Declaration which is the corner stone of the post-WWII world order.

[CogitoCogito]

True, but the Cairo declaration was quite clear that Taiwan went to the ROC so I really weakens any PRC legitimacy if anything.

[dis-sys]

This is as stupid as saying ROC is still a member of the UN simply because it is recognised by the UN chapter as a founding member of UN and permanent member of the UNSC.

[CogitoCogito]

How is this stupid? The PRC existed when Taiwan was given to the ROC. The borders (i.e. the real ones not the imaginary ones referenced by PRC and ROC laws) between the PRC and the ROC are unchanged in the last 69 years. So no it's quite clear that the Cairo declaration definitely does not support any claims of the PRC to Taiwan. Bringing up representation in the UN is irrelevant and if anything the only stupid thing said in this back and forth.