If china attacks Taiwan, what do you think America will do ?

you are smart. ya, i just use mandarin in SZ but i need to use both cantonese and mandarin in GZ. you know it is a problem about µØÓòÎÄ»¯³åÍ»¡£ BTW,people who use madarin would't been looked down in GZ this yrs.

i didn't mean that SZ was a lot better than GZ when i said i missed SZ so much. you know i couln't use english well and i couldn't talked about it too much. and i work for myself and live in GZ now.

i doubt that FF is a youg student who is too naive. you did a good job again.

 

sorry, i didn't ask for you to tell me why.

and it 's not that simple and easy to use just several sentences to reply my whole post.

or you want to have a try?

 

No, this has gone way beyond boring.

 

Let's see,

Taiwan enjoys democracy
China is communist, the government imprisons people who oppose it

No matter how some of you argue, until China wakes up to the 21st century they have no business taking Taiwan whatsoever.

 

I've pointed this out before but it bears repeating again and again as long as people don't understand the issue adequately.

It is my understanding that the PRC govt and many mainland Chinese nationalist are NOT primarily interested in "governance" of Taiwan, meaning what govt should rule over Taiwan. It is my understanding, rather, that the main contention is over the "ownership" of Taiwan, meaning what country is the territory of Taiwan part of.

Currently Taiwan is under the "governance" of a govt based in Taipei. However, under international law, its "ownership" is China as this is where its "ownership" was last decided upon after the its "ownership" was transferred over from Japan to China under international law when Japan signed the instrument of surrender.

It is clear that the PRC is primarily interested in the "ownership" issue rather than the "governance" issue because it has said many times that it is okay if Taiwan's govt continues in power and that it is okay even for Taiwan to continue to maintain and have control of its own armed forces as it currently does if it affirms once and for all that it is under the "ownership" (that is forms parf of the territory) of China and cannot change that status itself.

This is also the way I understand most mainland Chinese nationalists to think about the issue. While there are exceptions, most mainland Chinese seem to not be troubled by Taiwan having its own govt and army and are fine with that. Few want or even think it desirable for the PRC to install its own govt in Taiwan. However, most vehemenly refuse to allow Taiwan to come under the "ownership" of anyone other than "China" including of course Taiwan being under the "ownership" of a new "Republic of Taiwan" and refuse to concede that the residents of Taiwan have such a right to transfer "ownership" on its own accord.

All this neither argues for nor against the Taiwan independence issue but is something people who debate this issue need to understand.

 

Unless you can come up with a written, internationally recognized treaty whereby Taiwan was granted its independence, I don't see how Taiwan can ever claim such a right under international law as it doesn't exist.

As far as Taiwan itself not being a signatory to the Japan's instrument of surrender, that is an irrelevant point (though perhaps not irrelevant from a "moral" perspective). Proper transfer of territory has never needed the okay of the territory itself. When Qing China signed over Taiwan to Japan in 1895, the fact that residents of Taiwan disagreed with this decision and even carried out a series of rebellions against Japan didn't negate the "legality" of that transfer. There are of course countless other examples of territorial transfers that happened despite the wishes of the territory itself.

As for the War of 1812, it seems you misunderstand the causes of the war. The war was NOT due to Britain wanting to reclaim US lands that it renonced in 1783. It was about US anger over Britain searching and stopping US ships in search of British deserters. It was also about US anger over British attempts to restrict US trade with France, with whom Britain was warring with in the Napoleonic Wars. Some Americans also wanted war in order to conquer land from Britain (Canadian lands).

Ultimately, for these reasons, it was the US which declared and started the war against Britain and not the other way around as you seem to allude to. And it certainly was NOT Britain declaring war on the US to reclaim US territory for Britain. If anything it was the other way around (US wanting to conquer British lands as opposed to Britain wanting to reconquer American lands).

 

WHATever

I've said what I have to say, and feel no need to argue with yet another guy saying the same thing several others have said.

 

Lil, let me first make clear that I'm not arguing with you because I oppose Taiwan's right or feel Taiwan shouldn't have the right to declare its full independence. I am certainly not arguing with you because I want or feel that the PRC should install its own govt in Taiwan. I am simply making sure people understand China's rights under international law, regardless of whether one agrees with it or not.

You have made many points so let me address some of them in turn:

1. The fact that Mao Zedong declared a new state (actually renamed the state) has no bearing on the legally recognized borders of said state under international law even if at the time of the declaration all the territory of the state was not under his control. Keep in mind that while the PRC was declared on Oct 1 1949, many territories of China were not under Mao's control yet including most of the south. Using your reasoning of "effective control" on Oct 1 1949 as the proper borders of the PRC would mean that the PRC should not include provinces such as Guandong, Guangxi, Sichuan, Hainan, etc. etc. Of course nobody makes this argument.

2. The "right" or "principle" of self-determination is not really well defined because it generally does NOT mean that any group of people in any territory automatically can declare their own state. There is tension between the concept of self-determination and that of territorial integrity. Generally speaking, and in practice, territorial integrity seems to supercede "self-determination" in most cases. This is the main reason why, for example, Kosovo has not and will not be made its own independent state despite the wishes of its people. This is also the reason why, amongst other reasons, Kurds in Northern Iraq cannot declare an independent Kurdistan, why the territory of Cyprus remains the whole of the island despite the existence of "Turkish Republic of Norther Cyprus", etc. etc. Therefore it is far from clear that Taiwan's legal status can be changed by Taiwan itself as you claim under international law.

 

I'm not an international lawyer but this guy is:

The Right of Self-Determination of Peoples

By Paul J. Magnarella
Member of the AAA Committee for Human Rights
University of Florida

Self-determination consists of the political and legal processes and structures through which a people gain and maintain control over their culture, society, and economy. With the creation of the United Nations (UN), self-determination of peoples became an established principle of international law. The principle is embodied in the UN Charter and in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Common Article 1(1) of these Covenants provides that: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

The UN General Assembly invoked this principle in its 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, in which it stated that subjection of peoples to alien domination constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights and violates the peoples' right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development. This declaration also reaffirmed the principle of the territorial integrity of existing states and gave rise to the so-called "salt water test" (which limits the rights of self-determination to colonized lands that exist across the oceans from the colonizing country). In accordance with the principle of self-determination and the salt-water test, the UN supported the independence of overseas colonies in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Once these colonies became independent, however, they too became reluctant to recognize their own ethnically distinct citizens' full right to self-determination, fearing it might lead to demands for separation and secession.

Although there is no international legal definition of "peoples," who are entitled to the right of self-determination, the term is generally used to describe a population who shares the following characteristics: (1) a common historical tradition; (2) self-identity as a distinctive cultural group; (3) a shared language; (4) a shared religion; and (5) a traditional territorial connection.

Today, many indigenous communities throughout the world are claiming the right to self-determination. These are peoples, such as American Indians and Australian Aborigines, who constitute a "first people," with a prior history of territorial occupation and an ancestral attachment to their land before it was conquered and occupied by others. At various international fora, spokespersons for indigenous groups have claimed that their situations are identical to those of colonized peoples who have been conquered and then ruled by others. They argue that the salt water test should not apply to them. Both the UN's Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Inter-American Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People provide for the right of self-government or autonomy for indigenous peoples within their states of residence. Neither draft, however, recognizes a right of complete territorial and political independence. For example, the UN Draft Declaration states that "as a specific form of exercising their right of self-determination, [indigenous peoples] have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters related to their internal and local affairs."

Although the exercise of self-determination can include secession from an existing state and the creation of a new one, it also includes other less dramatic choices. The UN General Assembly's 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States explains that implementation of the right to self-determination need not conflict with the territorial sovereignty or political unity of a state. The Declaration provides that a people exercising their right of self-determination may choose to form a federation with an existing state, integration into an existing state as an autonomous region, or "any other political status freely determined by a people" short of secession.

The Declaration goes on to explain the conditions under which peoples are not justified in seeking secession and independence from a sovereign state. It states that independent countries possessing a government that effectively represents the whole of their population (ethnic minorities included) are considered to be conducting themselves in conformity with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. For example, if an indigenous people or ethnic minority reside in a democratic state that enables them to participate effectively in the political process and economy and to practice their religion and culture, then they are exercising their right of self-determination and have no cause to secede.

The right to secede is an option of last resort, justified by serious government violations of human rights, persistent discrimination, and other grave injustices. Self-determination examples of secession in recent decades include the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the separation of East Pakistan from West Pakistan to form Bangladesh, and the separation of East Timor from Indonesia.

Examples of self-determination within an existing state include Italy's five special autonomous regions with extensive local powers defined by the constitution: Trentino-Alto Adige (containing the German-speaking people of the South Tyrol), Friuli-Venezia Giulia (containing Slovene and Friulian speakers), Val d'Aosta (containing French speakers), as well as the islands of Sardinia and Sicily. Each of these regions has unique, "non-Italian" cultural, linguistic, and historical characteristics that have justified extensive delegations of powers from Rome to the regional authorities to permit decision-making on local educational, economic, cultural, and budgetary issues. Some other autonomy arrangements include the Sami Parliaments in the Nordic countries, the Nunavut territory in Canada, and the ancestral territory of indigenous people in Panama.

The trend in world politics has been for enlightened states to attempt sincerely to accommodate the self-determination aspirations of their ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples, while other states continue to suppress and deny subjugated peoples this fundamental right.

For an expanded treatment of this topic with a relevant bibliography, readers are referred to: Paul J. Magnarella, "The Evolving Right of Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples," St. Thomas Law Review, v. 14, n. 2, pp. 425-47 (2001). Those wishing to receive an electronic version of this article may contact the author at paulmag@anthro.ufl.edu


So human rights violations are a justification for secession.

 

Human rights violations isn't a justification for secession when said people isn't subject to such violations for the fact of their already established autonomous state.

 

So you agree then that the PRC is guilty of human rights abuses against their own people and that Taiwan is an autonomous state.

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

This started out as a great debate ... it deterioated a bit at the end ....

My 2c. Both sides have to talk tough but China is not going to attack Taiwan. Taiwan and the US are not fond of fighting China either.

Self-determination, human rights .... aside ....
As backward as China is, it will become a power house soon.
In 20 yrs when China dominates the world economy, Taiwan will want to be friendly to it.

 

I agree and I think this is what needs to be kept in mind. Right now there is way too much pressure to maintain the status quo until something better and agreeable to all sides comes up. China won't invade Taiwan unless Taiwan somehow makes the first move to move away from the status quo. However it is clear that Taiwan and the US don't really have good reason to perturb the status quo either because the potentially negative consequences far outweigh the small benefit of calling yourself "Republic of Taiwan".

In time, I think the issue will solve itself peacefully and reasonably amicably.

 

well said, and accurate

 

yes, your news articles from media is really boring.

 

Friendly Fan,

Sorry to have been away so long from this debate.

Your points are spot-on for the most part.

Censorship EXISTS for China. However, Panda may argue it, many dissident sites abroad ARE blocked from Chinese viewers. Sites like those belonging to Falun Gong, Taiwan Independence, and other propagating what they consider "seditious" ideas. Slick Chinese surfers might find loopholes around these blocks, but they exist nonetheless. China also coerces multinational internet content providers into what they consider "good behavior" and uses this denial of access as a threat. China enforces the same rules against international news providers and mass media as well. The day I see a show giving a fair hearing to Falun Gong and TI on Chinese TV will the day I might consider letting Taiwan join up with China.

As of now, Taiwanese people want no part of this regime. We take a look at the way HK is going, and it is even easier to refuse them.

The basic question is "Do we want ownership over ourselves, or do we want to let other people own us?" You can refine the question by elaborating that the "other people" here is a backward, belligerant, totalitarian, human rights violating, hate-bearing, unstable one-party dictatorship supported by 1.2 billion people who don't give a rat's ass about the feelings and opinions of Taiwanese people themselves if in conflict with their own.

Ask any American whether they'd want Saddam Hussein in charge, and you'd get an equally quick answer.

I have a world of respect for Chinese people and all they represent (this is a feeling NOT shared by most Taiwanese I may add). Their economy is great. Their food is lovely. Their culture is splendid. But their government is just ****, and honestly, who'd ever want to be a part of that!? (this opinion IS shared by over 75% of Taiwanese people. sounds like a winner to me!).

 

Be fair now ´óÒ, that wasn't a media article, it is a legal opinion from a respected expert in International Law. Take a look at the site, if it's not blocked in China or write the author if your interested.

When I said this discussion had gotten boring it is because we are just both saying the same things over and over. Granted I will never speak any dialect of Chinese but the syntax of the questions you directed at me are almost undecipherable.

Let me join the other Aglos on the record as supporting the people of China. I cannot however recognize the ligitimacy of a government that is not elected by the people it governs.
I cannot support a govenment that limits free speech or the right of assembly. I cannot support a government that either suppresses the practice of religion or sanctions a particular religion, be it in China or anywhere else in the world.

 

Try again. Internet censorship exists in China. Nobody is arguing about that. We were arguing about the EXTENT of it. Don't try to put words in my mouth by saying that I "may" argue about the EXISTENCE of internet censorship in China. Read first,think second, and fire cheap shots thirdly, 'cause if you can't you are ALWAYS gonna miss.

 

Panda, maybe other mainland Chinese find your arguments compelling, but to those of us outside those confines, you're shilling for the government.

Reading your comments and those of your supporter here, I can understand better why China is so far behind the rest of the modern world.

 

As usual, I'm jumping into this one late, and as such am at the disadvantage of actually responding to the thread question, and not the most recent insulting remarks...

PRC attacks Taiwan = war between China and N. Korea (with possible alliances with certain Islamic dictatorships) on one side and the US, Taiwan, S. Korea, Singapore, and Japan (and possibly the rest of the democratic world) on the other.

Does anyone realistically think that any of these auxilliary nations could/would remain neutral? No way. No way at all. And those listed might not even be the end of it. Australia (quite likely), Indonesia (probably US side, unless coup), Vietnam (US side, as surprising as it may seem), and India (and in turn Pakistan) are quite likely to get involved at least at some level.

I will only give 'major war' best- and worst-case scenarios, you can fill out the likely in-betweens with your imagination:

Best-case scenario - China devastated. Taiwan devastated. Missile defense stops limited nuclear attack against CONUS, and US is safe. Japan and S. Korea devastated by NK nuke and WMD attacks, NK destroyed. Communist government in China falls, new government formed after a decade of rebuilding and occupation by US-led international crisis-reaction group. Makes Iraq look like a picnic, 20-50 million dead.

Worst-case scenario - China, North Korea, South Korea, Singapore, Japan, and Taiwan destroyed in nuclear war. All of these nations cease to exist as nation-states, and nuclear fallout severely damages all of S. Asia, Russia and former SSRs, ME, Eastern Europe, etc. US sustains 30 nuclear blasts west of Rockies, all of which are concentrated in/around major cities; western hemisphere sustains severe fallout as well. International community is unable to deal with the magnitude of the devastation; UN disappears. Asian trade bloc disappears, ME oil production comes to a halt; all western economies come to crashing halt as a result. Nation states start to tear apart, and a new dark age descends... 2 billion dead in the initial exchanges, another 2+ billion die in resulting governmental dissolutions, widespread famines, and global economic shutdown.

Pretty, eh? These are 'major war' scenarios; it is likely that skirmishes could be contained. Likely, but in no way confidently.

Leave Taiwan alone. You're playing with fire.