70% of US adults believe in angels, but that doesn't make it true. No countries with any actual amount of power on the global stage recognize the ROC (see the US' One China Policy), which means that regardless of whatever views people claim to have when surveyed, Taiwan is de facto part of the PRC.
How do you go from there - economic dependence and decreasing recognition - to not being self sovereign? They run a government and have elections. As another hexbear pointed out
true enough a lot of that works out to semantics, such as their having “Economic, Trade, and Cultural Offices” instead of formal embassies despite them doing largely the same thing
This is without contending your points about their economic situation and degree to which the mainland coerces the language of the relationship held between Taiwan and other nations.
How do you go from there - economic dependence and decreasing recognition - to not being self sovereign? They run a government and have elections. As another hexbear pointed out
At a basic level, to be a sovereign country is for the people of that country to have the ability to determine their own collective destiny. Now, sovereignty is not a simple binary but a scale since powerful countries have the potential for greater influence than smaller countries who must fight against the influence of larger countries.
Vietnam has sovereignty. It has an independent military that is battle-tested through winning numerous wars against its neighbors and the US, it has a seat within the UN where it can lobby its interest before a global body of nations, it has international treaties with numerous countries and is free to sign more or back away from treaties if it's in its geopolitical interests, it is part of many international organizations like ASEAN, and it has an extremely savvy ruling party who knows how to play off the blocs against each other for Vietnam's benefit. It's even taking steps to be completely food independent so they won't get fucked over by sanctions and climate change. The only real mark against their sovereignty is the PRC (and ROC) presence in the SCS.
Taiwan, in contrast, has little to no sovereignty. Its military is completely dependent on the US. If it wasn't for the 7th Fleet constantly bailing out Taiwan, Taiwan would've long since been reunited with the Mainland. It has no seat in the UN. A grand total of 12 UN states, many of them Pacific islands that Taiwan constantly bribes for their continued recognition, plus Vatican City recognizes Taiwan. Because Taiwan is not a UN state, it cannot belong to a lot of organizations. Just a few days ago, Taiwan got expelled from the Central American Parliament. The Central American Parliament isn't some hugely important organization and that's part of the point. Taiwan has already been shut out of important organizations like the UN and the WHO and now they're even being shut out of even less important ones. Taiwan has to compete in the Olympics under the humiliating title "Chinese Taipei" and instead of boycotting the Olympics, they choose to compete with that humiliating title, further cementing their inability to move beyond what the PRC and the rest of the world has placed them in. Neither the KMT and nor the DPP are pursuing policies that would bolster Taiwan's little sovereignty, with the KMT thinking if they can kiss the PRC ass enough times, the PRC won't invade Taiwan and with the DPP thinking if they can lick Uncle Sam's boots enough times, the US would save Taiwan and not abandon them like the US did with Afghanistan. Taiwan is also overly dependent on trade with the PRC and in general, Taiwan's economy is intertwined with the PRC, meaning if the PRC does shit like temporary ban some Taiwanese imports, the entire economy feels the strain.
This is a country that's economically dependent on one country and militarily dependent on another country. This is not a sovereign country. This is a pawn that's being played by two countries that are belligerent with each other.
I commend you for recognizing to dispute the sovereignty of Taiwan it helps to start with a definition. Unfortunately for you the definition you provided is vague and at ends with more formal definitions. I’ll reference you to the indisputable democratic source of knowledge wikipedia (feel free to edit the page if you it can be improved):
Sovereignty can generally be defined as supreme authority.[1] Sovereignty entails hierarchy within the state, as well as external autonomy for states.[2] In any state, sovereignty is assigned to the person, body or institution that has the ultimate authority over other people in order to establish a law or change existing laws.
The PRC and the USA do not pass and enforce laws in Taiwan. The Taiwan government, elected by the people of Taiwan does. They are self sovereign.
You’ve brought a lot of good points which I ought to go through in detail, but briefly: Vietnam great analysis but different country. Military - is Japan sovereign based on reliance on US? Are there only a handful of actually sovereign states (the superpowes) in your schema? Regarding not provoking PRC no shit they don’t want to get slaughtered. As has been pointed out they have organizations and relationships that are de facto diplomatic if they are not called that because of the gun to their head.
Curious, what’s your stance on Palestine’s sovereignty? I think they can be considered sovereign, I don’t see that spectre of other powers potential influence as taking that away. I don’t see why all you guys need to make the bar seem so high, if you individualize it this much the word changes its meaning. A nation doesn’t need to be uncontested among all other nations to be sovereign. If its not the Taiwan government who is sovereign there? Your position would require there be an “unsovereign” condition, unless you actually believe its the PRC sovereign there. Unless its contested within the borders I don’t see how you could make the argument a nation is unsoverneign.
In practice, Taiwan is not internationally recognized as a country. It doesn't get to participate in many important international bodies like the UN or WHO, for instance. I get your implied point that this doesn't mean much because it really only matters on the diplomatic level, and true enough a lot of that works out to semantics, such as their having "Economic, Trade, and Cultural Offices" instead of formal embassies despite them doing largely the same thing.
I appreciate this last comment in contrast to the former which glibly compares 24 million peoples national identity beliefs to religious views. Belief in a national identity manifests the identity whereas the other are supernatural sky fairies.
and true enough a lot of that works out to semantics
Not sure what the dispute is then. As things stand, a much more powerful nation uses its influence to deny another representation on a world stage. That doesn't make them "not a country." They rule within their borders and those that live there by and large consider themselves Taiwanese. The OP I replied to was denying this, I think you and I made good points that they are self sovereign.
The dispute at this point is over how we define a country, especially because Taiwan clearly falls in a grey area within that definition. I claim that they are fundamentally unable to exercise their sovereignty given they aren't formally recognized as a country by even their greatest allies and benefactors, thus they fail. You claim that they can fulfill the roles of the state, have a national identity, and have various semantic work-arounds for that fundamental illegitimacy, thus they pass. There's also the question of the legitimacy of their founding, with me saying that the ROC was originally an oppressive colonial military dictatorship, but then you would say that it's been long enough and their government has changed enough that it doesn't matter, then we bicker over what constitutes a democracy.
Ultimately the argument would continue indefinitely and I don't think there's much chance either of us would be convinced by the other.
As an aside, the point of the prior comment was that surveys of beliefs can very easily be detached from reality, and so aren't good evidence for claims.
The dispute at this point is over how we define a country, especially because Taiwan clearly falls in a grey area within that definition. I claim that they are fundamentally unable to exercise their sovereignty given they aren’t formally recognized as a country by even their greatest allies and benefactors, thus they fail. You claim that they can fulfill the roles of the state, have a national identity, and have various semantic work-arounds for that fundamental illegitimacy, thus they pass.
I am willing to agree with you (albeit with some rephrasing there) if you were at least consistent. So, do you consider Palestine to be sovereign or not. I consider them sovereign. I am consistent. For you to be consistent in your views would require you to view Palestine to lack sovereignty. Mind you China recognizes Palestine as sovereign. If you say yes they have sovereignty then it demonstrates you're just trying to bring politics into semantics which in truth is what's going on in this whole thread. A political faction is attempting to coop the language to suit their narrative whether it requires logical consistency or not.
Given that Israel is militarily occupying and actively colonizing Palestine, I would say that Palestine is unable to exercise its sovereignty. Should it be granted more sovereignty? Yes, but that seems as though it will require either the radical reformation or outright destruction of Israel.
"unable to exercise its sovereignty" is falling a bit short so if you'll allow me to put words in your mouth:
Palestine is not a sovereign state.
barrbaric
I think most of the hex bear posters in this thread would not make this statement so kudos to you for being consistent, we agree to disagree on the meaning of sovereign and whether Taiwan and Palestine meet that mark.
Except no country or international institution would agree with your criteria for a nation-state since that definition also gives legitimacy and sovereignty to lovely people like ISIS when they administered a huge chunk of Iraq or any number of autonomous or semi-autonomous breakaway regions that the international community consistently refuses to acknowledge as sovereign states.
Yeah! As long as you don't read the Montevideo Convention or ask any international legal scholars, your conception of international law is totally correct!
As a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles and therefore does not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.
It has nothing to do with being a state, except for being a restatement and codification of the internationally recognized state practice and opinio juris about what constitutes a state.
Maybe actually read the whole Wikipedia article you're quoting from instead of just skimming the first few paragraphs.
Please cite the principle of international law which requires the present day iteration of a state's government to have had past administration of a breakaway territory in order to assert a claim of ownership over said territory.
Please also cite any supporting state practice and opinio juris.
70% of US adults believe in angels, but that doesn't make it true. No countries with any actual amount of power on the global stage recognize the ROC (see the US' One China Policy), which means that regardless of whatever views people claim to have when surveyed, Taiwan is de facto part of the PRC.
de facto huh. What does that mean in practice?
Taiwan is completely economically dependent on the Mainland and is recognized by an ever shrinking pool of nations?
How do you go from there - economic dependence and decreasing recognition - to not being self sovereign? They run a government and have elections. As another hexbear pointed out
This is without contending your points about their economic situation and degree to which the mainland coerces the language of the relationship held between Taiwan and other nations.
At a basic level, to be a sovereign country is for the people of that country to have the ability to determine their own collective destiny. Now, sovereignty is not a simple binary but a scale since powerful countries have the potential for greater influence than smaller countries who must fight against the influence of larger countries.
Vietnam has sovereignty. It has an independent military that is battle-tested through winning numerous wars against its neighbors and the US, it has a seat within the UN where it can lobby its interest before a global body of nations, it has international treaties with numerous countries and is free to sign more or back away from treaties if it's in its geopolitical interests, it is part of many international organizations like ASEAN, and it has an extremely savvy ruling party who knows how to play off the blocs against each other for Vietnam's benefit. It's even taking steps to be completely food independent so they won't get fucked over by sanctions and climate change. The only real mark against their sovereignty is the PRC (and ROC) presence in the SCS.
Taiwan, in contrast, has little to no sovereignty. Its military is completely dependent on the US. If it wasn't for the 7th Fleet constantly bailing out Taiwan, Taiwan would've long since been reunited with the Mainland. It has no seat in the UN. A grand total of 12 UN states, many of them Pacific islands that Taiwan constantly bribes for their continued recognition, plus Vatican City recognizes Taiwan. Because Taiwan is not a UN state, it cannot belong to a lot of organizations. Just a few days ago, Taiwan got expelled from the Central American Parliament. The Central American Parliament isn't some hugely important organization and that's part of the point. Taiwan has already been shut out of important organizations like the UN and the WHO and now they're even being shut out of even less important ones. Taiwan has to compete in the Olympics under the humiliating title "Chinese Taipei" and instead of boycotting the Olympics, they choose to compete with that humiliating title, further cementing their inability to move beyond what the PRC and the rest of the world has placed them in. Neither the KMT and nor the DPP are pursuing policies that would bolster Taiwan's little sovereignty, with the KMT thinking if they can kiss the PRC ass enough times, the PRC won't invade Taiwan and with the DPP thinking if they can lick Uncle Sam's boots enough times, the US would save Taiwan and not abandon them like the US did with Afghanistan. Taiwan is also overly dependent on trade with the PRC and in general, Taiwan's economy is intertwined with the PRC, meaning if the PRC does shit like temporary ban some Taiwanese imports, the entire economy feels the strain.
This is a country that's economically dependent on one country and militarily dependent on another country. This is not a sovereign country. This is a pawn that's being played by two countries that are belligerent with each other.
I commend you for recognizing to dispute the sovereignty of Taiwan it helps to start with a definition. Unfortunately for you the definition you provided is vague and at ends with more formal definitions. I’ll reference you to the indisputable democratic source of knowledge wikipedia (feel free to edit the page if you it can be improved):
The PRC and the USA do not pass and enforce laws in Taiwan. The Taiwan government, elected by the people of Taiwan does. They are self sovereign.
You’ve brought a lot of good points which I ought to go through in detail, but briefly: Vietnam great analysis but different country. Military - is Japan sovereign based on reliance on US? Are there only a handful of actually sovereign states (the superpowes) in your schema? Regarding not provoking PRC no shit they don’t want to get slaughtered. As has been pointed out they have organizations and relationships that are de facto diplomatic if they are not called that because of the gun to their head.
Curious, what’s your stance on Palestine’s sovereignty? I think they can be considered sovereign, I don’t see that spectre of other powers potential influence as taking that away. I don’t see why all you guys need to make the bar seem so high, if you individualize it this much the word changes its meaning. A nation doesn’t need to be uncontested among all other nations to be sovereign. If its not the Taiwan government who is sovereign there? Your position would require there be an “unsovereign” condition, unless you actually believe its the PRC sovereign there. Unless its contested within the borders I don’t see how you could make the argument a nation is unsoverneign.
"indisputable democratic source of knowledge wikipedia (feel free to edit the page if you it can be improved):"
spoiler
Taiwan is heavily economically dependent on the Mainland, but not completely.
In practice, Taiwan is not internationally recognized as a country. It doesn't get to participate in many important international bodies like the UN or WHO, for instance. I get your implied point that this doesn't mean much because it really only matters on the diplomatic level, and true enough a lot of that works out to semantics, such as their having "Economic, Trade, and Cultural Offices" instead of formal embassies despite them doing largely the same thing.
I appreciate this last comment in contrast to the former which glibly compares 24 million peoples national identity beliefs to religious views. Belief in a national identity manifests the identity whereas the other are supernatural sky fairies.
Not sure what the dispute is then. As things stand, a much more powerful nation uses its influence to deny another representation on a world stage. That doesn't make them "not a country." They rule within their borders and those that live there by and large consider themselves Taiwanese. The OP I replied to was denying this, I think you and I made good points that they are self sovereign.
The dispute at this point is over how we define a country, especially because Taiwan clearly falls in a grey area within that definition. I claim that they are fundamentally unable to exercise their sovereignty given they aren't formally recognized as a country by even their greatest allies and benefactors, thus they fail. You claim that they can fulfill the roles of the state, have a national identity, and have various semantic work-arounds for that fundamental illegitimacy, thus they pass. There's also the question of the legitimacy of their founding, with me saying that the ROC was originally an oppressive colonial military dictatorship, but then you would say that it's been long enough and their government has changed enough that it doesn't matter, then we bicker over what constitutes a democracy.
Ultimately the argument would continue indefinitely and I don't think there's much chance either of us would be convinced by the other.
As an aside, the point of the prior comment was that surveys of beliefs can very easily be detached from reality, and so aren't good evidence for claims.
I am willing to agree with you (albeit with some rephrasing there) if you were at least consistent. So, do you consider Palestine to be sovereign or not. I consider them sovereign. I am consistent. For you to be consistent in your views would require you to view Palestine to lack sovereignty. Mind you China recognizes Palestine as sovereign. If you say yes they have sovereignty then it demonstrates you're just trying to bring politics into semantics which in truth is what's going on in this whole thread. A political faction is attempting to coop the language to suit their narrative whether it requires logical consistency or not.
Given that Israel is militarily occupying and actively colonizing Palestine, I would say that Palestine is unable to exercise its sovereignty. Should it be granted more sovereignty? Yes, but that seems as though it will require either the radical reformation or outright destruction of Israel.
"unable to exercise its sovereignty" is falling a bit short so if you'll allow me to put words in your mouth:
I think most of the hex bear posters in this thread would not make this statement so kudos to you for being consistent, we agree to disagree on the meaning of sovereign and whether Taiwan and Palestine meet that mark.
It's still a nation-state. It's fully independent and autonomous from China in every sense of the meaning.
Whether other countries recognize your seat at the UN is functionally irrelevant.
Except no country or international institution would agree with your criteria for a nation-state since that definition also gives legitimacy and sovereignty to lovely people like ISIS when they administered a huge chunk of Iraq or any number of autonomous or semi-autonomous breakaway regions that the international community consistently refuses to acknowledge as sovereign states.
Yeah! Whether other countries let you have a seat in the UN or not is not relevant to sovereignty.
Yeah! As long as you don't read the Montevideo Convention or ask any international legal scholars, your conception of international law is totally correct!
That has nothing to do with being a state, it's about south American former colonies gaining recognition from European powers.
It has nothing to do with being a state, except for being a restatement and codification of the internationally recognized state practice and opinio juris about what constitutes a state.
Maybe actually read the whole Wikipedia article you're quoting from instead of just skimming the first few paragraphs.
Taiwan is not a part of the PRC, de facto or de jure. Say that Taiwan is a part of China all you want, but it never has been a part of the PRC.
The German Democratic Republic was never part of the Federal Republic of Germany either. Until it was.
What a completely irrelevant exercise in pedantry.
The truth, like it or not, is that PRC has never, ever seized control of Taiwan. Hopefully it never does. This is not pedantry.
Please cite the principle of international law which requires the present day iteration of a state's government to have had past administration of a breakaway territory in order to assert a claim of ownership over said territory.
Please also cite any supporting state practice and opinio juris.