A June 2013 poll conducted by DPP showed an overwhelming 77.6% consider themselves as Taiwanese.[140] On the independence-unification issue, the survey found that 25.9 percent said they support unification, 59 percent support independence, and 10.3 percent prefer the "status quo." When asked whether Taiwan and China are parts of one country, the party said the survey found 78.4 percent disagree, while 15 percent agreed. As for whether Taiwan and China are two districts in one country, 70.6 percent disagree, while 22.8 percent agree
The DPP (pro-Independence party) polling seems to differ a bit from National Chengchi University's yearly poll where "maintain status quo indefinitely/decide later" were the two most popular selections.
I agree the polling is a bit different, I don't think it contradicts the DPP study though. Setting aside the question of national identity (not addressed in the NCU study) vs national policy goals, NCU went 32/28/21 for status quo maintain/decide later/move toward independence. 1.6 wanted status quo + move toward unification. 21 > 1.6. Thanks for providing further evidence!
If you're only looking at the "immediate action" options it's 4.5% independence vs 1.6% unification
Grouping the camps together, the graph shows 25% vs 8% currently while not too long ago in 2018 it was 20% vs 16%. It's a contentious issue, and opinions wax and wane depending on the diplomatic situation with the only consistency being that the majority of people favor maintaining the status quo. However, I think as more of the older generations die off, much like in South Korea, identification with a cross-border national project will likely diminish.
If your views can only be propagated through violence, don't you think they should be reconsidered?
Please share this pearl of wisdom with the US government, if you're successful you'll literally save millions of lives and no one on the planet will ever be more deserving of the Nobel prize. Please also share this sentiment with the soldiers in question, they're literally involved in killing hundreds of thousands when it's not millions to supposedly propagate American views on freedom and democracy (but in reality installing puppet governments for geopolitical power or to facilitate the theft of natural resources).
So crimes of our fathers then, Americans deserve to die. Pardon me, I don’t find this discussion constructive. May your keyboard warrior spirit never falter, good luck.
You are still invading several countries rigth now. And messing with many others in lots of ways. That crimes of our fathers deffence only works if you stop doing it.
Bruh they're still doing it. Love how you pearl clutch and pretend they said Americans should die and not the volunteer soldiers currently killing to maintain this order.
I’m not the one calling for people deaths. But to answer your question - primarily capitalist led technology and communication revolution extending open source platform to create a marketplace of ideas? Sorry I’m just trolling at this point.
capitalism was the driving force behind colonialism and the slave trade, the worst horrors man has seen. It funded the Nazis into power, and the same with other fascist entities. You don't have to call for other peoples deaths, but that does not mean people aren't dying. How many die from homelessness? How many die from lack of food and water? How many die from easily treatable diseases? How many must die a victim of this system's inhumane nature will be never ending until we destroy it. You are privileged and blind enough to ignore the suffering of your fellow man, so I really don't care about your thoughts or opinions, besides my natural disgust for them.
Another thing is the internet was never a capitalist invention, it was created by scientists supported by government programs. There would have been no incentive otherwise to make such a leap. Iphones are a mishmash of different public sector techs that could have been put together by anyone. And they have milked it dry to insanity and back. How many phones are thrown away a year? how many break due to planned obsolescence? How much waste is created that kills and poisons our land because of greed? An extreme amount, one that will kill us all.
But ignore that, go back to your toaster, your TV, your Iphone, and your stupid car. Keep consuming like the starved dog you are until you have so much that there is nothing left of you, and then watch as the world burns from your greed. Just give us the dignity of not asking "why?" before you die, because you know, and you ignored it for the sake of your treats. I hope you suffer.
I agree with your sentiment, but we should refrain from using these emotionally charged words. We must remain polite so that people reading this thread will get a bad impression of Hexbear.
Chinese Taipei is not a place name. It is the name people in Taiwan use to participate in sports. Like it or not, the island is called Taiwan, whether they are their own nation or just a province of China.
But it does? I mean it's a long article, I'm not going to read the whole thing for something this uncontroversial, but I'll back up my very factual assertion with evidence from the opening paragraph.
Taipei (/ˌtaɪˈpeɪ/),[4]
This implies Taipei exists, thus backing up my assertion that "Taipei is" and "is".
officially Taipei City,[I]
Since it's named Taipei city, this is circumstantial proof that Taipei is a city.
is the capital[a]
Capitals are cities, this backs my assertion that Taipei is a city.
and a special municipality of Taiwan.[7][8]
Taiwan is a location in China, this backs my assertion that Taipei is a city associated with China if you combine it with the rest of the sentence. Technically it could still be somewhere else.
Located in Northern Taiwan,
This means that Taipei is on Taiwan, so now the information presented has changed from being associated with to being inside of.
Taipei City is an enclave of the municipality of New Taipei City that sits about 25 km (16 mi) southwest of the northern port city of Keelung.
This provides specificity in case there are multiple places named Taiwan, since we now also know it's close to Keelung which is also in China.
Most of the city rests on the Taipei Basin, an ancient lakebed. The basin is bounded by the relatively narrow valleys of the Keelung and Xindian rivers, which join to form the Tamsui River along the city's western border.[9]
This doesn't provide additional information for my purposes, but they reiterate that it's a city and in proximity to locations in China.
Taipei is the capital and a special municipality of Taiwan.[7][8]
Notice the preposition of. They did not say in. If they used in that could mean that they think Taipei is in China. But they used of, implying that Taiwan is a country. They also used the word capital, meaning a city where the political center of a country is, not as in a "city". There is (generally) only one capital in each country. Also, the text did not at all say that Taipei is in China. That Taipei is in China is what you (incorrectly) inferred from the text.
Ah but Taiwan is a special municipality and has it's own government. So this is expected actually. China is actually in a weird situation where there is a rebel government that controls a portion of the country, and they claim their capital is Nanjing. But because the regular government controls Nanjing they have a temporarily administrative centre in Taipei, since it's the only large city under rebel control. So Taipei is just a capital in China, specifically the capital of Taiwan municipality, but isn't the capital of China. China actually has many capitals. Hohhot, Lhasa, Nanning, Ürümqi, Taipei, Yinchuan and Beijing. (According to the rebels, it's only Nanjing).
This is kinda besides the point of whether Taipei is a place or not though. You're right, it didn't say it's in China. You need to click on the article for Taiwan or read further down for that. That's why I mentioned that it has multiple place-names, so you could look those up on a map. They really should've mentioned where the city is, I think that's pretty standard for an encyclopedia article on a city.
Those multiple capitals in China you mentioned are actually capital cities of first-level administrative divisions (省會). They are not what people think of when they hear capital. When people hear capital they generally think of the biggest city in a country (首都). Saying that the capitals of China are Hohhot, Lhasa, Nanning, Ürümqi, Taipei, etc. is not wrong, but it's as weird as saying that the capitals of the US are Jackson, Lansing, Springfield, Albany, etc.
I actually am not quite sure what we are even debating about at this point lol. Not that the points you made were bad, it's just that the matter is kinda trivial. I couldn't come up with more arguments besides nitpicking your errors. Can we just agree to disagree?
ps. the overall experience I had debating with you was actually not bad, unlike the ones I had with some people who resort to ad hominem attacks.
You wrote "Chinese Taipei is not a place name." and I hadn't noticed your name appear multiple times in the comments so I figured someone just genuinely didn't know Taipei is referring to the city rather than being some random Olympics-only moniker. And then with that second comment I just enjoyed being a pedant. Then when I did notice you had multiple comments I decided I should stop being rude because you weren't being rude.
There isn't really anything to disagree on. We (leftists) aren't oblivious to the fact Taiwan has (not full but significant) practical independence from China, and many of us are not even against them receiving de jure independence as long as they aren't allowed to host USA-controlled weapons. What I was trying to stress is that Chinese Taipei is a fine descriptor whether you support the PRC or ROC, since it's the Chinese city of Taipei, or even if you want Taiwan independence, it can still currently represent a team of Chinese people living in Taipei.
The hostility you see in the comments isn't because people want to deny Taiwanese their agency. Independence is stupid, and reunification under the PRC is absolutely what's best for the proletariat on Taiwan, and the rest of China, but it shouldn't happen without their popular support. What we're against is rocking the boat or god forbid, a war starting. The situation is currently workable for everyone. China gets their forced security guarantee because they legally own the land and the government on Taiwan is mostly left alone. The PRC doesn't blockade or sanction Taiwan over trade or financial issues. Every time they sanction them it's because of a direct military transgression and they've all been temporary. The PRCs whole strategy for reunification is just outpacing them in quality of life. Despite what western media claims, China is not being provocative. So stories creating the conditions for military conflict scare and anger us.
On the capitals. They're not equivalent to US-state capitals. They're supposed to be the centres of political power for the people who live in each autonomous region. While undoubtedly Beijing is the capital, or centre of political power for the whole country, that doesn't negate the regional governments' power. You said the biggest city is the capital, right? But the biggest city financially in the USA is New York, and culturally it's Los Angeles. And in terms of population they're #1 and #2 too. But the capital of the USA is the centre of political power. China aims for a higher level of autonomy than the USA does, partially because they're more committed to democracy, but also because the material conditions necessitate it. Beijing just isn't as good at administrating autonomous regions as they are themselves.
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.
the government doesn't. Government don't reflect the will of the people. Even if the people want a "free taiwan" the government will constantly pursue a policy of reunification under their government.
In some countries laws are put to the vote of the population, enacted, and enforced. Would you deny that is a reflection of the people's will?
the government will constantly pursue a policy of reunification under their government
This is untrue. The Tsai Ing-wen administration maintains that Taiwan is already an independent country as the Republic of China and thus does not have to push for any sort of formal independence. They want to maintain the status quo because they don't want their population slaughtered. As does the population. Almost like they are the same. Sort of like a reflection.
In some countries laws are put to the vote of the population, enacted, and enforced. Would you deny that is a reflection of the people's will?
Bourgeoisie democracies serve the rich first, the corporations first. Democracy of the dollar always favors the ones with the most dollars. I will rightfully claim that most people do not feel represented by their neoliberal country's government.
Also how do you claim to be a different, independent government, but also claim to be china? They also have claims on Tibet and Mongolia!
The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly.
Which means they're not independent of the rest of China. They also claim parts of Japan, Korea, Myanmar, Bhutan, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Russia, and according to Vietnam parts of Vietnam. Their territorial claims aren't ancient by the way, they were revised in 2002, when they accepted Mongolia's sovereignty.
So the “nation” that doesn’t even consider itself independent sounds independent to you?
They cannot claim themselves independent or else China would attack. Don't you think it's kind of ludicrous that a country can force another "region" to not be independent by threatening them?
@diablexical@lemm.ee was not actually claiming that China is not independent. They are trying prove that Taiwan is independent through reductio ad absurdium. Basically, they try to derive something absurd (in this case China not being independent) from your claims.
You can’t prove independence through logical contradiction. It’s a state of foreign recognition. China clearly won the war enough to be recognized. Taiwan did not.
For context: the DPP is the pro-indpendence ultranationalist party founded by local landed elites who collaborated with the Japanese empire during wwii. To this day many Taiwanese ultranationalists around the DPP deny Japanese atrocities such as Nanjing and Unit 731. This may not be the most reliable source, three pinocchios!
Interesting that you choose to present a 10 year old poll conducted by the pro-independence party instead of easily accessible recent polls conducted by well regarded Taiwanese universities.
I guess those other cherries just didn't look as ripe, eh?
"However, in a more stripped-down poll by the Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation (TPOF, 台灣民意基金會) with only three choices and no nuanced timeline questions, 50% chose independence, 11.8% unification and 25.7% maintain the status quo."
Taiwan #1
The DPP (pro-Independence party) polling seems to differ a bit from National Chengchi University's yearly poll where "maintain status quo indefinitely/decide later" were the two most popular selections.
me deciding what I'm going to do today
I agree the polling is a bit different, I don't think it contradicts the DPP study though. Setting aside the question of national identity (not addressed in the NCU study) vs national policy goals, NCU went 32/28/21 for status quo maintain/decide later/move toward independence. 1.6 wanted status quo + move toward unification. 21 > 1.6. Thanks for providing further evidence!
If you're only looking at the "immediate action" options it's 4.5% independence vs 1.6% unification
Grouping the camps together, the graph shows 25% vs 8% currently while not too long ago in 2018 it was 20% vs 16%. It's a contentious issue, and opinions wax and wane depending on the diplomatic situation with the only consistency being that the majority of people favor maintaining the status quo. However, I think as more of the older generations die off, much like in South Korea, identification with a cross-border national project will likely diminish.
How can they possibly be Taiwanese if they don't speak any of the Formosan languages?
How can Americans possibly be Americans if they don't speak American?
Exactly. Death to America!
Bring it loser.
deleted by creator
If your views can only be propagated through violence, don't you think they should be reconsidered?
America has been at war for all but like 7 years of its entire 239 year existence and they started almost all of them.
so... Death to america.
Please share this pearl of wisdom with the US government, if you're successful you'll literally save millions of lives and no one on the planet will ever be more deserving of the Nobel prize. Please also share this sentiment with the soldiers in question, they're literally involved in killing hundreds of thousands when it's not millions to supposedly propagate American views on freedom and democracy (but in reality installing puppet governments for geopolitical power or to facilitate the theft of natural resources).
That sounds like some Nazi defending to me. “Don’t attack Nazis, debate them”
deleted by creator
So crimes of our fathers then, Americans deserve to die. Pardon me, I don’t find this discussion constructive. May your keyboard warrior spirit never falter, good luck.
You are still invading several countries rigth now. And messing with many others in lots of ways. That crimes of our fathers deffence only works if you stop doing it.
American soldiers do deserve to die. They themselves are criminals. It’s not about what their fathers did
Bruh they're still doing it. Love how you pearl clutch and pretend they said Americans should die and not the volunteer soldiers currently killing to maintain this order.
ask yourself the same thing, how do you think your ideology got here
I’m not the one calling for people deaths. But to answer your question - primarily capitalist led technology and communication revolution extending open source platform to create a marketplace of ideas? Sorry I’m just trolling at this point.
no, to these countries
capitalism was the driving force behind colonialism and the slave trade, the worst horrors man has seen. It funded the Nazis into power, and the same with other fascist entities. You don't have to call for other peoples deaths, but that does not mean people aren't dying. How many die from homelessness? How many die from lack of food and water? How many die from easily treatable diseases? How many must die a victim of this system's inhumane nature will be never ending until we destroy it. You are privileged and blind enough to ignore the suffering of your fellow man, so I really don't care about your thoughts or opinions, besides my natural disgust for them.
Another thing is the internet was never a capitalist invention, it was created by scientists supported by government programs. There would have been no incentive otherwise to make such a leap. Iphones are a mishmash of different public sector techs that could have been put together by anyone. And they have milked it dry to insanity and back. How many phones are thrown away a year? how many break due to planned obsolescence? How much waste is created that kills and poisons our land because of greed? An extreme amount, one that will kill us all.
But ignore that, go back to your toaster, your TV, your Iphone, and your stupid car. Keep consuming like the starved dog you are until you have so much that there is nothing left of you, and then watch as the world burns from your greed. Just give us the dignity of not asking "why?" before you die, because you know, and you ignored it for the sake of your treats. I hope you suffer.
what you gonna do, have another recession to own the commies?
US : world GDP
Never stopped owning them.
Apparently all that GDP doesn't buy you a higher life expectancy than regressive communist backwater embargo island, cuba
Ooh that period was a deliberate choice, and it is not paying off
I agree with your sentiment, but we should refrain from using these emotionally charged words. We must remain polite
so that people reading this thread will get a bad impression of Hexbear.Where do they live again?
Chinese Taipei of course, comrade.
Is that what the majority of people who live there would say?
Only when they want to participate in the Olympics
I'm pretty sure they would rather use Taiwan as their name in Olympics if China allowed them to.
Haha you got me there! Guess that settles it.
Question - do you know if they include Taiwan's gold medal count with mainland China's?
No, absolutely not.
Chinese Taipei is not a place name. It is the name people in Taiwan use to participate in sports. Like it or not, the island is called Taiwan, whether they are their own nation or just a province of China.
Taipei is a city in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei
I can accept you claiming that Taipei is a city in China, but the Wikipedia article you link to does not seem to agree.
But it does? I mean it's a long article, I'm not going to read the whole thing for something this uncontroversial, but I'll back up my very factual assertion with evidence from the opening paragraph.
This implies Taipei exists, thus backing up my assertion that "Taipei is" and "is".
Since it's named Taipei city, this is circumstantial proof that Taipei is a city.
Capitals are cities, this backs my assertion that Taipei is a city.
Taiwan is a location in China, this backs my assertion that Taipei is a city associated with China if you combine it with the rest of the sentence. Technically it could still be somewhere else.
This means that Taipei is on Taiwan, so now the information presented has changed from being associated with to being inside of.
This provides specificity in case there are multiple places named Taiwan, since we now also know it's close to Keelung which is also in China.
This doesn't provide additional information for my purposes, but they reiterate that it's a city and in proximity to locations in China.
Notice the preposition of. They did not say in. If they used in that could mean that they think Taipei is in China. But they used of, implying that Taiwan is a country. They also used the word capital, meaning a city where the political center of a country is, not as in a "city". There is (generally) only one capital in each country. Also, the text did not at all say that Taipei is in China. That Taipei is in China is what you (incorrectly) inferred from the text.
Ah but Taiwan is a special municipality and has it's own government. So this is expected actually. China is actually in a weird situation where there is a rebel government that controls a portion of the country, and they claim their capital is Nanjing. But because the regular government controls Nanjing they have a temporarily administrative centre in Taipei, since it's the only large city under rebel control. So Taipei is just a capital in China, specifically the capital of Taiwan municipality, but isn't the capital of China. China actually has many capitals. Hohhot, Lhasa, Nanning, Ürümqi, Taipei, Yinchuan and Beijing. (According to the rebels, it's only Nanjing).
This is kinda besides the point of whether Taipei is a place or not though. You're right, it didn't say it's in China. You need to click on the article for Taiwan or read further down for that. That's why I mentioned that it has multiple place-names, so you could look those up on a map. They really should've mentioned where the city is, I think that's pretty standard for an encyclopedia article on a city.
Those multiple capitals in China you mentioned are actually capital cities of first-level administrative divisions (省會). They are not what people think of when they hear capital. When people hear capital they generally think of the biggest city in a country (首都). Saying that the capitals of China are Hohhot, Lhasa, Nanning, Ürümqi, Taipei, etc. is not wrong, but it's as weird as saying that the capitals of the US are Jackson, Lansing, Springfield, Albany, etc.
I actually am not quite sure what we are even debating about at this point lol. Not that the points you made were bad, it's just that the matter is kinda trivial. I couldn't come up with more arguments besides nitpicking your errors. Can we just agree to disagree?
ps. the overall experience I had debating with you was actually not bad, unlike the ones I had with some people who resort to ad hominem attacks.
You wrote "Chinese Taipei is not a place name." and I hadn't noticed your name appear multiple times in the comments so I figured someone just genuinely didn't know Taipei is referring to the city rather than being some random Olympics-only moniker. And then with that second comment I just enjoyed being a pedant. Then when I did notice you had multiple comments I decided I should stop being rude because you weren't being rude.
There isn't really anything to disagree on. We (leftists) aren't oblivious to the fact Taiwan has (not full but significant) practical independence from China, and many of us are not even against them receiving de jure independence as long as they aren't allowed to host USA-controlled weapons. What I was trying to stress is that Chinese Taipei is a fine descriptor whether you support the PRC or ROC, since it's the Chinese city of Taipei, or even if you want Taiwan independence, it can still currently represent a team of Chinese people living in Taipei.
The hostility you see in the comments isn't because people want to deny Taiwanese their agency. Independence is stupid, and reunification under the PRC is absolutely what's best for the proletariat on Taiwan, and the rest of China, but it shouldn't happen without their popular support. What we're against is rocking the boat or god forbid, a war starting. The situation is currently workable for everyone. China gets their forced security guarantee because they legally own the land and the government on Taiwan is mostly left alone. The PRC doesn't blockade or sanction Taiwan over trade or financial issues. Every time they sanction them it's because of a direct military transgression and they've all been temporary. The PRCs whole strategy for reunification is just outpacing them in quality of life. Despite what western media claims, China is not being provocative. So stories creating the conditions for military conflict scare and anger us.
On the capitals. They're not equivalent to US-state capitals. They're supposed to be the centres of political power for the people who live in each autonomous region. While undoubtedly Beijing is the capital, or centre of political power for the whole country, that doesn't negate the regional governments' power. You said the biggest city is the capital, right? But the biggest city financially in the USA is New York, and culturally it's Los Angeles. And in terms of population they're #1 and #2 too. But the capital of the USA is the centre of political power. China aims for a higher level of autonomy than the USA does, partially because they're more committed to democracy, but also because the material conditions necessitate it. Beijing just isn't as good at administrating autonomous regions as they are themselves.
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.
You sorta have to win the war to declare independence.
Change the question to: “would you die for Taiwanese independence?” And watch the numbers drop.
So mainland China is not independent then?
They have the mainland and everyone recognizes them as China.
Sounds independent to me. Forget your pedantic nonsense.
As does Taiwan to me, and right back at you comrade.
So the “nation” that doesn’t even consider itself independent sounds independent to you?
And I’m the one being pedantic?
Sorry to say but independence isn’t a vibe.
It’s not a vibe based analysis.
How does it not consider itself independent?
the government doesn't. Government don't reflect the will of the people. Even if the people want a "free taiwan" the government will constantly pursue a policy of reunification under their government.
In some countries laws are put to the vote of the population, enacted, and enforced. Would you deny that is a reflection of the people's will?
This is untrue. The Tsai Ing-wen administration maintains that Taiwan is already an independent country as the Republic of China and thus does not have to push for any sort of formal independence. They want to maintain the status quo because they don't want their population slaughtered. As does the population. Almost like they are the same. Sort of like a reflection.
Bourgeoisie democracies serve the rich first, the corporations first. Democracy of the dollar always favors the ones with the most dollars. I will rightfully claim that most people do not feel represented by their neoliberal country's government.
Also how do you claim to be a different, independent government, but also claim to be china? They also have claims on Tibet and Mongolia!
Article 4 of the constitution:
Which means they're not independent of the rest of China. They also claim parts of Japan, Korea, Myanmar, Bhutan, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Russia, and according to Vietnam parts of Vietnam. Their territorial claims aren't ancient by the way, they were revised in 2002, when they accepted Mongolia's sovereignty.
They cannot claim themselves independent or else China would attack. Don't you think it's kind of ludicrous that a country can force another "region" to not be independent by threatening them?
What are your opinions on the civil war in the US?
Should the confederacy have been allowed to leave without threat of force?
I don't really care about the history of the US.
@diablexical@lemm.ee was not actually claiming that China is not independent. They are trying prove that Taiwan is independent through reductio ad absurdium. Basically, they try to derive something absurd (in this case China not being independent) from your claims.
Thus “pedantic nonsense”
You can’t prove independence through logical contradiction. It’s a state of foreign recognition. China clearly won the war enough to be recognized. Taiwan did not.
Independence isn’t a vibe.
Reductio ad absurdium is not "pedantic nonsense."
When misapplied that badly, it really is.
Why would anyone want to die for a mere label of "independence"? Most Taiwanese people just want to enjoy the practically independent status quo.
Because it’s not a vibe. They’re not really independent. The island will live forever in Chinas shadow.
For context: the DPP is the pro-indpendence ultranationalist party founded by local landed elites who collaborated with the Japanese empire during wwii. To this day many Taiwanese ultranationalists around the DPP deny Japanese atrocities such as Nanjing and Unit 731. This may not be the most reliable source, three pinocchios!
Anyone who says they support the DPP is openly saying they support fascists.
I don't support the DPP, but they are far from being fascists.
Not to defend the DPP, but I find the claim that some people deny the Rape of Nanking hard to believe.
deleted by creator
Did you just call Lee Teng-Hui a dipshit?
deleted by creator
Interesting that you choose to present a 10 year old poll conducted by the pro-independence party instead of easily accessible recent polls conducted by well regarded Taiwanese universities.
I guess those other cherries just didn't look as ripe, eh?
From 2023
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4782886