Talk:Political status of Taiwan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Taiwan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Please help keep this discussion civil. Assume good faith – for many things, there are perfectly innocent explanations, and there is no need to accuse anyone of lies or deception.


What if Taiwan was attacked by a third party?[edit]

If Taiwan was invaded or bombed by a country other than the PRC (North Korea, for example), would the PRC government go to war against the aggressor on the grounds that an attack on Taiwan was an attack on Chinese territory? --GCarty (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably yes. Ngchen (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
it's not really an appropriate question because 1. China is the only country threatening to kill Taiwanese and 2. This forum is for discussing article content, not speculating what would happen in a hypothetical situation. Readin (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The PRC will likely go to war against this third country. Article 3 of the Anti-Secession Law says:-
Article 3 The Taiwan question is one that is left over from China's civil war of the late 1940s.
Solving the Taiwan question and achieving national reunification is China's internal affair, which subjects to no interference by any outside forces.
The PRC will consider an attack by a third party on Taiwan, as an attack on China. Normally, that would be a ground for a declaration of war.--pyl (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Depends on who exactly that third party is. If it's an ally of the PRC, then most likely that the PRC would be acting through that ally as a way to attack the ROC, but also being able to deny any involvement. Though, who would actually attack Taiwan that's not already allied with the PRC against Taiwan and/or the Western world (including Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and other technically Eastern nations but are more Westernized)? Answer: no one. Taiwan's only real enemy is the PRC (and by extension its allies, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) but only directly threatened by the PRC. 68.18.25.136 (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with ply, although the PRC seems to be the only threat currently to the island of Taiwan, if another party attacked it (which although unlikely is still a possibility), the PRC (since they consider Taiwan their territory) would react in the same fashion as if Beijing itself were attacked, with a retaliation force, regardless of what nation attacked Taiwan. This is the reaction that the vast majority of states would have if their territory is attacked and this seems no different. Bennyj600 (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the only foreign country threatening to invade Taiwan is China, an invasion of Taiwan by another party would almost certainly be at the request of China. China's reaction, to avoid fighting their ally, would be to 'diplomatically intervene' to persuade their ally to leave Taiwan so that China could 'liberate' the dramatically weakened nation.
If for some unimaginable reason it were a country not allied with China, China would most likely wait for that other country to wear down Taiwanese resistence, and then step in militarily after both sides were exhausted so that China could conquer Taiwan with minimal resistence. Readin (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Actually Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China (Currently ROC controls only two provinces of China, Taiwan province & a small part of Hokkien province). The Republic of China is FREE CHINA while PRC is RED CHINA (or COMMUNIST CHINA). So when you say "since the only foreign country threatening to invade Taiwan is China", you actually mean Taiwan is not a province of the Republic of China and the Republic of China (in Taiwan) dose not exist. That's weird.113.108.133.52 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
China would not invite another nation to invade Taiwan for her, and would not let any foreign nation (ie. US) interfer with sovereign Chinese internal affair.72.81.233.159 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this question just proves how totally peaceful the Pacific has become under American control. Hcobb (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pacific is not under American control. Not for long at least.

It would be pretty ironic if that occurred, as it would unite both nations again. Assuming China doesn't, you know, just take them back over right after, haha. 203.206.11.70 (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

There is exactly one country in the world with the capability to invade and conquer Taiwan. It's that country that has the 10 amphibious ready groups and 10 carrier strike groups. (Fortunately it's kinda busy on the West end of Asia at the moment.) Hcobb (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the wording "no interference by any outside forces" is adressed to the US, who has repeatedly (though ambiguously) voiced support for the 'Taiwan Question' to be solved by the Taiwanese themselves. When US president Clinton ordered a carrier to the Taiwan Strait in response to the PRC live fire missile tests in the waters off Taiwan in connection with Taiwan's 1996 presidential election - a move widely seen as an attempt at intimidating Taiwans voters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_presidential_election,_1996) - the PRC saw it as 'interference'. 83.249.134.194 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, as Beijing government won't want to made things become complex, usually if that's small scale, Beijing would tend to let Taiwan handle that themselves and only oppose attacker vocally, but if TW government aren't going to or cannot handle that, they might handle that themselves, as seen from how both government handle diaoyu islands conflict since 1990s. Or if Beijing government want to be aggressive, they might want to send out a large number of army to Taiwan which not just defeat attacker but also to place Taiwan under its own control afterward.144.214.126.61 (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Good morning,

I have a problem with the Title "political status".

The article explains the controversy whether Taiwan, including Penghu, should remain effectively independent ... A political status is in my opinion not correct. In the case that Taiwan is independent than it has the legal status as a state, if not than it has the legal status as a province etc. The article discusses in my opinion more the "Taiwan-conflict" or the "future of Taiwan".

Regards Taiwanhiker (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although there is some discussion in the article of what could be called "political status," what is really at issue is the sovereignty question -- i.e. Taiwan's LEGAL status under international law. (I'm not sure how to add a note like this. I'm fjdksla8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.80.125 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles where the title is in question but I guess this issues was missed. I also have a problem with the fact that the article is rated as a B-class article but does not meet the criteria. Otr500 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
According to Merrriam-Webster, "Politics" is:
1
a: the art or science of government
b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy
c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

It says nothing about the legal status. The definition focuses on how the power to rule the country is wielded. "Legal" only comes into politics when it is backed up by the some force that gives the law a say in how the country is ruled. Right now "Taiwan's LEGAL status under international law" is only relevant to how Taiwan is governed because it is one of many political issues that the party's squabble over and because some countries give different treatment to Taiwan. Readin (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

This article should be merged with Legal status of Taiwan, I simply can't find a difference between the subject matter of the two articles. Charles Essie (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - The idea that there is a legal status of Taiwan that extends beyond the political is a fiction created by those who believe there is an objective thing called "international law" for determining sovereignty. In the case of Taiwan the issues of power (i.e. politics) completely overrule whatever rules have been suggested at various times. Readin (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment It would be possible to make a distinction between the two, but I don't think the distinction would last. The "Political Status" would simply note that the ROC is in charge and then note which powers (countries) support the continued ROC rule and which don't followed by some discussion of how such support affects Taiwan's ability to accomplish its goals in the world. The "Legal Status" would be about the various legal theories surrounding what Taiwan's status should be rather than what Taiwan's status actually is. If you could imagine Martians landing with the power to try the case and award the country to the winner - what arguments would be made? Readin (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose SMSLet's talk 10:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Support, I think it's a no brainer. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, per Readin Fitnr (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

opinion 1.voting is not suitable for deciding these things, 2. political question 144.214.126.61 (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. The "legal arguments" of the legal status article can simply be a section of this article. Abstractematics (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"China" seat etc[edit]

Article currently includes: "Since the ROC lost its United Nations seat as "China" in 1971 (replaced by the PRC)....". When the Taipei Government was seated at the UN, it represented the "Republic of China"; it's name at the UN was not simply "China". It wasn't seated as "China"; it was seated as the ROC. The ROC was a founding signatory of the UN. "China", as such, wasn't a state and didn't found the UN. Obviously in the eyes of the UN, the Beijing Government's credentials and decision as to how to title the country were accepted in 1971. But it was never the case that "China" was a UN member. In the eyes of the UN, the Chinese state has had two recognised UN titles: ROC until 1971 and PRC since then. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

File talk:Voting res 2758.png[edit]

The map shows, amongst other things:

  • Western Sahara (then a Spanish colony);
  • Southwest Africa (now Namibia and then a SA colony);
  • British Honduras (now Belize and then a British colony),

all expressing a view (yes, no or abstain) on the UN "China" vote. How can this be accurate? On what basis is it claimed that these territories were regarded as having expressed any vote on the matter? They were I believe all on the UN list for de-colonisation at the time. Moreover, if these territories get counted then how come Greenland does not. In my opinion, none of them should as I don't believe this is accurate. There are likely other discrepancies too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

HkCaGu and 98.122.109.101's edits[edit]

Dear HkCaGu and the anonymous user at 98.122.109.101, I would appreciate (and the rest of the community would) if you both cease edit warring and come to a consensus as to the content which should be included in this article and all other related articles.

Anonymous user, to be honest, I do not think too highly of your edits. Your edits come with a substantial addition of content, all of which are without sufficient context, and without references or citations. It is extremely helpful if you attempt to show the usefulness of your edits by providing context and adding citation.

HkCaGu, I understand that you are a fairly-established user and editor. However, this does not mean that you are immune from being sanctioned for edit warring. Please attempt to establish civility and understanding between both of you, by at least addressing the dispute here, or on the other user's talk page. Thank you. Optakeover(Talk) 05:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP has continued to edit war following warnings and has been blocked for 1 month following another block a few months back. I have restored the articles to their previous states before today. Mkdwtalk 05:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Noted. Optakeover(Talk) 05:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I should point out that normally this isn't the status quo for resolving edit wars but this IP has a history of block evasion so restoring to their pre-edit war states will aid in identifying block evading IPs for a short while until other edits become involved -- and one other IP has already come out of the wood work. Mkdwtalk 05:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I went digging a bit, especially in the article SWAT which has a long history of IP warring. Looks like we're dealing with User:ProfessorJane here. HkCaGu (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)