Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-17/Government in exile: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Government in exile
Status	Open
Request date	18:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Requesting party	Ngchen (talk)
Mediator(s)	Ludwigs2

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:14, 24 October 2010

Request details

Where is the dispute?

The dispute surrounds whether and to what extent the Republic of China (ROC) should be listed as a government in exile, when one considers the controversial political status of Taiwan. A permanent solution is desired, rather than the current temporary solution where the ROC is listed but is tagged for neutrality and factual accuracy.

Who is involved?

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

What is the dispute?

A permanent solution is desired, rather than the current temporary solution where the ROC is listed but is tagged for neutrality and factual accuracy. Since it is logically impossible to both include and exclude the ROC, a solution is needed to neutrally and without giving undue weight to any POV deal with the case of the ROC.

What would you like to change about this?

I feel that there are a series of tangential issues that have been discussed, and people are talking past each other. Something along the lines of a "reset" may well be useful.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps being a third party who can ask questions, and illuminate the unstated assumptions each user is making would lead us to a solution.

Mediator notes

I'd be happy to take this case on. it's not an issue I know much about, and certainly not one I have an opinion on, but I think I can help organize the discussion to get past the the current blocks. I'll go ahead and mark the discussion as open, but if anyone would prefer a different mediator, let me know here or in my talk, and I'll recuse myself. --Ludwigs2 06:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

I personally don't belief this kind of mediation will be useful, helpful or necessary to find any undefined so-called permanent solution. There were already tons of discussions about different dispute points. I also don't have interest to repeat lots of what had been discussed and already exists in the talk page of article "Government in exile" for the case of ROC here again. I think mediator could go to review the content in the talk pages directly, e.g. in sections:
-*- "ROC is also a rump state",
-*- "the dispute tag positioning for ROC as Government in Exile",
-*- RFC - Republic of China,
-*- "Regarding SH9002's tag",
-*- "Straw Poll - what to do with the Republic of China",
-*- "RoC flag",
-*- "There are totally different disputes about ROC".
--SH9002 (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe that the mediation can be useful, why is there a medcab case for it? speaking seriously, mediation can resolve a lot of seemingly unsolvable problem if participants enter into it in good faith, but if you guys aren't interested in entering into it in good faith then there's no point in even trying. So say, and I'll close the case as unresolved. you can always reopen if you change your mind later and want to give it a try. --Ludwigs2 15:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial perspectives

Ngchen's perspective First, a brief history lesson to put everyone on the same page. The Republic of China (ROC) was first established in 1911-1912 in mainland China after the downfall of the Qing dynasty. At that time, Taiwan was controlled by Japan, since it was previously ceded (Eventually, both Chinese governments dispute the validity/legality of the Qing cession, arguing that it was imposed by force. Regardless, at least de facto, Taiwan was under Japanese rule.) to Japan by the Qing in 1895 as a result of the first Sino-Japanese war. Soon afterward, there was a Communist revolution that was interrupted by the Second Sino-Japanese War which merged into World War II. At the practical end of the Communist revolution in 1949, the ROC retreated to Taiwan. The victorious Communists proclaimed (on October 1, 1949) the People's Republic of China (PRC) which rules mainland China to this day. Nonetheless, both the PRC and ROC claim to the the "sole legitimate government of all China," and consider the other illegitimate.

Whether and to what extent legal sovereignty of Taiwan belonged/belongs to (1) Japan, (2) the PRC, (3) the ROC, (4) the locals, or (5) nobody, plays a large role in this dispute. The gory details are at legal status of Taiwan, but I'll quickly try to summarize the maneuvering and claims. Japan, which ruled Taiwan from 1895-1945, formally disposed of Taiwan in 1952 with the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco (SFPT). Oddly enough, due possibly (historians are divided) to the controversy surrounding whether the PRC or ROC was the legitimate government of China, the treaty only specified that Japan gave up the island, without specifying to whom. The PRC and ROC base their claims primarily on the Japanese Instrument of (unconditional) Surrender, signed in 1945, which referenced the Potsdam Declaration, which in terms referenced the Cairo Declaration. In the Cairo Declaration, it was explicitly spelled out that Formosa (Taiwan) was to be restored to the Republic of China at the end of the war. The PRC can and does use this clause because it was founded only in 1949, and considers itself the successor government to the ROC. So in its view it inherited all the rights and responsibilities of the ROC upon its founding. Finally, arguments can be made for sovereignty over Taiwan to be placed in the hands of the locals (people who were living on the island in the 1940's-1950's), based on the SFPT's renunciation of sovereignty by Japan without a recipient, and on the well-documented misrule and dictatorship of the ROC starting in 1945 during the ROC's martial-law era that ended only in 1989. The locals were not consulted in terms of who should have ruled; hence supporters of Taiwan independence have long argued that self-determination rights were violated.

So, back to the question of whether the ROC should be somehow listed as a government-in-exile, or not. I think we can make a series of if/then statements that the vast majority of people would agree upon. The complication is that people don't agree with the validity of the If statements.

If the ROC does not legitimately exist today (per the PRC), then the ROC would be a government-in-exile.
If the PRC does not legitimately exist today (per the ROC), then the PRC would be a government-in-exile.
If territorial sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to the ROC, then the ROC would not be a government-in-exile.
If territorial sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to any other entity, then the ROC would be a government-in-exile (although if it is still sovereign over Penghu, Kinmen, and other minor islands one can still argue that it's a rump state).
If the ROC were a government-in-exile, the current legitimacy of its de facto rule over Taiwan is challenged. This fact is why supporters of Taiwan independence often like to argue such.

Now, keeping in mind the prohibition against giving undue weight to any point of view, we are trying to find a permanent solution to properly categorizing the ROC. As I pointed out earlier, logically we cannot both include and exclude the ROC from this or any other list. Ngchen (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 :If you don't believe that the mediation can be useful, why is there a medcab case for it? speaking seriously, mediation ''can'' resolve a lot of seemingly unsolvable problem if participants enter into it in good faith, but if you guys aren't interested in entering into it in good faith then there's no point in even trying.  So say, and I'll close the case as unresolved.  you can always reopen if you change your mind later and want to give it a try.  --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 15:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 ====Initial perspectives====
+'''Ngchen's perspective'''
+First, a brief history lesson to put everyone on the same page. The Republic of China (ROC) was first established in 1911-1912 in mainland China after the downfall of the Qing dynasty. At that time, Taiwan was controlled by Japan, since it was previously ceded (Eventually, both Chinese governments dispute the validity/legality of the Qing cession, arguing that it was imposed by force. Regardless, at least ''de facto'', Taiwan was under Japanese rule.) to Japan by the Qing in 1895 as a result of the first Sino-Japanese war. Soon afterward, there was a Communist revolution that was interrupted by the Second Sino-Japanese War which merged into World War II. At the practical end of the Communist revolution in 1949, the ROC retreated to Taiwan. The victorious Communists proclaimed (on October 1, 1949) the People's Republic of China (PRC) which rules mainland China to this day. Nonetheless, both the PRC and ROC claim to the the "sole legitimate government of all China," and consider the other illegitimate.
+Whether and to what extent '''legal sovereignty''' of Taiwan belonged/belongs to (1) Japan, (2) the PRC, (3) the ROC, (4) the locals, or (5) nobody, plays a large role in this dispute. The gory details are at [[legal status of Taiwan]], but I'll quickly try to summarize the maneuvering and claims. Japan, which ruled Taiwan from 1895-1945, formally disposed of Taiwan in 1952 with the signing of the [[Treaty of San Francisco]] (SFPT). Oddly enough, due possibly (historians are divided) to the controversy surrounding whether the PRC or ROC was the legitimate government of China, the treaty only specified that Japan gave up the island, without specifying to whom. The PRC and ROC base their claims primarily on the [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender|Japanese Instrument of (unconditional) Surrender]], signed in 1945, which referenced the Potsdam Declaration, which in terms referenced the Cairo Declaration. In the Cairo Declaration, it was explicitly spelled out that Formosa (Taiwan) was to be restored to the Republic of China at the end of the war. The PRC '''can''' and does use this clause because it was founded only in 1949, and considers itself the successor government to the ROC. So in its view it inherited all the rights and responsibilities of the ROC upon its founding. Finally, arguments can be made for sovereignty over Taiwan to be placed in the hands of the locals (people who were living on the island in the 1940's-1950's), based on the SFPT's renunciation of sovereignty by Japan without a recipient, and on the well-documented misrule and dictatorship of the ROC starting in 1945 during the ROC's martial-law era that ended only in 1989. The locals were not consulted in terms of who should have ruled; hence supporters of [[Taiwan independence]] have long argued that self-determination rights were violated.
+So, back to the question of whether the ROC should be somehow listed as a government-in-exile, or not. I think we can make a series of if/then statements that the vast majority of people would agree upon. The complication is that people don't agree with the validity of the ''If'' statements.
+* If the ROC does not legitimately exist today (per the PRC), then the ROC would be a government-in-exile.
+* If the PRC does not legitimately exist today (per the ROC), then the PRC would be a government-in-exile.
+* If territorial sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to the ROC, then the ROC would not be a government-in-exile.
+* If territorial sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to any other entity, then the ROC would be a government-in-exile (although if it is still sovereign over Penghu, Kinmen, and other minor islands one can still argue that it's a rump state).
+* If the ROC were a government-in-exile, the current legitimacy of its ''de facto'' rule over Taiwan is challenged. This fact is why supporters of Taiwan independence often like to argue such.
+Now, keeping in mind the prohibition against giving undue weight to any point of view, we are trying to find a permanent solution to properly categorizing the ROC. As I pointed out earlier, logically we cannot both include and exclude the ROC from this or any other list. [[User:Ngchen|Ngchen]] ([[User talk:Ngchen|talk]]) 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)