Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Topics related to Taiwan and Taiwan/China issues can be discussed here. Threads dealing with Taiwan's history belong in the Culture & History thread. Please do not post articles - use links instead. Quoted sources should be limited to one paragraph in length, or less. If you see a post that you feel is against the rules, please send a report to the moderators so we can look into it

Moderator: TheGingerMan

Forum rules
Threads dealing with Taiwan's history belong in the Culture & History thread. Please do not post articles - use links instead. Quoted sources should be limited to one paragraph in length, or less. If you see a post that you feel is against the rules, you can send a report to the moderators so we can look into it

Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby mallard » 19 Jan 2010, 14:43

Personalized insults again noted.

I'm saying the points of disputes lie amongst ethnic Chinese parties exclusively, not that it doesn't effect the outside world or actual true Taiwan people.

What's the point of waxing nasty? You're a moderator for Christ's sake!
Forumosan avatar
mallard
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 238
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 31 May 2009, 00:40
Location: South Thailand

6000

Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby urodacus » 19 Jan 2010, 14:55

I am not being nasty. I am just opining that calling it an "internal Chinese problem" is demonstrably crazy, for the reasons i pointed out: four countries are involved. The POINT is crazy, not YOU. Unless you care to include yourself in that description, which is of course entirely up to you.


and who is this Christ personage people keep asking me to do stuff for? I'm not a moderator of this forum.
The prizes are a bottle of f*!@#$% SCOTCH and a box of cheap f!@#$#$ CIGARS!
Forumosan avatar
urodacus
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 10950
Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 23:20
Location: banished by the Illudium Q-36 demodulator
169 Recommends(s)
216 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby Mawvellous » 19 Jan 2010, 15:03

urodacus wrote:
mallard wrote:This is genuinely an internal Chinese dispute and the natives of the land have little hope of taking their rightful place in settling it.



how can it be genuinely an internal Chinese dispute when it involves at best four separate nations (China, Taiwan, Japan and the US) and at worst three nations (China, Japan and the US) and an unresolved former colonial territory of one of those states (Japan)?

:loco: :loco: :loco:


Why does it involve Japan?

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/taipei01.htm
Treaty of Taipei

Article 2
It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands.


Article 10
For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendents who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores); and juridical persons of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all those registered under the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).
Mawvellous
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
 
Posts: 1391
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 10:59
2 Recommends(s)
7 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby Feiren » 19 Jan 2010, 15:06

mallard wrote:Personalized insults again noted.


No one has insulted you. Your arguments have been criticized though.


I'm saying the points of disputes lie amongst ethnic Chinese parties exclusively, not that it doesn't effect the outside world or actual true Taiwan people.


And I am disagreeing. Both the United States and Japan hold that the status of Taiwan is undecided. The US enforces its position with the US Navy and by selling arms to Taiwan. China says that it is decided and that Taiwan belongs to the PRC. Probably a majority of people in Taiwan says that it is decided and that Taiwan is independent. The current president of Taiwan thinks that Taiwan is part of the Republic of China along with China proper and Mongolia. All of these actors are directly involved with this dispute.
Feiren
Former City Mayor (qiánrèn shìzhǎng)
Former City Mayor (qiánrèn shìzhǎng)
 
Posts: 4838
Joined: 05 Jan 2002, 17:01
Location: Drum Tower
4 Recommends(s)
186 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby Feiren » 19 Jan 2010, 15:09


Why does it involve Japan?


Japan is the ex-colonial power. Japan thinks its security is linked to Taiwan's. And the PRC and Taiwan claim a small part of Japan's territory (the Senkaku islands). Japan would certainly turn itself into a formidable military power if China ever invaded Taiwan to enforce its claims.
Feiren
Former City Mayor (qiánrèn shìzhǎng)
Former City Mayor (qiánrèn shìzhǎng)
 
Posts: 4838
Joined: 05 Jan 2002, 17:01
Location: Drum Tower
4 Recommends(s)
186 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby Mawvellous » 19 Jan 2010, 15:17

Feiren wrote:
Japan is the ex-colonial power. Japan thinks its security is linked to Taiwan's. And the PRC and Taiwan claim a small part of Japan's territory (the Senkaku islands). Japan would certainly turn itself into a formidable military power if China ever invaded Taiwan to enforce its claims.


I agree with that. I was answering in response to the claim by that Taiwan is an "unresolved former colonial territory" of Japan.

I think Taiwan belongs to China. The root of the problem is that China split during its civil war. Currently the ROC exercises sovereign authority over Taiwan.
What do you think Taiwan's current status is?
Mawvellous
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
 
Posts: 1391
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 10:59
2 Recommends(s)
7 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby Feiren » 19 Jan 2010, 15:29

I think that the Taiwanese people have exercised their sovereignty over Taiwan since the first 1996 direct presidential election. Therefore Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country that does not need a referendum to ratify its status. A proposal to become part of China would most certainly need ratification by referendum.

More importantly, Taiwan is a nation because it is an imagined community with borders and sovereignty. The majority of Taiwanese people have an imagined affinity with one another that they do not share with the Chinese on the other side of the strait. A dwindling minority of people in Taiwan including Ma Ying-jeou do however imagine that they have an affinity with the Chinese.
Feiren
Former City Mayor (qiánrèn shìzhǎng)
Former City Mayor (qiánrèn shìzhǎng)
 
Posts: 4838
Joined: 05 Jan 2002, 17:01
Location: Drum Tower
4 Recommends(s)
186 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby Mawvellous » 19 Jan 2010, 15:46

Feiren wrote:I think that the Taiwanese people have exercised their sovereignty over Taiwan since the first 1996 direct presidential election. Therefore Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country that does not need a referendum to ratify its status. A proposal to become part of China would most certainly need ratification by referendum.

More importantly, Taiwan is a nation because it is an imagined community with borders and sovereignty. The majority of Taiwanese people have an imagined affinity with one another that they do not share with the Chinese on the other side of the strait. A dwindling minority of people in Taiwan including Ma Ying-jeou do however imagine that they have an affinity with the Chinese.


When did Taiwan become a country? Did the first popular presidential election in 1996 or the constitutional amendments in the 1990s legitimate ROC rule in Taiwan?

Since the ROC is the legal and constitutional basis for Taiwanese sovereignty, why do many independence activists continue to question its legitimacy? Does Taiwan need to become independent from the ROC? Or from the PRC (implying that its is currently part of the PRC)?
Mawvellous
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
 
Posts: 1391
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 10:59
2 Recommends(s)
7 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby urodacus » 19 Jan 2010, 17:47

Well, there's a very valid third point of view, which is that the KMT (and therefore the ROC) are illegitimate occupiers of the nation of Taiwan, a state that was given up by its Japanese colonial masters after the war and should have been allowed to make its own way forward without the grabby greedy grubby interference of the KMT losers of the civil war in China.

It's really only your conjecture that the ROC is the legal basis of Taiwan sovereignty, a totally untested fact.
The prizes are a bottle of f*!@#$% SCOTCH and a box of cheap f!@#$#$ CIGARS!
Forumosan avatar
urodacus
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 10950
Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 23:20
Location: banished by the Illudium Q-36 demodulator
169 Recommends(s)
216 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby mallard » 19 Jan 2010, 21:12

urodacus:

"It's really only your conjecture that the ROC is the legal basis of Taiwan sovereignty, a totally untested fact."

That's actually one legal opinion, not a matter of fact per se, but still a quite widely held one. In some quarters, including Taiwan's central government - an entity you apparently don't recognize, it's held up for 65 years running, so I don't see how you can characterize it as "untested" ... whether or not it may ultimately be able to prevail.

I'm not inventing the wheel here nor really judging implied assumptions that historic international agreements carry significant weight, nor judging for merit in terms of legal rights afforded the resident population when the Japenese left en masse, but rather regarding 'it' as a model to work with and thereby reasonably proceed from. Such a model might conceivably offer much-needed foundation for a more forthright appeal vis-a-vis any external threat.

I do have [my own] problems with Taiwan's demographic identity being so closely linked to China ... only due to historic migration and expulsion [of non-Chinese] patterns, determining who have been allowed come to these shores over the centuries to stay ... and by whom the power to determine these patterns has been long been afforded. It's not been highly democratic, if you will.

This island was not a part of China to start with [circa 1700]. That much we seem to agree on.
Forumosan avatar
mallard
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
Shoe-wielding Legislator (huīwǔ xiézi de lìfǎ wěiyuán)
 
Posts: 238
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 31 May 2009, 00:40
Location: South Thailand

6000

PreviousNext




 
 
 x

Return to Taiwan Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 3 visitors

The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page -- ST AUGUSTINE