The Main Focus of the Taiwan-China Issue: Historical Rights or Systems of Government?

[Debater Slayer]

Most of the time when the subject of Taiwan and China comes up, I see the focus shifting to being about Taiwan's democracy versus China's iron-clad dictatorship. This seems perfectly understandable to me: most people, me included, would much rather live in a free democracy than under a genocidal dictatorship like that of the CCP if given the choice. However, isn't the historical right to the island of Taiwan an equally—if not more—central issue?

If China has no historical right to Taiwan, it seems to me that systems of government and the respective levels of freedom they provide are a red herring in this case: even if China were the world's most prosperous, free democracy, it would still have no right to unify Taiwan under one government. Taiwan's independence doesn't hinge on how much freedom and democracy the Chinese government provides or doesn't provide.

On the other hand, if China has a historical right to Taiwan, the system of government is merely a secondary issue. Many governments oppress a sizable portion of their populations, yet the international community most likely wouldn't recognize or support an independent Nation of Pakistani Atheists or a Republic of Saudi Humanists. The US probably wouldn't allow, say, California or Texas to secede either even if they ran a referendum and gained a majority of votes in favor of becoming their own country.

In your opinion, should the main focus in discussions about the Taiwan-China situation be about each country's system of government, or should it be about historical facts and rights to the island? Of course, the CCP's abusive policies make unification of Taiwan under their rule an even harder sell than it would otherwise be, and democracy and freedom are crucial subjects in the discussion as well. The question isn't whether systems of government should be in the discussion at all; it's whether they should be the main focus thereof.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most of the time when the subject of Taiwan and China comes up, I see the focus shifting to being about Taiwan's democracy versus China's iron-clad dictatorship. This seems perfectly understandable to me: most people, me included, would much rather live in a free democracy than under a genocidal dictatorship like that of the CCP if given the choice. However, isn't the historical right to the island of Taiwan an equally—if not more—central issue?

If China has no historical right to Taiwan, it seems to me that systems of government and the respective levels of freedom they provide are a red herring in this case: even if China were the world's most prosperous, free democracy, it would still have no right to unify Taiwan under one government. Taiwan's independence doesn't hinge on how much freedom and democracy the Chinese government provides or doesn't provide.

On the other hand, if China has a historical right to Taiwan, the system of government is merely a secondary issue. Many governments oppress a sizable portion of their populations, yet the international community most likely wouldn't recognize or support an independent Nation of Pakistani Atheists or a Republic of Saudi Humanists. The US probably wouldn't allow, say, California or Texas to secede either even if they ran a referendum and gained a majority of votes in favor of becoming their own country.

In your opinion, should the main focus in discussions about the Taiwan-China situation be about each country's system of government, or should it be about historical facts and rights to the island? Of course, the CCP's abusive policies make unification of Taiwan under their rule an even harder sell than it would otherwise be, and democracy and freedom are crucial subjects in the discussion as well. The question isn't whether systems of government should be in the discussion at all; it's whether they should be the main focus thereof.

There's a third option: that Taiwan - or at least the government currently residing in Taiwan - has a historical right to all of China.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There's a third option: that Taiwan - or at least the government currently residing in Taiwan - has a historical right to all of China.

Yeah, but I have rarely ever seen that one come up, probably because Taiwan couldn't threaten to retake all of China even if it wanted and because China is the one currently being hostile.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, but I have rarely ever seen that one come up, peobably because Taiwan couldn't threaten to retake all of China even if it wanted and because China is the one currently being hostile.

I agree that Taiwan isn't practically capable of retaking China, but I think the argument goes something like "the government in Taiwan has the moral right to all of China (even if they can't practically exercise it), so they're certainly entitled to whatever Chinese territory they've managed to hold on to."

 

[Valjean]

What gives a particular power-élite the "right" to dominate a region/people? Do the Crips have a historical right do dominate certain Los Angeles neighborhoods, and the Bloods other ones?
National boundaries are always changing. A given region might have had a dozen historical governments over the past couple hundred years. Which one, if any, has the valid claim?

Me, I prefer Democracy. Let the people decide how or by whom they're to be governed.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What gives a particular power-élite "right" to dominate a region/people? Do the Crips have a historical right do dominate certain Los Angeles neighborhoods, and the Bloods other ones?
National boundaries are always changing. A given region might have had a dozen historical governments over the past couple hundred years. Which one, if any, has the valid claim?

Me, I prefer Democracy. Let the people decide how or by whom they're to be governed.

Would you view a referendum-based act of secession (like the hypothetical in the OP) as legitimate, then?

 

[Revoltingest]

Most of the time when the subject of Taiwan and China comes up, I see the focus shifting to being about Taiwan's democracy versus China's iron-clad dictatorship. This seems perfectly understandable to me: most people, me included, would much rather live in a free democracy than under a genocidal dictatorship like that of the CCP if given the choice. However, isn't the historical right to the island of Taiwan an equally—if not more—central issue?

If China has no historical right to Taiwan, it seems to me that systems of government and the respective levels of freedom they provide are a red herring in this case: even if China were the world's most prosperous, free democracy, it would still have no right to unify Taiwan under one government. Taiwan's independence doesn't hinge on how much freedom and democracy the Chinese government provides or doesn't provide.

On the other hand, if China has a historical right to Taiwan, the system of government is merely a secondary issue. Many governments oppress a sizable portion of their populations, yet the international community most likely wouldn't recognize or support an independent Nation of Pakistani Atheists or a Republic of Saudi Humanists. The US probably wouldn't allow, say, California or Texas to secede either even if they ran a referendum and gained a majority of votes in favor of becoming their own country.

In your opinion, should the main focus in discussions about the Taiwan-China situation be about each country's system of government, or should it be about historical facts and rights to the island? Of course, the CCP's abusive policies make unification of Taiwan under their rule an even harder sell than it would otherwise be, and democracy and freedom are crucial subjects in the discussion as well. The question isn't whether systems of government should be in the discussion at all; it's whether they should be the main focus thereof.

I argue that the government of Taiwan has the greater
right to rule a unified China. Mao was a revolutionary
who failed to topple the government that fled to Taiwan.
Sure, he got the mainland by violent conquest. But
having more land doesn't confer legitimacy.

I view things with little regard for historical claims.
China & Taiwan have long been different countries
with different governments & different political
cultures. China has no valid reason to tell Taiwan
"We own you. Join us or die."

 

[Debater Slayer]

I argue that the government of Taiwan has the greater
right to rule a unified China. Mao was a revolutionary
who failed to topple the government that fled to Taiwan.
Sure, he got the mainland by violent conquest. But
having more land doesn't confer legitimacy.

But then another question comes up: which revolutionary governments were legitimate and which were not? And how does one decide that?

I view things with little regard for historical claims.
China & Taiwan have long been different countries
with different governments & different political
cultures. China has no valid reason to tell Taiwan
"We own you. Join us or die."

I view historical claims as highly relevant, but I agree on the rest.

 

[Revoltingest]

But then another question comes up: which revolutionary governments were legitimate and which were not? And how does one decide that?

I don't decide it at all.
I prefer to let independent countries stay that way.
One has no right to conquer the other based upon
claims of historical dominance.

I view historical claims as highly relevant, but I agree on the rest.

Do you believe that one country historically
occupied another, that this gives it the right
to conquer it?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't decide it at all.
I prefer to let independent countries stay that way.
One has no right to conquer the other based upon
claims of historical dominance.

Agreed.

Doo you believe that one country historically
occupied another, that this gives it the right
to conquer it?

Of course not. (That would also mean Britain would have a right to occupy both of our countries again. Yikes.)

What I mean is that historical claims are a relevant part of such discussions. Whether they have any merit is something that depends on the context and history of each individual claim.

 

[Audie]

Most of the time when the subject of Taiwan and China comes up, I see the focus shifting to being about Taiwan's democracy versus China's iron-clad dictatorship. This seems perfectly understandable to me: most people, me included, would much rather live in a free democracy than under a genocidal dictatorship like that of the CCP if given the choice. However, isn't the historical right to the island of Taiwan an equally—if not more—central issue?

If China has no historical right to Taiwan, it seems to me that systems of government and the respective levels of freedom they provide are a red herring in this case: even if China were the world's most prosperous, free democracy, it would still have no right to unify Taiwan under one government. Taiwan's independence doesn't hinge on how much freedom and democracy the Chinese government provides or doesn't provide.

On the other hand, if China has a historical right to Taiwan, the system of government is merely a secondary issue. Many governments oppress a sizable portion of their populations, yet the international community most likely wouldn't recognize or support an independent Nation of Pakistani Atheists or a Republic of Saudi Humanists. The US probably wouldn't allow, say, California or Texas to secede either even if they ran a referendum and gained a majority of votes in favor of becoming their own country.

In your opinion, should the main focus in discussions about the Taiwan-China situation be about each country's system of government, or should it be about historical facts and rights to the island? Of course, the CCP's abusive policies make unification of Taiwan under their rule an even harder sell than it would otherwise be, and democracy and freedom are crucial subjects in the discussion as well. The question isn't whether systems of government should be in the discussion at all; it's whether they should be the main focus thereof.

"Historical right" has no meaning.

With the ( possible) exception of a few
islands nobody lives on land not fought over
and taken by force from earlier inhabitants.

The only right is might.

Also- if you send a letter Taiwan it is
correct to address it to "Taiwan, Republic of China."

It's not China v Taiwan. That makes no sence.
There is an ongoing civil war. It has not been
resolved.

If there is a question for others it concerns the wisdom
of getting involved in someone else's civil war.

Western powers did north and south Vietnam. North and South Korea, and, PRC/ROC.

Sticking around the w. pacific rim to see what it takes
to maintain this invidious status quo may not be advisable

 

[Audie]

Yeah, but I have rarely ever seen that one come up, probably because Taiwan couldn't threaten to retake all of China even if it wanted and because China is the one currently being hostile.

It was in the 80s when Taiwan govt ceased funding
plans to retake control of all of china.

 

[Audie]

What gives a particular power-élite "right" to dominate a region/people? Do the Crips have a historical right do dominate certain Los Angeles neighborhoods, and the Bloods other ones?
National boundaries are always changing. A given region might have had a dozen historical governments over the past couple hundred years. Which one, if any, has the valid claim?

Me, I prefer Democracy. Let the people decide how or by whom they're to be governed.

What? Might makes right is what.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It was in the 80s when Taiwan govt ceased funding
plans to retake control of all of china.

Sending an informative frubal to Singapore. I hope it arrives undamaged!

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not China v Taiwan. That makes no sence.
There is an ongoing civil war. It has not been
resolved.

That's a novel view. I suppose....
Russia v Ukraine is an ongoing civil war.
It too hasn't been resolved.

Said that way, it sounds so benign & less significant.

 

[Audie]

That's a novel view. I suppose....
Russia v Ukraine is an ongoing civil war.
It too hasn't been resolved.

Said that way, it sounds so benign & less significant.

It's far from a novel view.
It's the official stance of the ROC govt.
Taiwan is more integral to all of China
than Alaska is of the USA now, or the
Confederate states in your civil war.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's far from a novel view.
It's the official stance of the ROC govt.
Taiwan is more integral to all of China
than Alaska is of the USA now, or the
Confederate states in your civil war.

I don't buy the "integral" argument
for China's plan to violently conquer
& acquire Taiwan.
China should try becoming a country
that Taiwan would want to unify with.

Alternatively, neither Taiwan nor China
has a right to Taiwan, which was stolen
from its aboriginals.
What it all boils down to is....
"Nice country. I'll take it!"

 

[Audie]

I don't buy the "integral" argument
for China's plan to violently conquer
& acquire Taiwan.
China should try becoming a country
that Taiwan would want to unify with.

Alternatively, neither Taiwan nor China
has a right to Taiwan, which was stolen
from its aboriginals.
What it all boils down to is....
"Nice country. I'll take it!"

I have mentioned that might makes right.

The name R.O. C. refers to all of China.

The ROC has abandoned as imporactical
its plans to take all of China, by force of course

Regardless of what any round eye swab happens to
choose to buy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have mentioned that might makes right.

And let's hope that Taiwan has enuf
might to keep China at bay.

The name R.O. C. refers to all of China.

Names don't grant authority.

The ROC has abandoned as imporactical
its plans to take all of China, by force of course

Taiwan appears to be doing quite well on its own.

Regardless of what any round eye swab happens to
choose to buy.

Alas, the slant eyed desire to conquer Taiwan
might lead to round eyed military support
that escalates into WW3.
Too bad that some countries can't be satisfied
with what they have, & will kill for more.

 

[Audie]

And let's hope that Taiwan has enuf
might to keep China at bay.

Names don't grant authority.

Taiwan appears to be doing quite well on its own.

Alas, the slant eyed desire to conquer Taiwan
might lead to round eyed military support
that escalates into WW3.
Too bad that some countries can't be satisfied
with what they have, & will kill for more.

I will take your listing facts of the
well known and obvious as abject
surrender to my superior Insight
in W. Pacific geopolitical psychoanalytics.