• diablexical@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    Taiwan #1

      • diablexical@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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!

        • LiberalSoCalist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          21 > 1.6

          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.

      • randint@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How can Americans possibly be Americans if they don’t speak American?

              • diablexical@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                If your views can only be propagated through violence, don’t you think they should be reconsidered?

                • Evilsandwichman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  26
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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).

                • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  22
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I would love for a nonviolent approach to a different path. The PCI tried that in Indonesia and the US backed a massacre of over a million people and secretly bombed Indonesian territory under the pretext of popular discontent (see The Jakarta Method); Allende tried that in Chile, and the US backed a bloody coup, replacing him with the dictator Pinochet; this was tried in Afghanistan, in return for which the US backed terrorism with the express purpose of undermining reform, and with the result of worsening women’s and underprivileged rights and eventually returning to bomb the country and kill hundreds of thousands; Sankara was killed in. US-backed coup, so on and so forth, read Frantz Fanon “On Violence.” Instead of this critique being leveled at the US and their military apparatus, it is slyly redirected, and then the claim is put forward that the revolutionary only understands violence, can only operate through it. We see no peaceful road to liberating the third world from imperialism, not because this is what we wish but because any attempt is met with terror and bombs. I am not afraid to say that as a consolation the rabble will get on top by other means. Fuck America.

                  • diablexical@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

                • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  22
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That sounds like some Nazi defending to me. “Don’t attack Nazis, debate them”

            • randint@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • randint@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m pretty sure they would rather use Taiwan as their name in Olympics if China allowed them to.

              • diablexical@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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?

          • randint@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • randint@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I can accept you claiming that Taipei is a city in China, but the Wikipedia article you link to does not seem to agree.

                • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • randint@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

    • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • randint@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The German Democratic Republic was never part of the Federal Republic of Germany either. Until it was.

          What a completely irrelevant exercise in pedantry.

          • randint@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The truth, like it or not, is that PRC has never, ever seized control of Taiwan. Hopefully it never does. This is not pedantry.

            • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

          • diablexical@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • diablexical@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

          • randint@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Taiwan is heavily economically dependent on the Mainland, but not completely.

        • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • diablexical@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • diablexical@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • diablexical@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    “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.

          • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

            • randint@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah! Whether other countries let you have a seat in the UN or not is not relevant to sovereignty.

              • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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!

                • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That has nothing to do with being a state, it’s about south American former colonies gaining recognition from European powers.

                  "They agreed among themselves to criteria that made it easier for other dependent states with limited sovereignty to gain international recognition. "

                  • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.

      • diablexical@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You sorta have to win the war to declare independence.

        So mainland China is not independent then?

          • diablexical@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sounds independent to me. Forget your pedantic nonsense.

            As does Taiwan to me, and right back at you comrade.

            • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              27
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • diablexical@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                that doesn’t even consider itself independent

                How does it not consider itself independent?

                • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Article 4 of the constitution:

                  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.

              • randint@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

          • randint@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            @[email protected] 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.

      • randint@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why would anyone want to die for a mere label of “independence”? Most Taiwanese people just want to enjoy the practically independent status quo.

    • TheGamingLuddite [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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!

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?