China and Taiwan have been bickering back and forth for about 57 years now. You would think they would be able to get along by now. This is another flare up in the diplomatic relations between the 2 nations. What do you guys think. Should Taipei renounce it's leadership of Taiwan, or should Beijing renounce it's claim that Taiwan isn't autonomous. The third option is leave the situation as is, by not changing the strange diplomacy that exists currently.
It's merely another chip in the "diplomacy poker" game. Look at how the UK/Ireland negotiations panned out. Or how the Israel/Palestine negotiations are going. Or how the ANC/whatever those white guys were called, went.
There's much more firepower involved this time. Not saying that it's going to come to war, but it could. China has made no qualms about using force should Taiwan declare independence. When the Korean War broke out Eisenhower sent the 7th fleet to the Taiwan Straight, the reason being he figured Chairman Mao was planning on invading Taiwan in unison with the North Korean invasion of the South. 50 years later it is now known that Mao was planning to invade Taiwan, and the North Koreans jumped the gun. They weren't acting in unison, but the North Koreans prevented the invasion of Taiwan. I don't see Beijing as being afraid to use force should they feel it is necessary.
Probably, Taiwan has much more economic value, and the Chinese consider it more "Chinese" than they do Tibet. I think much of the Taipei-Beijing confrontation comes from a personal vendetta between Mao and Kei-Shek that never died and is just carrying over. There's no reason Taiwan should be unified with China any more than the DPRK should surrender their autonomy.
With right they consider it chinese. The victorious red army was stopped by outside interference by the USnavy, and thus denied the completion of a unified China. On the other hand i doubt the Geo-strategical placement of Tibet is worth less to the chinese than the economical clout of Taiwan. There is anyways a big exile-chinese community that contributes indirectly to the chinese sphere of influence. Their grip on the himalaya is imensely more worth in real terms :wink:
Assuming that Taiwan is necessary to a Unified China is to assume that the Chinese (Beijing) have an inherent right to the the island of Taiwan. I don't see that as the case. Historical precedent does not guarantee Beijing sovereign rights over Taiwan. At one point Cuba was property of the United States, the fact that Cuba is at odds with Washington does not grant Washington the right to claim sovereignty over Cuba in the name of a "Unified America". By that logic, where does "China" stop. They could claim all of Asia by right of cultural influence.
Not all of Asia. Just like the any US claim to Cuba would be an imperialist claim. The US claim to seccesionist southern states however, would not. Taiwan has been a part of China for a 1000 years or so. The fact that Chang Cai Check took refuge there behind USwarshipsd, does not make the island a nation again. ( But 60 years od difference might ). I dont think the cubans ever were afforded the rights of citizens in the USA. Historical presedent is the most important factor in determining legal rights to land.
I can see what you're saying with Cuba and the South, but I still don't say China has the right to Taiwan. If the Taiwanese people wished to be ruled by Beijing then they could always vote appropriately, but they haven't. The Taiwanese wish to maintain there independence in light of Beijings long history of human rights abuses and highly centralized economy. I can see Beijing and Taipei reconciled in the not to distant future, maybe the next 100 years or so. Beijing is coming out of it's anti-western thaw, and waking up to capitalism.
If you allow each and every US state the same right, then you are consistent. US practice , however, says one nation, undivided. That is the same as the chinese position.
Each state is allowed the same right, but according to Lincoln in order to leave the Union it has to be through a democratic vote, not a decision of the elected officials.
Theoretically, it's never been tried and it would have to go to the Supreme Court for their interpretation of the Constitution. It would have to be a 3/5 democratic majority, and that would be difficult to get.
