I think the funniest part is the fact that all the western countries are even afraid to recognize Taiwan's independence. It's a much better argument to say Korea or Japan are ruled by the US (and Korea and Japan absolutely hate one another!).
Does the US have influence in Taiwan? Certainly! But if that meant Taiwan was the US's puppet then Taiwan would simultaneously be China's puppet. Schrödinger's Vassal
I thought that both the government in Beijing and the government in Taipei both claim that all of China is united, and that they are the legitimate government of that united entity.
You're arguing semantics. The west refuses to recognize Taiwan as the legitimate government of China and refuses to recognize it as an independent country.
Whatever they claim, the west (and most of the world) due to Chinese leverage/power refuses to recognize.
Taiwan meets all the criteria for being a state. It controls land, population, it has a military, it has a government, currency, passports etc. etc. It's a de-facto country/state.
It's not semantics if Taiwan itself does not claim independence.
Taiwan buys military equipment and operates it's own military very much like it is independent of China and views Chinese troops in it's territory as a threat.
Correct. However "in it's territory" includes inside mainland China.
You literally described independence.
You're confusing land with governance.
I'm not. You'll notice that I used the terms correctly.
The government in Taipei claims all of mainland China and The island of Taiwan are united and a single state. As does the government in Beijing.
So you think North and South Korea are the same country? If not, which is the rightful country and which is the rebel? They both claim the same territory and that the other is illegitimate.
Do you think India and Pakistan are the same country? Or at least parts? There's a lot of disputed territories there.
Or do you believe Palestine is independent from Israel? They sure claim independence and Israel claims it's theirs.
Or what about the USA? The British sure thought it was theirs for a long time. Should France not have gotten involved in all of that?
So yes, clearly in Area A the Palestinians have limited sovereignty - limited only because they consistently refuse all attempts to provide them more sovereignty.
Perhaps the French should not have gotten involved. I can imagine an alternate history where the British rule over the North American continent. The great result of the American Revolution wasn't the independent United States. The great result of the American Revolution was the implementation of a government based upon secular values and equality for all before the law. And even with the tools in place to implement that government, it still took almost two hundred years to enshrine those values into society.And now, a mere two generations later, people have forgotten how hard the Americans worked to build that society and they are willing - active even - to discard it because of the few remaining minor deviations from perfection.
> afraid to recognize Taiwan's independence
No one is afraid. Taiwan themselves still claim to be the Republic of China and not separate from the rest of China.
Mainland China's current government is called the "People's Republic of China" (PRC)[1]
Taiwan calls itself the "Republic of China" (RoC)[2]
The difference of one word is very important. It's easy to miss, which is why Taiwan even changed its passport[3]... over a decade ago.
But also... they issue different passports. They have different governments. Really, this is not hard to understand that Taiwan considers themselves independent and the PRC considers the RoC a bunch of rebels. And... what do rebels typically do?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_T...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_the_People%27s...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1758230.stm
The Taiwanese government still officially considers itself the government of all of China, not just of Taiwan and a few outlying islands.
This is false.
You will finally google this claim you've been repeating without evidence, and realize there's no supporting evidence for this claim. I guarantee it, because there is no evidence for this claim.
The Republic of China has not amended its constitution to eliminate its claim to all of China. You may be referring to the views of the current ruling party on what Taiwan should be, but constitutionally, it still claims everything.
Please directly quote where in the taiwanese constitution there is a claim to the territory of the PRC.
I tend to read the constitutions and legal documents of countries I live in. I have read the constitution many times. It's not in there.
Article 4. It's actually near the top. You probably missed it because you have to know the history of the constitution to know what Article 4 means. This is the text:
"The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly."
The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.
The constitution says that those boundaries may only be changed by an act of the legislature. There has never been such an act.
> The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.
Nope, they were never formally defined, not even in legislation.
This flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the constitutional reforms, when a clear delineation was made between "territory the ROC controls, and mainland territory (which the ROC does not claim)". The constitutional court also addressed the question directly: https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=3105... TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."
Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory. Lacking any other Taiwanese claim to the territory (legislation, etc), it's therefore a fact that Taiwan makes no claims whatsoever to PRC territory.
>which the ROC does not claim
ROC claims over all Chinese territory formally via inherent territory / universal succession when Qing abdication transferred sovereignty of all China to ROC, territories predefined as all China. Seperatistards tried to get court to formally define, i.e. redefine it as to not include mainland but court chickened out and tossed it down to political level and original state/claims (again, all china) persists. Cue additional articles of constitution which only tries to hack jurisdiction by creating free area / mainland area as separate political jurisdiction because seperatistards couldn't muster actual political power to constitutionally renounce claims, i.e. change sovereignty.
Hence ROC constitution still maintains full sovereignty claims over all China, while legally tries to spins restricting jurisdiction in few specific territories is life hack for independence, like sharia law applying to Taliban occupied villages translate to sovereignty claim (/s). When its explicitly clear the ROC constitution still fully dejure claims all territories including mainland areas, and will continue to claim, until formal referendum renounces dejure claims.
Until then, it's just revealed preference that TWners don't want dejure independence hard enough. And why pro independant narrative has to do deliberately retarded misreading of constitution / additional articles to support equally retarded / strained interpretation that jurisdiction claims = sovereignty claims. It doesn't. Feeling independent doesn't make one legally so.
Your insulting tone diminishes the validity of your argument to nothing. There's no point in talking to someone like you.
Tone has nothing to do with validity, policing tone is deflection for claim simply being wrong. TW constitutionally claims over mainland territory. There is no alternative legal reading despite how hard pro-independence tried (and failed) to create ambiguity at constitutional level. Hence reply more PSA for others against confidence passport bro "I read the constitution" but clearly do not understand it tier misinformation.
I'm not the only one who read the constitution, the constitutional court did, and in doing so directed that it doesn't constitute a claim to a specific territory, thus setting in stone the fact that the Taiwanese government makes no claim to PRC territory.
You may interpret the Taiwanese constitution however you please; since you aren't the Taiwanese judiciary nor legislative yuan, your interpretation is meaningless in terms of answering the question of whether Taiwan makes claims to PRC territory.
Honestly it doesn't even matter if true or false, their logic is flawed. We could just swap China/Taiwan for the Koreas and it would still be dumb. Clearly they have independent governing bodies even though they both claim the other is an illegitimate ruling party.
The patent is either trolling or delusional. Best to waste no more time