# Taiwan v China context? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2015, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589 "2015-11-04T04:30:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/21 "2015-11-04T23:31:46Z")
> [@Peter\_Doubt](#): > > With what NYT describes as an historic meeting, looking to understand what each side has to fear from the other, and what they can agree on. > [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/asia/leaders-of-china-and-taiwan-to-meet-for-first-time-since-1949.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/asia/leaders-of-china-and-taiwan-to-meet-for-first-time-since-1949.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news) The meeting has little value other than symbolism only, but is likely to further wreck the KMT (pro-China) party in the January elections. All polls pointed to a massive upcoming defeat for the KMT even before this meeting was announced. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/22 "2015-11-04T23:44:57Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Internal unrest and anger if Taiwan should “get away.” Although I still think it would only amount to large-scale protests and dissent. You make that sound like it’s no big deal. Any large-scale protests at this point would be (rightfully) seen as further weakening of the party and would just add to the periodic large and small scale protests that have been going on throughout the country for years now. The party would see this as a major challenge to their power and would almost have to act…most likely to attempt a coup de-main, attempting to decapitate the Taiwanese government in a single stroke and take control of the island ‘province’. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/23 "2015-11-05T00:05:45Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Last time I was in Taiwan (about 7 years ago) there were no direct flights between Taiwan and China, at China’s opposition. You had to fly through Hong Kong (which is completely out of the way if you want to go from Taipei to Shanghai). There was some discussions to permit direct flights for freer trade between businesses in the two areas. Any changes to this policy from the China standpoint? > > ETA: looks like this happened in 2009, with now direct flights happening. That’s ancient history. Shanghai - Taipei alone has something like 30 direct flights per day. Just a wag but probably a hundred direct flights per day now across the straits. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/24 "2015-11-05T00:11:09Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You make that sound like it’s no big deal. Any large-scale protests at this point would be (rightfully) seen as further weakening of the party and would just add to the periodic large and small scale protests that have been going on throughout the country for years now. The party would see this as a major challenge to their power and would almost have to act…most likely to attempt a coup de-main, attempting to decapitate the Taiwanese government in a single stroke and take control of the island ‘province’. Yes, but as long as the government survives the protests…it survives the protests. Large-scale demonstrations are still nothing close to government-overturning revolt; the latter being far less doable or likely. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/25 "2015-11-05T00:58:01Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > That is a link of embassies but still points out that Britain has a consulate and in the “details” points out that the U.K. does not recognize Taiwan as a state. Neither does Canada afaik. The Canadian embassy calls itself just that. The countries with “consulate” and “permanent mission” on their shingle are being diplomatic–because they are diplomats; the offices and officers therein do embassy stuff by another name. It walks like a Peking duck, it quacks like a Peking duck. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/26 "2015-11-05T01:00:06Z")
The CCP has created a problem for themselves in several areas by fomenting noisy national chauvinism in their populace. The problem is that they permit so little public expression that when this “Rah rah yaaay China Kick Butt” ranting gets going, neither the public nor the party quite knows what to do with or about it. There’s no sense of scale or degree on either side. Sorta like Rush Limbaugh’s legions here, it represents an uncontrolled wild card in what’s otherwise a pretty well-controlled society. Most of all, it’s very unsubtle which make more adroit diplomacy difficult. Playing to the cheap seats at home seldom works well on the world stage. Unlike Putin, China is not merely snarling at the world; they’re doing some fairly gentle prodding and a lot of leading with their wallet. Like the US does, but not as skillfully. Yet. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/27 "2015-11-05T01:16:05Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > The Canadian embassy calls itself just that. The countries with “consulate” and “permanent mission” on their shingle are being diplomatic–because they are diplomats; the offices and officers therein do embassy stuff by another name. It walks like a Peking duck, it quacks like a Peking duck. Whatever the case, you were wrong to link that. You were responding to whether any significant western country recognizes Taiwain and that list is not of countries that do. And the U.K. and Canada, which you specifically mentioned, do not. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/28 "2015-11-05T01:31:37Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > The Canadian embassy calls itself just that. Rarely. See: > **[canada.org.tw](http://www.canada.org.tw/taiwan/index.aspx?lang=eng)** > > This domain may be for sale! > [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > . . . little countries make a point of recognizing each other. That not it. The [pitiful and ever smaller group of nations recognizing Taiwan](http://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/AlliesIndex.aspx?n=DF6F8F246049F8D6&sms=A76B7230ADF29736) receive Taiwanese foreign aid AKA are bribed. > [@nicky](#): > > In most practical ways Taiwan is treated as a state, theres just a bit of bullshit to keep the prc jerks happy. You may be right about “most,” but here a practical way in which it not: [http://www.mofa.gov.tw/enigo/News\_Content3.aspx?n=6238587B9CCFA6AE&sms=DE4C0FE1DE37E6E0&s=C5D4B23F26615366](http://www.mofa.gov.tw/enigo/News_Content3.aspx?n=6238587B9CCFA6AE&sms=DE4C0FE1DE37E6E0&s=C5D4B23F26615366) I guess you could say that embassy is to marriage as Taipei trade office is to civil union. The word Embassy sends the message that this is a legitimate nation we expect to stay. The phrase American Institute in Taiwan (the US non-embassy in Taipei) sends mixed signals. It is the fault of the government of Taiwan that it got into this situation. There was a time when Taiwan could have traded its then security council seat, to the PRC, in return for normal national independence. Unfortunately for the Taiwanese people, the government of Taiwan was then a dictatorship with absurd dreams of conquering the mainland. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/29 "2015-11-05T01:42:52Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > There was a time when Taiwan could have traded its then security council seat, to the PRC, in return for normal national independence. Uh, what? I’m pretty sure the CCP would never have given formal independence away as a chip. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/30 "2015-11-05T02:20:55Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I’m pretty sure the CCP would never have given formal independence away as a chip. Web search fails to support my contrary claim. I’m sure I read it in some fairly mainstream work of history – that there was a brief window, maybe around when the failure of the Great Leap Forward became clear, that China would have traded full diplomatic recognition of Taiwan in return for Taiwan’s seat on the UN security council. I recognize that I haven’t provided the slightest rational reason for you to accept this 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/31 "2015-11-05T02:23:31Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Rarely. See: > > [canada.org.tw](http://www.canada.org.tw/taiwan/index.aspx?lang=eng) Embassy of Canada in Taipei, Taiwan 13FL, 365, Fu Hsing North Road, Taipei, Taiwan, 105 Canadian Trade Office in Taipei (CTOT) 6F, Hua-Hsin Building, No. 1 SongZhi Road, Xinyi District, Taipei 11047, Taiwan Two different buildings, two different missions. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/32 "2015-11-05T02:32:29Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > Embassy of Canada in Taipei, Taiwan > 13FL, 365, Fu Hsing North Road, Taipei, Taiwan, 105 I’d be almost as happy, if this was true, as Xi Jinping would be apoplectic. But I find no official Canadian government link in support of your embassy claim. This is from the Canadian government: > **[canada.org.tw](http://www.canada.org.tw/taiwan/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/bilateral_relations.aspx?lang=eng)** > > This domain may be for sale! > [@](#): > > Canada is represented in Taiwan by the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei (CTOT), a locally-incorporated entity staffed by Canadian government and local Taiwanese personnel. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/33 "2015-11-05T02:43:00Z")
China has a long history of falling apart into the chaos of warring factions, only to be reunited by a strong leader. This story is a part of China’s DNA, and it resonates deeply with people. After the Communist Party emerged victorious, they used this story as a part of their brand, painting themselves as the great uniter of China that would restore the country to it’s rightful place in the world. After the chaos and torment that people had just emerged from, this was a story that sold very well. Taiwan, however, was a nagging little hole in the narrative. Taiwan was sitting there claiming to be the one and only true government of all of China. Even more vexingly, thanks the the Cold War, other countries were playing along with this. The Communist Party could not claim to have united all of China with Taiwan acting up, and it could not claim to be restoring China’s role in the world as long as Taiwan seemed to be winning the global popularity contest. In the meantime, the Party was figuring out how to manage how to deal with an enormous and unruly crowd of ultra-chavanists. This group is patriotic to the extreme. The only problem is that their patriotism is for “China”, and not necessarily for the Party. These guys are angry, loud and numerous, and the Party realizes fully that they would gladly throw the Party under the bus if their mood turned that way. And that, hsitroically, is how China falls apart. So these groups wield enormous power and are largely outside of anyone’s real control. With that in mind, they are also a very tempting resource to use. When times get tough and people start getting restless, whipping them in to a patriotic fervor tends to take some of the pressure off. And chauvinism has been a relatively benign way to funnel youthful energy. So when it made sense to do so, the Communist Party would enourage these guys to get good and angry. And Taiwan was a handy go-to for that. Back in the rest of the world, people were quickly realizing that the Communists were here to stay and that recognizing the government of Taiwan as the rulers of mainland China was both absurd and not particularly helpful. Governments began to establish ties with the mainland, and as a part of that they had to make at least symbolic efforts to disengage with Taiwan. The US, however, is pretty nostalgic about it’s role int he world after the war, and didn’t want to abandon Taiwan completely. So we’ve kept a “maybe we will, maybe we won’t” stance towards helping out in an invasion- which seems to have actually been pretty effective. Time keeps passing, and while Taiwan is desperate to keep their democracy, they have also come to terms with the idea that China is THE regional power, and China will be a part of their future one way or another. Back on the mainland, however, these chauvinists are still stewing and threatening to cause trouble. ANd unfortunately Taiwan has been a part of their stance for so long that the Party can’t let it go. Without continuing to seem tough on Taiwan, the party risk the chauvinists abandoning them or even turning against them, which could be disasterous. And as long as the Party is sticking to the “tough on Taiwan” stance, Taiwan is not going to want to work with them. So it’s become this tense and weird situation, where both sides know that they need to find a way to work together, but both sides also have good reasons why the simply can’t. And it’s all playing out in front of a global audience, which makes things even more weird and tense. Hence the noteworthiness of this meeting. It’s a first glimpse of what could be a lot of massive changes. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/34 "2015-11-05T03:47:36Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Uh, what? > > I’m pretty sure the CCP would never have given formal independence away as a chip. Well, it was taken out of their hands by the US, since as part of a counter against the then USSR we basically traded the seat on the UNSC, which Taiwan had (since they were the legitimate government of China…in exile…originally, and had the original UNSC seat). I think the idea PhillyGuy is positing is that when, in the 60’s, China (mainland China that is, not Taiwan China :p) started to get it’s collective head out of it’s ass and looked around, they really started to want that UNSC seat (it’s a pretty big chip, since it gives a nation a veto in the most exclusive club out there). I’m not sure if the CCP would have gone for it or not…but it’s not completely ridiculous that they might have. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589/35 "2015-11-05T03:51:02Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Web search fails to support my contrary claim. > > I’m sure I read it in some fairly mainstream work of history – that there was a brief window, maybe around when the failure of the Great Leap Forward became clear, that China would have traded full diplomatic recognition of Taiwan in return for Taiwan’s seat on the UN security council. I recognize that I haven’t provided the slightest rational reason for you to accept this 😃 Actually, it’s not that far fetched…at least I don’t think so, FWIW. I doubt it ever occurred to Taiwan to try that. And, of course, Nixon traded it out of their hands in any case a few years down the road…from [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations): > [@](#): > > Republic of China in the UN (1945–1971) > The Republic of China (ROC) was a charter member of the United Nations and one of five permanent members of the Security Council until 1971. Republic of China joined the United Nations as a founding member on October 24, 1945. > > The “Big Four” victors of World War II (Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States) [34] were the founding members of the United Nations that drafted the United Nations Charter in 1944, which was ratified on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of 50 countries.[35] China, in recognition of its long-standing fight against aggression, was accorded the honor of being the first to sign UN Charter.[8] President Franklin Roosevelt had acknowledged China’s war effort in World War II and stated his desire to allow China to “play its proper role in maintaining peace and prosperity” in the world.[36] Thus, despite opposition from other leaders, especially Winston Churchill,[37] China became a permanent member of the Security Council from its creation in 1945. > > In 1949, the Communist Party of China won the Chinese Civil War in mainland China and established the People’s Republic of China (PRC), claiming to be the sole legitimate government of China. The ROC government retreated to the island of Taiwan (which it gained control of in 1945 at the end of hostilities in WWII), Quemoy Island, and the Matsu Islands. Until 1991, the ROC also actively claimed to be the sole legitimate government of China, and during the 1950s and 1960s this claim was accepted by the United States and most of its allies. While the PRC was an ally of the Soviet Union, the U.S. sought to prevent the Communist bloc from gaining another permanent seat in the Security Council. To protest the exclusion of the PRC, Soviet representatives boycotted the UN from January to August 1950, so they didn’t veto the intervention of UN military forces in Korea. > > The ROC complained to the UN against the Soviet Union for violating the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance and the United Nations Charter in 1949; as a result, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 291 and 292, referring the complaint “to the Interim Committee of the General Assembly for continuous examination and study”.[38] In 1952, the United Nations General Assembly has found that the Soviet Union prevented the National Government of the ROC from re-establishing Chinese authority in Manchuria after Japan surrendered, and gave military and economic aid to the Chinese Communists, who founded the PRC in 1949, against the National Government of the ROC. Resolution 505 was passed to condemn the Soviet Union with 25 countries supporting, 9 countries opposing, 24 countries abstaining, and 2 countries non-voting.[39] > > The ROC used its veto only once — on 13 December 1955, to stop the admission of the Mongolian People’s Republic to the United Nations, claiming all of Mongolia as part of China.[9][10][11] Mongolia’s application had been tabled at the UN on 24 June 1946, but had been blocked by Western countries, as part of a protracted Cold War dispute about the admission of new members to the UN. The General Assembly, by Resolution 918 (X) of 8 December 1955, had recommended to the Security Council that this dispute should be ended by the admission, in a single resolution, of a list of eighteen countries. On 14 December 1955, the Security Council adopted a compromise proposed by the Soviet Union, and the General Assembly, by Resolution 995 (X), admitted sixteen countries into UN, omitting Mongolia and Japan from the list.[40][41] This postponed the admission of Mongolia until 1961, when the Soviet Union agreed to lift its veto on the admission of Mauritania, in return for the admission of Mongolia. Faced with pressure from nearly all the other African countries, the ROC relented under protest. Mongolia and Mauritania were both admitted to the UN on 27 October 1961.[42] > > From the 1960s onwards, nations friendly to the PRC, led by the People’s Republic of Albania under Enver Hoxha, moved an annual resolution in the General Assembly to expel the “representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” (an implicit reference to the ROC) and permit the PRC to represent China at the UN. Every year the United States was able to assemble a majority of votes to block this resolution. But the admission of newly independent developing nations in the 1960s gradually turned the General Assembly from being Western-dominated to being dominated by countries sympathetic to Beijing. > > Not only the newly founded developing countries, but also most of the Western countries eventually decided to recognise the PRC. During the 1950s and 1960s, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Sweden, and France shifted their recognition of China from Taipei to Beijing. In the early 1970s, Canada, Turkey, and more western countries established diplomatic relations with the PRC, and severed diplomatic relations with the ROC. In a Security Council meeting on Feb. 9, 1971, Somalia objected to the credentials of the representative of Republic of China as China representation, and ROC and the United States responded that the question of China’s representation should not be dealt with in the Security Council.[43][44] On October 25, 1971, Resolution 2758 was passed by the General Assembly with 76 countries supporting, 35 countries opposing, 17 countries abstaining, and 3 countries non-voting, withdrawing recognition of the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek as the legitimate representative of China, and recognizing the Government of PRC as the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations.[45] At a Security Council meeting on November 23, 1971, after the General Assembly passed Resolution 2758, the President of the Council and the other representatives made statements welcoming the representatives of the People’s Republic of China. The ROC lost not only its Security Council seat, but any representation in the UN.[43] > > Before voting on Resolution 2758, United States moved for a separate vote on the provision in the resolution whereby the Assembly would expel the representatives of ROC, and the motion was defeated by a recorded vote of 61 against to 51 in favor, with 16 abstentions. Thereupon, the representative of ROC made a declaration to the following effect: The rejection of the 22-power draft resolution calling for a two-thirds majority was a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter which governed the expulsion of Member States. The delegation of the Republic of China had decided not to take part in any further proceedings of the General Assembly.[43] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taiwan-v-china-context/736589.md?page=1)