Annoying Old People Games

I had some concerns about much of the national narrative and an understanding of historical and ideological relevance. So, I wrote about it to calm my mind a little. This is about the most recent foreign news coverage in regard to China, Taiwan and the United States.
Is China a republic? 
  • China is currently governed as a unitary one-party socialist republic by the CCP.
  • The President of the People's Republic of China is the head of state. Under the PRC's constitution, the presidency is a largely ceremonial office with limited powers.
(according to wikipedia)
Does China have states ?
  • The country consists of 23 provinces, five autonomous regions, four municipalities, and two Special Administrative Regions (Hong Kong and Macau).
Is a state the same as a province? 
( According to askanydifference.com )
  • The main difference between state and province is that the amount of power vested with the states is much higher than the power of the provinces. States are provided greater autonomy and power to perform their tasks, while provinces derive their power from the constitution and do not possess greater autonomy.
Is Taiwan a Province of china?
(Wikipedia says... )
  • Despite formal status of a province, the term "Taiwan Province" is now only used in the most formal circumstances such as National People's Congress.
Why is there confusion? 
  • The civil war ended in 1949 with the division of Chinese territory; the CCP established the People's Republic of China on the mainland while the Kuomintang-led ROC government retreated to the island of Taiwan. Both claimed to be the sole legitimate government of China, although the United Nations has recognized the PRC as the sole representation since 1971.
  • a number of European governments—led by the United States—protested to the UN's Office of Legal Affairs to force the global body and its secretary-general to stop using the reference "Taiwan is a part of China".
(Again ... according to wikipedia)
So the United Nations backs Taiwan as part of China.? So, is that like saying the UN recognizes Texas as part of the United States? 
Closer to this... 
  • Early proposals recommended admitting the ROC with parallel representation over China, along with the People's Republic of China, pending eventual reunification, citing examples of other divided countries which had become separate UN member states, such as East and West Germany and North and South Korea.
(wikipedia knowledge once more)
So, there are seperate representative governments then, the localized Taiwan government and the China PRC, simular to state and federal governments? 
The all wise wikipedia says, 
  • In the United States, the government of each of the 50 states is structured in accordance with its individual constitution. 
  • Each state is itself a sovereign entity, and as such, reserves the right to organize in any way (within the above stated parameter) deemed appropriate by its people.
Okay. So, the problem isn't that Taiwan is not a free independent country but whether or not they have the political system in place to declare independence from China?
Do they have structural freedoms and rights but not the collective will of the "federal governments" ? 
Wikipedia say, 
  • During the 1990s and early 2000s, the Constitution's origins in mainland China led to supporters of Taiwan independence to push for a new Taiwanese constitution. However, attempts by the Democratic Progressive Party administration to create a new Constitution during the second term of DPP President Chen Shui-bian failed, because the then opposition Kuomintang controlled the Legislative Yuan.
  • The legislative yuan is the Government branch" or "Court"(院), the name for a kind of institution...
  • The ROC emphasized that the United Nations has never taken a formal stance regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan.
But... 
  • UN's decision "was made in accordance with the UN Charter and Resolution 2758 of the UN General Assembly, and showed the UN and its member states' universal adherence to the one-China principle"
(again according to wikipedia)
What does the US have to gain? 
Well a speculative and educated guess would be that NAFTA increased semiconductor production in Taiwan. So, they could be using Trade Deals as Foreign Economic Warfare , but also there is also military strategic gains to consider. (My opinion)
So to sum it up... 
Taiwan cant get it's 'federal govt' to sign documents to give them independence but they dont have collective democratic support either from UN or localized governments and the US has invested interest and strategic military positioning to consider... so, US political oligarchs are not unbiased actors. 
There is evidence that the Chinese government has allowed political officials to use the institutional frameworks and are not denied that opportunity. Which is important 🤔. The UN is supposed to be an unbiased actor and they recognize a One China Policy, (based on institutionalized procedural governing practices that need to be honored), in order for Taiwan to be recognized as sovereign and independent country.  
While PRC China has military air and naval control of the region they are defending their own citizens under the flag of a national identity. A concept most American's can relate to.
I would argue, No different then if the US Federal military powers maintained control over their national waters and airspace. 
To make a simple but controversial comparison:
This breaks down the realization and concerns of federal government authority, undermining independent state representatives via institutional systems.
Sometimes federal institutions are not treating state sovereignty as independent states but under the power of a national government they can undermine the authority of a sovereign state. 
The hypocrisy of a national government interfering with the internal conflicts of a foreign country by intentionally ignoring the structural systems in place is not about democracy but about creating division among a foriegn countries populous. 
In this case possibly instigating a civil war in the name of 'democracy'. 
Other then a comparison of federal government overreach, this is NOT a situation aligned with any US internal governmental conflict but a historical regional problem, that is narrated by actors who gain or lose from alternate theoretical outcomes. Portrayed by the media as a (black and white) issue and the blood hungry media giants proclaiming a US national identity's 'righteous duty' to go to another person's home and tell them how to govern themselves. 
Even though the foundation of the american culture settles on the encampment of , "don't tread on me". 
To honor the sovereignty of Taiwan and the values associated with sovereign states and freedom, by democratic means, is to also honor and value the sovereign entity that is the nation of China. A nation that proclaims a national identity and a legalized institutional authority that is respected by nonbiased mediums such as the United Nations. 

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published