December 29, 2016


News and Views


WORLD V ISRAEL – A STANDOFF

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-officials-slam-john-kerry-upcoming-pathetic-ignorant-speech-settlements/

Israeli officials slam Sec. John Kerry's upcoming "pathetic," "ignorant" speech
CBS/AP December 28, 2016, 7:42 AM

Photograph -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry attends a meeting with several Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia December 18, 2016. REUTERS/FAISAL AL NASSER


JERUSALEM – Several Israeli officials are lashing out at U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry ahead of his planned policy speech about peace prospects with the Palestinians.

The Israeli government is angry the U.S. allowed a resolution to pass in the U.N. Security Council calling settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank a “flagrant violation” of international law.

How U.N. resolution against Israel will impact U.S. relations
Play VIDEO
How U.N. resolution against Israel will impact U.S. relations

With the U.S. expected to participate in an international peace conference in France next month, Kerry is planning a final policy speech Wednesday to address the issue.

Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan said Kerry’s planned speech Wednesday on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is a “pathetic move” and “anti-democratic.”

Erdan told Israel Army Radio that if Kerry lays out principles for a peace deal, as he is expected to do in his speech, it will limit President-elect Donald Trump’s ability to set his own policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Erdan said Obama administration officials are “pro-Palestinian” and “don’t understand what’s happening in the Middle East.”

He said the Obama administration’s refusal to veto a recent U.N. Security Council resolution, which calls settlements a flagrant violation of international law, “threatens the security of Israel.”

Play VIDEO -- Israel points finger at U.S. over U.N. resolution

Oded Revivi, chief foreign envoy of the Yesha Council, which covers Jewish settlements, called Kerry “a stain on American foreign policy” and “ignorant of the issues.”

Revivi made the remarks ahead of Kerry’s speech.

Revivi said Kerry is “the worst secretary of state in history” who “chose to stab his closest ally in the back” and knows little about the realities of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Although the U.S. has long opposed Jerusalem settlements, it has generally used its Security Council veto to protect its ally from censure. On Friday, it abstained from a resolution calling settlements a “flagrant violation” of international law, allowing it to pass by a 14-0 margin.

While the Palestinians hope to capitalize on the momentum of the U.N. vote, it appears Israel’s nationalist government is allowing its relationship with the Obama administration to sour and banking on the incoming Trump administration to undo the damage with redoubled support.

Mr. Trump appears to support the notion that he will be friendlier to the Netanyahu administrations policies, and as recently as Wednesday morning expressed disdain for the Obama administration’s handling of Israel.

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but.......
9:19 AM - 28 Dec 2016
2,926 2,926 Retweets 8,779 8,779 likes

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!
9:25 AM - 28 Dec 2016
2,646 2,646 Retweets 7,657 7,657 likes

In Washington, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Kerry would lay out his vision for Israeli-Palestinian peace in the speech Wednesday. “He feels it’s his duty in his waning weeks and days as secretary of state to lay out what he believes is a way to a peaceful two-state solution in the Middle East,” Toner said.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-so-upset-over-the-latest-united-nations-resolution-about-israel/

Why are people so upset over the latest U.N. resolution about Israel?
CBS News/ December 28, 2016, 6:00 AM

Photograph -- U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power at the U.N. Security Council meeting on Dec. 23, 2016.
Play Video -- U.S. refuses to veto UN vote on Israeli settlements
Play Video -- U.S., Israel at odds after U.N. vote condemning settlements


The Obama administration’s decision to not veto [sic] a United Nations resolution sharply critical of Israeli settlements continues to stir debate. But was it really all that different than prior U.N. resolutions that criticized Israel that the U.S. let pass?

The U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity passed the Security Council last week after the U.S. declined to use its veto power to stop it. Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., instead cast the sole abstaining vote. All other nations on the Security Council voted in favor.

The resolution called for Israel to “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”

East Jerusalem, which contains some of the holiest sites in Judaism, was seized by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967. In a speech before the chamber, Power insisted that her vote did “not in any way diminish the United States’ steadfast and unparalleled commitment to the security of Israel.”

Conservatives and pro-Israel advocates say the resolution signals a major and damaging reversal of U.S. policy in the region. “The White House has abandoned any pretense that the actual parties to the conflict must resolve their differences,” John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Monday.

But Democrats have argued that conservative criticisms of the White House are unwarranted. As political consultant Mark Mellman pointed out on Twitter, for example, previous administrations have declined to exercise veto powers when it comes to resolutions critical of the Israelis.

“Acting like this is some brand new policy or action just isn’t consistent with reality,” Mellman told CBS News. “Right or wrong, good or bad, since 1967 American policy has been that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza are occupied territories whose final status must be determined by the parties. And the U.S. has consistently opposed Israel’s settlement policy.”

Critics of the resolution argue that it’s been decades since the U.S. allowed a U.N. resolution to pass that says East Jerusalem and other lands taken in the 1967 war are occupied Palestinian territory. Previous resolutions the U.S. allowed to pass have instead tended to condemn specific actions of Israelis or the Israeli government, such as the bombing of an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

In another example, a U.N. resolution condemning the 1994 massacre of Muslim worshipers by a Jewish terrorist was passed only when Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. ambassador, demanded a paragraph-by-paragraph vote on it to strip out language implying that Jerusalem was occupied territory.

“[W]e oppose the specific reference to Jerusalem in this resolution and will continue to oppose its insertion in future resolutions,” Albright said at the time.

“We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as ‘occupied Palestinian territory,’” Albright said.

Albright’s comments run counter to a 1980 U.N. resolution – supported by the U.S. – that did refer to Jerusalem and other lands taken by Israel in 1967 as occupied territory. But that position was in a sense reversed by Albright’s comments in 1994.

“It’s true the U.S. has not allowed a U.N. Security Council resolution to that effect to pass since 1980, but U.S. policy has been consistent under every Democratic and Republican administration to date. Moreover, the U.S. has allowed other anti-Israel resolutions to pass on a number of occasions before and after 1980. President Obama was the first president to adopt a policy of vetoing all anti-Israel U.N.S.C. resolutions – until now,” Mellman said.

“So not vetoing this resolution is a bit of a punch in the gut, but not a very hard one. It is in no way a change in U.S. policy about the conflict.”


The fact is that the war between the Palestinians and the Israelis, despite the 1967 War and their claims of victor’s rights, is ancient beyond human ken and yet as recent as today, as full of virtuous sounding group passion as a split in a Primitive Baptist church, and as dirty on each side as the interactions of the US Republican/Democrat relations. This furor in the Conservative and traditional elements especially, is a continuance of their hatred and rivalry more than an intellectual discussion of proper Middle Eastern politics.

Having said that, for that land ownership/occupancy issue to continue on forever and ever is nothing but Israeli bullying in my view; and the equally stubborn Palestinian refusal to move over and give them a seat at the family table while backing it up by guerilla style fighting is also despicable. They’re like the South in the Civil War. They just haven’t stopped fighting at all, really. Nobody is in a position of Right in my opinion, and I’m personally sick and tired of all of them. A young man I worked with, a few years ago, went over to his country to get married to his parentally chosen bride. When he came back he said, “Somebody ought to pave over the whole place and turn it into a parking lot.”

Their problem is traditional and tribal thinking instead of our individually melding ourselves into a society of differences which are respected by all and, cemented with, equal rights. There’s nothing like a good constitutional democracy, which isn’t followed perfectly here, but when it is, it really improves the situation. It’s too bad that such a thing is so difficult to maintain once it is achieved at all. It’s a philosophy of producing “law and order,” without the use of fear and suppression of groups or individuals. It is based on the will to do good rather than the will to become rich and powerful. We claim to have done that here in the US, but we have too much internal cultural conflict that the Civil War and the Civil Rights laws didn’t solve, and all because individual humans in their little groups continue to hate and behave despicably toward each other. In our ancient past when a group of people would be composed of perhaps a few extended families in number, the fear of the stranger made sense -- giving a unified fighting unit or, later in the Neolithic, a cooperative group to do something like build Stonehenge in thanks for their harvest -- was clearly a good thing. Now what we need is well educated and trained individuals to fit each into his/her cell in the colony hive – doing our simple but necessary work so the whole will survive. One difference between us and bees, however, is that bees have no individual will or even a sense of identity, probably. Unfortunately, I for one do hate that kind of life and I yearn often times for my beehive hut and my scriptural studies. For that obscure reference, go to this website: http://prayerfoundation.org/irish_monk_beehive_shaped_stone_huts.htm.

Our instincts, however, are not suited to massive cities where nearly everyone is a stranger to most others that we meet and therefore an unknown quantity to be feared; but without birth control we will bring forth 12 or more children per couple and the population continues to grow. Religion is the excuse given to prevent birth control and particularly abortion, no matter how practical a solution it might be. If a woman can stop a pregnancy at a time of particular financial or psychiatric need, perhaps she can avoid becoming driven almost crazy by her many children, so that she beats them in anger rather than loving them in a useful physical way with warm hugs and patient teaching. It would be better for them to be less perfectly behaved than stripped of their ability to deal with life, unable to find joy, unproductive as an individual. We need sane, intelligent, self-confident individuated people in a democracy. It is my opinion that for the most part, wherever human gentleness and communication are really needed, we tend to substitute some dogma or behavioral rule rather than feeling that healthy love that we say we have for others, especially for our children. That’s a large part of the reason why so many people in poor communities end up in jail by the time they are twenty. They are emotionally warped.

Our White Nationalists today want to see an all-white US, as though that would solve the problem of our too frequently vicious conflict here in the US, and that frigid withholding of empathy for others. Ireland is composed of all white people, but they have fought for other reasons as rancorously as in the citizens of Palestine and Israel do today. Groupism, territorialism, general viciousness laced with insanity and ignorance – those are the causes, and it is built into us genetically as a species. I’m sure it’s here to stay. We need our diplomatic corps just to keep the lid on it all and prevent, for perhaps as long as 100 years, an ever-new outbreak of violent warfare. This really is a damned depressing subject for those of us who would like to see some real progress. I personally believe we need relief from the ongoing poverty that drives our social anger, and then we need education especially in the field of human relations and psychology.

So, whatever Obama and the peace seeking people in this country – the diplomats and the Progressives -- try to do, it will be scorned by some, feared by others, and praised by others, such as myself. I just can’t quite get to the point that Slim Pickens reached in that wonderfully humorous and gripping satire, “Dr. Strangelove, Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.”


SEE MORE ON ISRAEL BELOW, THE ONLY HOPE FOR TRUE PEACE, IN MY VIEW – THE TWO STATE SOLUTION

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/mideast/john-kerry-warns-israel-two-state-solution-now-jeopardy-n700781?cid=eml_nnn_20161228

John Kerry Warns Israel: Two-State Solution Is 'Now in Jeopardy'
by CORKY SIEMASZKO
NEWS DEC 28 2016, 4:21 PM ET


Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday the Israeli refusal to stop building Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory is undermining any attempt to achieve a lasting peace in the region.

"The settler agenda is defining the future of Israel, and their stated purpose is clear," Kerry said. "They believe in one state: greater Israel."

Play -- Kerry Defends Two-State Solution as the 'Only Way to Ensure Israel's Future' 1:33

In an often-harsh, 70-minute plus speech, Kerry said the two-state solution that President Obama and his predecessors have been pushing for is "now in jeopardy" and the continued settlement building by the Israelis is cementing "a one-state reality that nobody really wants."

If Israel keeps annexing Palestinian territory, Kerry said, "it can be Jewish or Democratic — but it can't be both."

The current course also poses an existential threat to Israel, Kerry said.

"With all the external threat Israel faces today ... does it really want an intensifying conflict in the West Bank?" he said. "If Israel goes down the one-state path, it will never have true peace with the Arab world."

EXCLUSIVE: John Kerry: Our Allies Won't Be Swayed by Trump Tweets

In what's likely to be his final public address as Secretary of State before Donald Trump's administration takes over, Kerry called for "both sides to take significant steps on the ground to reverse current trends."

Kerry said the Palestinians have also been an impediment to the peace process by glorifying terrorists, trying to "delegitimize" Israel, and failing to control Hamas, "who have a one-state vision of its own."

Kerry spoke five days after the U.S. abstained when the Security Council voted to condemn the Jewish state for continuing to defy the world body by building new homes for Jews on Palestinian territory. The U.S broke with its longstanding policy of diplomatically shielding Israel on such matters.

Play Kerry: With One State, 'Israel Can Either be Jewish or Democratic--It Cannot Be Both' Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
Kerry: With One State, 'Israel Can Either be Jewish or Democratic--It Cannot Be Both' 0:49

The UN vote infuriated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long had a tense relationship with President Obama — and who had taken the unusual step of trying to get President-elect Donald Trump to help scuttle the vote.

"We reject the criticism that this vote abandons Israel," Kerry said, noting that the U.S. and 'virtually every country in the world opposes the settlements besides Israel."

Kerry also took direct aim at Netanyahu's crack that "friends don't take friends to the Security Council."

"Some seem to believe that the U.S. friendship means the U.S. must accept any policy, regardless of our own interests, our own positions, our own words, our own principles — even after urging again and again that the policy must change," he said. "Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect."

Before Kerry spoke, Trump weighed in on Twitter, bashing the Obama administration and the Iran nuclear deal that both he and Netanyahu oppose.

"We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but.......not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!"

Netanyahu Tweeted back his thanks to Trump and mentioned Trump's daughter Ivanka and son Donald Jr.

Follow
Benjamin Netanyahu ✔ @netanyahu
President-elect Trump, thank you for your warm friendship and your clear-cut support for Israel! 🇮🇱🇺🇸@IvankaTrump @DonaldJTrumpJr https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/814114980983427073 …
10:24 AM - 28 Dec 2016
15,053 15,053 Retweets 32,064 32,064 likes

After the UN move, Netanyahu accused Obama, currently on vacation in his home state of Hawaii, of being behind the historic vote.

Not true, Kerry reiterated Wednesday.

"The United States did not draft this resolution," he said. "Nor did we put it forward."

Kerry's remarks echoed earlier statements in which he defended the U.S. decision to abstain saying it could not "stand in the way of a resolution at the United Nations that makes clear that both sides must act now to preserve the possibility of peace."

The outgoing Secretary of State also reminded the Israelis that they have never had a better friend than the Obama administration.

Play Israeli UN ambassador sounds off on Kerry speech Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
Israeli UN ambassador sounds off on Kerry speech 5:59

"No American administration has done more for Israel's security than Barack Obama's," he said. "Time and again we have demonstrated we have Israel's back... More than half our global military financing goes to Israel."

Netanyahu disagreed. He said he was "disappointed" by Kerry's speech and said the Palestinians' refusal to recognize the existence of Israel — not the the building of settlements — was the reason for the years of conflict.

"No one wants peace more than the people of Israel," he said. "Israel looks forward to working with President-elect Trump... to mitigate the damage this resolution has done."

Netanyahu also repeated his claim that the Obama administration behind the UN resolution and said he will present to his proof to the Trump administration. He did not elaborate.

"Some of it is sensitive," he said. "It's all true."

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak praised Kerry's speech as "powerful" and "lucid."

Follow
אהוד ברק ✔ @barak_ehud
@JohnKerry Powerful, lucid speech. World & majority in Israel think the same. Bibi, on verge of messianic abyss, determined to go forward
2:13 PM - 28 Dec 2016
548 548 Retweets 909 909 likes

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, called Kerry's speech "at best a pointless tirade in the waning days of an outgoing administration."

"I support a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians," he said. "But this solution is simply not possible at this time because Israel has no viable partner for peace."

Like his White House predecessors, Obama pursued an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that called for two independent states living side-by-side. And like his predecessors, Obama's attempt ended in failure.

Kerry's last ditch attempt to keep the process going is not likely to find much favor with the incoming Trump administration. The President-elect has already angered the UN by pledging to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and he has picked for ambassador a lawyer named David Friedman who is a strong supporter of the Jewish settlements.

Play Rep. Smith: 'Two-state solution is the only way' Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
Rep. Smith: 'Two-state solution is the only way' 5:43

But by laying out a framework for a possible peace deal, Kerry appeared to be trying to box Netanyahu in even more with the UN, which long ago lost patience with the Israeli settlement building.

Still, ahead of Kerry's speech, Netanyahu — in a move aimed at reducing tensions with Washington — prevailed on Jerusalem's municipal government to cancel a scheduled vote the approve the building of 492 new housing units of annexed territory.

Israel has for decades pursued a policy of building Jewish settlements in defiance of the rest of the world, which views them as an obstacle to peace. Washington also considers the settlement activity illegitimate.

Israeli hardliners, however, say they have a Biblical right to the lands they call Judea and Samaria and contend a Palestinian state would pose a security threat.

Currently, some 570,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem among more than 2.6 million Palestinians.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-elect-donald-trump-twitter-foreign-policy-breaking-tradition/

John Kerry on Donald Trump: U.S. allies won't be "intimidated by a tweet"
CBS NEWS
December 29, 2016, 7:00 AM

Play VIDEO -- Secretary of State Kerry's speech on Israel prompts fiery response



President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration is about three weeks away, but his Twitter account has already ruffled feathers at the White House. The latest flashpoint came Wednesday when he condemned a U.N. vote critical of Israeli settlements.

The U.S. has only one president at a time, responsible for setting foreign policy. To avoid confusion during the transition, incoming presidents usually avoid those topics, but not Mr. Trump. Twitter has given him a 24-hour megaphone, reports CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford.

From his Florida estate, Mr. Trump’s 140-character proclamations reverberate in capitals around the world. A flurry of tweets has promised changes to Middle East policy when he takes office in January, prompting this response from Secretary of State John Kerry:

“I think it’s having some impact, obviously, on allies who are questioning, you know, what’s going on. But they have their own policies. They’re not going to be swayed and intimidated by a tweet,” Kerry said on MSNBC.

Wall Street Journal White House reporter Carol Lee says Mr. Trump has done away with the notion that the sitting president should be the one speaking on behalf of the nation – and not the president-elect.

“It’s another instance in which Donald Trump is re-writing the rules and breaking with tradition,” Lee said. It has caused “a lot of friction,” she also said.

This month, Mr. Trump suggested he will expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal and made overtures to Taiwan, angering officials on the Chinese mainland.

Like President Franklin D. Roosevelt did through radio, and President John F. Kennedy with television, Mr. Trump’s tweets can dominate a news cycle.

He spoke to “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl about the power of his Twitter account last month.

“When you give me a bad story or when you give me an inaccurate story or when somebody other than you and another network, or whatever, because of course, CBS would never do a thing like that right? I have a method of fighting back,” Mr. Trump said.

Aides say Trump will continue to tweet when he moves into the White House.

“I think that his use of social media… is going to be something that’s never been seen before, he has this direct pipeline to the American people,” Mr. Trump’s incoming press secretary Sean Spicer said.

Others will be listening too. The tweeter-in-chief’s new followers will likely include hostile governments and foreign spies.

“Intelligence agencies all over the world sift through social media. They love social media. It’s a great way to get insight,” said James Lewis, the Center for Strategic & International Studies’ director of the Strategic Technologies Program.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump turned his Twitter account on President Obama, accusing him of setting up roadblocks.

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks. Thought it was going to be a smooth transition - NOT!
9:07 AM - 28 Dec 2016
27,849 27,849 Retweets 97,125 97,125 likes

In the closing days of his administration, Obama officials have been trying to cement his legacy and ensure his policies can’t be easily reversed when he leaves office.



Republican lawmakers tried so hard to charge Clinton with a crime for using her own personal email server, and now Trump uses a method that is outrightly visible to the world at large to discuss state related matters in a careless and totally public way, and of course he persistently uses totally informal words to express himself. He isn’t exactly a private citizen anymore, after all, and he isn’t our President yet, either. Trump is complaining that Obama is trying to preclude his turning back the clock on many issues which are of importance with one tweet after another. I, however, applaud the Obama administration for trying to prevent the devastation of a structure of dos and don’ts which really is important. Kings want government by decree, and citizens in a country like this want discussion and deliberation. It’s a very different viewpoint on how to make things “better.” Of course, Trump’s view is that he personally should come in like Hurricane Andrew and fix it all “the way it should be.” That offends a lot of Americans, including myself, and I believe in the very least that his word should not be considered “the word of God.” He also is not given to taking time to get things right before he proclaims his will. It isn’t all going to be possible, much less legal, as has already been shown by his withdrawal of several of those statements. If only he would accept guidance in the beginning, I would feel better about him.

In addition, his use of words when he is speaking is often difficult to decipher. I often can’t tell from reading it exactly what he is trying to say. His mind wanders to something else sometimes and he fails to use detailed examples. The following is one such statement: “When you give me a bad story or when you give me an inaccurate story or when somebody other than you and another network, or whatever, because of course, CBS would never do a thing like that right? I have a method of fighting back,” Mr. Trump said.” He talks just like most Americans do in casual conversation, which often isn’t very clear, but after all, they aren’t the President. It doesn’t matter so much what they say. What he says and how he says it does matter.

I think he loves to get on his Twitter account and do what I call “wise off,” but unfortunately that is inappropriate for a head of state in talking about real world affairs or other official business. There’s a reason for diplomacy. He has angered the government of “Mainland China,” as we used to call it, which has control legally of Taiwan now, I thought, but it is very complicated and not at all clear. China claims to essentially “own” Taiwan now, but Taiwan (Republic of China) respectfully disagrees. That’s why he needs to let the State Department guide what he says at least to a sufficient degree that he doesn’t step into these verbal pit traps, and especially on things that he declares to be policy promises. Perhaps Obama is too careful sometimes, but Trump really should study his thinking patterns as compared to his own.

To make this more complex and yet also more clear, I searched the term Taipei because I saw it used above as the synonym for ROC at one place and Taiwan in another. According to Wikipedia in the article “Chinese Taipei,” gives Taiwan as the name for a section of Taipei only. I hope Mr. Trump will either let his diplomats be his guide on these and even weightier matters, because it really sounds confusing to me, and wherever one is at the time in China, the faction there may be prepared to get irate about a matter of imprecise language use. On Sep 3, 2016 in China, at a friendly visit by Obama, there occurred what Politico called the “tarmac altercation,” which I took to be a misunderstanding that got out of hand and included some minor physical assault. That really isn’t good.

See the summary of the legal relationship(s) between Taiwan and the Mainland in the following Quora answers on the current legal status of Taiwan. Commenters there, giving answers on the “true” status of Taiwan, vary considerably in terms of how they understand the question, where their passions lie, and how much detail they include. One of the best, by Michelle Zhou, takes it back to 10,000 BC. Wow! I’m including only snippets here, and then not from the entire 100 comments. Too much for one day. It’s like the question of what language is “Chinese” actually? The answer is one, but many, many including dialects, and they are often so different that dwellers in one area may be unable to understand those in a nearby region. “www.alsintl.com/blog/spoken-chinese” is a good source for that. The Quora comment by Jay Hao-EnLiu is the best overview on political status, I think. The quick and dirty version of that, by Charlie Cheever however, gives the info that Trump and others may need to use in order to avoid offending either ROC or PRC. I will leave it to you to find and read them for yourselves, along with the 98 others.


https://www.quora.com/Is-Taiwan-part-of-or-separate-from-China

100+ Helpful Answers

Jay Hao-En Liu
Jay Hao-En Liu, Taiwanese. Tells it as it is.
Updated Jun 17, 2015
To properly answer this question, one needs to be able to make a distinction between:
--- China, the cultural-historical civilization
--- Taiwan, the contemporary geographical territory
--- Mainland China, the contemporary geographical territory
--- R.O.C., the political entity
--- Taiwan (R.O.C.) or R.O.C. (Taiwan), the unofficial designation now commonly used by Taiwan
--- P.R.C., the political entity
Many of these terms are used interchangeably, which makes it very difficult to understand the intricacies of the situation.

To begin with, one must first understand the cultural-historical entity of China. This refers to the concept of "China," an ancient civilization which began 5000 years ago.

The borders and territories of this civilization have seen constant change over these five millenia, dramatically growing and shrinking as different socio-political entities take power, form alliances, break apart, or conquer new territories, etc. Wikipedia has a great animated GIF showing the evolution of the territory of China.

Over the centuries, countless political entities have ruled over China, sometimes in succession, and sometimes concurrently (e.g. during the warring states period). The last in the long line of succession of these entities have been the ROC, which overthrew the Qing dynasty in 1912, and the PRC., which in turn overthrew the ROC regime in 1949, forcing it out of the mainland Chinese territory and onto the island of Taiwan. To put it simply, the ROC and PRC both refer to political entities that have ruled over the territories (or part of the territories) of the historical civilization known as "China." Once you grasp this, you will understand how asking whether the ROC is independent or part of the PRC is like asking if the Qing dynasty is independent or part of the ROC. It is inherently unanswerable. Asking whether Taiwan, the territory, is independent or not is a different question.

The current reality is that the ROC was overthrown but not eliminated by the PRC in 1949, and continues to exist and control territory on Taiwan. Officially, both political entities claim to be the lawful government of all of "China," the cultural-historical entity. However, that position has become increasingly untenable for the ROC government, as it no longer has de facto control over most of that territory, and is unlikely to ever regain it. The ROC has thus refrained from pressing that claim for several decades now, even though constitutionally it has never renounced it. You can see here in this old photo the logo of the now defunct ROC Goverment Information Office depicting a map of the ROC, which actually includes not only mainland China (which the PRC controls), but also territories the PRC does not claim (most notably, the entirety of outer Mongolia).

That is in fact still the official territory of the ROC according to the constitution, because said constitution ordains that the nation's territory cannot be changed unless unless authorized by the National Assembly, and such an authorization has never occurred.

Unofficially however, the ROC government has made several efforts to distance itself from that claim, attempting to tie the ROC moniker to the territory of Taiwan, and exclusively to Taiwan. Hence, you will see many instances of the term Taiwan (ROC) or ROC (Taiwan) in use. These terms, however, are unofficial, and have no legal basis in the ROC constitution. The official territory of the ROC still covers the entirety of contemporary mainland China, and more.

So, back to the question: "Is Taiwan (ROC) an independent country or a part of China(PRC)?" There are several ways to frame this.

1. Is the ROC an independent country or part of the PRC?

They are two entirely separate political entities whose territorial claims overlap. The PRC claims to be a successor, while the ROC claims not to have been succeeded. The reality is somewhere in ... (more)
Upvote242DownvoteComments23+



Charlie Cheever
Charlie Cheever, lives in Palo Alto, CA

Written Oct 22, 2009 · Upvoted by Marc Bodnick, Former Stanford PhD student in Politics
Unclear. The short answer is de facto, separate, but in terms of formal recognition by other governments, part of China. Both the ROC and PRC governments claim that they govern all of China (including both the mainland and Taiwan,) but the ROC only controls Taiwan and the PRC only controls mainland China.

Basically "The political solution that is accepted by many of the current groups is the following perspective of the status quo: that is, to unofficially treat Taiwan as a state and at a minimum, to officially declare no support for the government of this state making a formal declaration of independence. "

There is a lot more detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol...
50.1k Views · View Upvotes
Upvote174DownvoteComments7+


Michelle Zhou
Michelle Zhou
Updated Aug 13
Originally Answered: When has Taiwan become part of China? Any proofs?
Taiwan Timeline:

~10,000 B.C. - Taiwan was joined to the mainland in the Late Pleistocene until sea levels rose. [1][2][3]
6,000 B.C. - Research suggests Taiwanese aborigines arrived in Taiwan 8,000 years before a major Han immigration began in the 17th century. [w]
13th century - Han Chinese began settling in the Penghu islands.[w]
1622 - The Dutch East India Company attempted to establish a trading outpost on the Penghu Islands, but were militarily defeated and driven off by the Ming authorities.
1624 - The company established a stronghold called Fort Zeelandia on the coastal islet of Tayouan, The Company began to import laborers from Fujian and Penghu, many of whom settled. [w]
1662 - Following the fall of the Ming dynasty, Zheng Chenggong, a self-styled Ming loyalist, arrived on the island and captured Fort Zeelandia, expelling the Dutch Empire and military from the island.

1662~1683 - Zheng Chenggong established the Kingdom of Tungning, with his capital at Tainan.
1683 ~ 1760 - the Qing government limited immigration to Taiwan. Such restriction was relaxed following the 1760s and by 1811 there were more than two million Chinese immigrants on Taiwan.
1875 - Taipeh Prefecture was established, under the jurisdiction of Fujian Province.

1887 - the Qing upgraded the island's administration from Taiwan Prefecture of Fujian to Fujian-Taiwan-Province, the twentieth in the empire, with its capital at Taipei. This was accompanied by a modernization drive that included building China's first railroad.[w]
1884 - During the Sino-French War the French attempted an invasion of Taiwan during the Keelung Campaign. Liu Mingchuan, who was leading the defence of Taiwan, recruited Aboriginals to serve alongside the Chinese soldiers in fighting against the French.
1895 - As part of the settlement for losing the Sino-Japanese War, the Qing empire ceded the island of Taiwan and Penghu to Japan. The loss of Taiwan would become a rallying point for the Chinese nationalist movement in the years that followed. Japan ruled the island for 50 years until its defeat in World War II. [w]
1951 – In the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty between Japan and the Allied Powers, Article 2(f), states: “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.” This renunciation of the two island groups, and of Taiwan itself, was confirmed in the U.S.-brokered 1952 peace treaty.
23.6k Views · View Upvotes
Upvote188DownvoteComments11+



Daniel Shi
Daniel Shi, Chinese American. Lived in Beijing for 3 years.
Written Jul 14, 2010 · Upvoted by Marc Bodnick, Former Stanford PhD student in Politics
It depends.

Politically

On paper: YES
In reality: NO
When I visited Taipei, it clearly had an entirely separate government and political system from the Mainland. And if you ask any right minded person in Beijing, they'll feel the same way. That having been said, it's one of those things you just don't talk about.

Economically

No. Taiwan and China are now thoroughly linked together economically.

The bulk of Taiwanese manufacturing is now done in mainland China. Foxconn, which is the biggest company in Taiwan has tens of thousands of employees in Shenzhen and other parts of China. China Mobile recently had a high profile executive trip to Taipei to sign cooperations with Taiwanese carriers. Many big companies in mainland China are headed by Taiwanese executives.

Cross strait relations are HUGE. $150 BB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco...) out of a GDP of $380BB

Culturally

Yes, but changing. Of course there has been big fragmentation since the split. And actually, I think Taiwan has stronger ties to traditional Chinese culture (pre-CCP) than even the mainland. In recent years, there have been a number of traditional Chinese wedding planning shops popping up in Mainland China, mostly run by Taiwanese.

On the other hand, there is also the Taiwanization movement going on. But while I was there, I didn't notice such a huge difference between Taiwan and Beijing, culturally speaking.

Also, Taiwan has a strong influence from Japan that is absent from the Mainland due to their differing experiences during occupation.

It's a complex issue.
10.6k Views · View Upvotes
Upvote54DownvoteComments2+


Andy Lee Chaisiri
Andy Lee Chaisiri, a fan of the swords
Written Feb 12, 2015
You can tell if a mainlander really considers Taiwan a part of China by their reaction to Taiwan sports wins

Taiwan scores historic basketball win over China

Back in 2013, the Republic of China (Taiwan) defeated mainland China in basketball. Many of my mainland co-worker friends were quite shocked and felt defeated. But I was there to reminded them:

"Hey, Taiwan is a part of China, you should be happy that China won the Asian championship!"

As someone of Chinese ancestry who grew up in the US I like seeing the Republic of China and People's Republic of China alike do well in sports (and as an Asian-American, any Asian country really). But on to more political matters...

It's perfectly normal for there to be multiple feuding dynasties of 'China' in China

China, China, and China fight for supremacy in China

Whenever a mainlander or Taiwanese asks me my thoughts on "is Taiwan a part of China", I just ask them what their favorite three kingdoms leader is. Then we go eat Chinese food (such as KFC) and peace is maintained for yet another day.

. . . . “