關於 made in prc ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

淺談「假新聞」

最近上課時學到一個新單字「positionality」，讓我想到當前社群媒體上，不停看到的「fake news」——假新聞。

簡言之，「positionality」(位置性) 被定義為於種族、階級、性別、性取向以及能力等狀態中，創造你身分的社會與政治背景。位置性還描述了你的身分如何影響你對世界的理解與看法，以及潛在的偏見。

positionality 位置性；定位
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/3390885/
https://www.lexico.com/definition/positionality

以下是我對「positionality」與 「fake news」的些許觀點：

“Fake news” has permeated all facets of life, ranging from social media interaction to presidential elections. Fake news can be defined as “fabricated information that mimics news media content in form but not in organizational process or intent” (Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1094). The creators and outlets of fake news do not ensure the accuracy and credibility of information, but rather disseminate misinformation or disinformation for purposes ranging from personal amusement to creating deceptions to achieve political aims. At times, fake news is created and disseminated by state or non-state actors using social media accounts and networks of bots designed to hijack feed algorithms of platforms such as Twitter or Facebook (Prier, 2017, p. 54). In the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Facebook estimated that up to 60 million bots were used to post political content. Some of the same bots were then used in an attempt to influence the 2017 French election (Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1095). Such campaigns can be understood as a form of information warfare, a comprehensive attempt to control and influence every facet of the information supply chain, thereby influencing public opinion and behaviors. (Prier, 2017, p. 54). Often, fake news is not directly created by actors that seek to manipulate but by journalists or content creators whose content favors or aligns with the narratives of these actors (Doshi, 2020).

從社群媒體的互動到總統選舉，「假新聞」（fake news）已滲透至生活的各個層面。假新聞可被定義為「在形式上而非組織過程或意圖上，模仿新聞媒體內容所捏造的資訊」（Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1094）。無論是出於個人愛好或為達政治目的而有所欺瞞，假新聞的製造者與傳播管道並不保證資訊的準確性與可信度，反而是為了散播錯誤訊息（misinformation）或扭曲訊息（disinformation）。有時，假新聞是由國家或非國家行為者（state or non-state actors）所製造與傳播，藉由社群媒體帳號及網絡機器人來劫持諸如臉書與推特等平臺的推送演算法（Prier, 2017, p. 54）。在2016年的美國總統大選中，臉書估計有多達６千萬個機器人被用來發布政治貼文。其中，有部分機器人被用於影響隔年的法國大選（Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1095）。此類行動可視為資訊戰（information warfare）的一種形式，一種對控制與影響資訊供應鏈各環節的全面嘗試，從而影響公眾輿論與行為（Prier, 2017, p. 54）。假新聞通常是由記者或內容創造者（content creators）所創造，而非試圖操弄的行為者，前者的內容偏好符合後者的敘事（Doshi, 2020）。

Nevertheless, while the term “fake news” is commonplace, there is no universal, measurable way to quantify the fakeness or truthfulness of news. There are many fact-checking and media-bias detection tools, but they cannot objectively detect and clarify the more subtle and nuanced aims of manipulative actors that play a crucial role in news production. It can also be argued that the veracity of news depends not only on the actors that seek to manipulate it, but also on the positionality of its consumers. Therefore, one’s initial line of defense against misleading news lies not in the plethora of fact-checking devices but more in one’s pre-existing dispositions and skills to think and act in response to misleading information. This ability can be referred to as critical thinking, which can be more concretely expounded as “reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 2011, p. 15).

然而，即便「假新聞」一詞隨處可見，卻沒有統一、可衡量的方式來量化新聞的虛假性或真實性。目前有許多事實查核與媒體偏見檢測工具，但它們無法客觀地檢測與說明行為操弄者更狡猾、更細緻的目標，而這些操弄者往往在新聞的生產中發揮著重要作用。我們也可以說，新聞的真實性不僅取決於試圖操弄它的行為者，同時還取決於新聞受眾的位置性。因此，一個人對抗誤導性新聞的第一道防線，不在於這些五花八門的事實查核方式，反而在於個人所固有的性格，以及針對誤導性資訊的思考與行動等相關技能。這種能力可稱為批判性思考（critical thinking），意即「專注於決定相信什麼或做什麼的理性思考與反思性思考」（Ennis, 2011, p. 15）。

Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China (ROC), is at the forefront of information warfare. It is wedged between the geopolitical struggles of global and regional hegemonies such as the United States and China, the People's Republic of China (PRC). Compounding the matter are the Taiwan’s own political actors vying for influence and power. This struggle seeps into all aspects of life and practice, mainly manifesting itself on social media, a battleground of information warfare. The Ministry of Education of Taiwan is cognizant of these information campaigns, and efforts have been made to introduce media literacy into all parts of its education system. According to the ministry, the government has tried to promote media literacy education since 2000 (MOE, 2002, p. 1), with one of its primary goals to cultivate its “citizens” abilities for independent learning, critical thinking, and problem solving” (MOE, 2002, p. 2).

臺灣，也被稱為中華民國，正處於資訊戰的最前線。這是全球霸權與地區霸權之間——如美國與中國（中華人民共和國）——的地緣政治對抗。使問題惡化的是臺灣自身的政治行動者對影響力與權力的奪取。這場對抗遍布於現實生活的各個面向，主要於社群媒體中——資訊戰的戰場——展露無遺。臺灣的教育部注意到了這些資訊的煙硝，並已努力將媒體素養引入其教育體系。據該部稱，自2000年以來，政府一直試圖推展媒體素養教育（MOE, 2002, p. 1），其主要目標之一是培養「公民獨立學習、批判性思考以及解決問題的能力。」（MOE, 2002, p. 2）。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

上述段落認為，由於個人的位置性(positionality)，「假新聞」極難定義。此外，有許多人把不符合自身成見與偏好的新聞逕斥為假新聞。這其實相當危險，因為個人觀點將會變得愈發孤立與激進。

閱聽人應意識到，他們在網路上看到的每個資訊都有特定立場。是否真有毫無立場的新聞文章？為了對抗操弄性或強制性資訊（coercive information），我們必須意識到權力於個中的作用，以及我們自身的位置性如何形塑我們的詮釋。這是我們的第一道防線。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

參考文獻

Doshi, R. (2020, January). China steps up its information war in Taiwan. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved March, 21, 2021, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-01-09/china-steps-its-information-war-taiwan

Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational leadership, 43(2), 44-48.

Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., ... & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096.

MOE (Ministry of Education), Taiwan. (2002). White paper on media literacy educational policy. Retrieved March, 21, 2021, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/ 2122416591771.pdf

Prier, J. (2017). Commanding the trend: Social media as information warfare. Strategic Studies Quarterly: SSQ, 11(4), 50-85.

★★★★★★★★★★★★

教育時評: http://bit.ly/39ABON9

相關詞彙: https://bit.ly/2UncrfI

TED相關影片: https://bit.ly/3BDsDKl

【直播EP15重點整理】🥜台澎小堅果🌰
時間：5/15（六) pm8
講者：臺澎國際法法理建國連線創辦人－黃聖峰 ＋皮筋兒
主題：
1. 台澎在國際組織的參與（WHO、UN等）
2. 台澎人在海外的身分問題（國籍、出身等）。

文章備份在這🔗
https://wp.me/pd1HGm-cJ
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖

1.台澎在國際組織的參與（WHO、UN等）

先說我以前的想法，應該與大多數台灣人一樣，以為聯合國是類似世界政府的存在，對WHO的想法是不清楚與聯合國的關係（暈）

了解法理建國論述後，開始知道一些國際法法理知識，才知道原來聯合國有許多附屬組織，雖然是獨立運作，有不同的國際組織法人格，但是有從屬關係，就好比一大公司投資的子公司一樣，這個子公司是獨立成立的另一間公司，與母公司有不同的公司法人格，而不是像分公司這樣。

所以這也難怪聯合國附屬組織這麼多，都會依據《聯合國2758號決議》來處理「中國代表權之爭」。但這個處置的是中國席次的問題，真的與台灣無關啦～

回到正題。

ROC政權以中華台北的觀察員身分參與WHA，從2017年開始WHA就沒有邀請ROC政權參與WHA。
ROC政權自稱台灣，而台灣人大部分也把ROC當成自己的國家，所以台灣人都會很生氣因為中國(中共)打壓，罵WHO是CHO。
確實中國PRC政權在很多國際組織有參與，也會政治表態反對台灣參與國際組織；而ROC政權也會說中共很壞打壓台灣，台灣人在這個狀況之下，就會跟ROC政權同仇敵愾。ROC政權也會呼籲台灣人參與行動，要國際社會支持台灣加入國際組織。

之前我們在直播中多次說明ROC政權是中國政權這個本質，而台澎不能加入國際組織真正原因是「台澎不是國際法上的主權國家，目前被ROC政權治理中」。很多人會說阿可是聯合國已經在《聯合國2758號決議》承認中國由PRC政權代表啊！那就來仔細看看這份決議說了什麼吧！

《聯2758號決議》說中華人民共和國政府是中國在聯合國中的合法代表。《聯合國2758號決議》處理的是在聯合國內由誰來代表中國席次的問題，也就是中國代表權之爭，就是兩個政權 : PRC政權跟ROC政權的事情。

後面有說到把蔣介石代表趕出去聯合國，將蔣介石代表在聯合國以及聯合國附屬組織非法佔據的位置驅逐，意思是與聯合國有關的國際組織蔣介石代表都不能代表中國主權國家了，這邊用詞不使用中華民國的原因是因為中華民國政權已經喪失中國代表，因此在聯合國中中華民國不是中國合法政府代表，因此就直接稱呼蔣介石代表，這種不是中國國家政府的完整名稱。

這個歷史脈絡我們也說明過了，與台灣無關。

那為什麼會扯到台灣？

最初ROC政權以中國代表加入聯合國，從沒有以台灣代表身份名義參與過聯合國喔！從1945年到1971年在聯合國說了26年台灣是中國的一省。後來PRC政權作為聯合國中的中國席次代表，就只是延續ROC政權先前的主張。

《聯2758號決議》之前有比喻過機器(主權國家)與操控機器的人(合法政府代表) 進到聯合國這個國際組織club。
大家可以去看看這篇文章（https://www.facebook.com/100047156705396/posts/294812378767317/）或者下面這個影片🙌🏻［英語繁中字］台灣在國際上不被承認的原因與解決方法：https://youtu.be/lss2OdMhi90

聯合國中的會員國有許多都有簽署《舊金山和約》，有些國家有表態，有些則沒有，但無論如何《舊金山和約》這個和平條約是二戰後很具代表性的國際法效力文件。二戰後東亞及西太平洋的國際局勢，還有許多新成立的國家都是以《舊金山和約》所建構的國際法狀態的基礎之上發展出來的。

中國PRC政權說《舊金山和約》是廢紙又怎樣？有種就公開宣布現在日本還跟所有 《舊金山和約》 及其子約簽約國處於戰爭狀態、韓國是日本的一部份、南庫頁島、千島群島都是日本領土、日本還被二戰盟軍軍事占領、原本日本委任統治地轉成聯合國託管制度下被美國協助託管的太平洋諸島國全部都喪失國家地位、重回日本委任統治狀態等等，有種就全部不承認呀！真的不要吃自助餐，也不要跟著中國PRC政權一起吃自助餐好嗎？中國PRC政權根本不敢全部不承認回歸到二戰狀態。若 中國PRC政權敢這樣說 《舊金山和約》 無效，就必須否認該和約所產生的一切法律效果。

➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
各國立場可查看 台澎國際法法理建國連線 http://www.rotpnetwork.tw/reference.php?LAN=TW 的整理。

《聯2758號決議》中投贊成票的美國，有聲明 “Well, I don’t want to speculate [about the P.R.C. government asking us to remove our troops from Taiwan]. We have made our position clear. Our policy is unaffected by this vote.”　意思是美國在 《聯2758號決議》案投贊成票不影響她對台澎主權的立場。

而關於英國在聯合國的投票內容是否會影響其對台澎主權地位的立場，英國政府 表示：
台灣島的主權尚未決定。因此，就我們的觀點，「誰應該在聯合國代表福爾摩莎」這個問題的答案也尚未決定。我對這份實質決議稿所投的贊成票並不會改變吾國政府對這一點的立場。
“Sovereignty over the island of Formosa is undetermined. It therefore follows, in our view, that the question of who should represent Formosa in the United Nations is also undetermined. The vote which I shall cast in favour of the substantive draft resolution does not prejudice the position of my Government on this point.”-21 U.N. GAOR, U.N. Doc. A/PV.1481, at 9 (1966). 意思是英國認為台澎主權未定，且英國在聯合國投票的內容並不影響其立場。

➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
#只有主權國家才能加入聯合國嗎？

聯合國剛開始成立，有讓加拿大、澳洲、紐西蘭加入，當時他們並未是主權國家，只是高度自治的自治領，還不是法理獨立的主權國家。但他們在外交上有自主權限，因此，這些自治領在聯合國初期就加入了。

聯合國後期，上述說的自治領都完成去殖民化完成法理獨立程序，就變成國際法上的主權國家，演變至今聯合國這個國際組織就是只允許是主權國家才能加入。

我們也有多次說明政權是國家基本屬性，政府是指對承認你是該國代表政府的國家而言你才是政府。他國可以自由選擇承認哪一個政權是該國政府喔！隨時可以替換。

可回顧這篇回應百靈果。（https://www.facebook.com/100047156705396/posts/294658762116012/）

ROC政權的中國政權本質不會改變，它並不是主權國家，它是可以被「承認為該國代表政府」的政權而已。

台澎在國際法上欠缺國家法人格，並不是主權國家。台澎領土上並沒有真正可以代表台澎的政治實體存在。
ROC政權是1945.9.2受盟軍指令代表盟軍來台受降並軍事占領代管台澎，僅具有管理權(治權)沒有台澎領土主權。

國際間都清楚這些歷史脈絡。清楚知道台澎領土主權未定的事實跟ROC政權的本質就是中國政權。至今國際上仍舊有15個國家承認ROC政權是中國代表政府。

因此，在國際組織上，若PRC政權作為中國代表先進入了，那同個屬性的ROC中國政權，當然就會被阻擋。

而台澎進不去真正原因就是台澎還未建國，目前被ROC政權代管中。

大家仔細想想：
ROC政權宣稱的台灣光復並不存在。
ROC政權在台澎是依1945.9.2《一般命令第一號》這個根據，而台澎戰後處置在《舊金山和約》1952.4.28生效，只讓台澎領土主權歸屬未定，並沒有決定要把台澎領土給誰。
因此代管狀態會持續至今，它仍舊必須治理維持台澎當地的穩定，直到最終處置決定。

ROC政權若老實承認「盟佔代管」的身份，並承認台澎領土主權未定，根本不是中國的領土（無論是ROC政權或者PRC政權想代表的中國）。那台澎就可以擺脫中國一中兩政權框架，來終止代管自決建國。

⚠️結論就是「台澎領土主權歸屬未定」的意思就是「台澎人什麼時候要決定未來的方向？」

➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖

聯合國附屬組織　(圖片出自上面YouTube連結)

ROC政權都是作為中國代表政府加入的。台灣根本不是主權國家，所以沒加入這些國際組織。
台灣加入WTO是以政治實體加入的喔！臺灣、澎湖、金門及馬祖個別關稅領域（英語：The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu），為中華民國於世界貿易組織（WTO）之會籍完整名稱，簡稱臺澎金馬個別關稅領域（英語：TPKM）。此名稱來自中華民國政權所實際管理的主要土地，即領土主權未定的臺灣、澎湖，及中國領土金門及馬祖。

目前還有以捕魚實體 (Fishing Entity) 的身分加入國際漁業組織（有很多個）。

所以台灣真正需要的就是盡快完成終止代管自決建國的程序。

➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖

2.台澎人在海外的身分問題（國籍、出身等）

先重申我的立場，我們針對的是ROC政權本質的問題。
台灣人在國際上「國籍正名」其實根本無法改變台澎欠缺國家法人格的事實，甚至台灣人欠缺建國意志，並沒有意識到ROC政權不是台灣人的台灣，這才是很嚴重的事情。
但我是肯定台灣人認同台灣，但我希望方向要正確，否則方向錯誤用力走仍舊無法真正解決台灣在國際上的問題。

上集有講自決建國具體目標，大家可以去回顧一下。

現在台灣人若沒辦法分清楚ROC政權不等於台灣，在國外的發聲就會讓國際社會很困惑，因為國際社會很清楚知道ROC政權是中國政權，也很清楚ROC政權主張台灣是(ROC政權想代表的)中國國家的。
(領土主權只能由國家來主張，並不是一群人或者政權可以主張的。)

雖然土地的領土主權歸屬跟土地上住民的國籍是兩個獨立的議題，但兩者在法律上通常會有一定的關連性。若認定台澎領土主權屬於中華民國政權想代表的國家(中國)，會增加解釋台澎人國籍的難度。

所以在挪威的台灣人，應該要說明清楚台澎法理地位(領土主權歸屬未定)，不可以把ROC政權當成台灣的國家，這樣真的很混亂。

➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖

冰島將台人列「無國籍」(圖出自https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/1892053)
這位留學生到冰島，在冰島政府眼中出生地台灣沒問題，但是國籍必須是主權獨立的國家，但是ROC政權並不是主權國家，所以冰島政府會判斷ROC政權是中國政權，才會判斷是中國，後來這台灣留學生就抗議，最終冰島政府給予選擇，後來這位留學生選擇無國籍。

我們法理建國派出來探討台澎法理地位，就是希望台灣人了解清楚必須切割ROC與台灣，不然在國際上的發聲不會有改變反而會有反效果。
大家要想清楚，在挪威法院的判決，挪威有參與《舊金山和約》應該立場要是台澎領土主權歸屬未定，那挪威法官這樣判很可能是針對提告方提出來的訴訟來做出判決，訴狀中提到的訴之聲明法院才會判斷，法院不會多做其他解釋。最終就是敗訴。結果看起來就像是挪威法院認證「臺灣是中國的」，這其實是很傻眼的事情。

現在這些在挪威國籍正名的台灣人要再送去歐洲人權法院提出訴訟，希望大家想清楚，單靠高呼人權無法處理國籍問題、無法處理台澎法理地位問題，也無法改變台澎欠缺國家法人格的事實。

要先建國！！！！

要先建國！！！！

要先建國！！！！

我有寫一篇給挪威台灣人國籍正名文章，大家可以去看看。
傳送門https://www.facebook.com/100047156705396/posts/298656871716201/

希望大家了解台澎法理地位以後，能夠一同努力將法理建國論述宣傳出去，告訴身邊支持「國籍正名」的人，真正的方法是台澎住民自決建國，謝謝大家：）

➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖

#網友提問

Q1:當初中華民國為何會被中華人民共和國取代，中華人民共和國剛開始也是被排擠，只承認中華民國。
只是非洲有很多小國也都是會員國，中共開始資助非洲小國，讓非洲小國在wha,who為中共發聲，慢慢的美國覺得，蔣政府的確已經沒有實權了，所以才同意中共加入取代台灣。

A1:

這其實只是一個層面。
英國在1950年就承認PRC政權為中國代表，這個承認也不是因為「把你當做朋友」。
那非洲小國支持PRC政權當然也是跟資助有關，但我們必須知道歷史脈絡，這些非洲小國都是二戰後去殖民化獨立的國家，原本是殖民地的國家對原本殖民母國是很有意見的，而POC政權的好朋友有許多歐洲國家，正是非洲小國殖民母國，所以這些歷史脈絡會讓非洲小國去殖民化建國後不會與「殖民母國同路人」友好，所以會選擇親近PRC政權這個他們認為是新興國家。

(不過我們都知道中國國家法人格沒有中斷，PRC政權是建立政權不是建國 https://m.facebook.com/media/set/?vanity=rotpnetwork&set=a.2763561250403580)

Jenna Cody :

Is Taiwan a real China?
No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.

This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.

So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.

Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).

Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.

Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.

Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.

What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.

So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.

It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.

This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.

In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.

After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.

Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.

In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).

In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.

Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.

It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.

Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.

This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.

*

Now, as I said, none of this matters.

What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.

Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.

Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.

Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.

So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.

And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.

The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.

A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.

There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…

…well, that’s already settled.

The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.

Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.

If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.

It's the rest of the world's fault, we need to work with China..... NOT! The Chinese government has very successfully tricked the world into looking away and turning a blind eye to the facts!

For a deeper dive into China's Propaganda influence and soft power, watch our liveshow ADVPodcasts: https://www.youtube.com/advpodcasts

Support Sasha and I on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/serpentza
Bitcoin - bc1q5xuvp9vpd3dhdaa5qduupdrukpjhg6plhefn0h
Ethereum - 0x4202C2cA9f22C7cC020EdB3cE6A6EeE10A2B8b70

DOCUMENTARY LINKS:
Conquering Southern China:
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/conqueringsouthernchina

Conquering Northern China:
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/conqueringnorthernchina

Stay Awesome China (my new documentary): https://vimeo.com/ondemand/stayawesomechina

For Motorcycle adventures around the world, and a talk-show on two wheels go to ADVChina every Monday 1pm EST
https://www.youtube.com/advchina

For a realistic perspective on China and world travel from an American father and a Chinese mother with two half-Chinese daughters go to Laowhy86 every Wednesday 1pm EST
https://youtu.be/mErixa-YIJE

For a no-nonsense on the street look at Chinese culture and beyond from China's original YouTuber, join SerpentZA on Friday at 1pm EST
https://www.youtube.com/serpentza

Support Sasha and I on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/serpentza
Join me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/winstoninchina
Twitter: @serpentza
Instagram: serpent_za

Lipton 呢個茶葉品牌應該無人唔識！係香港既主打可能係奶茶，丫仁只係有留意過出港式／台式即溶奶茶，至於果茶都只係會係吉之島／SOGO到出現！！初初頭幾次去日本必定會買LIPTON果茶潤喉（因為有桃味吧）
星期日原本想同朋友去原宿食 幸せのパンケーキ　表参道店 點知満席，誤打誤撞去左表參道A3出口見到一大幢好搶眼既黃色大廈吸引，唔小心走左過去，又唔小心排左45分鐘隊，終於都買到一樽期間限定POP UP STORE 生果滿滿既果茶?你要知道係日本買生果係好..好....好......好.....好........好...........好＿貴，但依家卻有3分1樽都係生果呀！唔知香港既 立頓 Lipton 會唔會仿效呢？
東京都港区南青山5-1-25
東京METRO表参道駅B3出口一出
留意返個日子係由7月7日～8月31日
細細既舖頭一樓係即整即沖果茶，而2樓是一個大約60呎的休憩處。基本上全層被女士們征服，我入到去都被投射不少奇異目光，我不是痴漢???你可以自選配料同茶底，不過如果你有「選擇困難症」的話又可以揀佢已經設定好的果茶，我都幾怕如果揀左唔夾的生果，飲左唔知會唔會有反效果，所以穩陣d叫現成配搭安全
取茶處旁有三種不同茶底的大茶壺，你可以係冰未溶晒時不停添飲！！唔執輸既我試均三種茶，可惜越溝就越淡，最後連生果味都無埋???～可能糖水唔係太夠，總覺得還是便利店買的仲好飲，說到底都只不過是一個GIMMICK。
日本SUPER FOOD協會推介，將下列配料入饌味道更佳更有益，同紅茶味道可謂PERFECT MATCH。不妨係屋企都自己整返樽果茶返工吧！????????????
1) 生はちみつ（生蜂蜜）：豐富維他命（ビタミン）同礦物質（ミネラル）
2) アサイー（藍莓）：加倍茶多酚，抗氧化
3) チアシード（蘭香子）：增加食物繊維
4) ゴールデンベリー（龍珠果）：黃酮類化合物抗炎症
5) クコの実（枸杞）：豐富維他命、氨基酸（アミノ酸）
6) ウコン（薑黃）：清肝毒
還有更多食譜於官網介紹
http://brand.lipton.jp/leaf/fruits_in_tea/store/
PS：話時話，有無人話到俾我知Lipton出產地係邊？會唔會係「made in PRC」

懇請大家陪住【丫仁】成長，緊貼我最新動態 ♫
分享在日期間的生活，點滴累積成長！

【丫仁】's FB：https://www.facebook.com/WHJP2015
仲有，緊係要【Subscribe】我既youtube channel啦！

ブログ http://review.jihei.org/2013/04/made-in-prc.html
最近ホームセンターで見かける"Made in PRC"って何処の国の製造なんだろう？　続きはブログで・・・


・動画解放軍サブチャンネル
　http://www.youtube.com/user/dougakaihou

・動画解放軍の情報をいち早くゲット
　facebook http://www.facebook.com/aicellopack
　twitter https://twitter.com/jihei

・ブログなど
　メイン　http://review.jihei.org/
　ガジェ通　http://getnews.jp/archives/tag/%E5%AF%BA%E5%B9%B3%E9%95%B7%E7%94%B1


「動画で人々を解放する」
・複雑なプレゼンテーション
・分厚い紙文書
に苦しんでいる人々から、動画で救います。