關於 taiwan independence from china ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

[時事英文] 從 Most Dangerous Place 文章，看經濟學人寫作邏輯

最近大家好像都在討論這一篇文章, 我們來聽一下前總統府英文演講撰稿人Andrew Yang的觀點吧:

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Economist 經濟學人這禮拜發表了一篇聳動的文章：The Most Dangerous Place on Earth: https://econ.st/3tbpZWT

雖然有些人覺得 Economist 寫的東西很無聊 (我以前在美國外交研究所，每個同學都這麼覺得)，但他們的寫作邏輯嚴謹度是非常高的。

他們怎麼寫？

★★★★★★★★★★★★

The Most Dangerous Place on Earth: America and China must work harder to avoid war over the future of Taiwan

📌 文章架構：

1. Premise 前提：台海平衡建立在一個「矛盾」上
2. What if...：如果發生戰爭，會有多恐怖
3. Premise is weak：前提的平衡，比我們想像還要脆弱...
4. Reason 原因：武力侵台，對中國來說越來越可行了
5. Counter argument：但習近平真的想要冒這個風險嗎？沒人知道
6. Recommendation：所以台美要努力讓中國覺得武力不是一個選項

邏輯：

- 建立前提
- 然後探討不同發展方向會有什麼後果
- 我們有什麼理由/證據告訴我們會往哪個方向發展？
- 最後：在這種不確定下，我們該怎麼做？

★★★★★★★★★★★★

📌 標題的組合是聳動的一句 "most dangerous place on earth" 加上 call to action - 一定要努力避免戰爭。

這個是不錯的標題組合，大家不妨沿用：抓住注意力，然後給結論。

不過老實說，副標有點弱。因為 "work harder to avoid war" 是所有專家都講了幾十年的。標題太重要了，應該要有點新的東西，或是寫的很具體。而且拜託，如果有人叫你 "work harder"，你會不會覺得：「廢話」？

就算我們簡單看內文，也可以生出更具體的副標：

- Has war become a viable option for Beijing?
- The strategic ambiguity over Taiwan is breaking down
- Time to remove war as an option

★★★★★★★★★★★★

好，文章開始：

The test of a first-rate intelligence, wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald, is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. For decades just such an exercise of high-calibre ambiguity has kept the peace between America and China over Taiwan...

Today, however, this strategic ambiguity is breaking down. The United States is coming to fear that it may no longer be able to deter China from seizing Taiwan by force.

📌 這個告訴讀者 (他們教育水準普遍非常高，但可能不大熟悉台灣)，台海的平衡一直是一個矛盾的平衡，而這個平衡也許無法繼續維持了。這樣寫提高戲劇張力，吸引讀者。

他們這個開頭，其實也是伏筆，晚點會繞回來。

*引用 Fitzgerald 的話本身慢逗趣的，展現了他們的文學素養 lol。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

下一句告訴大家，台海戰爭對世界的後果有多恐怖：

War would be a catastrophe, and not only because of the bloodshed in Taiwan and the risk of escalation between two nuclear powers. One reason is economic. The island lies at the heart of the semiconductor industry. TSMC, the world’s most valuable chipmaker, etches 84% of the most advanced chips.

但他們反而把他們認為「最重要」的部分，放在後面：

The bigger reason is that Taiwan is an arena for the rivalry between China and America. Although the United States is not treaty-bound to defend Taiwan, a Chinese assault would be a test of America’s military might and its diplomatic and political resolve. If the Seventh Fleet failed to turn up, China would overnight become the dominant power in Asia. America’s allies around the world would know that they could not count on it. Pax Americana would collapse.

📌 最後一句最關鍵：如果美國不阻止中國，其他盟友會知道：美國可能不會來救我們。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

然後，他們就回到開頭的伏筆了：

To understand how to avoid conflict in the Taiwan Strait, start with the contradictions that have kept the peace during the past few decades. The government in Beijing insists it has a duty to bring about unification—even, as a last resort, by means of invasion. The Taiwanese, who used to agree that their island was part of China (albeit a non-Communist one), have taken to electing governments that stress its separateness, while stopping short of declaring independence. And America has protected Taiwan from Chinese aggression, even though it recognises the government in Beijing. These opposing ideas are bundled into what Fitzgerald’s diplomatic inheritors blithely call the “status quo”. In fact, it is a roiling, seething source of neurosis and doubt.

他們一一列出台美中三方的立場，然後指出：把這個叫做 "Status Quo" 根本就很荒唐啊！這個真的很 roiling, seething, neurotic (要強調的這麼誇張嗎...)。

📌 我發現 The Economist 很喜歡把最重要的結論放在最後面。其他刊物/作者可能會把重點放在最前面："What Fitzgerald's diplomatic inheritors blithely call the "status quo" is in fact a roiling, seething source of neurosis..." 然後再列出三方的立場。

這可能也跟 The Economist 自認的讀者群有關：我認識會看他們東西的人，都是在家或是辦公室，真的坐下來好好看的，所以把重點放在後面還 ok，因為很多讀者會好好看到最後。但你如果寫給「瞄過去」的讀者，就請把重點放在段落最前面。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

🔎 需要更多的分析嗎? 想看完整文章的同學請按個讚和留言「從 Most Dangerous Place 文章，看經濟學人寫作邏輯」。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Presentality系列文章:

📌 看貝佐斯致亞馬遜股東的最後一封信，學一些英文寫作小撇步
https://bit.ly/3xCN1cC

📌 英文演講實用的結構與技巧
https://bit.ly/2PHu3Ax

📌 在演講中的四種敘述角度
https://bit.ly/39tNUtv

📌 詩人Amanda Gorman的英文演講技巧
https://bit.ly/39sI3on

台灣最大公約數 – 反共去統不反中
The True Common Denominator of Taiwan

我察覺到一個新的台灣共識（最大公約數）正在成形，而且已經接近完成。雖然許多人還沒意識到這點，也還有一些人尚處在無感、或雖然有感但心理上拒絕的階段。

I sensed a New Taiwan Consensus is forming and near completion, although many are still not fully aware of it, some at the psychological stage of ignoring it and some even in total denial .

這新共識可以用三個原素的一句話來總結：反共、去統、不反中國平民。三元素環環相扣，構成了一個具有主旋律的直白命題：那些已經把台灣視為自己家鄉的人，已經把台灣當成一個與他方無涉的主體。

This New Consensus can be summarized in one expression with three parallel elements: opposing communism, de-unification and neutralness toward Chinese civilians. These three elements constitute an organic whole with a common theme that simply says, people who took Taiwan as their home deemed themselves as one distinct entity .

為了讓人們充分理解這三元素的意義，需要做一些進一步闡釋。我們這就開始。

I understand some elaboration may be needed to allow the three elements to be fully appreciated, especially the third one. Let me begin.

1. 反共。台灣其實並沒有那麼反對自由的社會主義；事實上，台灣社會本身在日常生活型態中就含有明顯的自由社會主義的痕跡。但是，台灣絕不會容忍社會主義精神脫序到共產主義的地步。若然，那種社會主義就是敵人，沒有討論的餘地。台灣海峽彼岸的中國共產黨（CCP），就屬於這一類。

1. Opposing Communism – Taiwan is not that much against liberal socialism. In fact,there is a rather obvious strain of it already existing in its social life. However, Taiwan would not tolerate socialism when carried away to the extent of communism, and would take it as enemy. Period. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on the other end of the Strait falls into this category.

2. 去統。在台灣，不但老一輩了解中共天天掛在嘴邊玩弄的「統一」，只不過是其用來維持政權、控制已經被洗過腦平民的一種虛偽口號，而年輕一輩只會以荒謬視之。因而，此處並沒有用過去的「反統」一詞，而是用「去統」，表示了一種將「統一」概念徹底由腦中去除的意思。就像「大掃除」的意思一樣，老早就該扔掉的東西就把它扔掉。

2. De-Unification – Not only do the older generations realize that the jingling of
“unification” of the CCP is just a bogus slogan for upholding its regime’s control
over the brain-washed civilians, the young generation of Taiwan simply finds the
slogan ridiculous. Therefore, rather than using the term “anti-Unification” as people used to do in the past, I think “De-Unification” – the unshackling of the very idea of unification, as one can relate with the word “de-clutter”- is a better suited term.

3. 不反中，指的是對中國平民保持中性的態度。過去三年間，包括我自己以及國際輿論，已經破除了那個存在已久的迷思 – 中共CCP就等同中國。情況根本不是這樣的。中共不等同中國，更不用說等同中國人民了。中共是一個具有9千8百萬黨員的巨大政黨，但那只是住在那塊土地上的14億人當中的7%。

3. Neutralness towards Chinese Civilians – In the past three years, people in Taiwan including myself, as well as the international community, have debunked the long-existed myth that CCP Is China. No, far from it. CCP is NOT equivalent to China, let alone the Chinese people. CCP is a huge party of 98 million members and that accounts for only 7% of the 1.4 billion Chinese people living on that landmass.

簡單的算數就可以呈現真相。對任何國家，如果僅佔7%的人口可以在政治上完全控制100%的人口，唯一的可能就是實施殘酷暴力或通過暴力改變人的頭腦。

Simple math would tell the truth. In any nation, when 7% of the population politically controls 100% of the population, it would be an impossibility unless by brutal violence or total brain coercion.

中國平民本身就是受害者。其他的國家，不應該膝蓋反應式的把受害者視為天生就是邪惡的。因此，無論在心態上還是現實地緣政治考慮下，台灣社會都應該把「必反」這詞留給共產黨而不是受害的平民。

Therefore, considering the Chinese civilians are victims themselves, people from other parts of the world should not act in a knee-jerk way towards the ordinary, victimized Chinese Civilians as if they are born evil. Either under a proper mindset or the practicality associated with geopolitics, Taiwanese society should and is starting to understand this point. “Anti-“ is an attitude reserved for CCP and not intrinsically for the ordinary and mostly victimized civilians.

這才是台灣的最大公約數。然而，為了選票的政治人物及民調機構拖累了台灣。每年每月的民調都在問早已失效的問題：你偏藍還是偏綠？你贊成獨立還是統一？

Putting together the above three Elements, thus there is the New Taiwan Consensus. What’s falling behind and dragging Taiwan’s feet, are the ballot-hungry politicians and the various outdated polling agencies. They do so many so-called popular surveys every year, sometimes monthly. And they stick to the long invalid way of setting up their survey questions: Are you favoring Green (DPP) or Blue(KMT)? Are you pro-independent or Pro-unification?

這種自我設限或自我審查的問法，使得其他國家以為台灣是個分裂社會。

This kind of self-confined or self-censored surveys leave other nations the impression that Taiwan is a split society, Green or Blue, Independence or unification etc.

台灣這種導致外人認為台灣是個分裂國家的作法，實在愚蠢。如果問的問題對，台灣是沒有分裂的。例如，如果將「你贊不贊成獨立」改為「你反共不反共」，結果肯定是98%以上。

It’s such a foolish thing to do for Taiwan itself misleading outsiders into deeming Taiwan as a split country. There is absolutely no split should the right questions be asked in the surveys. For example, had the question been changed from “Are you pro-independence or anti-independence” into “Are you pro-communism or anti-communism”，then the result would have been a clear-cut 98% or even 99.5% towards “anti”.

若問「你是反中國共產黨還是反中國老百姓」，前者不會低於80%，後者不會高於20%。

Now, try this further question: “Are you anti-Chinese Communist Party, or anti-Chinese common people”, my guess is the former gets at least 80% and the latter gets 20% at most.

第三個問題：「你願不願意被共產黨統治」，保證結果是99.9%的「不願意」。
The third question: “Would you be willing to live under the Communist Rule”? That would guarantee a resounding NO answer of 99.9%.

這就是新台灣共識、社會的最大公約數，應該向世界大聲、清楚、不含糊的說出來。

This is exactly how the New Taiwan Consensus looks like – the true common denominator among a seemingly divided Taiwan. And the New Taiwan Consensus should be articulated to the rest of the world, no vagueness, no grey area and unambiguously.

不信的話，可以用上述問題做幾次民調。而且我保證，在不久的將來，所有民主國家都會端出類似「台灣共識」的政策原則。

For any surveyor or politician who still has doubts about this New Taiwan Consensus, he or she can just conduct new surveys with questions suggested as above. And, I myself am convinced, in a not-so-distant future, all democratic countries on the planet would issue national policies based on guidelines similar to the New Taiwan Consensus, for the goodness of their respective countries.

所以，台灣為什麼不這樣做呢？這可是台灣展示世界政治領導力的機會啊！

So, Hey, Taiwan! Why not put a thrust on this Taiwan Consensus to the world by publicizing it unambiguously and show some political leadership, just for once?

後記：以雙語向全球發聲，將是我接下致力的方向。所使用的這兩種文字，涵蓋了35億人口，接近地球的一半人數。這個行動，將以 「前哨預策」網站 為核心基地，其他的社交媒體，只要有傳播力道，都會被用為衛星來做整體運作。

個人的思考、判斷不一定對，您也不見得同意，但是，我保證這平台中的每一句話都是獨立的、出自內心的。而今天的台灣，乃至於世界，最缺的就是突破傳統成見、不受黨派左右、同時又知錯能改的獨立思考力量。不知您是否同意？

「前哨預策」平台將分為三步走：內容平台 – 互動平台 – 行動平台。剛誕生的它，當前還只是個內容平台，但達到一定數量的會員支持後，將加入各種新媒體形式，與會員就重要議題互動，並以「達成不同意見之間的最大公約數」為目標。一旦在會員內部形成「最大公約數」後，就構成了行動的基礎。至於行動的形式，也由願意推動或參與的會員決定。

此平台婉拒任何政黨、政府的贊助，只接受個人會員或企業會員的贊助；所有收入及贊助，均將用於「讓台灣更好」的事務上，以及推動、發揮台灣作為東亞及世界的「關鍵少數」的槓桿角色，為人類下一波文明做出量力而為的貢獻。

我只能說，十年來的不斷保持獨立，希望能換得您對「不受任何政黨、政府左右」這一點點價值的認同。

范疇
謹上

於台灣
首頁鏈接： InsightFan.com
訂閱鏈接： https://www.insightfan.com/membershipspricing/

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.

🔥支付寶打賞：13581883245
🔥王炳忠今日頭條：搜索「王炳忠台灣」
🔥王炳忠臉書粉專：https://www.facebook.com/bingzhong.wang
♦♦♦
“Are you helping or harming us?” This is my serious question to you American politicians, including those in the Trump administration and in the Congress. As the spokesperson for the New Party, one of Taiwan’s political parties, and also a young man who has lived in Taiwan for more than 32 years since my birth, I should tell you that the answer decides our future without doubt. In other words, the very fact I must confirm is whether you support Taiwan independence instead of the One-China policy or just deploy Taiwan as your pawn to bargain with Beijing. To be honest, as you always take it for granted to sacrifice others for your benefits, it is quite important for us to make sure in advance.

As we all know, the US Congress usually tends to challenge China’s sovereignty over Taiwan because of the impact of the military-industrial complex and the lobbies hired by the Taiwan government. The Taiwan Travel Act and the TAIPEI Act are the late instances. However, without the administration’s implementation, these are only lip service. Thus, the administration’s attitude is crucial indeed. So, let’s see the Department of State. As Secretary Pompeo stated last March, the US is now using every tool in its tool kit to prevent China from isolating Taiwan through diplomatic channels. This year, after shifting blames for its neglect of the pandemic prevention by attacking China and the WHO, the Department of State recently expressed support for Taiwan’s participation in the WHA. The above really triggered my curiosity: The establishment of the US-Taiwan formal diplomatic relations is just the most useful tool, isn’t it? Why does the US not use that? Besides, since Taiwan should become a formal member of the UN before entering the WHO, why does the US not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state or the ROC government in Taiwan as the only legal government of China instead of the PRC?

The answer to my question seems that your real intention is not to support Taiwan’s real independence but only to trouble Beijing. Just as Pompeo said at a congressional hearing, the Trump administration’s way of viewing the US-Taiwan relations can consider the threat of China’s rise more than the predecessors, which reveals that Taiwan is only a chess piece for Washington to play with Beijing. Furthermore, since the US has no will to have Taiwan as a formal ally, Taiwan is just a pawn you can sacrifice anytime. Consequently, Taiwan must suffer the worsening of cross-strait relations at our own cost while the US just plays Taiwan to bargain with Beijing for your own interests. The outcome is so predictable that Taiwan should go through a depression for its large economic dependence on mainland China which you are unable and unwilling to make up. Besides, we should even consider the most serious situation that a war occurs in the Taiwan Strait. The scenario of Taiwan military is holding on alone within two to three weeks in order to wait for the US military aid. Nevertheless, as the former AIT chairman Richard Bush said, the implied commitment of the US to come to Taiwan’s defense has never be absolute. In other words, we should risk engaging a war with Beijing resulted from your dangerous game, sacrificing our lives for your lies.

As I already told you earlier, the real threat to the US is not China’s rise but the loss of your self-confidence. Moreover, you have weakened the stability across the Taiwan Strait by inciting Taiwan to deny the 1992 consensus and intervening in Taiwan’s campaign last year, which destroys the status quo and your interests indeed. Certainly, as what Secretary Pompeo has told us, “We lied, we cheated, we stole,” how can we bet our future on the US “glory” of lying, cheating, and stealing? In fact, as you once betrayed us in 1978 even though the ROC government in Taiwan and your government was formal alliance then, it is much easier for you today to abandon us when the deal has been done.

In conclusion, as your government declared plainly in the U.S.-PRC Joint Communique (1972), the US had its interests in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. Accordingly, since you are not willing to recognize either Taiwan as an independent state or the ROC as the legal government of China, we have no choice but to deal with the question of reunification with Beijing by the Chinese ourselves. Helping instead of harming us, you could stop intervening in the Taiwan question, otherwise it will only strengthen the risk across the Taiwan Strait and put us in jeopardy. Thank you if you release your hands.

On Taiwan Hashtag hosted by Ross Feingold, we discuss why President Tsai
Ing-wen 蔡英文 of the Democratic Progressive Party selected former premier
William Lai 賴清德 to be candidate for vice president. Is it because Lai
has better relations than Tsai with voters who want more aggressive
action to assert Taiwan’s separate identity and independence from China?
Is Tsai too much of a status quo supporter? Or is it to ensure Lai is
not a critic outside government during Tsai’s second term? Will Lai’s
performance as premier, which contributed to the DPP’s losses in local
elections a year ago, impact the presidential election? Watch our show
for a discussion on the latest in Taiwan's veepstakes.


✓ 點我加入《風傳媒》Line 好友（ID：@dyp8323m）　http://bit.ly/2hETgWE
✓ 點我訂閱《風傳媒》YouTube 頻道　http://bit.ly/2grkAJ6
✓ 點我追蹤《下班經濟學》IG頻道（ID：@worked_money） https://bit.ly/2WZ1Dnb

【Facebook粉絲團】
風傳媒►► https://www.facebook.com/stormmedia
風生活►► https://www.facebook.com/SMediaLife
下班經濟學►►https://www.facebook.com/workedmoney

On Taiwan Hashtag hosted by Ross Feingold, we discuss the relevance to
Taiwan of today’s decision by Hong Kong elections officials to deny
Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 eligibility to run in the upcoming District Council
election. President Tsai’s Democratic Progressive Party was formed at a
time when political parties other than the Kuomintang (Nationalist
Party) were banned during Taiwan’s martial law era, and advocacy for
Taiwan’s independence from the People’s Republic of China and the
Republic of China was illegal, making it likely DPP politicians will
support Wong and Demosisto’s right to support autonomy referendums. This
will continue criticisms exchanged in recent days between Hong Kong and
Taiwan government officials over how to facilitate travel to Taiwan of
Chan Tong-kai 陳同佳, wanted in Taiwan for the murder of Poon Hui-wing
潘曉穎 that led to Hong Kong’s extradition bill controversy. With Taiwan
insisting on a judicial cooperation agreement and criticizing Hong Kong
officials for not putting Chan on trial for murder in Hong Kong (a legal
impossibility already made clear by Hong Kong), Chan’s return might not
occur until after Taiwan’s presidential and legislative elections.
Politicization of the matter continues, as does each side’s involvement
in the other’s politics. Watch this episode – recorded in Hong Kong -
for analysis.


✓ 快來加入《Taiwan Hashtag》Twitter（ID：@TaiwanHashtag）
✓ 點我加入《風傳媒》Line 好友（ID：@dyp8323m）　http://bit.ly/2hETgWE
✓ 點我訂閱《風傳媒》YouTube 頻道　http://bit.ly/2grkAJ6
✓ 點我追蹤《下班經濟學》IG頻道（ID：@worked_money） https://bit.ly/2WZ1Dnb

【Facebook粉絲團】
風傳媒►► https://www.facebook.com/stormmedia
風生活►► https://www.facebook.com/SMediaLife
下班經濟學►►https://www.facebook.com/workedmoney