The Instigator
Patriotgames8
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
The-Rational-Catholic1994
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should Taiwan hold a seat at the UN?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Patriotgames8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,287 times Debate No: 36020
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Patriotgames8

Pro

Taiwan is a free and democratic country. The only reason they do not have representation in the UN is due to China's political pressure.
The-Rational-Catholic1994

Con

There's more reasons why Taiwan isn't in the UN and why at the moment, it is impossible for the government in Taiwan to be allowed in the UN.
Debate Round No. 1
Patriotgames8

Pro

Greetings fellow rational Catholic. After viewing your profile I see we share many a belief. However you state "There's more reasons why Taiwan isn't in the UN and why at the moment, it is impossible for the government in Taiwan to be allowed in the UN." You fail to give a substantive reason why. I am a US citizen, born within Ft. Riley, Kansas..raised in western NY and matriculated in Florida. I have been living in Taiwan almost a quarter of my 43 years (on and off) and am married to a Taiwanese national/ US permanent resident. I hold a degree in Intn'l Relations w/ honors from USF and understand the geopolitical environment and why Taiwan has not been invited back to the UN since holding a seat on THE SECURITY council..or "BIG 5"
from 1949 until 1979 when "Realpolitik" forced the out...actually they walked out, as anyone with "face" would have. Since they have applied 3 times in the last 10 years for member status. It is shameful they have no diplomatic recognition yet the US sells the F-16s and millions of dollars in military supplies every year. Please reply with a real argument so I know you not to be a "troll". I back up my argument with CNN's words." " U.S. foreign policy has always been a reflection of American principles along with strategic and economic interests. Taiwan is a legitimate democracy, one with a long history of close friendship with the United States, threatened by a large authoritarian state demanding a political annexation that Taiwan"s people clearly do not want. If Americans will not stand by Taiwan, the principled component of U.S. foreign policy is dead...Abandoning Taiwan is completely at odds with the broad U.S. agenda for international affairs as well as with the specific policy of "re-balancing" toward Asia. Washington should consider cutting off its support to Taiwan only if the United States has decided to abdicate its leadership role in the Asia-Pacific region and pull its influence back to the Western Hemisphere.".."Although too small to act as a political "Trojan Horse" to massive China, as a vibrant Chinese democracy Taiwan is an influential model for China. It is easy for Chinese to dismiss the American or Western European democracies as unsuitable or unimaginable in a Chinese context, but Taiwan is a different matter. If the persistence of Taiwan as a political showcase (now viewed in person by almost two million mainland Chinese visitors annually) could constructively affect China"s political evolution toward democracy, this Taiwan contribution would be invaluable. But Taiwan requires help to safeguard its democratic system against Chinese pressure."
The-Rational-Catholic1994

Con

Now to understand the current situation with first must go back to the Qing Dynasty. This Dynasty Controled what is now modern day Mongolia, People Republic of China (Mainland), and the Republic of China (Taiwan). In 1895, Qing Dynasty lost the First Sino-Japanese War and handed the island of Taiwan over to Japan as part of the peace treaty between the two nations. In 1912, the Qing Dynasty fell and a group of revolutionaries that later became the Nationalist Party (or KMT) took over China to consolidate a Republic, this would create the government that would later control Taiwan. Now in 1928 after years of China being under control multiple warlords , under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek, most of China became united under the Republic of China. Sadly, there were Communist factions in the country that started to fight against Kai-Shek's government using gurella tactics. Around the same in 1931, Japan took control of Manchuria and placed a puppit government in that region and Chiang was too busy fighting the Communist to care. 6 years later, Japan invaded China and mainly attacked and conquered areas controled by the Republic of China. After 1945, Japan surrendered to both the US and to Chiang's government and now the Republic of China was again controlling China and Taiwan but again had to fight the now popular Communist. Then in 1949, Chiang's government retreated to island Taiwan after the Communist under Mao overran China. Now even through most of China and most of it's population was under the PRC (People Republic of China), the UN did not allow the Communist government international recognition as the true government of China but allowed Chiang's Nationalist government to sit on the UN Security Council when that government didn't control most of China or it's population. Then in 1971, the PRC replaced ROC as the internationally official government of China. What does this story have to do with Taiwan joining the UN, because it still holds the claim that all of China (Mainland and Taiwan) is their territory.

To this day, both governments claim the same territory and both will not give up this claim. The government in Taiwan to get a seat in the UN, it needs to release it's claim on the Mainland. That would not happen because many people in Taiwan still hold true to he belief that it's government is the one true official government of China. This belief is very ingrained in Taiwan even to this day. It is still an official policy in the KMT party. So for the government to release it's claim on the Mainland, it needs to change it's culture and to support Taiwanese nationalism rather than supporting reunificationism.

Even if the people and the government of Taiwan change their view on reunification, that doesn't mean the PRC will just allow Taiwan to release it's claim on the Mainland. Because if Taiwan release's it claim on the Mainland, that means the government in the Mainland must release it's claim on Taiwan and giving up any hope for controlling the island one day. If you were to look on a map, Taiwan is a stragically placed island that could block the power of the PRC navy and could be used as a base for other countries that the PRC sees as unfriendly, like Japan or the USA. If the PRC would have ever controled the island some day, it would do away with this fear and would allow it's navy to projected more power in it's region and also Taiwan is very developed economic wise and would aid in the PRC economic power. There is also the historial reason too get Taiwan back under China. If the Communist party was to unite Taiwan with the Mainland, if would have no rivials for the claim of China, it would show that Communist defeated capitalist Taiwan, and this would be the first united China since the Qing Dynasty and thus making it a turning point in Chinese history.

For the current situation in Taiwan to change, the government in Taiwan must release it's claim on the Mainland and for that to happen the culture in that country must do a 180 and support Taiwanese nationalism rather than reunification which would take years and years to do. The Communist party in China must also change as well on release it's claim on Taiwan. It will be harder for the mainland to do that because of economic, historical, and military reasons. I now pass the debate on to my opponent. Hope you make this a great debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Patriotgames8

Pro

You missed the point Con. My debate stated "Should Taiwan hold a seat at the UN?"

The criteria for UN Membership clearly sets forth the acceptance qualifications for

membership: From: http://www.un.org...

Member StatesXIV. Admission of New Members to the United Nations

Applications

Rule 134
[see introduction, para. 4]

Any State which desires to become a Member of the United Nations shall submit an application to the Secretary-General. Such application shall contain a declaration, made in a formal instrument, that the State in question accepts the obligations contained in the Charter.

Notification of applications

Rule 135
[see introduction, para. 4]

The Secretary-General shall, for information, send a copy of the application to the General Assembly, or to the Members of the United Nations if the Assembly is not in session.

Consideration of applications and decision thereon

Rule 136

If the Security Council recommends the applicant State for membership, the General Assembly shall consider whether the applicant is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter and shall decide, by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, upon its application for membership.

Rule 137
[see introduction, para. 4]

If the Security Council does not recommend the applicant State for membership or postpones the consideration of the application, the General Assembly may, after full consideration of the special report of the Security Council, send the application back to the Council, together with a full record of the discussion in the Assembly, for further consideration and recommendation or report.

Notification of decision and effective date of membership

Rule 138
[see introduction, para. 4]

The Secretary-General shall inform the applicant State of the decision of the General Assembly. If the application is approved, membership shall become effective on the date on which the General Assembly takes its decision on the application.

Thus, you argument is invalid and reflects only historical/political squabbling and is therefore outdated and does not reflect "REALPOLOTIK" The UN is kowtowing to China..and the everyone I know in Taiwan claims no stake to power over the mainland (China/PRC)...to the contrary..Taiwan and China do booming business/tourism each and every year! The USA sells Taiwan arms to defend herself from China. Well?
The-Rational-Catholic1994

Con

How is my points invalid. I have stated in my argument that it would be impossible for Taiwan to get a seat on the UN because it still sees itself as the true government of China and thus comes into conflict with Mainland government. I do agree that Taiwan should get a seat on the UN. But if you looked at the historical and the politician problems you can see that at the moment it is not right or good to allow Taiwan a seat on the UN because it claims to be the official government of China when another government has the same title. You can't have two governments claim the same country as their land or area of control.

Also in business, the Mainland does work with Taiwan but just because it's a working relationship doesn't mean that all whole relationship is good over all. This is like saying since the US does business with China that automatically makes them allies which is not the case in reality. There is still deep rooted hatred towards Communist China in Taiwan to this day.

Also, showing me the retirements to apply to the UN is not needed in this debate. Taiwan has asked many time to go back into the UN and yet it still wants to claim that China is there's. That is like asking for a reservation at a restaurant and taking someone table. Until the government in Taiwan can stop claiming the Mainland as there own can they be allowed in the UN and for that to happen both the governments in Taiwan and in the Mainland to agree. This is another problem because if Mainland does allow Taiwan to become independent from China, then the Mainland will lose the chance to extend it's power and give up to a goal there government has promised there people for generations, unity between the Mainland and Taiwan.

In this debate. I wasn't trying to say that Taiwan should never join the UN. But if I does there needs to be massive changes to the policies in both Red China and in Taiwan. I am saying that under the certain conditions that are present today in both countries, it would be impossible and not right for Taiwan to join the UN.
Debate Round No. 3
Patriotgames8

Pro

Con states "I do agree that Taiwan should get a seat on the UN. "

The debate topic was " Should Taiwan hold a seat at the UN?"
Need I add more?

Later Con writes " it would be impossible and not right for Taiwan to join the UN."

After that Con states "it is not right or good to allow Taiwan a seat on the UN"


That is diametrically opposed to your earlier statement above. Mind you voters, that
the above was all written in Con's last round.
Also Con states " In this debate. I wasn't trying to say that Taiwan should never join the UN."
Did my topic propose or insinuate a timeline? Rhetorical, as it did not.
Is Con debating himself?

Pro is scratching head...huh...duh...what????

Also, I never insinuated that " the relationship is good over all" I have 2,000 Chinese
ballistic missiles aimed at me right now!


Pro writes " How is my points invalid." Check your grammar and punctuation. "Votable" points Con.

Pro also writes "Also, showing me the retirements to apply to the UN is" ..who is retiring?

Again, some poor English " wants to claim that China is there's. "
There's= "There is"..think you meant "theirs" possessive?

" claiming the Mainland as there own can.." Again "their" possessive

Sorry, it's the English teacher in me coming out. Voters, please note the opening of my round.
No condescension intended Pro.
The-Rational-Catholic1994

Con

The-Rational-Catholic1994 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Patriotgames8

Pro

Patriotgames8 forfeited this round.
The-Rational-Catholic1994

Con

The-Rational-Catholic1994 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Just skimmed this... pro between this and another debate you seem confused on how debates work. Someone can take a side in a debate, while being opposed to that side. It tends to be good research.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Just skimmed this... pro between this and another debate you seem confused on how debates work. Someone can take a side in a debate, while being opposed to that side. It tends to be good research.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
Patriotgames8The-Rational-Catholic1994Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited more than Pro.