Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-17/Government in exile

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Government in exile
Status	Closed
Request date	18:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Requesting party	Ngchen (talk)
Mediator(s)	Ludwigs2
Comment	Closing this case as stale - there hasn't been any discussion in a month. --Ludwigs2 00:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Request details

Where is the dispute?

The dispute surrounds whether and to what extent the Republic of China (ROC) should be listed as a government in exile, when one considers the controversial political status of Taiwan. A permanent solution is desired, rather than the current temporary solution where the ROC is listed but is tagged for neutrality and factual accuracy.

Who is involved?

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

• User:T-1000
• User:Ngchen
• User:SH9002

What is the dispute?

A permanent solution is desired, rather than the current temporary solution where the ROC is listed but is tagged for neutrality and factual accuracy. Since it is logically impossible to both include and exclude the ROC, a solution is needed to neutrally and without giving undue weight to any POV deal with the case of the ROC.

What would you like to change about this?

I feel that there are a series of tangential issues that have been discussed, and people are talking past each other. Something along the lines of a "reset" may well be useful.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps being a third party who can ask questions, and illuminate the unstated assumptions each user is making would lead us to a solution.

Mediator notes

I'd be happy to take this case on. it's not an issue I know much about, and certainly not one I have an opinion on, but I think I can help organize the discussion to get past the the current blocks. I'll go ahead and mark the discussion as open, but if anyone would prefer a different mediator, let me know here or in my talk, and I'll recuse myself. --Ludwigs2 06:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I personally don't believe this kind of mediation will be useful, helpful or necessary to find any undefined so-called permanent solution. There were already tons of discussions about different dispute points. I also don't have interest to repeat lots of what had been discussed and already exists in the talk page of article "Government in exile" for the case of ROC here again. I think mediator could go to review the content in the talk pages directly, e.g. in sections:
-*- "ROC is also a rump state",
-*- "the dispute tag positioning for ROC as Government in Exile",
-*- RFC - Republic of China,
-*- "Regarding SH9002's tag",
-*- "Straw Poll - what to do with the Republic of China",
-*- "RoC flag",
-*- "There are totally different disputes about ROC".
--SH9002 (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't believe that the mediation can be useful, why is there a medcab case for it? speaking seriously, mediation can resolve a lot of seemingly unsolvable problem if participants enter into it in good faith, but if you guys aren't interested in entering into it in good faith then there's no point in even trying. So say, and I'll close the case as unresolved. you can always reopen if you change your mind later and want to give it a try. --Ludwigs2 15:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Initial perspectives

Ngchen's perspective

First, a brief history lesson to put everyone on the same page. The Republic of China (ROC) was first established in 1911-1912 in mainland China after the downfall of the Qing dynasty. At that time, Taiwan was controlled by Japan, since it was previously ceded (Eventually, both Chinese governments dispute the validity/legality of the Qing cession, arguing that it was imposed by force. Regardless, at least de facto, Taiwan was under Japanese rule.) to Japan by the Qing in 1895 as a result of the first Sino-Japanese war. Soon afterward, there was a Communist revolution that was interrupted by the Second Sino-Japanese War which merged into World War II. At the practical end of the Communist revolution in 1949, the ROC retreated to Taiwan. The victorious Communists proclaimed (on October 1, 1949) the People's Republic of China (PRC) which rules mainland China to this day. Nonetheless, both the PRC and ROC claim to the the "sole legitimate government of all China," and consider the other illegitimate.

Whether and to what extent legal sovereignty of Taiwan belonged/belongs to (1) Japan, (2) the PRC, (3) the ROC, (4) the locals, or (5) nobody, plays a large role in this dispute. The gory details are at legal status of Taiwan, but I'll quickly try to summarize the maneuvering and claims. Japan, which ruled Taiwan from 1895-1945, formally disposed of Taiwan in 1952 with the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco (SFPT). Oddly enough, due possibly (historians are divided) to the controversy surrounding whether the PRC or ROC was the legitimate government of China, the treaty only specified that Japan gave up the island, without specifying to whom. The PRC and ROC base their claims primarily on the Japanese Instrument of (unconditional) Surrender, signed in 1945, which referenced the Potsdam Declaration, which in terms referenced the Cairo Declaration. In the Cairo Declaration, it was explicitly spelled out that Formosa (Taiwan) was to be restored to the Republic of China at the end of the war. The PRC can and does use this clause because it was founded only in 1949, and considers itself the successor government to the ROC. So in its view it inherited all the rights and responsibilities of the ROC upon its founding. Finally, arguments can be made for sovereignty over Taiwan to be placed in the hands of the locals (people who were living on the island in the 1940's-1950's), based on the SFPT's renunciation of sovereignty by Japan without a recipient, and on the well-documented misrule and dictatorship of the ROC starting in 1945 during the ROC's martial-law era that ended only in 1989. The locals were not consulted in terms of who should have ruled; hence supporters of Taiwan independence have long argued that self-determination rights were violated.

So, back to the question of whether the ROC should be somehow listed as a government-in-exile, or not. I think we can make a series of if/then statements that the vast majority of people would agree upon. The complication is that people don't agree with the validity of the If statements.

• If the ROC does not legitimately exist today (per the PRC), then the ROC would be a government-in-exile.
• If the PRC does not legitimately exist today (per the ROC), then the PRC would be a government-in-exile.
• If territorial sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to the ROC, then the ROC would not be a government-in-exile.
• If territorial sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to any other entity, then the ROC would be a government-in-exile (although if it is still sovereign over Penghu, Kinmen, and other minor islands one can still argue that it's a rump state).
• If the ROC were a government-in-exile, the current legitimacy of its de facto rule over Taiwan is challenged. This fact is why supporters of Taiwan independence often like to argue such.

Now, keeping in mind the prohibition against giving undue weight to any point of view, we are trying to find a permanent solution to properly categorizing the ROC. As I pointed out earlier, logically we cannot both include and exclude the ROC from this or any other list. Ngchen (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

T-1000's perspective

I do not believe there is a dispute on whether ROC should be included in the GIE article. My dispute with User:SH9002 is primarily regarding this statement in the description: "In 1952, ROC held the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu through peace treaties with Japan". The source of this statement is from Henckaerts' book seen here: [1]. My perspective is simple, this book presents an Pro ROC and anti-PRC POV (you can read through all the page previews) Thus, statements based on this book cannot be stated as facts, but only a Pro-ROC POV. And stating a POV as fact violates NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

SH9002's perspective

There are many different disputes about ROC, Of cause, if ROC should be or not listed in GiE is also one of them. Even if ROC could be listed in GiE, and then in which form is another dispute, so I don't know based on which dispute was this meditation called. I don't believe any meditation can solve such issue, because of the nature of Wikipedia, it is open and dynamic, some times it is something like a guerrilla warfare. It's hard to believe, any so-called permanent solution could be achieved, when any article is still open to any one to edit, then any article in Wikipedia could be used for any purpose, e.g. a cyber/media warfare served for political campaign.
If we check the history of the article about GiE, then it is clear this controversial classification of the ROC as GiE in the Wikipedia came at end of 2009, and then in May 2010 arose an open debate[2][3] in ROC about if ROC is or not a GiE, even though the most participants in that debate are all the citizens of the ROC. So the issue about ROC being listed as GiE in Wikipedia is just a part of that political farce. A blog of a supporter of TI shows how they manipulate the Wikipedia for they purpose.

Back to the this meditation, which was called by Ngchen. He want a so-called permanent solution, but I don't know what he exactly want, so it's difficult for me to clarify my perspective, because I have lots of opinions based on different issues, even if all of them only about ROC.

About so-called sovereignty, i think it totally wrong to use such wording like "legal sovereignty of a territory", the correct one should be "legal sovereign of a territory". The so-called legal or de-jure is totally depend, and depended on the legal/political system which was referred. Different legal systems are standardized by different group of people, for me it is legal, for another could be illegal, then it comes endless dispute. Sovereignty is defined by the special human activity. It's a particular group of people, they found a sovereign state, define and exercise exclusive supreme power, they put exclusive supreme power over the territory they want to occupy, and state it in their law system. Territory itself doesn't have such property. All in all, the sovereignty is a property of a state, not of any other individual person, or of loose group of people.

To the question about who should/could be the sovereign of the Taiwan island. As Ngchen said in his perspective, "Japan ... formally disposed of Taiwan in 1952 with the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco (SFPT). Oddly enough, due possibly (historians are divided) to the controversy surrounding whether the PRC or ROC was the legitimate government of China, the treaty only specified that Japan gave up the island, without specifying to whom." But Ngchen forgot or didn't want to note the fact that Japan renounced its sovereignty over all related territories (Taiwan, Sakhalin, Kurile, etc. ) in 1952 through the Treaty of San Francisco (SFPT) without specifying any particular recipient. In this case, it makes those related islands terra nullius[4] ("Note: To understand the term of terra nullius we can check another latin words like nullius filius：literally "nobody's son", A child of unknown parentage; an orphan.[5]; res nullius: (law) Something that has no owner (see: Res nullius), it's clearly terra nullius is about land not legally belonging to anyone. It doesn't matter if it is populated or not. It's about legal ownership[6], like Antarctica, its status as terra nullius is enforced by the Antarctic Treaty System, even if Antarctica is already populated by scientists from different countries. so, if any territory abandoned by its former sovereign owner, it status changes to terra nullius until next one occupies it effectively & declares his ownership explicitly/implicitly."). So, ROC got Taiwan in terms of terra nullius, like Soviet got Sakhalin, Kurile after the SFPT. Actually Soviet didn't sign the SFPT, and soviet also didn't need to sign any treaty to get a terra nullius, ROC did the same, what they only need to do is the actually and effectively occupation of a terra nullius. As source noted thus principles may justify the ROC's claim to Taiwan certainly are not applicable to the PRC. This is so-called de-jure process. PRC's claim is based on the ROC's got de-facto sovereignty over Taiwan after WW2. As source noted that "the United States and the other Allied Powers have accepted the exercise of the Chinese authority over the island" certainly this chinese authority is ROC not PRC. but this is de-facto one, but not de-jure. If PRC is the de-jure successor to the ROC, it's depend. e.g. in U.N.[7], the ROC was until 1971 still the one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. After 1971 PRC took ROC's seat as "China "in United Nations. PRC is in the legal system of ROC is definitely illegal, and vice verse. As we know ROC still exists today. As said before, in 1952 as Japan renounced Taiwan, ROC was the only sovereign state occupied that territory & claimed his sovereignty. PRC can not exercise of its authority over Taiwan until now. There is no de-jure argument supports PRC's claim.

To the question if the sovereignty over Taiwan could be in hands of locals or not. I have said above. Sovereignty is a property of the sovereign state, not of individuals or loose group of people. Between 1945-1952, the people in Taiwan were either nationals of ROC or nationals of Japan. The fact is, at that time no one declared the independent, even if maybe some of the local people at that time wanted to do, but they didn't. There was no such process, neither de-facto nor de-jure. Even in the U.S. history there was a so-called Civil War, the Confederate States of America declared the independence and fought for it. However until today there is no any law/international law notes that the sovereignty over those related territories doesn't belong to the U.S. but should be in hands of local people in (South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, etc.). Actually, any right of nationals of U.S., e.g. private property, can only be protected by the legal system of the United States. If some one don't like it, then they should be able to establish a new de-facto or de-jure sovereign state by them self.

To the question about should be ROC listed in GiE or not. As we know and source noted, "The ROC ... was until 1971 one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The ROC membership in the United Nations continued to exist through 1971 despite the fact that the ROC government lost the Chinese mainland and moved to Taiwan in 1949. The reduction of a huge area under its effective control in 1949 did not eliminate the very existence of the ROC as a sovereign state as defined by international law. In short, the ROC government has continued to exercise its sovereignty over territories under its effective control since 1912. It has never disappeared from the world as a sovereign state. ... The Republic of China is, by any standard, a political entity, recognized by 29 countries as of today. It has a defined territory, with Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu together with its population of 21 million, under its effective control ever since 1945 or earlier ... The Republic of China indeed is a sovereign state as defined by the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States of 1933. It also complies with the definition as 'state' defined by current theory of international law ...". And listing a sovereign state, even though was or is not widely recognized by all the other state entities, in GiE is not correct. If some one wants to present those controversial POV[8][9] about ROC, he can put those POVs in the articles about the Political status of Taiwan or Legal status of Taiwan. But just base on some private opinions, then listing the ROC in table of Deposed governments of current states is totally incorrect, so as discussed many times[10][11][12] in the past some related tags should be added in that section. Don't forget, such wording, "ROC is a GiE", is only used by some TI-supporters (even not all), who have the citizenship of ROC or U.S. etc., even though PRC think ROC is illegal, but PRC didn't say "ROC is a GiE". As said before adding the ROC in the article of GiE is just part of a farce relate to the political issues inside of the ROC.

To T-1000's argument, I think it is really funny to know, when some one notes in his book, "Wikipedia is a free, collaborative, encyclopedia project." or "PRC found as a state entity in 1949", and to T-1000, such sentences are talking about facts or presents POVs.
--SH9002 (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Ok, here's my attempt at a summary of the points the three of you have made above. we can discuss any errors I've made.

1. Points of Agreement
   1. Both the ROC and the PRC are 'legitimate' governments.
   2. The ROC retreated to Taiwan shortly after the end of WWII
   3. The status of Taiwan at the end of WWII was ambiguous
      • It was a historically Chinese island
      • It had been ceded to Japan a few decades earlier
      • had been abandoned by Japan (per the instrument of surrender) without specific recipient
2. Points of Debate
   1. Legal sovereignty - Taiwan was (under international law) either a territory of Japan or unclaimed territory at the time the ROC arrived, which would make the ROC (technically) a government in exile.
      • Complication over the Cairo declaration, and competing claims by the ROC and PRC that this declaration cedes Taiwan to them.
   2. Historical/cultural continuity - Taiwan was historically considered part of mainland China, and its denizens (assumedly) were primarily of Chinese ancestry, and likely contained a reasonable number of people who remembered it as a territory of mainland China, which would make the ROC (technically) a rump state.

Is that about right?

The confusion here is obviously over (a) incommensurate definitions of territorial sovereignty, and (b) ambiguities about which post-WWII China is the rightful heir to the pre-WWII China. I.e.: should territorial sovereignty be determined by cultural continuity in the populace? By norms established in international treaties? By occupancy and 'de facto' sovereignty? It's a bit like one of those cases where a couple gets divorced and then has a huge row over which one of them owns the dog.

I guess this leaves me with two questions:

1. (the obvious one) What do academic sources say on this issue? set aside the political sources, which will be divided: how much do purely scholarly sources disagree on this issue?
2. (the less obvious one) Is this only about the establishment of a wikipedia category, or are there more far reaching wikipedia issues? I realize that there are far reaching political issues outside of wikipedia, but I just want to know what this is going to affect on-project. --Ludwigs2 16:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply by Ngchen

Thank you for spelling out some questions, and the apparent points of agreement. I take issue with some of the points of agreement, and will try to clarify below.

1. Points of (apparent) agreement
   1. The ROC and PRC both exist de facto, but each considers the other illegitimate. In terms of what the rest of the world claims and believes, the vast majority of the world recognizes the PRC as the "sole legitimate government of all China," although it is also quite popular for countries to deliberately stay silent as to whether all China includes Taiwan or not. The 23 or so states that recognize the ROC instead (neither the PRC nor ROC permit dual recognition) generally consider the PRC illegitimate. In practice, both regimes exist and are quire stably entrenched and have been for some time.
   2. Yes, the ROC retreated to Taiwan shortly after WWII.
   3. The status of Taiwan at the end of WWII, and here's where it gets tricky, is/was highly disputed (the parties to the dispute actually dispute whether it was ambiguous!). It's perhaps easiest to consider each side as a color. Blue = ROC and its POV, Green = Taiwan independence POV, and Red = PRC (Communist) POV. At the end of WWII, the ROC proclaimed Taiwan Retrocession Day on October 25, 1945, when the PRC was not yet proclaimed and so did not yet exist. The claim to Taiwan was based on the Japanese Surrender which indirectly referenced the Cairo Declaration. From the Blue POV, sovereignty transferred at that point. From the Red POV, sovereignty was confirmed at that point. The Green POV holds that there was no valid transfer, since a treaty had not been formalized, and that the surrender was merely a provisional agreement. Years later, in 1952, a formal treaty (Treaty of San Francisco) was signed by Japan and a bunch of countries. But it wasn't signed by the PRC or ROC, since they weren't invited. The treaty had Japan relinquish the sovereignty over Taiwan without specifying a recipient. The Instrument of Surrender did indirectly specify a recipient (the ROC). Now, here is why the PRC can actually use the Instrument of Surrender in formulating its arguments, since it was founded after the retrocession proclamation. It considers itself the successor government to the ROC, and considers the ROC "defunct." (Question: it's very true that the PRC doesn't consider the ROC a government-in-exile. It considers the ROC regime the "so-called" ROC, and prefers to refer to that regime as the "Taiwan authorities." How does this fact change how we should edit the article?)
2. Points of debate
   1. As for points of debate, the complicated question of legal sovereignty has much bearing on how this article should read, primarily because if legal sovereignty rested with the ROC, then it would not be in exile. If it rested with the PRC or anyone else, then it would be. Green POV supporters tend to argue that the ROC "is" in exile, because if such were true, it would be delegitimized. Likewise, Blue POV supporters strongly protest such a notion for the same reason.
   2. The historical/cultural continuity is something that has not been brought up much, but yes an irredentist claim can be made on behalf of Blue and Red supporters based on such.
3. Questions
   1. Academic sources are deeply split on what entity or government "truly" holds the legal sovereignty over Taiwan, with the details and references available at legal status of Taiwan. Since the question is highly political, it's difficult to really argue whether any source can really be neutral.
   2. Yes, I agree that the dispute centers around solely whether and to what extent the ROC should be placed in this category without giving undue weight to any POV. User:T-1000 and User:SH9002, please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you all very much. Ngchen (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)