Anything wrong about "UN for Taiwan"?
keke
Someone said that "UN for Taiwan" is not English at all. Native
speakers may feel confused about what the slogan really means.
The background is that Taiwan is hoping to join the United Nations.
One can see lots of those slogans in Taipei City. (You may see the pic
here (the first pic): http://tamsui-taiwan.blogspot.com/)
If English is your native language, could you tell me if the slogan is
wrong, bad or lousy English? Do u have a better suggestion?
Thanks a lot.
Garrett Wollman
keke <jose...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Someone said that "UN for Taiwan" is not English at all. Native
>speakers may feel confused about what the slogan really means.
[...]
>If English is your native language, could you tell me if the slogan is
>wrong, bad or lousy English? Do u have a better suggestion?
I would be hard pressed to say that it was outright "wrong" in any
formal, grammatical manner. ("u" on the other hand, is entirely
wrong.) But it is unidiomatic -- a native English speaker would never
say it that way.
To the best of my knowledge, only fully independent states are members
of the U.N. at this point (although it was not always true).
Non-state countries are able to gain non-voting "observer" status
there (as, for example, the Palestinian Authority has), but I don't
think that this is what the Taiwanese activists want.
So the slogan might be "U.N. membership for Taiwan", but this is a
rather awkward way of saying "Independence for Taiwan". If Taiwan
were actually fighting for independence, one might shorten that to
"Free Taiwan", but of course Taiwan's deliberately ambiguous status
means that it already is "free" so long as it does not proclaim itself
"independent". (Of course, if it did do so, it would not remain free
or independent for more than a few hours.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
tony cooper
It's a slogan. Slogans are exempt from the rules of grammar. They
are constructed to be catchy, printable on signs and tee shirts,
easily recognizable, and distinctive. There is no value of "good" or
"bad" in reference to proper English for slogans.
While you might not call it a slogan, a famous slogan-like sign in the
US is:
http://anabundanceoflisa.typepad.com/lisainnewyork/images/i_love_new_york.jpeg
It's not proper English, but everyone knows what it's all about.
That's what the people behind "UN for Taiwan" are trying to
accomplish.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Ray O'Hara
"keke" <jose...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192506080.0...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Taiwan for the U.N. would be a better slogan.
The one you have sounds like a newspaper headline.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:41:20 -0000, keke <jose.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Could anyone help?
>
> >Someone said that "UN for Taiwan" is not English at all. Native
> >speakers may feel confused about what the slogan really means.
>
> >The background is that Taiwan is hoping to join the United Nations.
> >One can see lots of those slogans in Taipei City. (You may see the pic
> >here (the first pic):http://tamsui-taiwan.blogspot.com/)
>
> >If English is your native language, could you tell me if the slogan is
> >wrong, bad or lousy English? Do u have a better suggestion?
>
> It's a slogan. Slogans are exempt from the rules of grammar. They
> are constructed to be catchy, printable on signs and tee shirts,
> easily recognizable, and distinctive. There is no value of "good" or
> "bad" in reference to proper English for slogans.
>
> While you might not call it a slogan, a famous slogan-like sign in the
>
> It's not proper English, but everyone knows what it's all about.
> That's what the people behind "UN for Taiwan" are trying to
> accomplish.
As slogans go, I'd prefer "Taiwan in the UN".
--
Jerry Friedman
nanc...@verizon.net
> Could anyone help?
>
> Someone said that "UN for Taiwan" is not English at all. Native
> speakers may feel confused about what the slogan really means.
I definitely would. In general, the phrase "A for B" is interpreted to
mean that A supports B. It's often used in a context where you
wouldn't expect A to be supporting B -- for example, "Jews for Jesus"
or "Republicans for Kennedy".
As others have said, "Taiwan in the U.N." would be much more readily
understood.
tony cooper
That sounds like a statement of fact. A tee shirt with that slogan
would be a misstatement rather than a statement of what is hoped to
be. Not that slogans need to be factually accurate.
tony cooper
It wouldn't confuse you to see a placard making a statement that
something has happened that hasn't happened?
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:13:02 -0700, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com"
If you know the facts (as the people concerned in Taiwan do), you can
tell it means "[We want] Taiwan in the UN," not "Taiwan [is in] the
UN." Cf. "US out of El Salvador!" and the like.
--
Jerry Friedman
Father Ignatius
> If you know the facts (as the people concerned in Taiwan
> do), you can tell it means "[We want] Taiwan in the UN,"
One wonders why. What practical difference can being in the UN make to
Taiwan's lot?
tony cooper
The slogan that has always amused me is "Up the Ra!". The usage of
"up", in this context, does not seem to have universal meaning.
Mark Brader
>> As others have said, "Taiwan in the U.N." would be much more readily
>> understood.
Yes indeed.
Tony Cooper:
> It wouldn't confuse you to see a placard making a statement that
> something has happened that hasn't happened?
I don't know why you find this confusing. It'd be a statement of
a demand, not a claim of established fact. If you see a protest
sign reading "Smith out of prison!" do you take it as a statement
of fact that Smith is out of prison?
--
Mark Brader | "This is just the result of someone sitting down before
Toronto | a computer and carefully removing his head first.
m...@vex.net | It's a phenomenon which is becoming more and more common."
| -- Leonard Wibberley
tony cooper
>Nancy G.:
>>> As others have said, "Taiwan in the U.N." would be much more readily
>>> understood.
>
>Yes indeed.
>
>Tony Cooper:
>> It wouldn't confuse you to see a placard making a statement that
>> something has happened that hasn't happened?
>
>I don't know why you find this confusing. It'd be a statement of
>a demand, not a claim of established fact.
I don't find it confusing. It was NancyG who thinks that slogans can
be confusing if not worded to say what is factual.
I don't find "UN for Taiwan" confusing, either. It's also a
"statement of demand".
A group that supports something, or supports a movement against
something, establishes a slogan and that slogan is associated with
their position. With enough people shouting and waving signs, the
information on the sign is relatively unimportant. The sign could
read "UN + Taiwan" or "UN NOW" and the meaning would be established by
the actions of the group.
More essential than the actual wording is the ability to scrawl the
words in large letters on a piece of cardboard and hold the cardboard
aloft when the cameras come, so short slogans are better.
If the slogan is against something the US is doing, blood dripping
from the letters, dollar signs, caricatures of the US President or
Uncle Sam, and flammability are important.
Percival P. Cassidy
Got my UN for Taiwan" (at least, that is the intent of the graphic)
shirt on Saturday at a gathering of Taiwanese former co-workers. Of
course it makes a difference: the current Taiwanese government -- and
the majority of the population -- want Taiwan be treated as a real
nation, not merely as a recalcitrant province of the PRC, which keeps
threatening to attack if Taiwan declares independence.
Perce
nanc...@verizon.net
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:42:55 -0000, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> >Nancy G.:
> >>> As others have said, "Taiwan in the U.N." would be much more readily
> >>> understood.
>
> >Yes indeed.
>
> >Tony Cooper:
> >> It wouldn't confuse you to see a placard making a statement that
> >> something has happened that hasn't happened?
>
> >I don't know why you find this confusing. It'd be a statement of
> >a demand, not a claim of established fact.
>
> I don't find it confusing. It was NancyG who thinks that slogans can
> be confusing if not worded to say what is factual.
Actually, no. I don't think that, and I didn't say that. I said that
the specific phrase "UN for Taiwan" could be confusing, and that's all
I meant. The possible confusion I was referring to is because the word
"for" can mean "supports", and has nothing to do with whether the
whole phrase is factual or not.
(Note that the phrase I suggested in its place, "Taiwan in the UN", is
not at all factual, and yet I think it's much less confusing.)
Father Ignatius
Yeah, I get that Taiwan wants to be treated as a real nation. I don't get
what practical difference being a member of the UN will make (to that, or
anything else).
Frances Kemmish
I suppose I'm remembering this wrong, but wasn't what we now call Taiwan
one of the original members of the Security Council.
Fran
tony cooper
The flap over the wording of the slogan (not the movement behind the
slogan) evidently started over the fact that the Taiwanese Post Office
is stamping mail with the slogan.
The writer of http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/ makes some good
points about not applying standard rules of grammar or syntax to
slogans. The cite is a bit hard to follow because some characters are
represented by "?" marks.
I'll stand by my statement that the phrasing is not confusing because
the people involved know exactly what the issue is. The issue was at
full bloom before the slogan.
Garrett Wollman
Frances Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
>I suppose I'm remembering this wrong, but wasn't what we now call Taiwan
>one of the original members of the Security Council.
In practice, yes, but not officially. "China" has always been a
permanent member of the Council. Both the PRC and the ROC claim to be
the legitimate government of "China". In the 1970s, it was decided
that the U.N. ought to recognize the "facts on the ground", to wit,
that the Communists controlled the vast majority of "China" and were
not, after more than a decade, going to be dislodged by the rump
Nationalist government on Taipei. It has long been the policy of the
Communists that the PRC will not have diplomatic relations with any
nation that maintains diplomatic relations with the ROC, and in recent
years they have used their growing economic power to force most of the
ROC's remaining adherents to switch their allegiance.
Many people on Taiwan (although from the stories I read it's not clear
whether they are actually a majority) believe that Taiwan ought to
relinquish its claim to "China" and seek recognition of its (currently
/de facto/) independence. If the government openly pursued such a
policy, the likelihood is that Taiwan would be swiftly conquered by
the invading PLA, as the security guarantees the U.S. and others have
given to Taiwan are conditional on it not seeking such recognition.
Roland Hutchinson
Ah, but it has happened. Just not lately. The R.O.C. was a UN member (and
indeed, a Security Council member) from the founding of the UN until 1971.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
mb
...
> The flap over the wording of the slogan (not the movement behind the
> slogan) evidently started over the fact that the Taiwanese Post Office
> is stamping mail with the slogan.
> I'll stand by my statement that the phrasing is not confusing because
> the people involved know exactly what the issue is. The issue was at
> full bloom before the slogan.
The ones already involved do, but shouldn't a well-crafted slogan
tailored to the as yet uninvolved?
The unaware are liable to understand (as I did on a first reading)
that UN support had shifted, was shifting or was desired to be
shifting to Taiwan (or whatever its latest name) with a new big war in
the offing. Instead of what probably is a dream of parallel membership
(= TW in the UN)
tony cooper
>On Oct 16, 8:33 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>...
>> The flap over the wording of the slogan (not the movement behind the
>> slogan) evidently started over the fact that the Taiwanese Post Office
>> is stamping mail with the slogan.
>...
>> I'll stand by my statement that the phrasing is not confusing because
>> the people involved know exactly what the issue is. The issue was at
>> full bloom before the slogan.
>
>The ones already involved do, but shouldn't a well-crafted slogan
>tailored to the as yet uninvolved?
Depends. If it's a slogan for dish detergent, yes. If it's a
well-known political issue within a country, not necessarily.
John O'Flaherty
"For" has other meanings: food for starving children. UN for Taiwan.
So it's fine as English. The phrase may take a second or two to
understand on first view, but that's alright for a slogan- all
subsequent uses will be understood instantly by those to whom it
matters.
--
John
Mark Brader
>> I definitely would. In general, the phrase "A for B" is interpreted to
>> mean that A supports B. It's often used in a context where you
>> wouldn't expect A to be supporting B -- for example, "Jews for Jesus"
>> or "Republicans for Kennedy".
>>
>> As others have said, "Taiwan in the U.N." would be much more readily
>> understood.
John O'Flaherty writes:
> "For" has other meanings:
Yes.
> food for starving children.
Yes.
> UN for Taiwan.
No, that's not one of them.
> So it's fine as English.
No it isn't. It's broken English.
The phrase they wanted is "UN membership for Taiwan".
> The phrase may take a second or two to understand on first view, but
> that's alright for a slogan...
Perhaps, if used in a saturation advertising campaign.
--
Mark Brader I "need to know" *everything*! How else
Toronto can I judge whether I need to know it?
m...@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER
tony cooper
>The phrase they wanted is "UN membership for Taiwan".
>
Come the revolution, remind me not to nominate you for Slogan Czar.
John O'Flaherty
>Nancy G.:
>>> I definitely would. In general, the phrase "A for B" is interpreted to
>>> mean that A supports B. It's often used in a context where you
>>> wouldn't expect A to be supporting B -- for example, "Jews for Jesus"
>>> or "Republicans for Kennedy".
>>>
>>> As others have said, "Taiwan in the U.N." would be much more readily
>>> understood.
>
>John O'Flaherty writes:
>> "For" has other meanings:
>
>Yes.
>
>> food for starving children.
>
>Yes.
>
>> UN for Taiwan.
>
>No, that's not one of them.
Yes, it is. It is so used.
>> So it's fine as English.
>
>No it isn't. It's broken English.
No, it's not broken. I read it and understand it as it was intended.
If you can't wrap your mind around it, that's your limitation.
>The phrase they wanted is "UN membership for Taiwan".
Evidently, that's not the one they wanted. Space on placards is
limited, and short chants are easier to sustain without the
desynchronization that makes demonstrators start looking uncertainly
at each other, their resolve crumbling.
>> The phrase may take a second or two to understand on first view, but
>> that's alright for a slogan...
>
>Perhaps, if used in a saturation advertising campaign.
--
John
CDB
> John O'Flaherty writes:
>> "For" has other meanings:
>> UN for Taiwan.
> No, that's not one of them.
>
>> So it's fine as English.
>
> No it isn't. It's broken English.
>
> The phrase they wanted is "UN membership for Taiwan".
Slogans are, like poetry, licensed to break rules; every word should
count. UN (membership for) Taiwan; UN (supports) Taiwan; UN (is the
choice of) Taiwan; UN (is the destination of) Taiwan. Ambiguity good,
prolixity bad.
[...]
Peacenik
"Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
news:13hdad4...@corp.supernews.com...
> Nancy G.:
>>> I definitely would. In general, the phrase "A for B" is interpreted to
>>> mean that A supports B. It's often used in a context where you
>>> wouldn't expect A to be supporting B -- for example, "Jews for Jesus"
>>> or "Republicans for Kennedy".
>>>
>>> As others have said, "Taiwan in the U.N." would be much more readily
>>> understood.
I live in Taiwan and see this slogan on a daily basis. The intended message
is to urge the people to vote "yes" in an upcoming referendum for Taiwan to
apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan".
This being said, the slogan, while grammatical, makes no sense given the
intended message. If I didn't know better, I would interpret it as "The UN
supports Taiwan".
Now that's not all: also associated with this campaign are the words "Peace
forever". While there's nothing wrong with this grammatically (given that
it's a slogan), Taiwan independence would bring war. Taiwan is currently in
a state of peace and has been for decades. Maintaining the status quo would
be more in line with "peace forever".
Another issue is the logo used in the campaign: the earth in the hand of a
baseball pitcher, notably that of Wang Chien-Ming - a Taiwan-born pitcher
for the NY Yankees. First, how many of the 190+ UN member states are
baseball-playing nations? Second, who outside of Taiwan and New York City
has even heard of Wang Chien-Ming? Obviously the logo is aimed at the people
of Taiwan, and not at people outside Taiwan.
Mark Brader
>>> "For" has other meanings:
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> food for starving children.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> UN for Taiwan.
>>
>> No, that's not one of them.
>
> Yes, it is. It is so used.
Please cite such a usage other than this slogan, or dictionary support.
>>> So it's fine as English.
>>
>> No it isn't. It's broken English.
>
> No, it's not broken. I read it and understand it as it was intended.
That's not evidence that it's not broken.
>> The phrase they wanted is "UN membership for Taiwan".
>
> Evidently, that's not the one they wanted. Space on placards is
> limited, and short chants are easier to sustain ...
There is that.
--
Mark Brader "I like to think of [this] as self-explanatory."
Toronto "I hope *I* think of [it] that way."
m...@vex.net -- Donald Westlake: "Trust Me On This"
Roland Hutchinson
> Another issue is the logo used in the campaign: the earth in the hand of a
> baseball pitcher, notably that of Wang Chien-Ming - a Taiwan-born pitcher
> for the NY Yankees. First, how many of the 190+ UN member states are
> baseball-playing nations?
Maybe half a dozen? Maybe as many as a dozen? Anyone got a count?
> Second, who outside of Taiwan and New York City
> has even heard of Wang Chien-Ming?
Pretty much everyone in the US (not just New York) who follows baseball even
slightly will have heard of him. So you might do better to say "outside of
Taiwan and the USA".
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Peacenik wrote:
>
>> Another issue is the logo used in the campaign: the earth in the
>> hand of a baseball pitcher, notably that of Wang Chien-Ming - a
>> Taiwan-born pitcher for the NY Yankees. First, how many of the 190+
>> UN member states are baseball-playing nations?
>
> Maybe half a dozen? Maybe as many as a dozen? Anyone got a count?
You'd have to give me a definition first. The IBAF lists 112 member
countries, but that doesn't say anything about the degree to which the
game is played in them. Eighteen nations appear to have participated
in the last Baseball World Cup, but just glancing at the list, it's
missing such countries as Mexico and the Dominican Republic, while
including some (e.g., Sweden, South Africa) that I wouldn't count as
"baseball-playing nations").
The Little League World Series this year appears to have had teams
from 36 nations competing, not counting the "Transatlantic" division,
which appears to be American expats in Europe and the Middle East, but
including some overseas territories (e.g., Puerto Rico, Netherlands
Antilles) as separate entities.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If only some crazy scientist
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |somewhere would develop a device
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that would allow us to change the
|channel on our televisions......
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | --"lazarus"
(650)857-7572
Don Aitken
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Peacenik wrote:
>
>> Another issue is the logo used in the campaign: the earth in the hand of a
>> baseball pitcher, notably that of Wang Chien-Ming - a Taiwan-born pitcher
>> for the NY Yankees. First, how many of the 190+ UN member states are
>> baseball-playing nations?
>
>Maybe half a dozen? Maybe as many as a dozen? Anyone got a count?
>
They managed to find sixteen for last year's "World Baseball Classic",
in which Japan beat Cuba in the final. ICTIUBITL, but the other ones I
can remember were China, Taiwan, South Korea, Puerto Rica, Venuzuela,
Dominican Republic, Panama, Netherlands, Italy, South Africa and
Australia. Oh, and the USA (eliminated at the semi-final stage). The
British team just did rather well in a European competition, so watch
out for us!
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
John O'Flaherty
>John O'Flaherty and I (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>>> "For" has other meanings:
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> food for starving children.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> UN for Taiwan.
>>>
>>> No, that's not one of them.
>>
>> Yes, it is. It is so used.
>
>Please cite such a usage other than this slogan, or dictionary support.
I have no citation; but I understood it as it was intended.
>>>> So it's fine as English.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. It's broken English.
>>
>> No, it's not broken. I read it and understand it as it was intended.
>
>That's not evidence that it's not broken.
I think it is, for some values of "broken" - it conveyed something to
me concisely, which made it functional. Of course, you can define
"broken" as other than "not functional". For example, if a book
presented such a usage as prose, I'd consider it broken in that
setting.
>>> The phrase they wanted is "UN membership for Taiwan".
>>
>> Evidently, that's not the one they wanted. Space on placards is
>> limited, and short chants are easier to sustain ...
>
>There is that.
--
John
Ray O'Hara
"Father Ignatius" <FatherI...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> wrote in message
news:KeidnSYCd92tTIna...@saix.net...
It might make China think before invading it.
At present China views Taiwan as a wayward province.
Ray O'Hara
"Garrett Wollman" <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote in message
news:ff43sg$20t0$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
> In article <5nlccjF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Frances Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >I suppose I'm remembering this wrong, but wasn't what we now call Taiwan
> >one of the original members of the Security Council.
>
> In practice, yes, but not officially. "China" has always been a
> permanent member of the Council. Both the PRC and the ROC claim to be
> the legitimate government of "China". In the 1970s, it was decided
> that the U.N. ought to recognize the "facts on the ground", to wit,
> that the Communists controlled the vast majority of "China" and were
> not, after more than a decade, going to be dislodged by the rump
> Nationalist government on Taipei. It has long been the policy of the
> Communists that the PRC will not have diplomatic relations with any
> nation that maintains diplomatic relations with the ROC, and in recent
> years they have used their growing economic power to force most of the
> ROC's remaining adherents to switch their allegiance.
>
> Many people on Taiwan (although from the stories I read it's not clear
> whether they are actually a majority) believe that Taiwan ought to
> relinquish its claim to "China" and seek recognition of its (currently
> /de facto/) independence. If the government openly pursued such a
> policy, the likelihood is that Taiwan would be swiftly conquered by
> the invading PLA, as the security guarantees the U.S. and others have
> given to Taiwan are conditional on it not seeking such recognition.
>
China lacks the capability to invade Taiwan and won't have it for the
forseeable future.
China may have "the worlds largest army" but most of it is unreliable
militia and the PLAN lacks any real amphibious capability.
Father Ignatius
news:6cWdnWYpQMCQn4ba...@rcn.net...
>
> "Father Ignatius" <FatherI...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> wrote in message
> news:KeidnSYCd92tTIna...@saix.net...
>> What practical difference can being in the UN make to
>> Taiwan's lot?
> It might make China think before invading it.
That, I don't get. The UN couldn't prevent Iraq from invading Kuwait, or
the US [alliance] from invading Iraq, and so forth. That's a gossamer
tendril of hope, at best, that seems incommensurate with the importance
being accorded the issue.
And China has been mulling invasion for upwards of half a century, so I
reckon they have the implications worked through by now.
> At present China views Taiwan as a wayward province.
That, I get.
Father Ignatius
"Garrett Wollman" <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote in message
news:ff43sg$20t0$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
> Many people on Taiwan (although from the stories I read it's not clear
> whether they are actually a majority) believe that Taiwan ought to
> relinquish its claim to "China" and seek recognition of its (currently
> /de facto/) independence. If the government openly pursued such a
> policy, the likelihood is that Taiwan would be swiftly conquered by
> the invading PLA, as the security guarantees the U.S. and others have
> given to Taiwan are conditional on it not seeking such recognition.
What is the motivation for this? How does it serve US interests? Was it an
outcome of ping-pong diplomacy?
Ray O'Hara
> "Ray O'Hara" <mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:6cWdnWYpQMCQn4ba...@rcn.net...
> >
> > "Father Ignatius" <FatherI...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:KeidnSYCd92tTIna...@saix.net...
>
> >> What practical difference can being in the UN make to
> >> Taiwan's lot?
>
> > It might make China think before invading it.
>
> That, I don't get. The UN couldn't prevent Iraq from invading Kuwait, or
> the US [alliance] from invading Iraq, and so forth. That's a gossamer
> tendril of hope, at best, that seems incommensurate with the importance
> being accorded the issue.
>
The U.N made Saddam's take over of Kuwait very short lived.
ever...@gmail.com
> "Father Ignatius" <FatherIgnat...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> wrote in message
>
> news:B5CdnWlLWf08mIba...@saix.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >news:6cWdnWYpQMCQn4ba...@rcn.net...
>
> > > "Father Ignatius" <FatherIgnat...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> wrote in message
> > >news:KeidnSYCd92tTIna...@saix.net...
>
> > >> What practical difference can being in the UN make to
> > >>Taiwan'slot?
>
> > > It might make China think before invading it.
>
> > That, I don't get. The UN couldn't prevent Iraq from invading Kuwait, or
> > the US [alliance] from invading Iraq, and so forth. That's a gossamer
> > tendril of hope, at best, that seems incommensurate with the importance
> > being accorded the issue.
>
> The U.N made Saddam's take over of Kuwait very short lived.
>
>
>
> > And China has been mulling invasion for upwards of half a century, so I
> > reckon they have the implications worked through by now.
>
>
> > That, I get.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
UN for Taiwan=
United Nation For Taiwan=
Get the nation united for taiwan
Easy to manipulate! Be careful, some body will remove the 's', and get
another slogan. It will make yours ass hole joke.
Mike Lyle
I think it was a typical piece of US foreign-policy auto-podal
marksmanship based on the hysterical anti-communism they espoused during
the fifties and sixties, and now they're lumbered with it. Which was, I
think, good news for Taiwan, but quite incidentally.
--
Mike.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Percival P. Cassidy
>>> Many people on Taiwan (although from the stories I read it's not
>>> clear whether they are actually a majority) believe that Taiwan
>>> ought to relinquish its claim to "China" and seek recognition of its
>>> (currently /de facto/) independence. If the government openly
>>> pursued such a policy, the likelihood is that Taiwan would be
>>> swiftly conquered by the invading PLA, as the security guarantees
>>> the U.S. and others have given to Taiwan are conditional on it not
>>> seeking such recognition.
>> What is the motivation for this? How does it serve US interests?
>> Was it an outcome of ping-pong diplomacy?
> I think it was a typical piece of US foreign-policy auto-podal
> marksmanship based on the hysterical anti-communism they espoused during
> the fifties and sixties, and now they're lumbered with it. Which was, I
> think, good news for Taiwan, but quite incidentally.
The relationship between the US and Taiwan is farcical. Neither has
official diplomatic relations with the other, but there are face-saving
work-arounds: Taiwan has quasi-consulates in the US under the name
"Coordinating Council for North American Affairs"; the US has
quasi-consulates in Taiwan under the name "American Institute in Taiwan."
When I applied for my immigrant visa for the US, I had an interview at
AIT in Taipei in the morning and was told to come back at 3pm, when I
received a visa that allegedly was issued in Hong Kong.
Our son was born in Taiwan, but his original US passport (my wife is a
US citizen) said he was born in China. His current one says he was born
in Taiwan.
Perce