There is nothing incompatible about that. Even the outright banning of political parties is considered acceptable in certain Western democracies. While most do not ban secessionist parties, they do engage in many official actions aimed at preventing secessionists from achieving political power.
Except that sucessionists aren't successionists unless the territory is legally a part of the state in question to begin with.
Many Western countries allow successionist parties. They are civilized countries. The same can't be said for the government of the PRC.
There are scholars and customs on both sides of the issue. What you do not understand is that the territory was clearly agreed, by all parties, to be Chinese territory. Had it not been for the victory of the Chinese Communist Party in the mainland no one would even be raising the issue today because the matter of Taiwan's status would have been considered settled decades ago. All this talk about Taiwan not being Chinese territory is prompted by geopolitics. Reunification of Taiwan with China would be a major improvement in China's strategic position in the region and this would be to the detriment of the imperial interests of the United States. To maintain its control of the region the U.S. sees a need to maintain that illusion of an uncertain status.
This is simply not true. There were many statements from the governments of the victorious allies that indicated that the status of Taiwan was undetermined pending the peace treaty that was to be negotiated (which was eventually signed in 1951 and went into effect in 1952.)
Taiwan is NOT Chinese territory. No amount of rhetoric on your part can change that. Taiwan was NOT transferred to Chian following World War II. You have not shown any examples of territory changing hands between states without the benefit of a treaty that was properly signed and ratified. State practice is a basic source of international law and it is almost universally agreed by legal scholars that this holds in this case as well.
You should also know that the 'effective control' doctrine has been increasingly used by the ICJ. The PRC has not been in effective control over Taiwan EVER. Taiwan is under the control of its people. Furthermore, China KNOWS this and it KNOWS it can't win in the legal arena, which is why it opposed the notion of it going to the ICJ.
Your problem is you think that somehow being able to vote between party A and party B makes you freer or more democratic. In terms of freedom there is no real difference between Taiwan and Hong Kong. Hong Kong consistently ranks at the top in terms of economic freedom and has been ranked equivalent to Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea in civil liberties. It is only because of the limited extent of representative elections that Hong Kong is ranked below Taiwan.
Taiwan is far higher political rights and has been higher (until recently) in civil liberties. Taiwan ranks as 'Free' by Freedom House, for example, which Hong Kong ranks as 'Partly Free'. Taiwan ranks 1 (on a scale of 1-7 with 1 being best) in political rights and 2 in civil liberties. The score dropped to 2 during the administration of President Ma. Hong Kong ranks 5 and 2 respectively. While civili liberties have been similar in the rankings, Taiwan still has more rights than people from Hong Kong -- this from people FROM Hong Kong who now live in Taiwan. Taiwan also ranks higher than Hong Kong in press freedoms. Freedom House ranks Taiwan as free with a score of 24 (a score that has dropped slightly during the KMT administration) and Hong Kong as Partly free with a score of 33. And if you read through the RSF (
Reporters Without Borders) site, it is clear that Taiwan has better press freedoms than Hong Kong has.
Self-censorship happens everywhere and in Hong Kong it has been overblown by fear-mongers like yourself.
Or is poo-pooed by authoritarian apologists like yourself.
No it would not. Were the DPP to end its backing for secession I can see no reason why China would seek to restrict them from power. Hong Kong politicians are allowed to make all sorts of political statements in opposition to China. If the DPP insisted on not changing its policy on that one issue then inevitably another party would emerge to challenge the KMT.
Except that there is no record of this with the Chinese government. The fact is that Taiwan has rights under international law. We have an open, free-wheeling political process here that Hong Kong does not have. Comparing political freedom between Hong Kong and Taiwan is an utter joke. Of course Taiwan is more free. And we like it that way.
This has nothing to do with what languages a person speaks. You refuse to accept even the slightest positive information about China, but love to gobble up everything negative from the wildest and most baseless conspiracy theories to outright racism. It was nice seeing your admission earlier in the thread that you actually do have an issue with the people of China and not merely the government.
Sure it does. Because I am conversant in the language, I can read what the government puts out for the Chinese people to consume. Because I an understand the language, I can freely listen to their news reports and talk with its people. because I can understand the language, I know what is taught in their schools. Because I am conversant in its history, I have a far better understanding of what is going on there better than you do. You know, pro-China apologists have been defending China since the 1950s. They have been WRONG for decades. Pro-China apologists were wrong then... and they are wrong now...
