關於 state vs status ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

(✪‿✪)ノ排程中晝發文 #國際法法理建國 Q&A

Q242: 我想請問一下基進黨提的公民民族（civic nationalism）與法理建國派倡議的「住民自決」一樣嗎？我以為公民民族主義是一群理念相同、互相認同的人們想形成國家的依據之一，那這個概念的意義是什麼？還是說公民民族的概念從來就跟state building 無關？

Q242:

#台澎小堅果社群內問答 #聖峰的回答

不一樣。

法理建國派所主張的「住民自決」中的「住民」，是以「在日治時期居住於日本殖民地台澎，具有日本國國籍」的客觀法律上身分為基礎劃定的對象範圍。

而基進黨所提出的公民民族概念（之前他們論述時會使用「公民『國』族」這個說法），必須建構在「公民」這個概念之上，但「公民」這個概念基本上必須在國家存在的情況下才能發揮作用。
「公民民族」的觀點，基本上就是「國民主權」的概念，所以是國家成立之後才有實質意義。

「公民民族」與法理建國派所主張的「住民」是不一樣的概念。

「公民民族」不是國際法的詞彙，是政治論述。這個概念無法解決國際法層級的問題。

所謂的 state-building 也不是「建立』國家，而是「塑造／打造」國家。

法理建國派談的「建國」指的是建立國家法人格 (statehood)，取得主權國家 (sovereign state) 的國際法上法律地位 (legal status)

你說的公民民族主義主張的「建國」指的是「國家內涵的塑造」，這個其實是國家建立之後才有辦法進行的事情。主張公民民族的人提出的論述全都是「國家正常化」的範疇的原因。

台澎不需要國家正常化，因為中華民國政權要代表的中國不是台澎人的國家。沒有國家可以正常化。
台澎領土主權歸屬未定是需要透過國際法層級完成建國的議題。

#終止代管自決建國

延伸閱讀

聖峰談「國族打造」 https://www.facebook.com/186380728672457/posts/832095954100928/?d=n

內部自決權 vs 外部自決權、民族自決權 vs 住民自決權、自決權的行使 https://wp.me/pd1HGm-5S

Q&A45:民族自決/住民自決差別？https://www.facebook.com/258660130833607/posts/4135331166499798/?d=n

Q&A26:住民自決權與國民主權的差別？
https://www.facebook.com/258660130833607/posts/4082327711800144/?d=n

直播第五集 https://youtu.be/dOAJeY0dcO0

Q&A56:台灣透過1996年直選總統建國了嗎？https://www.facebook.com/100047156705396/posts/268919438023278/?d=n

華台不分的現象、國家正常化的問題 https://wp.me/pd1HGm-m3

同盟國是什麼？同盟國與ROC政權之間的關係？ https://wp.me/pd1HGm-kX

國際社會對軍事佔領的規範、中華民國政權身為盟佔代管者的可與不可、八二三炮戰的真相 https://wp.me/pd1HGm-na

（關鍵字搜尋🔍國際法法理建國，敬請期待明天的問與答）

希望大家可以看的資訊❣️

🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻［英語繁中字］為什麼台灣在國際上無法加入WHO？原因與解決方法：https://youtu.be/lss2OdMhi90
👉🏻部落格 https://journeyshin.wordpress.com
👉🏻聖峰演講影片Youtube ：
https://youtu.be/-a_qHXh_URM
👉🏻聖峰演講實錄Podcast：
https://anchor.fm/rotpnetwork-shin-hong-ng/episodes/2019-03-29-ep8kln
👉🏻Apple podcast：https://reurl.cc/a5qZjQ
👉🏻 《台澎法理建國指南》電子書：
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yFXTxYOtkqrwEyV11w0kQyKujxEZsU8N/view?usp=sharing
👉🏻《台澎主權的未來請交給台澎人民決定》漫畫：
http://www.rotpnetwork.tw/TPSovDBYTP.php?LAN=TW

【#TheDiplomat: 沈旭暉隨緣家書英文版🇭🇰】很久沒有向國際關係評論網 The Diplomat 供稿，但國際線十分重要，不應放棄。這次他們希望分享23條、國安法、反恐法風雨欲來的「新香港」前瞻，願國際社會能多了解快將出現的危機：

While the world is preoccupied with a fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been tightening its political grip on all aspects of Hong Kong’s civil society. Rumor has it that Beijing will push through legislating national security laws under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law by unconventional means, such as massively disqualifying pro-democratic legislators or even directly applying a national law, widely argued as a major step to destroy the rights and freedom of Hong Kongers, and bring Chinese authoritarianism to Hong Kong.

After the 2019 protests, the administration of Carrie Lam, who theoretically is still leading the special administrative region of China, has little political capital at stake, with its legitimacy reaching rock bottom. The pro-government camp has dwindling prospects for the city’s upcoming Legislative Council election. The government‘s ”nothing to lose“ mentality is apparent from its recent blatant reinterpretation of the Basic Law’s Article 22 (another article that limits the influence of China’s offices in Hong Kong’s internal affairs). The debate is nothing new, but the pressure this time is quite different.

This article highlights the different strategies Beijing could adopt to enact Article 23 insidiously or under disguise to avoid backlash from the international community, while continuing to reap benefits from the city’s globally recognized special status. This seems to be part of Beijing’s brinkmanship to bring Hong Kong protesters and their supporters to their knees and move the city closer to authoritarianism. To counter these moves, Hong Kongers must define the boundaries beyond which Hong Kong falls into authoritarian rule and make a case as to why the city’s downfall is detrimental to the international community‘s interest.

The Long-Term Controversy Over National Security Laws

Back in 2003, the implementation of Article 23 was thwarted by the moderate pro-establishment politician James Tien. In face of overwhelming public disapproval of the law, he withdrew support and votes from his Liberal Party. However, 17 years later, it is hard to imagine Beijing following the old legislative playbook: start with a public consultation, followed by public discourse and political debate, and end with the majority rule. This playbook only works in peaceful societies ruled by a trustworthy government with integrity.

The aftermath of 2003, as well as the 2019 protests, should have taught Beijing and the Hong Kong government a lesson: pushing through national security legislation in a flawed parliament controlled by the minority pro-government camp would inevitably set off another full city-scale protest — and undoubtedly more fierce and focused this time. Given the current government’s numerous displays of dishonesty, it is conceivable that they will embark on a less-traveled path to implement Article 23.

Strategy One: “Anti-Terrorism”

In principle, one possible strategy could be to directly enact Chinese national law across Hong Kong, which can be achieved by declaring a state of emergency in the city. However, this is risky business as it would tarnish the integrity of “one country two systems” and subsequently Hong Kong’s international standing. Beijing, a risk-averse regime, is also unwilling to see Hong Kong’s status as a middleman for laundering money disappear into thin air.

Instead, Beijing could be concocting a narrative that would see Chinese national law applied to Hong Kong while not damaging Hong Kong’s international standing and Beijing’s own interests. The key word in this script is “anti-terrorism.” As early as 2014, pro-Beijing scholars have been claiming the emergence of “local terrorist ideology” on Hong Kong soil. Since the anti-extradition bill protests last year, government rhetoric frequently described the protests, which caused no deaths at all in the entire year, with phrases like “inclination to terrorist ideology.” That was a signal to the world that Hong Kong’s internal conflicts had ballooned into a national security issue. This gives the government the legitimacy to justify the implementation of Chinese national laws across the highly autonomous region to counter terrorism. The Chinese government knows that if it can persuade the world that terrorism exists in Hong Kong, and that it is as severe as the terror threat facing many other nations today, the international community will be less critical of Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong. Enacting Chinese laws directly is a convenient path that will save Beijing from having to tackle Hong Kong’s internal conflicts, basically turning the Hong Kong issue into a nonissue.

Strategy Two: Stacking the Legislature by Disqualifying Candidates

An even bolder strategy was probably foretold by a recent incident where the Hong Kong government and Beijing’s agencies for Hong Kong affairs (HKMAO and the Liaison Office) jointly criticized lawmaker Dennis Kwok for filibustering, framing it as “misconduct in public office” and “violating his oath.” It is incomprehensible to claim that filibustering goes against a lawmaker’s main duty; rather, it is common understanding that legislative work includes debating the law and representing public opinion against unreasonable laws. In a parliament controlled by the minority, pro-democratic members representing the majority of Hong Kongers are forced to express their objections using means like filibustering. Wouldn’t a lack of different political opinions turn the legislative branch into a rubber-stamp institution?

The above allegation has set a dangerous precedent for twisting the logic behind a certain provision in the Basic Law to target opposing lawmakers. In other words, to fulfill Beijing’s interpretation of the principal requirement for holding public office in Hong Kong, one could be required to take a meticulously legalistic approach to uphold the Basic Law down to its every single wording. A public official, by this new definition, not only needs to support “one country, two systems” or object Hong Kong independence, but also must abide by every single provision in the Basic Law. Worst of all, based on the previous cases, whether an official’s words or actions oversteps a provision is up to Beijing’s interpretation of his/her “intent.”

If this approach is applied, in the next election, there might be additional official questions for screening candidates like the following: “The Basic Law states that the enactment of Article 23 is a constitutional duty. Failing to support Article 23 legislation violates the Basic Law. Do you support it?” This question would suffice to disqualify even moderate or even pro-establishment candidates like James Tien. Even if any pro-democratic candidates were elected, once Article 23 re-enters the legislative process, they could risk ouster by raising objections.

Despite the absurdity of this tactic, the Chinese regime may just be tempted enough if such a strategy could resolve two of China’s current nuisances — voices of dissent in the Legislative Council and the previous failure to implement Article 23.

Strategy Three: The “Boiling Frog Effect”

Article 23 is not yet implemented, but the dystopian world that the protesters pictured in 2003 is already becoming reality. Regular citizens have been persecuted for “sedition” for sharing their views on social media or participating in legal protests; workers face retaliation for taking part in strikes; corporations are pressured to publicly side with the government’s stance; employees who have the “wrong” political views are fired; schools have been closely monitored for teaching material; protest-supporting fundraisers were framed for money laundering; a retweet or like may lead to persecution, under a colonial-era law. Only now have Hong Kongers woken up to their new reality — although the Basic Law technically protects citizens’ rights to speak, rally, march, demonstrate, and go on strike, the government could enfeeble civil rights by bending antiquated laws and legal provisions. The frequent abuse of law enforcement power on a small scale, such as improper arrests and police violence, is desensitizing the public and the international community. In a few years, Hong Kong will become unrecognizable. This is indeed a clever play on Beijing’s part to slowly strip away Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedom, without causing much international attention.

Counter-Strategies Against Beijing’s Brinkmanship

Beijing’s overarching goal is to hollow out Hong Kong but, at the same time, avoid major backlash from the international community, which could spell the end of the privileged global status of Hong Kong not granted to other Chinese cities. Beijing also aims at preventing single incidents that could cascade down into mass protests as seen in 2003, 2014, and 2019; and eliminating any resistance forces from within Hong Kong’s legislature. The tactics outlined above are typical in a game of brinkmanship.

In response, Hong Kongers in Hong Kong and on the so-called “international frontline” must know their strengths and bargaining chips on this negotiating table with Beijing.

Unlike Xinjiang and Tibet, Hong Kong is a city with transparency and free flow of information. Hong Kongers need to make a case to the world that the protests are not acts of terrorism. Some suggestions include comparing the Hong Kong protests to similar struggles in 20 or so other counties in the world at the present time, none of which were classified as terrorism; collecting a large amount of concrete evidence of the disproportionate use of force by the Hong Kong police; and showing how enacting Chinese national laws in Hong Kong will end the city’s autonomy and spell disaster for international community‘s interests.

The Legislative Council is the institution that can counteract Beijing’s “boiling frog” strategy and to keep Hong Kongers’ hope alive in the system. Those who plan to run for legislative office must be prepared to be disqualified from running. If only individuals are banned, there need to be alternative candidates as back-up plans. However, if and when the disqualification process is applied broadly to entire camps of candidates (for example, all who object to Article 23), the pro-democracy camp must make a strong case to the Hong Kong and global public that this is the endgame for Hong Kong democracy. Then the incumbent popularly elected legislators will hold the internationally recognized mandate from the public and serve as the last resistance.

These recommendations delineates how the slogan “if we burn, you burn with us,” often seen in the protests, may play out in the game of international relations. If the national security laws are “passed” by a legislature that is jury-rigged in this manner, or if related national laws are directly implemented in Hong Kong, Hong Kongers should signal clearly to the world that it goes way beyond the promised “one country, two systems.” Crossing this red line by Beijing should be seen by the world as a blunt violation of its promised autonomy to Hong Kongers. At that time, if the international community led by the United States and the United Kingdom decided to revoke the “non-sovereignty entity” status of Hong Kong and regard the SAR as an ordinary Chinese city, it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Dr. Simon Shen is the Founding Chairman of GLOs (Glocal Learning Offices), an international relations start-up company. He also serves as an adjunct associate professor in the University of Hong Kong, Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associate director of the Master of Global Political Economy Programme of the CUHK. The author acknowledges Jean Lin, Coco Ho, Chris Wong, Michelle King, and Alex Yap for their assistance in this piece.

▶️ 高度自治 vs 全面管治
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwt8wZl8jHQ

【台灣防疫成效 #國際政要 都肯定👍👍👍】

第二波移入疫情強勢回流 🌀
看到確診人數增加
相信有在追指揮中心記者會的大家
內心不免七上八下
但只要我們 #謹慎應對 持續落實 #防疫工作
相信還是有機會守住J一波‼️

雖然還是會擔心
但蒐集癖小編決定要再發一篇落落長的文
讓各位看看世界各國的政要大咖
如何讚 #台灣 目前為止的防疫模式 👏👏👏

#我們不害怕雨淋
#因為我們知道大雨之後會有彩虹 🌈
#團結一心 #正向防疫
#台灣加油 💪

As the coronavirus pandemic continues, we'll endeavour to remain prudent in our epidemic prevention measures. We believe we can stem the tide.
To reinstill some confidence, we've collected a series of quotes from politicians and ministers around the world, praising the #TaiwanModel as part of the fight against the #COVID19 #WuhanCoronavirus. Read what they had to say below!

《亞太地區》

#紐西蘭 New Zealand 🇳🇿
3/15 ─ 紐西蘭總理阿爾登：「我們將緊密遵循相當接近於台灣的模式，他們(台灣政府)針對公眾集會所建立的因應架構，是相當成功的。我們將以它為根據，來設定我們的標準。」
March 15 - Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said, in a Q+A interview on Sunday, that officials were looking at tailored criteria for events that may need to be cancelled, such as whether people would be in close proximity to one another.
“We're going to follow, pretty closely, the Taiwanese model. They worked up a framework for mass gatherings that's been quite successful,” she said.

#日本 Japan 🇯🇵
3/12 ─ 日本台灣交流協會代表泉裕泰：「我相信台灣的真知灼見可與世界各國廣泛共享，並對苦於遭受傳染蔓延的其他國家與地區做出巨大的貢獻。」
March 12 - Japan's chief representative in Taiwan, Hiroyasu Izumi, stated that he believes Taiwan's insights can be widely shared with other countries in the world and make great contributions to other countries and regions suffering from the spread of infection.

《亞非地區》

#以色列 Israel 🇮🇱
3/14 ─ 以色列總理尼坦雅胡：「順帶一提，這個方法已經在台灣試過了，可能很成功。以色列是少數國家當中，有這個能力做的。我們將採用這個方法。」
March 14 - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was not an easy choice to make and described the virus as an “invisible enemy that must be located.” He said Israel would follow similar methods used by Taiwan.

3/14 ─ 以色列前總理巴拉克：「以色列可以對抗新冠病毒，但必須像台灣一樣反應快速。」
March 14 - Former prime minister Ehud Barak stated that Israel can fight against the novel coronovirus, but that it must react as swiftly as Taiwan.

《拉美地區》

#尼加拉瓜 Nicaragua🇳🇮
3/11 ─ 尼加拉瓜副總統穆麗優：「我們得知台灣政府及人民實行了成功的防疫模式，我們已向台灣駐尼大使提出請求，期盼台灣與我們分享經驗，因為台灣不僅成功防制傳染，且維持人民秩序免於慌亂，確實值得學習。」
March 11 - La vicepresidenta de Nicaragua, Rosario Murillo, declaró: "Nosotros hemos conocido el Modelo exitoso de contención que puso en práctica el Gobierno y el Pueblo de la República de China(Taiwán), y hemos pedido a su Embajador aquí, que nos presenten ese Modelo exitoso, porque han logrado no solo contener, sino también mantener a la población en un estado que no esté de pánico." (The vice president of Nicaragua, Rosario Murillo, stated, "We are aware of the successful model of prevention that the government and the people of Taiwan have put into practice, and we've asked the Taiwanese ambassador to make a presentation on this successful model, because they've not only managed to contain the virus, but they've kept their population from panicking.")

#聖文森 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines🇻🇨
3/12 ─ 聖文森衛生部長布朗：「台灣因『一個中國』原則不被承認為獨立國家，因此未被納入參與「世界衛生大會」（WHA），台灣距離中國僅為海峽之隔，然而疫情爆發至今卻僅有少數確診病例，我已正式致函何大使尋求台灣的協助以對抗聖國疫情。」
March 12 - "It’s quite remarkable that they’re just 81 miles from mainland China and whereas coronavirus in mainland China has been spiralling out of control...That’s incredible,” Health minister Luke Brown said. Taiwan is not a part of the World Health Assembly as it is not recognised as being an independent country under the One-China policy. Browne said the ambassador has mentioned some of the measures that Taiwan has taken, some of which he believes will work in the Vincentian context while others may not.

#聖露西亞 Saint Lucia🇱🇨
3/11 ─ 聖露西亞衛生部長艾瑟柯：「目前全球正共同對抗來自中國武漢的新型冠狀病毒，聖露西亞政府藉此機會讚許臺灣採取有效率且具成效的防疫措施，並提議與露國緊密合作防疫。」
March 11 - “As the world is fighting the COVID-19 Coronavirus originated from Wuhan, China, the Government of Saint Lucia wishes to take this opportunity to commend Taiwan for its efficient and efficacious measures, and its offer to work closely with Saint Lucia to contain the pandemic,” said Health Minister Mary Isaac.

#貝里斯 Belize🇧🇿
2/4 ─ 貝里斯衛生部長馬林：「貝國政府及衛生部肯定台灣關鍵的公衛措施，包括對隔離案例進行電子監控、口罩及其他物資供應，強化防疫工作。」
Feb. 4 - Minister of Health, Hon. Pablo Marin: “The Government of Belize, and by extension the Ministry of Health, applauds Taiwan’s key public health measures that include electronic monitoring of quarantined cases and the provision of masks and other items to support the prevention efforts.”

#巴拉圭 Paraguay🇵🇾
3/17 ─ 巴拉圭參議員法切提：「儘管與WHO無任何合作關係，台灣仍向前行…台灣也因此能夠成功防堵新冠病毒。」
March 17 - Fernando Silva Facetti, Paraguayan politician: "A PESAR DE LA NULA COOPERACIÓN DE LA @opsoms, #TAIWAN SIGUE ADELANTE... Así es como Taiwán logró contener el brote de #coronavirus" (Despite the lack of cooperation from the WHO, Taiwan continues to progress... This is how Taiwan managed to contain the coronavirus.)

#委內瑞拉 Venezuela🇻🇪
3/13 ─ 委內瑞拉臨時政府代表楊杰斯議員：「感謝情同手足的台灣人民贈交我們防疫所需的口罩及酒精。Taiwan Can Help！」
March 13 - Jesús M. Yánez M., Venezuelan politician: "Gracias a el hermano pueblo de Taiwan nos encontramos entregando tapa boca y kits de alcohol, denunciando la falta de prevención y de medidas acordes contra el COVIDー19 Taiwan Can Help" (Thanks to our brothers and sisters in Taiwan, we find ourselves with face masks and alcohol kits, denouncing the lack of prevention and appropriate measures against COVID-19. Taiwan Can Help.)

3/15 ─ 委內瑞拉駐西班牙大使艾卡利：「台灣及早警覺，並已阻擋了疫情擴散。」
March 15 - Antonio Ecarri B., Ambassador of Venezuela in Spain: "Taiwan se alarmó y frenó su expansión." (Taiwan was alarmed and curbed the spread.)

#阿根廷 Argentina 🇦🇷
3/11 ─ 阿根廷國會議員康帕紐利：「台灣是成功控制疫情的模範。」
March 11 - Marcela Campagnoli, National Deputy in Argentina: "Taiwan es un ejemplo de como lo han controlado." (Taiwan is an example of how to control it.)

3/16 ─ 阿根廷國際關係委員會秘書長桑提巴聶茲：「認為威權政府防疫工作做得比民主國家好，這個想法是錯的。台灣、韓國及新加坡做得非常好，他們都是民主國家。」
March 16 - Francisco de Santibañes, Secretary General of the Argentine Council for International Relations: "Sería un error pensar que los gobiernos autoritarios actuaron mejor que las democracias a la hora de controlar el coronavirus. Corea del Sur, Singapur y Taiwán lo hicieron muy bien y son democracias." (It would be a mistake to think that authoritarian governments act better than democracies in curbing the coronavirus. South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan did it very well and they're democracies.)

#哥倫比亞 Colombia🇨🇴
3/12 ─ 哥倫比亞內科醫師學會前主席希尼爾：「看看台灣，從全球確診統計圖表中漸漸消失，並對照其他亞洲國家防疫進展。他們比其他國家聰明嗎？不，是因為他們比較有組織、守紀律！」
March 12 - Juan Senior, ex-president of the Colombian Association of Internal Medicine: "Miren la evolución de Taiwán, desaparece del panorama y como evoluciona la epidemia en países asiáticos. Son más inteligentes que todos? No, son más organizados y disciplinados!!!" (Look how things have gone in Taiwan, they're out of the picture now and how the epidemic has developed in asian countries. Are they smarter than everyone else? No, they're more organized and more disciplined!!!)

#巴拿馬 Panama 🇵🇦
3/11 ─ 巴拿馬前駐台大使馬締斯：「台灣向世界展現，他們運用2003年抗煞所學到的經驗，準備好對抗新冠疫情。」
March 11 - Dr. Alfredo Martiz, former Ambassador of Panama in Taiwan: "Lo que Taiwán puede enseñar al mundo sobre la lucha contra el coronavirus Análisis: Taiwán aprovechó las lecciones aprendidas durante el brote de SARS de 2003, y esta vez su gobierno y su pueblo estaban preparados" (What Taiwan can teach the world about the fight against the coronavirus. Analysis: Taiwan took the lessons learned during the SARS outbreak of 2003 and this time its government and its people were ready.)

《歐洲》

#捷克 Czech Republic🇨🇿
3/15 ─ 捷克總理巴比斯：「政府決定改變中央危機應變中心的定位及人員調度，仿照如同媒體所報導台灣的因應做法。」 March 15 - Prime Minister Andrej Babis: “The government decided to change the status of the Central Crisis Staff, where the crisis staff will be modeled, as we read in the media and it was in Taiwan.”

#丹麥 Denmark🇩🇰
3/18 ─ 丹麥前總理拉斯穆森：「台灣利用大數據、透明、由中央指揮的防疫作為奏效，值得世界各國學習。現在是時候告訴中國，確有地方可以討論地緣政治的，但不是在世界衛生組織。」 March 18 - In his March 18 piece in Time Magazine, former prime minister of Denmark Anders Fogh Rasmussen, stated "After the first notifications at the end of 2019, Taipei swiftly deployed a combination of measures to identify and contain the virus, including the use of big data to help contain potential cases."

#法國 France🇫🇷
3/5 ─ 前法國衛生部長及外交部長杜斯特：「檢視中央集權與非中央集權國家決策模式的差異十分有意思。台灣雖緊鄰中國卻可能是受武漢肺炎死亡率最低及受影響最輕的國家，其防疫成果完全令人難以置信，是為出色的危機管理。」
March 5 - Former French health and foreign minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said, "Ce qui est très intéressant en regardant les différents pays, c’est la centralisation ou la non-centralisation des décisions. Et on s’aperçoit que par exemple Taiwan est probablement le pays où il y a le moins de létalité et le pays le moins touché alors que c’est extrêmement près de la Chine. Le résultat est absolument invraisemblable. C’est une magnifique gestion de crise." (What is quite interesting with different countries, is centralization vs non-centralization of decisions. And one realizes that, for example, Taiwan is probably the country where the mortality rate is the lowest and the least affected country despite its extreme proximity to China. The result is absolutely implausible. It’s wonderful crisis management.)

3/7 ─ 法國國民議會友臺小組主席瑟賽希尼：「臺灣是處理武漢肺炎疫情的典範。」
March 7 - The chair of the French National Assembly's France-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group, Jean François Cesarini, stated "Taïwan : Exemplaire dans sa gestion de l’épidémie du Coronavirus." (Taiwan: an excellent model for the management of the coronavirus epidemic.)

3/6 ─ 法國國民議會友臺小組副主席拉赫迪耶：「臺灣堪稱處理武漢肺炎危機的典範。」
March 6 - The deputy chair of the French National Assembly's France-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group, Laure de La Raudière, stated "Gestion exemplaire de Taiwan de la crise du Coronavirus." (Taiwan's exemplary management of the coronavirus crisis.)

#義大利 Italy🇮🇹
3/16 ─ 義大利前外交部長德爾其：「台灣可能是第一個向WHO報告新冠病毒人傳人的國家，而且早在中國和WHO承認之前。顯然地，台灣因為北京施壓，被排除在世衛組織之外已有兩年之久。」
March 16 - Former foreign minister, Giulio Terzi: "Taiwan potrebber esser stato primo Paese a comunicare alla OMS che coronavirus COVID19 si stava trasmettendo da uomo a uomo.Molto prima che Cina e OMS lo ammettessero. Ovviamente, per volere Pechino, Taipei subisce esclusione da OMS da due anni." (Taiwan may have been the first country to report to WHO that coronavirus COVID19 was spreading from amongst humans, long before China and WHO admitted it. Obviously, at the behest of Beijing, Taipei has been excluded from WHO for two years.)

3/19 ─ 義大利北聯黨外交事務首席法拉利，轉推蔡總統「台美簽署防疫聯合夥伴關係聲明」推文：「這是向中國，也是向世界傳達的重要訊息。」
March 19: Lega Nord head of foreign affairs in Lombardy, Max Ferrari: "Coronavirus. Importante messaggio alla Cina e al mondo da Taiwan e Usa." (Coronavirus. Important message to China and the world from Taiwan and the USA.)

#歐盟 EU🇪🇺
3/14 ─ 歐洲議會議員暨中國關係代表團團長包瑞翰：「在這次疫情危機中，台灣在拯救生命方面做得很好。為什麼不邀請他們充分參與國際呢？ 為什麼WHO不這樣做？因為北京玩弄民族主義政治，犧牲人民的利益。」
March 14 - “Taiwan is doing a great job with saving lives in this corona crisis. Why not acknowledge that and invite them to participate fully in international efforts? Why doesn't WHO do it? Because Beijing is playing nationalist politics at people's expense,” said Reinhard Bütikofer

#英國 UK 🇬🇧
3/13 ─ 英國前衛生大臣杭特表示，政府應採取更積極的行動，包括禁止探視養老院的長者。他認為，英國應該像是泰國和台灣等已控制住疫情的國家一樣，採取行動。
March 13 - Jeremy Hunt, the UK former health secretary: "Countries like Thailand and Taiwan had controlled the outbreak by taking such action. People will be concerned we are not moving sooner on social distancing."

#瑞典 Sweden🇸🇪
2/18 ─ 瑞典國會議員溫和黨主席席德斐：「從長遠來看，世衛組織不願將台灣納入扼止新冠病毒傳播及由該病毒所引起的傳播的任務，是完全站不住腳的，並且從很多面向來看是適得其反，例如從醫學和經濟角度。」
Feb. 18 - Moderate Party MP Margareta Cederfelt pointed out that “WHO’s unwillingness to include Taiwan in its work with limiting the spread of the coronavirus and stopping infections caused by the virus in the long-run, is indefensible and counterproductive seen from several perspectives, for example from a medical and economic perspective.”

#德國 Germany🇩🇪
3/13 ─ 德國自民黨主席國會議員布本多弗：「有一個國家在抗疫上脫穎而出，運用明確的策略及冷靜的態度有效對抗新冠肺炎，這個國家就是臺灣。」
March 13 - Chair of the district association Mühldorf am Inn of the FDP Bavaria Sandra Maria Bubendorfe: "Bei meiner 3. Rede im Deutschen Bundestag zum Thema Zivil und Katastrophenschutz in Deutschland vergangen Freitag, war es mir ein besonderes Bedürfnis Taiwan hervorzuheben, das gezeigt hat wie man mit klaren Strategien und kühlen Kopf auf die Gefahr des Corona Virus antworten kann und damit die Ausbreitung deutlich erschwert und verlangsamt wird." (During my third speech in the German Bundestag on civil and civil protection in Germany last Friday, I felt a need to highlight Taiwan, which showed how to respond to the dangers of the coronavirus with a clear strategy and a cool head, and thus significantly slowed its spread.)

#荷蘭 The Netherlands🇳🇱
3/18 ─ 荷蘭前中央銀行主席維林克：「臺灣防疫預警作為，是這個擁有約2400萬居民，且每年接受約300萬中國旅客往訪的國家，迄今得以有效控制疫情的關鍵作為。」
March 18 - The former head of the Dutch central bank stated that with its 24 million strong population and 3 million annual tourists from China, Taiwan has unrolled effective key measures to curb the spread of the epidemic.

3/18 ─ 荷蘭50 Plus黨眾議員兼主席克羅及民主論壇黨眾議員兼主席伯德特：「台灣是成功例子」 無黨籍眾議員哈加：「台灣大量檢測與居家隔離，成功控制疫情，為何荷蘭不學習？」
March 18 - The leaders of the 50PLUS party and the Forum for Democracy, Henk Krol and Thierry Beaudet, stated that Taiwan has provided a successful model. Independent Dutch MP Wybren van Haga stated that Taiwan has been testing on a large scale and enforcing home quarantines, successful measures in curbing the epidemic and asked why the Netherlands wasn't learning from their example.

#瑞士 Switzerland 🇨🇭
3/10 ─ 瑞士國會下議員瓦爾德：「臺灣對抗新冠病毒具特別成效。」 March 10 - Swiss National Councillor Nicolas Walder said Taiwan's response to the novel coronavirus has been particularly effective.

#葡萄牙 Portugal🇵🇹
3/15 ─ 葡萄牙前人民黨黨揆暨資深媒體評論家波塔斯：「台灣承襲2003年對抗SARS經驗，成功壓抑疫情曲線峰值，值得葡國作為借鏡。」
March 15 - Former Deputy Prime Minister of Portugal and media personality Paulo Portas stated that Taiwan's experience in fighting SARS in 2003 allowed it to be successful in flattening the curve, providing a model Portugal can learn from.

3/18 ─ 葡萄牙國會友臺小組歐利維拉：「台灣病例出現雖早，卻在努力下獲得很好的控制，台灣防疫措施值得肯定及學習。」
March 18 - Chair of the Portugal-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group Paulo Rios de Oliveira stated that although cases in Taiwan started to appear quite early on, they've controlled it very well with a lot of effort. Taiwan's epidemic control measures should be praised and studied.

#西班牙 Spain🇪🇸
3/13 ─ 西班牙前國會議員瓦紐費瑞：「這些措施證明台灣公衛模式有效，包括世界上最先進的醫衛系統、自2003年抗煞以來所累積的廣泛防疫經驗等。」
March 13 - Francisco Vañó Ferre, a former member of the Spanish Parliament: "Estas y otras medidas prueban la eficacia del modelo sanitario de Taiwán, que cuenta con uno de los más avanzados sistemas de salud del mundo y con amplia experiencia en la lucha contra enfermedades contagiosas tras haber sufrido la epidemia del SARS en 2003." (These and other measures prove the efficacy of the health model of Taiwan, which has one of the most advanced health systems in the world and a wealth of experience in the fight against contagious diseases, after having suffered from the SARS epidemic in 2003.)

#匈牙利 Hungary🇭🇺
3/15 ─ 匈牙利醫師學會：「在中國其他省份和其他亞洲國家，例如台灣和新加坡等，已經能夠預防感染的傳播。」
March 15 - The Hungarian Medical Chamber stated “In other provinces of China and other Asian countries (eg Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) have been able to prevent the spread of the infection.”

北美：
#美國 US🇺🇸
2/5 ─ 美國前衛生部長派司：「台灣已經證明其防疫行動極為負責且透明，特別是在醫學和科學領域。最近有幸到訪台灣，台灣協助研發疫苗或以其他方式協助拯救生命，並促進人類對抗病毒的能力及情報，此刻尤顯出色。」
Feb. 5 – US former secretary of health and human services Tom Price: "Taiwan has shown itself to be extremely responsible and transparent in its actions, especially in the area of medicine and science. Having had the privilege of visiting recently, the capacity of Taiwan to help formulate a vaccine or assist in other ways to help save lives and advance human engagement and intelligence at this time is remarkable."

#加拿大 Canada🇨🇦
3/6 ─ 加拿大前國務部長契爾格：「將台灣排除在世衛組織之外，會讓新冠病毒對其國民和世界其他地區變得更加危險。」
March 6 - Canadian former secretary of state David Kilgour: “Excluding Taiwan from contact with WHO makes COVID-19 more dangerous for its nationals and the rest of the world.”

The political environment is complicated by the potential for military conflict should Taiwan make overt actions toward de jure independence; it is the official PRC policy to use force to ensure reunification if peaceful reunification is no longer possible, as stated in its anti-secession law, and for this reason there are substantial military installations on the Fujian coast. However, in recent years, the PRC has moved towards promoting peaceful relations, including stronger economic ties, with the current ROC government aimed at unification through the one country, two systems formula or maintaining the status quo under the 1992 Consensus.

On 29 April 2005, Kuomintang Chairman Lien Chan travelled to Beijing and met with Communist Party of China (CPC) Secretary-General Hu Jintao, the first meeting between the leaders of the two parties since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949. On 11 February 2014, Mainland Affairs Council Head Wang Yu-chi travelled to Nanjing and met with Taiwan Affairs Office Head Zhang Zhijun, the first meeting between high-ranking officials from either side. Zhang paid a reciprocal visit to Taiwan and met Wang on 25 June 2014, making Zhang the first minister-level PRC official to ever visit Taiwan. On 7 November 2015, Ma Ying-jeou (in his capacity as Leader of Taiwan) and Xi Jinping (in his capacity as Leader of Mainland China) travelled to Singapore and met up, marking the highest-level exchange between the two sides since 1949.

The PRC supports a version of the One-China policy, which states that Taiwan and mainland China are both part of China, and that the PRC is the only legitimate government of China. It uses this policy to prevent the international recognition of the ROC as an independent sovereign state, meaning that Taiwan participates in international forums under the name "Chinese Taipei". With the emergence of the Taiwanese independence movement, the name "Taiwan" has been employed increasingly often on the island.

What is the difference between Mainland China and Taiwan? Come find out and make a choice as to where you'd like to travel or live...

Support me on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/serpentza
Join me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/winstoninchina
Twitter: @serpentza
Music used: VHS Dreams - Ocean Heights