5 ms·

I'm not an expert on the subject either, but I believe they Taiwanese government is in a stalemate with China over Taiwan's "Republic of China" title. Taiwan ca

I'm not an expert on the subject either, but I believe they Taiwanese government is in a stalemate with China over Taiwan's "Republic of China" title. Taiwan can't get it's own seat as a country in the UN because of the "China" in its title. On the other hand, any attempt to remove China from its title would provoke China. China would see it as a gesture towards independence and sovereignty. Some fear China would react with hostility in that case. Some anti-independence Taiwanese see it as the best way to keep the peace.

garmaine 8y ago
Taiwan had its own seat as a country in the UN. They were a founding member and had a permanent seat on the security council. The UN has just adopted the "one china" policy and recognized the PRC victory in the Chinese civil war as legitimate. The UN is wholly recognizing the PRC's claims here. In fact, Taiwan tried to (re-)join the UN in 2007 under the name of "Taiwan", dropping the "Republic of China" bit entirely. No dice. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
- CogitoCogito 8y ago
  Honestly, what are you talking about? At which point has the UN accepted the PRC's claims to Taiwan or the PRC victory? There hasn't even been a peace treaty signed so how could that be possible anyway. Without knowing all the UN's history, I 100% totally don't believe that the UN has recognized the PRC's claims, simply since the US itself hasn't actually accepted those claims and the US is on the security counsel (thereby capable of blocking such a motion). Both the PRC and the ROC would have long ago been seated in the UN if there never were a position for "China" on the security counsel. That position allowed the ROC to block the PRC's seat in the UN when it represented "China" and it then allowed the PRC to block the ROC's seat later when it represented "China". The reason that the representation for "China" was switched to the PRC from the ROC was because that step was possible procedurally within the UN's rules even though the ROC was against it. In other words, due to a procedural quirk the ROC could keep the PRC from being seated as a separate country, but couldn't keep its own representation from being switched. After that point the PRC could play the same games. If there were no seat for "China" on the security counsel or if the rules were different or simply if the ROC would have allowed it at the time, both the ROC and the PRC would have seats in the UN. But none of this means that the UN accepts the PRC's claims to Taiwan. edit: The downvoting is a bit disturbing. I'm quite honestly curious if there is anything factually wrong with what I've written. My suspicion is that these facts do not match the false assumptions of some HN readers and that they'd rather hide it away instead of confronting it directly.
  - abcmngbfkqes 8y ago
    The U.S. has accepted the principle that Taiwan is a part of China. It's official legal status is kept deliberately ambiguous to avoid provoking a war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy In the case of the United States, the One-China Policy was first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972: "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position." You are correct that there is no 'legal reason' why a country could not recognize both states, other than that recognizing one means the other will break off relations (and, in the case of the PRC, possibly take punitive action against that you). Ultimately, the legal niceties are irrelevant; what is important is power politics.
    - CogitoCogito 8y ago
      > The U.S. has accepted the principle that Taiwan is a part of China. The quote you provide does _not_ say that. It says that the US has _acknowledged_ that both the PRC and the ROC maintain their is one China and that Taiwan is a part of it. It does _not_ say that the US _agrees_ with that position. It also does not say that it considers the PRC the government of that "China". It does not say that Taiwan is governed by the PRC. The US has _never_ stated that it considers the PRC the rightful government of Taiwan. You are however extremely correct about the ambiguity of the US position.
  - garmaine 8y ago
    > Honestly, what are you talking about? At which point has the UN accepted the PRC's claims to Taiwan or the PRC victory Click the link in my post.
    - CogitoCogito 8y ago
      The resolution you linked to never said that the PRC's claims to Taiwan are legitimate. (_Please_ show me language in the resolution contradicting me.) It simply said that the UN seat to "China" in the UN would no longer be the ROC and would instead be the PRC. If you think that that implies that the UN accepted the PRC's claims to Taiwan, then you would be wrong. I explained that in the post you replied to. I'd recommend you read it again.

garmaine 8y ago

Taiwan had its own seat as a country in the UN. They were a founding member and had a permanent seat on the security council. The UN has just adopted the "one china" policy and recognized the PRC victory in the Chinese civil war as legitimate. The UN is wholly recognizing the PRC's claims here. In fact, Taiwan tried to (re-)join the UN in 2007 under the name of "Taiwan", dropping the "Republic of China" bit entirely. No dice. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...

CogitoCogito 8y ago
Honestly, what are you talking about? At which point has the UN accepted the PRC's claims to Taiwan or the PRC victory? There hasn't even been a peace treaty signed so how could that be possible anyway. Without knowing all the UN's history, I 100% totally don't believe that the UN has recognized the PRC's claims, simply since the US itself hasn't actually accepted those claims and the US is on the security counsel (thereby capable of blocking such a motion). Both the PRC and the ROC would have long ago been seated in the UN if there never were a position for "China" on the security counsel. That position allowed the ROC to block the PRC's seat in the UN when it represented "China" and it then allowed the PRC to block the ROC's seat later when it represented "China". The reason that the representation for "China" was switched to the PRC from the ROC was because that step was possible procedurally within the UN's rules even though the ROC was against it. In other words, due to a procedural quirk the ROC could keep the PRC from being seated as a separate country, but couldn't keep its own representation from being switched. After that point the PRC could play the same games. If there were no seat for "China" on the security counsel or if the rules were different or simply if the ROC would have allowed it at the time, both the ROC and the PRC would have seats in the UN. But none of this means that the UN accepts the PRC's claims to Taiwan. edit: The downvoting is a bit disturbing. I'm quite honestly curious if there is anything factually wrong with what I've written. My suspicion is that these facts do not match the false assumptions of some HN readers and that they'd rather hide it away instead of confronting it directly.
- abcmngbfkqes 8y ago
  The U.S. has accepted the principle that Taiwan is a part of China. It's official legal status is kept deliberately ambiguous to avoid provoking a war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy In the case of the United States, the One-China Policy was first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972: "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position." You are correct that there is no 'legal reason' why a country could not recognize both states, other than that recognizing one means the other will break off relations (and, in the case of the PRC, possibly take punitive action against that you). Ultimately, the legal niceties are irrelevant; what is important is power politics.
  - CogitoCogito 8y ago
    > The U.S. has accepted the principle that Taiwan is a part of China. The quote you provide does _not_ say that. It says that the US has _acknowledged_ that both the PRC and the ROC maintain their is one China and that Taiwan is a part of it. It does _not_ say that the US _agrees_ with that position. It also does not say that it considers the PRC the government of that "China". It does not say that Taiwan is governed by the PRC. The US has _never_ stated that it considers the PRC the rightful government of Taiwan. You are however extremely correct about the ambiguity of the US position.
- garmaine 8y ago
  > Honestly, what are you talking about? At which point has the UN accepted the PRC's claims to Taiwan or the PRC victory Click the link in my post.
  - CogitoCogito 8y ago
    The resolution you linked to never said that the PRC's claims to Taiwan are legitimate. (_Please_ show me language in the resolution contradicting me.) It simply said that the UN seat to "China" in the UN would no longer be the ROC and would instead be the PRC. If you think that that implies that the UN accepted the PRC's claims to Taiwan, then you would be wrong. I explained that in the post you replied to. I'd recommend you read it again.