3 ms·

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 si

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
    The claims of the PRC And the points of that resolution are basically the same. It’s not explicitly saying the PRC is right, it doesn’t have to do that, it’s just saying the exact same thing that the PRC has been saying. Which is normal English means “the UN has accepted the position of the PRC.”
    - CogitoCogito 8y ago
      > The claims of the PRC And the points of that resolution are basically the same. It’s not explicitly saying the PRC is right, it doesn’t have to do that, it’s just saying the exact same thing that the PRC has been saying. Which is normal English means “the UN has accepted the position of the PRC.” The fact is that the UN has not passed any resolution recognizing the claims of the PRC to Taiwan. There is no implicit recognition. Here's a thought experiment: If the PRC introduced such a resolution, do you know what would certainly happen? The US (at the very least) would veto it, since the US itself has never accepted the claims of the PRC to Taiwan (in fact, if anything the US has committed to defend Taiwan from the PRC). The only rational conclusion is that the PRC has never tried to pass such a resolution because it knows it would lose. You're idea that this supports implicit acceptance of such a resolution is totally ridiculous. Regardless I hope you would at least have the self-respect and honesty to acknowledge that the UN never has accepted the claims of the PRC to Taiwan.

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
  The claims of the PRC And the points of that resolution are basically the same. It’s not explicitly saying the PRC is right, it doesn’t have to do that, it’s just saying the exact same thing that the PRC has been saying. Which is normal English means “the UN has accepted the position of the PRC.”
  - CogitoCogito 8y ago
    > The claims of the PRC And the points of that resolution are basically the same. It’s not explicitly saying the PRC is right, it doesn’t have to do that, it’s just saying the exact same thing that the PRC has been saying. Which is normal English means “the UN has accepted the position of the PRC.” The fact is that the UN has not passed any resolution recognizing the claims of the PRC to Taiwan. There is no implicit recognition. Here's a thought experiment: If the PRC introduced such a resolution, do you know what would certainly happen? The US (at the very least) would veto it, since the US itself has never accepted the claims of the PRC to Taiwan (in fact, if anything the US has committed to defend Taiwan from the PRC). The only rational conclusion is that the PRC has never tried to pass such a resolution because it knows it would lose. You're idea that this supports implicit acceptance of such a resolution is totally ridiculous. Regardless I hope you would at least have the self-respect and honesty to acknowledge that the UN never has accepted the claims of the PRC to Taiwan.