3 ms·

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 simpl

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.
  - garmaine 8y ago
    You're responding to a strawman of what I said. I'm not sure what to say.
    - CogitoCogito 8y ago
      I'm sorry I responded to a strawman. I was trying to respond what you wrote earlier: > 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.” If my response was a strawman, then I guess that means that you admit that the UN has in fact never accepted the PRC's claims to Taiwan. I'm glad that we're agreed on that fact. (And frankly, it is a _fact_ since no such statement has been made by the UN.) Once again I'm sorry that I set up a strawman. I don't want to put words in your mouth. As an addendum to others reading who possibly don't know much of the history: The UN has never accepted the claims of the PRC to Taiwan (or other territories controlled by the Republic of China). The US (as well as many other countries) also has not accepted that. They often make vague statements to appease the PRC (i.e. China) because the PRC builds a lot of propaganda on a mythical "re-unification" even though the PRC has never actually controlled Taiwan. The only reason why both the PRC and the ROC are not seated in the UN is because the PRC blocks the ROC's admission. The ROC used to do the same when it held the seat until the 70s. The PRC and the ROC have been two separate countries with a (admittedly large) border dispute for almost 70 years now. It's sad the the UN and much of the world just kind of ignores the lack of representation of Taiwan in the UN (as well as other political bodies) and it is sad that the world doesn't force both the PRC and the ROC to the table to simply sign an official peace treaty acknowledging the reality of their situation, but apparently peace, stability and self-determination is not that important to most of the world.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > it is sad that the world doesn't force both the PRC and the ROC to the table to simply sign an official peace treaty acknowledging the reality of their situation, but apparently peace, stability and self-determination is not that important to most of the world. Well, first, it's not exactly like forcing the PRC to do anything like that is practical. And, second, externally imposed partitions haven't exactly been sources of peace and stability, historically.

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.
- garmaine 8y ago
  You're responding to a strawman of what I said. I'm not sure what to say.
  - CogitoCogito 8y ago
    I'm sorry I responded to a strawman. I was trying to respond what you wrote earlier: > 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.” If my response was a strawman, then I guess that means that you admit that the UN has in fact never accepted the PRC's claims to Taiwan. I'm glad that we're agreed on that fact. (And frankly, it is a _fact_ since no such statement has been made by the UN.) Once again I'm sorry that I set up a strawman. I don't want to put words in your mouth. As an addendum to others reading who possibly don't know much of the history: The UN has never accepted the claims of the PRC to Taiwan (or other territories controlled by the Republic of China). The US (as well as many other countries) also has not accepted that. They often make vague statements to appease the PRC (i.e. China) because the PRC builds a lot of propaganda on a mythical "re-unification" even though the PRC has never actually controlled Taiwan. The only reason why both the PRC and the ROC are not seated in the UN is because the PRC blocks the ROC's admission. The ROC used to do the same when it held the seat until the 70s. The PRC and the ROC have been two separate countries with a (admittedly large) border dispute for almost 70 years now. It's sad the the UN and much of the world just kind of ignores the lack of representation of Taiwan in the UN (as well as other political bodies) and it is sad that the world doesn't force both the PRC and the ROC to the table to simply sign an official peace treaty acknowledging the reality of their situation, but apparently peace, stability and self-determination is not that important to most of the world.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > it is sad that the world doesn't force both the PRC and the ROC to the table to simply sign an official peace treaty acknowledging the reality of their situation, but apparently peace, stability and self-determination is not that important to most of the world. Well, first, it's not exactly like forcing the PRC to do anything like that is practical. And, second, externally imposed partitions haven't exactly been sources of peace and stability, historically.