3 ms·
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 th
by 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.
- CogitoCogito 8y ago> Well, first, it's not exactly like forcing the PRC to do anything like that is practical. Well "force" as in sanction the PRC until it backs down from its militaristic position. Of course it's up to the PRC how to react, but the world shouldn't tacitly accept its military belligerence. > And, second, externally imposed partitions haven't exactly been sources of peace and stability, historically. I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this. How is there an externally enforced partition? The current status is that there are two countries. That wasn't externally enforced. It was the result of a stalemate between the two sides in a civil war and the inability of either side to fully beat the other. Also how would the PRC and the ROC signing a peace treaty not be the epitome of "peace and stability"? Are you actually implying that the PRC's claims that it may someday invade the ROC better represent "peace and stability" than the current status quo of two countries* co-existing more-or-less peacefully? I presume I just am misunderstanding you though because I find your statement very confusing. Feel free to correct me. *They treat each other as countries whether they are willing to use the word or not.