5 ms·

ROC (Taiwan) is the defacto legitimate government of China. They were defeated in war by communist forces and fled to Taiwan. At the time (1949-onward), America

ROC (Taiwan) is the defacto legitimate government of China. They were defeated in war by communist forces and fled to Taiwan. At the time (1949-onward), America acknowledged ROC as the legitimate government of China, but only intervened to protect them in the Taiwan strait. You can simply read more detail on Wikipedia, etc(1). Then after Mao won control of China, he went on to oversee arguably the manslaughter and murder of more people than any other tyrant in history. 1-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_retreat_to_Taiwan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_retreat_to...

amaccuish 8y ago
> ROC (Taiwan) is the defacto legitimate government of China. They were defeated in war by communist forces and fled to Taiwan. They were defeated, and yet still considered the "defacto legitimate government of China"? How does that work? I would think very few people consider the ROC the "legitimate" government of Mainland China. > America acknowledged ROC as the legitimate government of China Why is this relevant?
- wallace_f 8y ago
  I'm just stating what the historical facts are. Even the UN charter still to this day lists ROC as the legitimate government of China, but in the 70s they started letting the PRC sit in that seat.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > They were defeated, and yet still considered the "defacto legitimate government of China"? How does that work? I would think very few people consider the ROC the "legitimate" government of Mainland China. They weren't totally defeated, but retreated to a "rump state" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rump_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rump_state) that still exists as an independent entity. Many countries, especially in the middle of the 20th century, would have preferred that government regain control of China from the Communists. For an even more extreme example where that actually happened, look at the Baltic states. Their annexation by the Soviets was never recognized by many non-Communists states, and eventually their states re-established independence in a way that's generally considered continuous with their per-annexation states. They didn't even have the benefit of having rump states during the Cold War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_government-in-exile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_government-in-exile > However, the Estonian government in exile did serve to carry the continuity of the Estonian state forward. The last prime minister in the duties of the president, Heinrich Mark, ended the work of the government in exile when he handed over his credentials to the incoming President Lennart Meri on October 8, 1992. Meri issued a statement thanking the Estonian government in exile for being the keepers of the legal continuity of the Estonian state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Diplomatic_Service_(1940%E2%80%9391) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Diplomatic_Service_(1... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Legations_(1940%E2%80%931991) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Legations_(1940%E2%80%9...
jhanschoo 8y ago
I think you mean de jure. A mainland Chinese would not go to Taiwanese courts or abide by Taiwanese law, so you cannot say that most living in Qing China's imperial borders recognize the legitimacy of TW's govt. Internationally, more countries abide by the PRC's One China policy than exclusively recognize TW, so it does not have international de facto legitimacy as well. De jure... well, that would still be arbitrary. Go further back and one might consider the hereditary Qing successors to be the legitimate rulers. Or you might consider legitimacy to be conferred by the Mandate of Heaven, and by that reasoning China has never been more prosperous than the present in absolute terms, so then the PRC holds legitimacy.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  Dejure is indeed a better-suited term than defacto. My mistake. I was just trying to tell the history and articulate what happened. The meaning I intended was that the world and the US were allied with and recognized ROC. It is a case of "might makes right" where no court or treaty ever agreed to pass control, only war did.

amaccuish 8y ago

> ROC (Taiwan) is the defacto legitimate government of China. They were defeated in war by communist forces and fled to Taiwan. They were defeated, and yet still considered the "defacto legitimate government of China"? How does that work? I would think very few people consider the ROC the "legitimate" government of Mainland China. > America acknowledged ROC as the legitimate government of China Why is this relevant?

wallace_f 8y ago
I'm just stating what the historical facts are. Even the UN charter still to this day lists ROC as the legitimate government of China, but in the 70s they started letting the PRC sit in that seat.
ardy42 8y ago
> They were defeated, and yet still considered the "defacto legitimate government of China"? How does that work? I would think very few people consider the ROC the "legitimate" government of Mainland China. They weren't totally defeated, but retreated to a "rump state" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rump_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rump_state) that still exists as an independent entity. Many countries, especially in the middle of the 20th century, would have preferred that government regain control of China from the Communists. For an even more extreme example where that actually happened, look at the Baltic states. Their annexation by the Soviets was never recognized by many non-Communists states, and eventually their states re-established independence in a way that's generally considered continuous with their per-annexation states. They didn't even have the benefit of having rump states during the Cold War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_government-in-exile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_government-in-exile > However, the Estonian government in exile did serve to carry the continuity of the Estonian state forward. The last prime minister in the duties of the president, Heinrich Mark, ended the work of the government in exile when he handed over his credentials to the incoming President Lennart Meri on October 8, 1992. Meri issued a statement thanking the Estonian government in exile for being the keepers of the legal continuity of the Estonian state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Diplomatic_Service_(1940%E2%80%9391) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Diplomatic_Service_(1... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Legations_(1940%E2%80%931991) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Legations_(1940%E2%80%9...

jhanschoo 8y ago

I think you mean de jure. A mainland Chinese would not go to Taiwanese courts or abide by Taiwanese law, so you cannot say that most living in Qing China's imperial borders recognize the legitimacy of TW's govt. Internationally, more countries abide by the PRC's One China policy than exclusively recognize TW, so it does not have international de facto legitimacy as well. De jure... well, that would still be arbitrary. Go further back and one might consider the hereditary Qing successors to be the legitimate rulers. Or you might consider legitimacy to be conferred by the Mandate of Heaven, and by that reasoning China has never been more prosperous than the present in absolute terms, so then the PRC holds legitimacy.

wallace_f 8y ago
Dejure is indeed a better-suited term than defacto. My mistake. I was just trying to tell the history and articulate what happened. The meaning I intended was that the world and the US were allied with and recognized ROC. It is a case of "might makes right" where no court or treaty ever agreed to pass control, only war did.