4 ms·

If China were go to war with Taiwan, US would be involved in a civil war in China de jure if it wants to intervene. Because US recognize both mainland China an

If China were go to war with Taiwan, US would be involved in a civil war in China de jure if it wants to intervene. Because US recognize both mainland China and Taiwan as one 'China', without specifying which. The internet would like to tell you that China and Taiwan are totally different country but US policy doesn't recognize that. And changing that policy one week into the conflict does not look good on the optics.

throwanem 6y ago
Policy optics are secondary here. Even were the US to attempt some military intervention, which I think quite unlikely, it would not be a war we could win.
knodi 6y ago
I doubt the current occupants of the whitehouse care about optics at this point.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> US recognize both mainland China and Taiwan as one 'China’ This is a 70s era policy that is increasingly paid just lip service to.
ardy42 6y ago
> Because US recognize both mainland China and Taiwan as one 'China', without specifying which. The internet would like to tell you that China and Taiwan are totally different country but US policy doesn't recognize that. US policy does de facto recognizes Taiwan. For instance, it has an embassy there, it just doesn't call it one; and it sells Taiwan weapons over PRC objections. The only reason the US doesn't recognize Taiwan de jure is a Cold War era compromise with PRC diplomatic policy, and the fact that the current ambiguity works reasonably well for all parties right now. IIRC, some US political factions advocate for formally recognizing Taiwan (for example: https://twitter.com/ambjohnbolton/status/1250501579070980099 https://twitter.com/ambjohnbolton/status/1250501579070980099).
- Aperocky 6y ago
  You're absolutely correct, but de facto is not de jure. There's nothing easier to do than for China to point to this policy and say America is sending troops to an internal conflict in China.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > You're absolutely correct, but de facto is not de jure. I'd say the existence of the de facto recognition is more significant than the lack of de jure recognition. There's no real central authority in international relations, so the official statements and pieces of paper are pretty meaningless without the de facto actions of the countries in question back them up. > There's nothing easier to do than for China to point to this policy and say America is sending troops to an internal conflict in China. It's easy for the PRC to say whatever it likes, who else cares is a different matter.
  - dnh44 6y ago
    It’s a little bit like the story of The Emperors New Clothes though. Everyone knows Taiwan is independent but officially we all pretend it’s not.
    - blackrock 6y ago
      Well, the two, China and Taiwan, are technically still in a state of Civil War. So, no, this issue is not resolved, regardless of whoever says it is.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > de facto is not de jure It is an executive communiqué [1]. There is no treaty. "One China" is based on a statement of convenience. It could literally be reversed with a tweet. What isn't just buttered-up memos are the Taiwan Relations Act [2] and Taiwan Travel Act [3]. Unlike the joint communiqué, these are U.S. law. Lots of Americans live in Taiwan. Taiwan hosts scores of American-made military assets defending it from Beijing. And high-ranking Americans are almost constantly in Taiwan. If Beijing attacked Taiwan, these would be among the collateral damage. > say America is sending troops to an internal conflict in China Everyone says everything when war breaks out. If Beijing blew up a bunch of Taiwanese assets, taking out a handful of Americans in the process, I see no obstacle to strong political support in America to intervene. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Communiqué https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Communiqué [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Travel_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Travel_Act

throwanem 6y ago

Policy optics are secondary here. Even were the US to attempt some military intervention, which I think quite unlikely, it would not be a war we could win.

knodi 6y ago

I doubt the current occupants of the whitehouse care about optics at this point.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> US recognize both mainland China and Taiwan as one 'China’ This is a 70s era policy that is increasingly paid just lip service to.

ardy42 6y ago

> Because US recognize both mainland China and Taiwan as one 'China', without specifying which. The internet would like to tell you that China and Taiwan are totally different country but US policy doesn't recognize that. US policy does de facto recognizes Taiwan. For instance, it has an embassy there, it just doesn't call it one; and it sells Taiwan weapons over PRC objections. The only reason the US doesn't recognize Taiwan de jure is a Cold War era compromise with PRC diplomatic policy, and the fact that the current ambiguity works reasonably well for all parties right now. IIRC, some US political factions advocate for formally recognizing Taiwan (for example: https://twitter.com/ambjohnbolton/status/1250501579070980099 https://twitter.com/ambjohnbolton/status/1250501579070980099).

Aperocky 6y ago
You're absolutely correct, but de facto is not de jure. There's nothing easier to do than for China to point to this policy and say America is sending troops to an internal conflict in China.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > You're absolutely correct, but de facto is not de jure. I'd say the existence of the de facto recognition is more significant than the lack of de jure recognition. There's no real central authority in international relations, so the official statements and pieces of paper are pretty meaningless without the de facto actions of the countries in question back them up. > There's nothing easier to do than for China to point to this policy and say America is sending troops to an internal conflict in China. It's easy for the PRC to say whatever it likes, who else cares is a different matter.
- dnh44 6y ago
  It’s a little bit like the story of The Emperors New Clothes though. Everyone knows Taiwan is independent but officially we all pretend it’s not.
  - blackrock 6y ago
    Well, the two, China and Taiwan, are technically still in a state of Civil War. So, no, this issue is not resolved, regardless of whoever says it is.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > de facto is not de jure It is an executive communiqué [1]. There is no treaty. "One China" is based on a statement of convenience. It could literally be reversed with a tweet. What isn't just buttered-up memos are the Taiwan Relations Act [2] and Taiwan Travel Act [3]. Unlike the joint communiqué, these are U.S. law. Lots of Americans live in Taiwan. Taiwan hosts scores of American-made military assets defending it from Beijing. And high-ranking Americans are almost constantly in Taiwan. If Beijing attacked Taiwan, these would be among the collateral damage. > say America is sending troops to an internal conflict in China Everyone says everything when war breaks out. If Beijing blew up a bunch of Taiwanese assets, taking out a handful of Americans in the process, I see no obstacle to strong political support in America to intervene. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Communiqué https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Communiqué [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Travel_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Travel_Act