6 ms·

> 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 to

by 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
  - Aperocky 6y ago
    From [2]: > treating Taiwan as a sub-sovereign foreign state equivalent Also nothing from [2] or [3] guarantees American military intervention. Essentially, [2] and [3] solidified the status of Taiwan as 'not a full sovereign'.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > nothing from [2] or [3] guarantees American military intervention This was never the goalpost. The original comment contrasted the legal flimsiness of the joint communiqué with the Acts underlying the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. > solidified the status of Taiwan as 'not a full sovereign' Not really. The Acts give deference to the executive branch. Usually, the U.S. can't sell fighter jets to non-sovereign customers. The Acts created exceptions for Taiwan, so the President could continue paying lip service to Beijing while treating Taiwan like a sovereign nation.
  - pinkfoot 6y ago
    After the pathetic avoidance of their obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest declaration, the USA and its allies wont do anything but more economic sanctions.
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  That implies, anyone, including Americans, are going to care that china is points to this policy.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Interfering in internal conflicts is a time-honored tradition in international relations, though. Remember when the U.S. went into Korea? Vietnam? Remember France helping the American colonies win their revolution against England? Both the U.S. and USSR spent time in Afghanistan. Etc. I'm not saying these examples were right or just, I'm just saying I think a statement like that from China would have zero impact on the U.S. defending Taiwan.
  - Aperocky 6y ago
    Well yes, until people started dying, en masse. If you think Vietnam War was bad, try a war in China.
    - adventured 6y ago
      The US would never invade China, it would attempt to stand off and bomb China to degrade their military capabilities and economy (manufacturing in particular), along with fighting a naval war to try to determine naval supremacy around Asia. There would be some island battles between the two, to deny/seize territory. The conflict would be near-China and would involve China trying to deny the US the ability to operate effectively close to their territory. Right now the US can project across much of Asia, China can't project across the Pacific (or very far from their borders), so the conflict would largely happen in and around Asia. It would be a question of naval battles around Asia (and some limited conflict in the Pacific), denying the US Air Force the ability to bomb China, intermediate and medium range missiles (ship killers etc), and air defenses. The way things would go with North Korea, South Korea and Japan, would be of particular interest; as well as NATO; North Korea would go to war with South Korea if any serious conflict breaks out between the US and China. Russia would supply and intel-assist China as requested but not get involved directly. There is almost no scenario where Germany (and probably France as well) would join on to fighting a war against China over Taiwan; many NATO countries would refuse to get involved, which would end the NATO alliance. And if China decided to bomb eg Tokyo, they could obviously cause enormous destruction very easily, which presents Japan with a very difficult choice. There is a good reason nobody wants to see any of this happen. If China were losing badly enough, they'd throw the nuclear card on the table. It presents a difficult scenario overall, as China can always draw a stalemate by using that whenever convenient: stop or I'll use nukes; it's the ultimate homefield advantage. If you're winning away from your home turf, and you're under threat of being nuked, your population will never support pressing forward (it would never be worth it, gain a bit of foreign land temporarily and lose your cities).
snowwrestler 6y ago
This is correct. Recall that President Trump deliberately stirred this pot shortly after his election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Tsai_call https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Tsai_call
zozbot234 6y ago
"One China" is also ROC ('Taiwan') policy, not just PRC's.
- iso-8859-1 6y ago
  ROC president Ma Ying-jeou asserted claims on mainland China in 2008. PRC claims Taiwan all the time. So is that really equivalent?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- ardy42 6y ago
  > "One China" is also ROC ('Taiwan') policy, not just PRC's. Maybe not so much. The PRC threatens automatic military action if Taiwan repudiates that policy, as it sees it as a move for formal independence. So Taiwan has been forced to pay lip service to that policy whether it truly believes in it or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Taiwan&oldid=960955359#PRC's_condition_on_military_intervention https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan_independence_movement&oldid=962693040#Current_political_situation_in_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan_independen... The political situation of Taiwan is very weird, as many of the "official" positions are contrary to the actual positions.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  An agreement under duress is just paper.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
It should be noted that the US decided to stop recognising Taiwan (as ROC) when they rightly concluded that the PRC could not longer be ignored and they recognised it as the government of China. That's the 'beauty' of geopolitics: Do anything then switch and do the opposite as long as it suits your interests.

by ardy42 6y ago

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
- Aperocky 6y ago
  From [2]: > treating Taiwan as a sub-sovereign foreign state equivalent Also nothing from [2] or [3] guarantees American military intervention. Essentially, [2] and [3] solidified the status of Taiwan as 'not a full sovereign'.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > nothing from [2] or [3] guarantees American military intervention This was never the goalpost. The original comment contrasted the legal flimsiness of the joint communiqué with the Acts underlying the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. > solidified the status of Taiwan as 'not a full sovereign' Not really. The Acts give deference to the executive branch. Usually, the U.S. can't sell fighter jets to non-sovereign customers. The Acts created exceptions for Taiwan, so the President could continue paying lip service to Beijing while treating Taiwan like a sovereign nation.
- pinkfoot 6y ago
  After the pathetic avoidance of their obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest declaration, the USA and its allies wont do anything but more economic sanctions.
throwaway2048 6y ago
That implies, anyone, including Americans, are going to care that china is points to this policy.
snowwrestler 6y ago
Interfering in internal conflicts is a time-honored tradition in international relations, though. Remember when the U.S. went into Korea? Vietnam? Remember France helping the American colonies win their revolution against England? Both the U.S. and USSR spent time in Afghanistan. Etc. I'm not saying these examples were right or just, I'm just saying I think a statement like that from China would have zero impact on the U.S. defending Taiwan.
- Aperocky 6y ago
  Well yes, until people started dying, en masse. If you think Vietnam War was bad, try a war in China.
  - adventured 6y ago
    The US would never invade China, it would attempt to stand off and bomb China to degrade their military capabilities and economy (manufacturing in particular), along with fighting a naval war to try to determine naval supremacy around Asia. There would be some island battles between the two, to deny/seize territory. The conflict would be near-China and would involve China trying to deny the US the ability to operate effectively close to their territory. Right now the US can project across much of Asia, China can't project across the Pacific (or very far from their borders), so the conflict would largely happen in and around Asia. It would be a question of naval battles around Asia (and some limited conflict in the Pacific), denying the US Air Force the ability to bomb China, intermediate and medium range missiles (ship killers etc), and air defenses. The way things would go with North Korea, South Korea and Japan, would be of particular interest; as well as NATO; North Korea would go to war with South Korea if any serious conflict breaks out between the US and China. Russia would supply and intel-assist China as requested but not get involved directly. There is almost no scenario where Germany (and probably France as well) would join on to fighting a war against China over Taiwan; many NATO countries would refuse to get involved, which would end the NATO alliance. And if China decided to bomb eg Tokyo, they could obviously cause enormous destruction very easily, which presents Japan with a very difficult choice. There is a good reason nobody wants to see any of this happen. If China were losing badly enough, they'd throw the nuclear card on the table. It presents a difficult scenario overall, as China can always draw a stalemate by using that whenever convenient: stop or I'll use nukes; it's the ultimate homefield advantage. If you're winning away from your home turf, and you're under threat of being nuked, your population will never support pressing forward (it would never be worth it, gain a bit of foreign land temporarily and lose your cities).

snowwrestler 6y ago

This is correct. Recall that President Trump deliberately stirred this pot shortly after his election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Tsai_call https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Tsai_call

zozbot234 6y ago

"One China" is also ROC ('Taiwan') policy, not just PRC's.

iso-8859-1 6y ago
ROC president Ma Ying-jeou asserted claims on mainland China in 2008. PRC claims Taiwan all the time. So is that really equivalent?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ardy42 6y ago
> "One China" is also ROC ('Taiwan') policy, not just PRC's. Maybe not so much. The PRC threatens automatic military action if Taiwan repudiates that policy, as it sees it as a move for formal independence. So Taiwan has been forced to pay lip service to that policy whether it truly believes in it or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Taiwan&oldid=960955359#PRC's_condition_on_military_intervention https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan_independence_movement&oldid=962693040#Current_political_situation_in_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan_independen... The political situation of Taiwan is very weird, as many of the "official" positions are contrary to the actual positions.
microcolonel 6y ago
An agreement under duress is just paper.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

It should be noted that the US decided to stop recognising Taiwan (as ROC) when they rightly concluded that the PRC could not longer be ignored and they recognised it as the government of China. That's the 'beauty' of geopolitics: Do anything then switch and do the opposite as long as it suits your interests.