15 ms·

China's Xi vows 'reunification' with Taiwan

57 points by gridder 5y ago

mytailorisrich 5y ago
Reunification in this case is as legitimate as speaking of German reunification before 1990 or Korean reunification now. So are the quotation marks because they are actually quoting or because of some other reason?... In this article it seems to me that they do beyond quoting.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Why are people so suspicious of quotation marks these days? People are always having a go at the BBC for using them as well. It's a quotation, so they've used quotation marks. It's not a mystery.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    It's healthy suspicion, more than a suspicion, actually when you read this article and others. Of course if it's a direct quotation then quotation marks are appropriate, but then it becomes something else when a term is always between quotation marks throughout the article. For instance: "Peaceful "reunification" best meets the overall interests of the Taiwanese people, but China will protect its sovereignty and unity, he added." Why is 'reunification' quoted there? Since you mention the BBC, I've noticed that they now always write "democratic Taiwan" instead of just "Taiwan"...
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > Why is 'reunification' quoted there? Because it's a quotation. Someone other than the journalist said it. The quotation marks let you know that.
      - mytailorisrich 5y ago
        They are quoting a whole sentence, not a single word yet they put quotation marks around a specific word. This is not neutral at all.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > This is not neutral at all. I think you've got it backwards - the point is to be fastidiously neutral. Some people think it's reunification, some people think it isn't. So instead of taking one side and saying what they think, they just tell you what the relevant person said. They aren't quoting a whole sentence, as it comes from a speech and they want to make it understandable without having to read the whole thing. It's supposed to be simple reporting, not opinion. Especially if you look at the venue - it's a news agency. This is all totally normal, completely above-board, best-practice journalism. I have no idea why people push back against it. Are you possibly confusing quotation marks with scare quotes? That's not what these are. They aren't making a point using the quotation marks. They're trying to not make a point. Just to convey the facts.
        mytailorisrich 5y ago
        But they are taking side! Of course some people are against reunification but trying to push the narrative that this is not a matter of reunification really is propaganda and not fact. What I quoted is not neutral journalism. Neutral journalism on this issue is extremely rare. It has become a widespread trick to push a narrative under the cover of being neutral or irrelevant facts. Clever use of quotation marks under the pretext that not everyone agrees, systematic use of 'democratic Taiwan' are 2 examples of subtle and clever bias when it comes to reporting of cross-straight relations. Another one is today's reporting on the BBC for the 10th October (national day of ROC), which was not even subtle. But it's hard for the public who does not know about an issue and trust what they are told. And of course there is one so blind as those who will not see.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      I presume that the BBC is quoting “reunification” to make clear they don’t necessarily agree with the term’s usage, but use it because Xi did. I would do the same since I personally find “annexation through imperialist military conquest” to be much more honest description of the situation.
- hker 5y ago
  Because the history of Taiwan is complicated. If you count Taiwan as a part to be unified under CCP rule, then by similar accounts you may as well argue that Iran and Iraq as parts to be unified under CCP rule. From the Wikipedia page on Taiwan [1], check out the Chronological phases on the right, you can see that Taiwan has been ruled by different regimes: * Prehistory to 1624 * Dutch Formosa 1624–1662 * Spanish Formosa 1626–1642 * Kingdom of Tungning 1661–1683 * Qing rule 1683–1895 * Japanese rule 1895–1945 * Republic of China rule 1945–present Among them: - the Kingdom of Tungning was a loyalist to Ming dynasty when Qing dynasty was ruling mainland China, - later Qing dynasty partly ruled Taiwan, - now the Repulic of China is ruling Taiwan when CCP is ruling mainland China. Then one may ask why Taiwan should be a part to be unified under CCP rule, as Xi implies, instead of being ruled by the Republic of China. One argument is that Taiwan has been ruled by regimes associated with Mainland China in the past (loyalist to Ming dynasty after it lost, then partly by Qing dynasty), hence by extension to be ruled by the current ruler of mainland China, CCP. But if you accept this argument, then you may notice that the Mongol empire (Yuan dynasty) once ruled Iran and Iraq and more [2]. If we ignore the past, then we may ask if Taiwan should be ruled by the mainland Chinese regime, CCP, or should be a sovereign country ruled by the Republic of China as the President of Taiwan said [3]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Taiwan [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire [3]: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/taiwan-says-it-is-sovereign-independent-country-as-xi-pledges-reunification/articleshow/86892478.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/taiw...
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    Flooding others with a mass of data is a rhetoric trick. Again, the situation is exactly like Germany and Korea. China is currently split and this is an issue of reunification. Taiwan is part of China and the last territory of the Republic of China, whose government was kicked out of the mainland by the communist. Today is national day in Taiwan and that commemorates the fall of the Empire and the founding of the Republic of China... Now, some people in Taiwan are opposed to reunification because of the current regime on the mainland, some are opposed to reunification full stop and want Taiwan to remain an independent country. That's the factual situation. But calling into question the term 'reunification' is purely propaganda in order to paint the PRC as trying to invade a foreign country like if they wanted to invade Vietnam or another neighbour. From the West's POV this is a standard divide and conquer strategy.
rsj_hn 5y ago
This is actually good news, considering the state of China's domestic circumstances. China knows it's not really in a position to start a war with the West, and so it's trying to gain some of the political benefit of appealing to domestic nationalism without destroying its domestic employment, economy, trade relationships, or overseas wealth as a result of an actual invasion. And it is no secret that this happens whenever China's leadership takes a popularity hit -- most recently with the electricity shortages as a result of their (now suspended) anti-coal push. If China was really going to attack, it would not be sabre rattling like this.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  IDK. Argentina has maintained its claim on the Falkland Islands verbally since forever, then in 1982 actually attempted to take them.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    The Falklands have 2000 fishermen. 1. How much sabre-rattling did Argentina do in the year prior to invasion? Were they flying military planes in Falkland airspace and publicly threatening to invade? 2. While Argentina could reasonably believe that no one cared about the Falklands (and only invaded after it was mistakenly convinced that the UK would not care) this isn't the case for Taiwan. For example, how many billions in military hardware did the UK sell to the inhabitants of the Falkland islands, how many billions in mutual trade occured between the UK and the Falklands, and how many strategic key industries did the Falklands have a leadership position in? What was strength of the pro-Falkland lobby group in British Parliament? It's one thing for Argentina to convince itself that the UK would abandon the Falklands, a different thing for China to convince itself that the West will abandon Taiwan. Moreover China is much more dependent on the rest of the world than Argentina. Argentina can feed itself -- China can't. China can't even keep the lights on without help from Australia.
- nix23 5y ago
  It's just a tactic to keep the the minds outside china calm (oh look china want's to go the freedom loving way), and heat the minds inside china up (how dare those Taiwanese knock off that peaceful inquiry) and buy a little bit more time to buildup the navy, air-force and army. BTW: I don't believe that anyone would help Taiwan, there is just nothing to win (economically) and that's the really sad point...and china knows it, so does the US, neither the US nor China could win a war against each other...proxy war? Pure waste of money.
anm89 5y ago
I've recently been really digging in on China, and the more I read / learn, the less threatening (not evil, the CCP is certainly plenty evil) I perceive them. A starter on this is the three part polymatter series. 1) China has a monster of a demographics problem that they are clearly lying about with census data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTbILK0fxDY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTbILK0fxDY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmZWIwKdXC4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmZWIwKdXC4 2) It's pretty well established at this point that Chinese property markets have serious issues which threaten systemic issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgVXRtq5EIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgVXRtq5EIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlbMsS4u5EY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlbMsS4u5EY 3) Their resource situation, especially water issues are serious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRUc4gTO-PE&t=918s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRUc4gTO-PE&t=918s 4) They have terrible Geography from a military perspective and are not nearly as militarily strong as they project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNaIKatux1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNaIKatux1E 5) And the biggest one. Chinese citizens are increasingly not prosperous enough to be ok with it. Also the gender imbalance is so severe that there are guaranteed to be 10s of millions of angry single men over the next decades, almost certain to increase social discord. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y87R3Lp0jd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y87R3Lp0jd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYaA69EvHGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYaA69EvHGw They have also seriously mishandled their relationship with Australia who they really needed which was just long term cemented with the AUUKUS alliance. Another interesting channel which I found because she was talking about evergrande default over three years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwYF8GGE-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwYF8GGE-8 Video on frequent structural disasters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RElGXLwWTvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RElGXLwWTvI I think over the next 30 years, the US tripping over it's own feet is a bigger risk than anything China related
- likpok 5y ago
  The classic suggestion of how to solve a large population of restless young men is to invade somewhere. That’s not exactly a comforting thought, even if China is unlikely to invade the US. Certainly China would not be the first country to ramp up nationalism to respond to dissatisfaction at home.
ajuc 5y ago
It's sad that UN is so useless. This kind of rhetoric by a state leader should result in sanctions.
- FridayoLeary 5y ago
  Security Council veto. The UN is one of the more useless bodies in existence. Their principal function is to make everybody "feel good" ("the United Nations will sort <insert crisis here> out!") and issue meaningless resolutions.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Security Council veto. ...the UNGA adopted a bypass mechanism in 1950, and it was first used in 1951 and had been used several times since.
    - FridayoLeary 5y ago
      ...but almost certainly not be used to force through a resolution condemning China. The only organisation that was less ineffective then the UN was the League of Nations (minus the US)
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > but almost certainly not be used to force through a resolution condemning China Why not? The very first use of Uniting For Peace was to condemn China and call on all States to actively resist Chinese aggression.
tikwidd 5y ago
The ROC also 'vows reunification' with the Chinese mainland. It's a standard line in the One China diplomatic framework which both states follow. Edit: can we get the title changed to "Xi vows 'peaceful reunification' with Taiwan"? This better reflects the content of the article: BEIJING, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed on Saturday to achieve "peaceful reunification" with Taiwan, and did not directly mention the use of force after a week of tensions with the Chinese-claimed island that sparked international concern.
- oliwarner 5y ago
  Declaring your intentions while sharpening your weapons is never peaceful. It's already an act of aggression. And I thought the current ROC line (at least, the leading party's line) has no interest in "One China".
  - tikwidd 5y ago
    Declaring peaceful intentions strikes me as the opposite of aggression.
    - oliwarner 5y ago
      In isolation. Saying it days after flying an air-to-ground-assault-capable wing of aircraft in the day, and a smaller strike force in the evening shows that it's nonsense. You don't run operations against people you have peaceful intentions towards.
- Dero8 5y ago
  > The ROC also 'vows reunification' with the Chinese mainland. Source please. All I've heard about from Taiwan in the past decade are simply calls for independance, especially since Tsai won presidency (twice).
  - tikwidd 5y ago
    There are calls for independence, but ROC maintains a claim over the Chinese mainland which constitutionally requires a referendum to change. Source: ROC constitution.
cjbenedikt 5y ago
Most commentators obsession with China possibly invading Taiwan is flabbergasting. How many countries has China invaded over the course of say the last 200 years and how many the US? Violating Taiwan's airspace from mainland China is fairly easy as due to their geographic proximity both countries airspaces actually overlap in places. Just a question on how the media paints the picture.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  Tibet? Yes, China's invasions pale in comparison to US, but Tibet is relevant to the discussion because it's a disputed territory, i.e. a territory that the Chinese government doesn't recognize as a foreign country. This doesn't make it less of an invasion for people who hold the opposite view.
- closetnerd 5y ago
  Agree that China is being increasingly portrayed as an enemy. Though taking it as serious economic competitor is necessary. Wish we didn’t conflate the two.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Since World War 2, China has invaded Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, and India (twice). The US has invaded Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan in that same timeframe. While China has been less militarily aggressive than the US in recent history, that should not be understood as not militarily aggressive at all. Especially as three of the US invasions were in direct response to others' aggression and not naked aggression, as all of China's invasions have been.
  - jryle70 5y ago
    You should be concerned if you're China's neighbor. In addition to the ones listed above, China had a border conflict with USSR in 1969 in Far East - [0]. China invaded the contested Paracel islands which was under South Vietnam's control at the time - [1]. China killed 64 Vietnamese solder in the Johnson South Reef Skirmish - [2] Worst of all, China directly supported and controlled Khmer Rouge, causing the death of at least a million Cambodians, 25% of their population. The worst genocide since WW2 that seems to have been gradually forgotten - [3]. Note that most Western countries also bore the responsibility, albeit indirectly, by the virtue of looking the other way. All of that happened when China was only a regional power with a poor economy. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
solarkraft 5y ago
Obligatory Taiwan China relations comment: Taiwan was never a part of the PRC and doesn’t intend to be. While not officially a country (due to China’s whining), for all intents and purposes it absolutely is. With that out of the way, does this present anything new?

57 points by gridder 5y ago

Reunification in this case is as legitimate as speaking of German reunification before 1990 or Korean reunification now. So are the quotation marks because they are actually quoting or because of some other reason?... In this article it seems to me that they do beyond quoting.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Why are people so suspicious of quotation marks these days? People are always having a go at the BBC for using them as well. It's a quotation, so they've used quotation marks. It's not a mystery.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  It's healthy suspicion, more than a suspicion, actually when you read this article and others. Of course if it's a direct quotation then quotation marks are appropriate, but then it becomes something else when a term is always between quotation marks throughout the article. For instance: "Peaceful "reunification" best meets the overall interests of the Taiwanese people, but China will protect its sovereignty and unity, he added." Why is 'reunification' quoted there? Since you mention the BBC, I've noticed that they now always write "democratic Taiwan" instead of just "Taiwan"...
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > Why is 'reunification' quoted there? Because it's a quotation. Someone other than the journalist said it. The quotation marks let you know that.
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      They are quoting a whole sentence, not a single word yet they put quotation marks around a specific word. This is not neutral at all.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        > This is not neutral at all. I think you've got it backwards - the point is to be fastidiously neutral. Some people think it's reunification, some people think it isn't. So instead of taking one side and saying what they think, they just tell you what the relevant person said. They aren't quoting a whole sentence, as it comes from a speech and they want to make it understandable without having to read the whole thing. It's supposed to be simple reporting, not opinion. Especially if you look at the venue - it's a news agency. This is all totally normal, completely above-board, best-practice journalism. I have no idea why people push back against it. Are you possibly confusing quotation marks with scare quotes? That's not what these are. They aren't making a point using the quotation marks. They're trying to not make a point. Just to convey the facts.
        mytailorisrich 5y ago
        But they are taking side! Of course some people are against reunification but trying to push the narrative that this is not a matter of reunification really is propaganda and not fact. What I quoted is not neutral journalism. Neutral journalism on this issue is extremely rare. It has become a widespread trick to push a narrative under the cover of being neutral or irrelevant facts. Clever use of quotation marks under the pretext that not everyone agrees, systematic use of 'democratic Taiwan' are 2 examples of subtle and clever bias when it comes to reporting of cross-straight relations. Another one is today's reporting on the BBC for the 10th October (national day of ROC), which was not even subtle. But it's hard for the public who does not know about an issue and trust what they are told. And of course there is one so blind as those who will not see.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    I presume that the BBC is quoting “reunification” to make clear they don’t necessarily agree with the term’s usage, but use it because Xi did. I would do the same since I personally find “annexation through imperialist military conquest” to be much more honest description of the situation.
hker 5y ago
Because the history of Taiwan is complicated. If you count Taiwan as a part to be unified under CCP rule, then by similar accounts you may as well argue that Iran and Iraq as parts to be unified under CCP rule. From the Wikipedia page on Taiwan [1], check out the Chronological phases on the right, you can see that Taiwan has been ruled by different regimes: * Prehistory to 1624 * Dutch Formosa 1624–1662 * Spanish Formosa 1626–1642 * Kingdom of Tungning 1661–1683 * Qing rule 1683–1895 * Japanese rule 1895–1945 * Republic of China rule 1945–present Among them: - the Kingdom of Tungning was a loyalist to Ming dynasty when Qing dynasty was ruling mainland China, - later Qing dynasty partly ruled Taiwan, - now the Repulic of China is ruling Taiwan when CCP is ruling mainland China. Then one may ask why Taiwan should be a part to be unified under CCP rule, as Xi implies, instead of being ruled by the Republic of China. One argument is that Taiwan has been ruled by regimes associated with Mainland China in the past (loyalist to Ming dynasty after it lost, then partly by Qing dynasty), hence by extension to be ruled by the current ruler of mainland China, CCP. But if you accept this argument, then you may notice that the Mongol empire (Yuan dynasty) once ruled Iran and Iraq and more [2]. If we ignore the past, then we may ask if Taiwan should be ruled by the mainland Chinese regime, CCP, or should be a sovereign country ruled by the Republic of China as the President of Taiwan said [3]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Taiwan [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire [3]: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/taiwan-says-it-is-sovereign-independent-country-as-xi-pledges-reunification/articleshow/86892478.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/taiw...
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  Flooding others with a mass of data is a rhetoric trick. Again, the situation is exactly like Germany and Korea. China is currently split and this is an issue of reunification. Taiwan is part of China and the last territory of the Republic of China, whose government was kicked out of the mainland by the communist. Today is national day in Taiwan and that commemorates the fall of the Empire and the founding of the Republic of China... Now, some people in Taiwan are opposed to reunification because of the current regime on the mainland, some are opposed to reunification full stop and want Taiwan to remain an independent country. That's the factual situation. But calling into question the term 'reunification' is purely propaganda in order to paint the PRC as trying to invade a foreign country like if they wanted to invade Vietnam or another neighbour. From the West's POV this is a standard divide and conquer strategy.

rsj_hn 5y ago

This is actually good news, considering the state of China's domestic circumstances. China knows it's not really in a position to start a war with the West, and so it's trying to gain some of the political benefit of appealing to domestic nationalism without destroying its domestic employment, economy, trade relationships, or overseas wealth as a result of an actual invasion. And it is no secret that this happens whenever China's leadership takes a popularity hit -- most recently with the electricity shortages as a result of their (now suspended) anti-coal push. If China was really going to attack, it would not be sabre rattling like this.

inglor_cz 5y ago
IDK. Argentina has maintained its claim on the Falkland Islands verbally since forever, then in 1982 actually attempted to take them.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  The Falklands have 2000 fishermen. 1. How much sabre-rattling did Argentina do in the year prior to invasion? Were they flying military planes in Falkland airspace and publicly threatening to invade? 2. While Argentina could reasonably believe that no one cared about the Falklands (and only invaded after it was mistakenly convinced that the UK would not care) this isn't the case for Taiwan. For example, how many billions in military hardware did the UK sell to the inhabitants of the Falkland islands, how many billions in mutual trade occured between the UK and the Falklands, and how many strategic key industries did the Falklands have a leadership position in? What was strength of the pro-Falkland lobby group in British Parliament? It's one thing for Argentina to convince itself that the UK would abandon the Falklands, a different thing for China to convince itself that the West will abandon Taiwan. Moreover China is much more dependent on the rest of the world than Argentina. Argentina can feed itself -- China can't. China can't even keep the lights on without help from Australia.
nix23 5y ago
It's just a tactic to keep the the minds outside china calm (oh look china want's to go the freedom loving way), and heat the minds inside china up (how dare those Taiwanese knock off that peaceful inquiry) and buy a little bit more time to buildup the navy, air-force and army. BTW: I don't believe that anyone would help Taiwan, there is just nothing to win (economically) and that's the really sad point...and china knows it, so does the US, neither the US nor China could win a war against each other...proxy war? Pure waste of money.

anm89 5y ago

I've recently been really digging in on China, and the more I read / learn, the less threatening (not evil, the CCP is certainly plenty evil) I perceive them. A starter on this is the three part polymatter series. 1) China has a monster of a demographics problem that they are clearly lying about with census data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTbILK0fxDY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTbILK0fxDY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmZWIwKdXC4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmZWIwKdXC4 2) It's pretty well established at this point that Chinese property markets have serious issues which threaten systemic issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgVXRtq5EIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgVXRtq5EIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlbMsS4u5EY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlbMsS4u5EY 3) Their resource situation, especially water issues are serious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRUc4gTO-PE&t=918s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRUc4gTO-PE&t=918s 4) They have terrible Geography from a military perspective and are not nearly as militarily strong as they project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNaIKatux1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNaIKatux1E 5) And the biggest one. Chinese citizens are increasingly not prosperous enough to be ok with it. Also the gender imbalance is so severe that there are guaranteed to be 10s of millions of angry single men over the next decades, almost certain to increase social discord. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y87R3Lp0jd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y87R3Lp0jd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYaA69EvHGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYaA69EvHGw They have also seriously mishandled their relationship with Australia who they really needed which was just long term cemented with the AUUKUS alliance. Another interesting channel which I found because she was talking about evergrande default over three years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwYF8GGE-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwYF8GGE-8 Video on frequent structural disasters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RElGXLwWTvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RElGXLwWTvI I think over the next 30 years, the US tripping over it's own feet is a bigger risk than anything China related

likpok 5y ago
The classic suggestion of how to solve a large population of restless young men is to invade somewhere. That’s not exactly a comforting thought, even if China is unlikely to invade the US. Certainly China would not be the first country to ramp up nationalism to respond to dissatisfaction at home.

ajuc 5y ago

It's sad that UN is so useless. This kind of rhetoric by a state leader should result in sanctions.

FridayoLeary 5y ago
Security Council veto. The UN is one of the more useless bodies in existence. Their principal function is to make everybody "feel good" ("the United Nations will sort <insert crisis here> out!") and issue meaningless resolutions.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Security Council veto. ...the UNGA adopted a bypass mechanism in 1950, and it was first used in 1951 and had been used several times since.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    ...but almost certainly not be used to force through a resolution condemning China. The only organisation that was less ineffective then the UN was the League of Nations (minus the US)
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > but almost certainly not be used to force through a resolution condemning China Why not? The very first use of Uniting For Peace was to condemn China and call on all States to actively resist Chinese aggression.

tikwidd 5y ago

The ROC also 'vows reunification' with the Chinese mainland. It's a standard line in the One China diplomatic framework which both states follow. Edit: can we get the title changed to "Xi vows 'peaceful reunification' with Taiwan"? This better reflects the content of the article: BEIJING, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed on Saturday to achieve "peaceful reunification" with Taiwan, and did not directly mention the use of force after a week of tensions with the Chinese-claimed island that sparked international concern.

oliwarner 5y ago
Declaring your intentions while sharpening your weapons is never peaceful. It's already an act of aggression. And I thought the current ROC line (at least, the leading party's line) has no interest in "One China".
- tikwidd 5y ago
  Declaring peaceful intentions strikes me as the opposite of aggression.
  - oliwarner 5y ago
    In isolation. Saying it days after flying an air-to-ground-assault-capable wing of aircraft in the day, and a smaller strike force in the evening shows that it's nonsense. You don't run operations against people you have peaceful intentions towards.
Dero8 5y ago
> The ROC also 'vows reunification' with the Chinese mainland. Source please. All I've heard about from Taiwan in the past decade are simply calls for independance, especially since Tsai won presidency (twice).
- tikwidd 5y ago
  There are calls for independence, but ROC maintains a claim over the Chinese mainland which constitutionally requires a referendum to change. Source: ROC constitution.

cjbenedikt 5y ago

Most commentators obsession with China possibly invading Taiwan is flabbergasting. How many countries has China invaded over the course of say the last 200 years and how many the US? Violating Taiwan's airspace from mainland China is fairly easy as due to their geographic proximity both countries airspaces actually overlap in places. Just a question on how the media paints the picture.

ithkuil 5y ago
Tibet? Yes, China's invasions pale in comparison to US, but Tibet is relevant to the discussion because it's a disputed territory, i.e. a territory that the Chinese government doesn't recognize as a foreign country. This doesn't make it less of an invasion for people who hold the opposite view.
closetnerd 5y ago
Agree that China is being increasingly portrayed as an enemy. Though taking it as serious economic competitor is necessary. Wish we didn’t conflate the two.
jcranmer 5y ago
Since World War 2, China has invaded Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, and India (twice). The US has invaded Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan in that same timeframe. While China has been less militarily aggressive than the US in recent history, that should not be understood as not militarily aggressive at all. Especially as three of the US invasions were in direct response to others' aggression and not naked aggression, as all of China's invasions have been.
- jryle70 5y ago
  You should be concerned if you're China's neighbor. In addition to the ones listed above, China had a border conflict with USSR in 1969 in Far East - [0]. China invaded the contested Paracel islands which was under South Vietnam's control at the time - [1]. China killed 64 Vietnamese solder in the Johnson South Reef Skirmish - [2] Worst of all, China directly supported and controlled Khmer Rouge, causing the death of at least a million Cambodians, 25% of their population. The worst genocide since WW2 that seems to have been gradually forgotten - [3]. Note that most Western countries also bore the responsibility, albeit indirectly, by the virtue of looking the other way. All of that happened when China was only a regional power with a poor economy. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

solarkraft 5y ago

Obligatory Taiwan China relations comment: Taiwan was never a part of the PRC and doesn’t intend to be. While not officially a country (due to China’s whining), for all intents and purposes it absolutely is. With that out of the way, does this present anything new?