6 ms·

I have 0 clue why in the 1970s we didn't make it a de jure situation, like with Korea, like with Vietnam. China wanted the UN seat, right? Would they really tu

I have 0 clue why in the 1970s we didn't make it a de jure situation, like with Korea, like with Vietnam. China wanted the UN seat, right? Would they really turn that down because the US insisted on saying some shit about Taiwan? When they were kinda broke and caught between us and Soviets? Did the KMT really not want to give up "Republic of China", even if it meant being relegated to non-country status? Does it even matter what they think, being a subordinate dictatorship at that point? This seems like entirely a problem of the US's creation.

baybal2 5y ago
> China wanted the UN seat, right? Would they really turn that down because the US insisted on saying some shit about Taiwan? Because the security council seat was for the taking. And ChiComs had a very good memory how the Korean war started.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  So if they wanted a seat, and they are weak and Mao is old, then then can deal with it being called Taiwan. They can still stay it's an illegitimate breakway or whatever. Of course now there is no UN seat to dangle, and they are strong, and like with NK it's a fuck situation of our own procrastination, but then I think it was easy, and we just fucked up.
FooBarWidget 5y ago
Back in the 70s, the KMT definitely supported the One China Principle. They were still firmly dreaming about retaking the mainland. Back then the mainland and Taiwan even regularly fired shells at each other, not to actually attack, but as a statement by both sides to foreigners that the China-Taiwan issue is an internal China matter (namely a civil war), and not one of Taiwan being an independent state.
- azernik 5y ago
  And it was personal for the KMT! These were people who had been middle-aged, established bureaucrats and generals in China in 1949.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    I really made a mistake making my first sentence "did the KMT really?..." Yes, they did, I know that. KMT have always mostly been shitheads. The more important point is I don't see KMT having any leverage over the US in the 1970s, so it doesn't matter what they think.
    - CheezeIt 5y ago
      So then the U.N. and China both have an empty seat for Taiwan.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  We have North and South Korea when the communist revolution succeeded in the north but not the South. In the U.S., West Virginia split off from Virginia when most of Virginia joined the confederacy but a part didn't. Civil Wars, partial rebellions, partial revolutions, are one the mechanisms of state formation.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    We have North and South Korea because of a US invasion, the massacre of tens of thousands of people in the South with any sort of left/social-liberal sympathies, and a fully fascist government propped up by the US that lasted until the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilminism It's nothing to respect. The US is something to respect, because it's got a lot more economic and military power than poor backwards NK. Through the US, South Korea became a country. That's the mechanism of state formation. China doesn't bow to the US, so it's an entirely different dynamic. I say entirely different but the creation of Taiwan was a forceful takeover of an inhabited island by a retreating army who ruled with an iron fist. It was under martial law for 40 years. The nicest thing I hear people say about Taiwan is that it's 1) not China, and 2) not that oppressive anymore. The idea that China would suddenly respect that is weird. Plenty of people in Taiwan support unification. It also isn't like people who also wish to deal with China don't deal with Taiwan as if it were a country, they just don't call it one. It's like when they tried to call gay marriage "civil unions" in order to maintain the letter of homophobic policies while abandoning the substance.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > We have North and South Korea because of a US invasion No, this is demonstrably false. Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910. After the war, Korea was partitioned -- much like Europe -- with North Korea occupied by the Soviet Union and South Korea occupied by the US along the 38th parallel in 1945. Except the nature of the respective military presence was very different. The Soviet Union and China brought in large quanties of military equipment and troops, while actively supporting communist guerrillas in the South (but there were never more than ~5000 such guerillas). North Korea invaded the South on June 25, 1950 with ~200K troops and 75K PLA troops of Korean ethnicity, whereas the US had 2-300 troops in all of South Korea. The North attacked with 280 tanks furnished by the Soviet Union, whereas South Korea had no tanks, as the US refused to provide them with any prior to 1950. The North had 110 attack bombers, and 150 Yak fighter planes provided by the USSR. The US did not give any aircraft to the South, and there were only 22 aircraft in the South. The US had basically a token military presence in South Korea as it was not interested in either invading the North or building military bases in the South. You can read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Prelude_to_war_(1950) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Prelude_to_war_(195... To call this a "US invasion" is absurd. Moreover, somehow trying to make this about the boogeyman of "fighting fascism" or even "civil unions" is bizarre -- what is the state of civil unions in North Korea or China? What is the state of freedom of expression? Or freedom of religion? If you are going to be using words like "fascist", then they are much better applied to North Korea or China than to South Korea or Taiwan. Please don't spread this type of disinfo on public forums.
azernik 5y ago
The KMT absolutely did not want to give up its title of "Republic of China". It had been only 30 years since the civil war. KMT leadership was still people who had personally fled the mainland in middle age. The president at the time, Jiang Jingguo, was on the young end (he was the son and heir of Jiang Jieshi) - and even he had only arrived in Taiwan at age 39. None of those people had strong local ties, either personal ones with the non-Mainlander population or political ones with homegrown political movements. Taiwan, for them, was at best a consolation prize, not a home. From the US perspective, why would they go out of their way to call Taiwan its own country when neither government, on either side of the Strait, was interested in that?
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  > From the US perspective, why would they go out of their way to call Taiwan its own country when neither government, on either side of the Strait, was interested in that? :) I feel like this the same sort of thinking as tech debt. Names? Who cares! Everyone knows what the situation is on the ground. In my view, norms have to be actively upheld, even especially if you are on "Team 'rule of law'". If the thing is a state, call it a state dammit! I like this argument because it doesn't rely on "well, you gotta foresee China becoming strong and stuff". No, you don't, just have a principle that de jure and de facto should deviate as little as possible. I stand by my original analysis that doesn't matter what the KMT thinks, because RoC effectively a client state of the US at the time, with no TSMC to get more leverage, and also that the PRC should be happy enough to get its UN seat. If we wanted to, we could have made this happen, but we are sloppy and we didn't try.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > In my view, norms have to be actively upheld, even especially if you are on "Team 'rule of law'". What norm or law makes Taiwan a state other than that it claims itself to be? If you're team "rule of law" I think you have to insist that the KMT still run China.
  - beaunative 5y ago
    Taiwan is actually an state, but China don't recognize it the way we didn't recognize the IS. Of course, Taiwan is in much better situation than the IS, but the underlying logic is the same. A state government don't recognize other states just because they are a state.
netflixandkill 5y ago
The core of the problems is the KMT, who have been the roadblock to resolving this the whole time. Yes, they really were not willing to give anything, and it's black comedy at this point how many of them are in the PRC's pocket under the delusion the CCP will have any use for them at all if unification ever occurs (magic 8 ball says odds not good).
int_19h 5y ago
The vote to replace Taiwan with PRC in UN was in the General Assembly. US did not have enough votes there to force PRC to do anything, nor did it have the power to veto. US did attempt to block it by claiming that it is an "important question" under Article 18 of the UN Charter - specifically, that it counted as expulsion of a member. This was rejected on the basis that no member was actually expelled: China was a member before the vote, and it remained a member after the vote, the only difference being which government's delegation represented it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758#Proceedings_at_the_United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Thanks, this helps clarify what happened. I thought it be a institution where the security console had special powers.

baybal2 5y ago

> China wanted the UN seat, right? Would they really turn that down because the US insisted on saying some shit about Taiwan? Because the security council seat was for the taking. And ChiComs had a very good memory how the Korean war started.

Ericson2314 5y ago
So if they wanted a seat, and they are weak and Mao is old, then then can deal with it being called Taiwan. They can still stay it's an illegitimate breakway or whatever. Of course now there is no UN seat to dangle, and they are strong, and like with NK it's a fuck situation of our own procrastination, but then I think it was easy, and we just fucked up.

FooBarWidget 5y ago

Back in the 70s, the KMT definitely supported the One China Principle. They were still firmly dreaming about retaking the mainland. Back then the mainland and Taiwan even regularly fired shells at each other, not to actually attack, but as a statement by both sides to foreigners that the China-Taiwan issue is an internal China matter (namely a civil war), and not one of Taiwan being an independent state.

azernik 5y ago
And it was personal for the KMT! These were people who had been middle-aged, established bureaucrats and generals in China in 1949.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  I really made a mistake making my first sentence "did the KMT really?..." Yes, they did, I know that. KMT have always mostly been shitheads. The more important point is I don't see KMT having any leverage over the US in the 1970s, so it doesn't matter what they think.
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    So then the U.N. and China both have an empty seat for Taiwan.
rsj_hn 5y ago
We have North and South Korea when the communist revolution succeeded in the north but not the South. In the U.S., West Virginia split off from Virginia when most of Virginia joined the confederacy but a part didn't. Civil Wars, partial rebellions, partial revolutions, are one the mechanisms of state formation.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  We have North and South Korea because of a US invasion, the massacre of tens of thousands of people in the South with any sort of left/social-liberal sympathies, and a fully fascist government propped up by the US that lasted until the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilminism It's nothing to respect. The US is something to respect, because it's got a lot more economic and military power than poor backwards NK. Through the US, South Korea became a country. That's the mechanism of state formation. China doesn't bow to the US, so it's an entirely different dynamic. I say entirely different but the creation of Taiwan was a forceful takeover of an inhabited island by a retreating army who ruled with an iron fist. It was under martial law for 40 years. The nicest thing I hear people say about Taiwan is that it's 1) not China, and 2) not that oppressive anymore. The idea that China would suddenly respect that is weird. Plenty of people in Taiwan support unification. It also isn't like people who also wish to deal with China don't deal with Taiwan as if it were a country, they just don't call it one. It's like when they tried to call gay marriage "civil unions" in order to maintain the letter of homophobic policies while abandoning the substance.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > We have North and South Korea because of a US invasion No, this is demonstrably false. Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910. After the war, Korea was partitioned -- much like Europe -- with North Korea occupied by the Soviet Union and South Korea occupied by the US along the 38th parallel in 1945. Except the nature of the respective military presence was very different. The Soviet Union and China brought in large quanties of military equipment and troops, while actively supporting communist guerrillas in the South (but there were never more than ~5000 such guerillas). North Korea invaded the South on June 25, 1950 with ~200K troops and 75K PLA troops of Korean ethnicity, whereas the US had 2-300 troops in all of South Korea. The North attacked with 280 tanks furnished by the Soviet Union, whereas South Korea had no tanks, as the US refused to provide them with any prior to 1950. The North had 110 attack bombers, and 150 Yak fighter planes provided by the USSR. The US did not give any aircraft to the South, and there were only 22 aircraft in the South. The US had basically a token military presence in South Korea as it was not interested in either invading the North or building military bases in the South. You can read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Prelude_to_war_(1950) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Prelude_to_war_(195... To call this a "US invasion" is absurd. Moreover, somehow trying to make this about the boogeyman of "fighting fascism" or even "civil unions" is bizarre -- what is the state of civil unions in North Korea or China? What is the state of freedom of expression? Or freedom of religion? If you are going to be using words like "fascist", then they are much better applied to North Korea or China than to South Korea or Taiwan. Please don't spread this type of disinfo on public forums.

azernik 5y ago

The KMT absolutely did not want to give up its title of "Republic of China". It had been only 30 years since the civil war. KMT leadership was still people who had personally fled the mainland in middle age. The president at the time, Jiang Jingguo, was on the young end (he was the son and heir of Jiang Jieshi) - and even he had only arrived in Taiwan at age 39. None of those people had strong local ties, either personal ones with the non-Mainlander population or political ones with homegrown political movements. Taiwan, for them, was at best a consolation prize, not a home. From the US perspective, why would they go out of their way to call Taiwan its own country when neither government, on either side of the Strait, was interested in that?

Ericson2314 5y ago
> From the US perspective, why would they go out of their way to call Taiwan its own country when neither government, on either side of the Strait, was interested in that? :) I feel like this the same sort of thinking as tech debt. Names? Who cares! Everyone knows what the situation is on the ground. In my view, norms have to be actively upheld, even especially if you are on "Team 'rule of law'". If the thing is a state, call it a state dammit! I like this argument because it doesn't rely on "well, you gotta foresee China becoming strong and stuff". No, you don't, just have a principle that de jure and de facto should deviate as little as possible. I stand by my original analysis that doesn't matter what the KMT thinks, because RoC effectively a client state of the US at the time, with no TSMC to get more leverage, and also that the PRC should be happy enough to get its UN seat. If we wanted to, we could have made this happen, but we are sloppy and we didn't try.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > In my view, norms have to be actively upheld, even especially if you are on "Team 'rule of law'". What norm or law makes Taiwan a state other than that it claims itself to be? If you're team "rule of law" I think you have to insist that the KMT still run China.
- beaunative 5y ago
  Taiwan is actually an state, but China don't recognize it the way we didn't recognize the IS. Of course, Taiwan is in much better situation than the IS, but the underlying logic is the same. A state government don't recognize other states just because they are a state.

netflixandkill 5y ago

The core of the problems is the KMT, who have been the roadblock to resolving this the whole time. Yes, they really were not willing to give anything, and it's black comedy at this point how many of them are in the PRC's pocket under the delusion the CCP will have any use for them at all if unification ever occurs (magic 8 ball says odds not good).

int_19h 5y ago

The vote to replace Taiwan with PRC in UN was in the General Assembly. US did not have enough votes there to force PRC to do anything, nor did it have the power to veto. US did attempt to block it by claiming that it is an "important question" under Article 18 of the UN Charter - specifically, that it counted as expulsion of a member. This was rejected on the basis that no member was actually expelled: China was a member before the vote, and it remained a member after the vote, the only difference being which government's delegation represented it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758#Proceedings_at_the_United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...

Ericson2314 5y ago
Thanks, this helps clarify what happened. I thought it be a institution where the security console had special powers.