7 ms·

> Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan are all historically part of China. Legally speaking, China is on very strong footing in claiming all three territories. Legal cl

> Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan are all historically part of China. Legally speaking, China is on very strong footing in claiming all three territories. Legal claims, justified or not, are imho irrelevant to the current discussion point, which is whether China wishes to spread its political and social systems to large numbers more people, and whether there is an international ethical obligation to resist that. That's why I mentioned the parallel with Russia, which "claims" Ukraine. That claim is irrelevant: Even if the legal claim was justified, it would still be an invasion, because the Ukrainians don't want to be invaded or be subjgated to Russian rule. > No one even disputes Chinese sovereignty over Tibet That statement is false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate A great many people have disputed Chinese sovereignty over Tibet ever since the annexation of 1959, and they still dispute it and protest against Chinese rule. As for "spreading of systems": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet > and Hong Kong Legal sovereignty of a sort is not disputed there. But it does come tainted, as China took control on the condition of a "two systems" treaty about how to treat the people before the handover, and broke that treaty soon after. It is not clear the territorial handover would have occurred so easily if it was known in advance that China would dishonour its commitment to the people. As a result of breaking that treaty, it can be said that China has in fact violated some aspects of territorial legal sovereignty in Hong Kong, because those aspects were not China's legal right to take. But "legal claims" and "specific territories" have no bearing on the point of discussion in this thread, which is whether China has "zero" ambition to spread its political and social systems Tibet and Hong Kong are examples where it has spread its recent political and social systems to large numbers more people than before, removing cherished human rights and freedoms from them against their will. It says it wants to do it in Taiwan. So "zero" ambition to spread its systems is nonsense. I think your argument is that other countries don't need to worry about China spreading its systems further. That may or may not be justified, it's hard to tell. The South China Sea activities could have been collaborative projects with other countries in the region, but they are not, and that understandably makes those countries wary. China does not have a recent history of being particularly trustworthy (Hong Kong broke that), or sane (the "diplomacy" around Taiwan is bonkers), and talk of its ambitions being limited will be taken by some as merely a way to gain their cooperation until it's sufficiently powerful to change its mind. In any case, the discussion was about people and ethics, and the spread of political and social systems which take away rights and freedoms, and where there's an ethical obligation towards those people. I think there's a good case for countries, legal claims, and historical control, being irrelevant to that.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
> A great many people have disputed Chinese sovereignty over Tibet I'm not really referring to private individuals here. I'm referring to organizations that matter, like countries, the UN, etc. Individuals can have whatever opinion they'd like, but there's no question at all in the international arena about whether Tibet is part of China. > Indeed, legal sovereignty of a sort is not disputed there. Not just "of a sort." Chinese territorial sovereignty over Hong Kong isn't disputed at all. Whether China is upholding its treaty with the UK is an entirely different question, but that question doesn't impact whether Hong Kong is part of China. > I think your argument is that other countries don't need to worry about China spreading its systems further. China is interested in regaining control over the territories that it considers to be China. These aren't far-flung parts of the world. They are close-by territories that have historically (not just in the distant past, but even in the post-war era) been internationally recognized as being part of China. China isn't about to claim California. It thinks Taiwan is part of China because Taiwan was (and still is) part of the Republic of China, to which the People's Republic considers itself the successor.
- throwaway236987 4y ago
  > I'm not really referring to private individuals here. I'm referring to organizations that matter, like countries, the UN, etc. Individuals can have whatever opinion they'd like, but there's no question at all in the international arena about whether Tibet is part of China. If you go looking for UN views on whether Tibet is "part of" China, you will find plenty of dissent in various UN working groups and such, and if you read into the subtlety of diplomats working on the things that actually matter, you'll find people avoid saying one way or another because the things that matter don't involve the silly concept "part of", and because China freaks out uncooperatively if anyone mentions it, so it's better for dealing with real issues for people to avoid mentioning it. Even if they think it. If you only look at formal views, via resolutions and such, I argue (as do many) those are just part of the diplomatic machinery. They don't define truth, or say what people actually think. > that question doesn't impact whether Hong Kong is part of China. I argue that whether Hong Kong is "part of" China is irrelevant to the question of whether China has (or had) ambitions to spread its systems over more people than before. But since you bring up legal sovereignty, the question of whether China has the legal right to control the Hong Kong people in the way that it does, against their will and achieving it by dishonour and deception, is not as clear cut as you make out. The treaty being associated with the handover certainly has bearing on that. China broke international law in Hong Kong (not that international law is enforcible of course), and the very concept of legal sovereignty is founded on international agreements. If you don't honour agreements upon which the concept is founded, words like "legal sovereignty" don't mean anything anyway. > to which the People's Republic considers itself the successor Which again is about legal and political claims and such, and therefore irrelevant to the question of whether China desires to spread its present day political and social systems to more people. Indeed, "considers itself the successor" implies that it does want to spread its systems to more people that don't want them.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

> A great many people have disputed Chinese sovereignty over Tibet I'm not really referring to private individuals here. I'm referring to organizations that matter, like countries, the UN, etc. Individuals can have whatever opinion they'd like, but there's no question at all in the international arena about whether Tibet is part of China. > Indeed, legal sovereignty of a sort is not disputed there. Not just "of a sort." Chinese territorial sovereignty over Hong Kong isn't disputed at all. Whether China is upholding its treaty with the UK is an entirely different question, but that question doesn't impact whether Hong Kong is part of China. > I think your argument is that other countries don't need to worry about China spreading its systems further. China is interested in regaining control over the territories that it considers to be China. These aren't far-flung parts of the world. They are close-by territories that have historically (not just in the distant past, but even in the post-war era) been internationally recognized as being part of China. China isn't about to claim California. It thinks Taiwan is part of China because Taiwan was (and still is) part of the Republic of China, to which the People's Republic considers itself the successor.

throwaway236987 4y ago
> I'm not really referring to private individuals here. I'm referring to organizations that matter, like countries, the UN, etc. Individuals can have whatever opinion they'd like, but there's no question at all in the international arena about whether Tibet is part of China. If you go looking for UN views on whether Tibet is "part of" China, you will find plenty of dissent in various UN working groups and such, and if you read into the subtlety of diplomats working on the things that actually matter, you'll find people avoid saying one way or another because the things that matter don't involve the silly concept "part of", and because China freaks out uncooperatively if anyone mentions it, so it's better for dealing with real issues for people to avoid mentioning it. Even if they think it. If you only look at formal views, via resolutions and such, I argue (as do many) those are just part of the diplomatic machinery. They don't define truth, or say what people actually think. > that question doesn't impact whether Hong Kong is part of China. I argue that whether Hong Kong is "part of" China is irrelevant to the question of whether China has (or had) ambitions to spread its systems over more people than before. But since you bring up legal sovereignty, the question of whether China has the legal right to control the Hong Kong people in the way that it does, against their will and achieving it by dishonour and deception, is not as clear cut as you make out. The treaty being associated with the handover certainly has bearing on that. China broke international law in Hong Kong (not that international law is enforcible of course), and the very concept of legal sovereignty is founded on international agreements. If you don't honour agreements upon which the concept is founded, words like "legal sovereignty" don't mean anything anyway. > to which the People's Republic considers itself the successor Which again is about legal and political claims and such, and therefore irrelevant to the question of whether China desires to spread its present day political and social systems to more people. Indeed, "considers itself the successor" implies that it does want to spread its systems to more people that don't want them.