8 ms·
The elephant in the room is that Taiwan is a Chinese province and Taiwan's legal standing is not in question [1]. This is the position held by the UN, and it's
by yogthos 4y ago
The elephant in the room is that Taiwan is a Chinese province and Taiwan's legal standing is not in question [1]. This is the position held by the UN, and it's the fundamental basis for having diplomatic relations between US and China per Potsdam Proclamation [2] that was signed 77 years ago between China, the US & the UK. This position has never officially changed. And here's what US State Department says on their official page [3]:
The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations.
The United States has a longstanding one China policy**, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act,
the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. We oppose any unilateral changes
to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait
differences to be resolved by peaceful means.
[1] https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/no-taiwans-status-is-not-uncertain/ https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/no-taiwans-status-is-not-unc...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration
[3] https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/
- unethical_ban 4y agoWhat is your point?
- yogthos 4y agoWhat part of my comment is unclear to you?
- unethical_ban 4y agoThe part where any of that matters. Which country has billions of dollars in defense spending with the US?
- yogthos 4y agoAs the links I provided clearly explain, Taiwan is not a country. What US is doing is funding and arming a separatist movement in a province of China.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago> The elephant in the room is that Taiwan is a Chinese province and Taiwan's legal standing is not in question [1]. I believe you haven't read the link you yourself posted.
- yogthos 4y agoI believe one of us didn't. Also, maybe keep reading the statement from US State Department until you comprehend it.
- manuelabeledo 4y agoI read it. I'm quite familiar with the US and UN positions on China. The first link doesn't say what you thing it does, though. It is even written by the de facto ambassador of Taiwan to Japan. But even ignoring all those links, Taiwan is de facto an independent country. The PRC cannot assert any sort of power in the island, and PRC citizens are not considered Taiwanese nationals.
- yogthos 4y ago[flagged]
- manuelabeledo 4y agoIgnoring reality doesn't change it. Taiwan have limited and then banned mainland tourists for a while now. Chinese have zero freedom of movement in Taiwan. China asserts zero power, politically, judicially, executive, over Taiwan. Get over it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dang 4y agoNationalistic flamewar is not ok on HN. We ban accounts that post like this, regardless of which country or people or state you have a problem with, and regardless of what your political positions are. Edit: You posted 46 comments in this flamewar. That's extremely not what HN is for! If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- Dr_Birdbrain 4y agoYou might be interested to know that the status of the sovereignty of Ukraine was not in question at any point right up until the very second that Putin said the Kyiv government was a Nazi government, and invaded. Russia itself was a signatory to the accord that guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, yet here we are.
- yogthos 4y agoAnd this has what to do with US interfering in the politics a Chinese province again?
- nl 4y agoTo quote one of the six assurances mentioned in your quote above: > 6. The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.
- yogthos 4y agoUS State Department literally recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan, so does UN and practically every nation in the world.
- nl 4y ago> US State Department literally recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan, No, it explicitly references the Six Assurances right there, which says it doesn't: > The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.
- yogthos 4y agoUS State Department says in black and white on their website that Taiwan is part of China. The fact that you keep trying to pretend there's some ambiguity here is beyond hilarious.
- sct202 4y agoThe legal arguments on Taiwan are always very complicated, and the Diplomat article you linked to is very careful to specify Republic of China--not China--is the signatory to treaties. It is a very intentional wording as the author of the article is from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (embassy) in Japan.
- yogthos 4y agoFact of the matter is that US has official relations with PRC and not ROC which isn't even recognized by the UN. There is no legal basis for treating Taiwan as a country.
- yttribium 4y agoThe US likes to have cute "official positions" that are completely orthogonal to their actual behavior. Cf its positions that there must be a "two state solution" in Palestine, or its position on Northern Cyprus, etc.
- nl 4y agoThis explanation gives an incomplete view of US/Taiwan/China relations. US policy is one of "deliberate ambiguity"[1]. As the quote above says: > we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means. An uniformed reader might take that to mean that the US doesn't support the Taiwanese government. An informed reader realizes what it is saying is that the US does not expect the Taiwanese government to give up a claim to be the government of mainland China. Obviously this is quite a different interpretation, and what "deliberate ambiguity" means. To quote the Wikipedia article above: > There is deliberate ambiguity regarding the government of the country of 'China' (as well as what land this country constitutes). Currently, two governments claim legitimate rule and sovereignty over all of China, which they claim includes Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, as well as some other islands. The "six assurances" noted in the comment above also include this "deliberate ambiguity": > 5: The United States would not alter its position about the sovereignty of Taiwan which was, that the question was one to be decided peacefully by the Chinese themselves, and would not pressure Taiwan to enter into negotiations with China > 6. The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity
- yogthos 4y agoThe reality of the situation is that UN recognizes Taiwan as being part of China and so does US in black and white on the state department page. The whole deliberate ambiguity policy has no actual legal standing, it's just US pretending that it has a right to meddle in internal affairs of China.
- postingawayonhn 4y agoThey hold that official position because China demands they do to maintain relations. The US and most other western countries don't actually believe that.
- yogthos 4y agoUS has no business interfering in Taiwan. Period.
- postingawayonhn 4y agoThe free people of the world have a right to protect themselves from authoritarians and to assist other free people in doing so. That seems like a pretty fundamental moral principle to follow.
- yogthos 4y agoBeing a vassal of the US is not freedom. Also, every instance of US "assisting" a country has resulted in creating hellish conditions for people of that country. Stop helping.
- postingawayonhn 4y agoWestern Europe, Taiwan, and South Korea and now all wealthy democracies thanks in a large part to US assistance. It hasn't been successful every time the US has gone to a country's aid, but some countries just can't be helped.
- yogthos 4y agoLMAO this same South Korea? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/young-south-koreans-call-their-country-hell-and-look-for-ways-out/2016/01/30/34737c06-b967-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/young-sout...
- NonEUCitizen 4y ago
- tarkin2 4y agoYou're being disingenuous. Look at the articles mentioned in the quote. "Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances". In particular: "The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan"[1]. So the US supports a "One China policy", "does not support Taiwanese independence" and "does not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan." And it will supply Taiwan with weapons to defend itself, giving defacto independence. And, as you quote, the US opposed any unilateral changes to the status quo. Confusing? Yes. Yet you're misleading people with your post, frankly speaking, if you telling people to "Just read the defence department's website". Morally, China is trying to remove Taiwan's defacto independence, for reasons that completely ignore any idea of self-determination, whereas the US is supplying Taiwan with the weapons to choose. There's nothing stopping Taiwan's democratic government and its people from choosing to give China control, since there are pro PRC parties in Taiwan, and even so--they have decided to resist PRC control. You can, of course, argue the US should not give Taiwan the right of self-determination, that it should stay out of the affairs of other countries, since there are obviously economic reasons in addition to moral; but nonetheless issues of self-determination are at the heart--since the people and their well-being are always at the heart. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Assurances
- yogthos 4y ago[flagged]
- tarkin2 4y agoThe US's position is more complex. You're trying to dumb it down to mislead. (You might want to look up defacto if you don't think they have defacto independence from the PRC) If the people of Florida want Russian-backed independence, as the people of Taiwan want US-backed independence then sure, go for it, my friend.
- yogthos 4y agoUS position is frankly irrelevant. What matters is the international law, the UN position, and the fact that US acknowledges the UN as an institution. US has no unilateral right to interfere in affairs of other countries any more than other countries. >If the people of Florida want Russian-backed independence, as the people of Taiwan want US-backed independence then sure, go for it, my friend. Do you believe even for a second that US would allow China or Russia to do in Florida what US is doing in Taiwan? Some of us are old enough to remember the Russiagate freakout.
- nl 4y ago> Taiwan's legal standing is not in question [1]. Amusingly, reference [1] that you point at is arguing that Taiwan is an independent country (the opposite to what you are saying): > Hence, the restoration of Taiwan, Penghu, and all other appurtenant islands as an integral part of the ROC’s territory is without question legally binding. The ROC government and the majority of its people strongly disagree that Taiwan’s position is uncertain. ROC = Republic of China, ie, Taiwan. And the author is "Director of Press & Information Dept. of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Japan." (Taipei = Taiwan of course) [1] https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/no-taiwans-status-is-not-uncertain/ https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/no-taiwans-status-is-not-unc...
- yogthos 4y agoAs I've repeatedly explained to you in this very thread, the position of the UN and vast majority of countries in the world is that Taiwan is a province of China. This is a simple fact, and it's frankly astounding that you keep trying to spin it as anything other.
- midoridensha 4y agoIt's astounding that you actually believe official positions.
- yogthos 4y agoIt's astounding that you don't understand why international law exists.
- midoridensha 4y agoIt's astounding that you believe international law actually means anything. If it did, Russia wouldn't be invading Ukraine.
- yogthos 4y ago
- rich_sasha 4y agoLacking a real executive power, international law is basically a conversational framework in which we phrase diplomacy, which ultimately remains a balance of power. Or more simply, power ultimately always trump international law. Which is to say, the legal position on Taiwan is frankly insignificant compared to the interests of China and the US (not to mention the people of ROC themselves), as either party will end up doing whatever they can get away with. They may cherry pick some international law arguments, or make up something, but it's only a talking point either way.
- yogthos 4y agoSure, and if you look at the map it becomes obvious that US cannot beat China by force in their own backyard. So, all US is accomplishing in the long run is to create conditions that may lead to a direct conflict between two nuclear superpowers because US wants to be able to project its power in Asia.
- rich_sasha 4y agoPerhaps, but my point is, the legal position is almost irrelevant. To flip it around, if ROC was clearly a legally independent entity and PRC didn't like it, this whole debacle would look the same.
- yogthos 4y agoThe only reason there is a debacle is because US is interfering in internal affairs of a country half way across the world.
- rich_sasha 4y agoThis kind of tussle is sadly part and parcel of being a superpower. China does it, Russia does it, US does it. Like with nuclear deterrence, it sucks but if you don't do it, you lose to those who do.
- 4y ago