4 ms·
You 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 th
by Dr_Birdbrain 4y ago
You 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.
- infamia 4y agoAvtually, he is correct and you are badly misunderstanding the U.S. position of strategic ambiguity [0]. The PRC and the ROC believed for decades and each one claimed that they are both the one true China and the other is an imposter. The US agrees that there is one true China, but they won't say which one. Confusing? That's pretty much the point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambigui...
- yogthos 4y agoThat's complete and utter nonsense because US has formal relations with PRC and does not have formal relations with ROC.
- midoridensha 4y agoYet the US sells arms to Taiwan, sends politicians to visit, conducts freedom-of-navigation exercises in the strait, etc. "Formal relations" are meaningless, they're just lip service.
- yogthos 4y agoYes, US does extraordinary levels of interference in China completely contrary to international law and accepted norms. This is something US would never accept done on its own territory. US simply does whatever it wants ignoring any and all international norms. And if people in US had a shred of decency then they would be horrified by the fact that their country behaves in this fashion.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jonnycomputer 4y agoI know that this is what the PRC line is, but it really is just not the case, no matter how many times it tries to say it is. US one-China policy does not, in of itself, take the position that the PRC should have control over Taiwan, nor does it take the position that mainland China should be controlled by the ROC. It is intentionally left ambiguous, and the US position has been consistent for fifty years.
- yongjik 4y agoIf we were to stick to the legal fiction that there is only one China, you will have to follow through, instead of switching the narrative in the middle. Show me an international agreement where the government of ROC is a considered "Chinese province." In the "one China" world, foreign governments talking with a Chinese government sitting at Taipei is no more "interfering with a Chinese province" than them talking with a Chinese government at Beijing.
- yogthos 4y agoI've literally provided you with links demonstrating that. You can also read what UN has to say. United Nations - Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations (October 1971): https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/192054?ln=en https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/192054?ln=en UN - Final Clauses of Multilateral Treaties Handbook (2003): https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/fc/english.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/fc/english.p...