3 ms·

Given that I was specifically talking about Qing claims during a historical period when the United Nations didn't exist, it is not entirely clear why you felt t

Given that I was specifically talking about Qing claims during a historical period when the United Nations didn't exist, it is not entirely clear why you felt the impulse to reply to me. Especially if you don't think history matters. In any event, discussion of "historical associations" is of great interest to, for example, the PRC, even if you find it irrelevant. They natter on endlessly and untruthfully about Taiwan being a part of China since "ancient times". Sometime invoking mythical emperors from prehistory. Which feels a little odd coming from nominal Marxists, but hey, maybe fables fall under the category "socialism, but with Chinese characteristics" Just because history is irrelevant to what you feel "actual international law" is, doesn't mean that other people share your narrow range of interests. It would seem equally, arbitrarily, narrow to discuss Palestine only in the context of whatever UN resolutions don't happen to be vetoed. But you do you. Given that your actual beef seems to be with people in think tanks who disagree with your assessment of UN Resolution 2758, maybe you could go someplace else and argue with them: https://www.gmfus.org/news/distortion-un-resolution-2758-and-limits-taiwans-access-united-nations https://www.gmfus.org/news/distortion-un-resolution-2758-and...

maxglute 2y ago
You validated position that PRC has weak historic claims in a comment that started that TW can only be PRC territory according law of to might is right. I clarified, that TW, is already dejure Chinese territory under UN based on post war agreements, so any historic de jure argument based on Qing is a distraction when you claimed "any dejure claim" China has on TW should be based on historic XYZ, and invalid claim when it's already already settled dejure international law. It doesn't need to be based on the historic context you outlined. My beef are with arguments that sets up strawman arguments of why China has no/weak dejure argument for TW being part of China as if it's premised on TW is not ALREADY dejure recognized as part of China. Discussing unsettled Palestine status at UN with whatever context is sensible because it's not a settled question. VS TW being part China is ratified law with well understood historic basis, which makes efforts to portray it as not appear to be suspect and dishonest. I also highlighted these are old/well trod (failed) arguments that well funded think tanks already tried to carve more legitimacy for TW in international bodies, including by the folks at GMF who tried to push hard using historic arguments in their pior work at other organizations. So I'm also point out that assertion that "any dejure claim" based on history is false in existing international law context, it's also false in past/ongoing attempts to circumvent established Chinese dejure claims over TW context.

maxglute 2y ago

You validated position that PRC has weak historic claims in a comment that started that TW can only be PRC territory according law of to might is right. I clarified, that TW, is already dejure Chinese territory under UN based on post war agreements, so any historic de jure argument based on Qing is a distraction when you claimed "any dejure claim" China has on TW should be based on historic XYZ, and invalid claim when it's already already settled dejure international law. It doesn't need to be based on the historic context you outlined. My beef are with arguments that sets up strawman arguments of why China has no/weak dejure argument for TW being part of China as if it's premised on TW is not ALREADY dejure recognized as part of China. Discussing unsettled Palestine status at UN with whatever context is sensible because it's not a settled question. VS TW being part China is ratified law with well understood historic basis, which makes efforts to portray it as not appear to be suspect and dishonest. I also highlighted these are old/well trod (failed) arguments that well funded think tanks already tried to carve more legitimacy for TW in international bodies, including by the folks at GMF who tried to push hard using historic arguments in their pior work at other organizations. So I'm also point out that assertion that "any dejure claim" based on history is false in existing international law context, it's also false in past/ongoing attempts to circumvent established Chinese dejure claims over TW context.