Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: One China?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,218

    Default One China?

    I'm a little confused. On two occasions POTUS has said that he was prepared to put US boots on the ground in Taiwan to defend them from a mainland invasion only to walk it back by saying he supports a One China policy. Am I misinterpreting what he said or do I not understand the One China policy?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    20,449

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boatbum View Post
    I'm a little confused. On two occasions POTUS has said that he was prepared to put US boots on the ground in Taiwan to defend them from a mainland invasion only to walk it back by saying he supports a One China policy. Am I misinterpreting what he said or do I not understand the One China policy?
    Biden claimed that the US would defend Taiwan. I believe he's made that comment before. I haven't heard that he would "put US boots on the ground". I've seen articles saying that the statement was then "walked back" by someone at the White House, and that it was NOT "walked back".

    It is one of those things that the government likes some ambiguity about.

    China has since backed away from some of their militaristic rhetoric and states that, "China will do all it can for a peaceful reunification". (Not that it made the Taiwanese happy...)
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    71,379

    Default Re: One China?

    Ambiguity in US foreign polic
    y?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    28,519

    Default Re: One China?

    Right; this is what I understand:

    1. There is One China
    2. This being so, the province not currently under central administration will not declare independence.
    3. This being so, the central government will not invade the province.
    4. If the central government does invade, or if the province declares itself independent, all deals are off.


    The Empire, long united, must divide.
    The Empire, long divided, must unite.
    Thus, it has ever been.
    Last edited by Andrew Craig-Bennett; 09-30-2022 at 03:49 PM.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,033

    Default Re: One China?

    China has already blown its chance at a peaceful rejoining with Taiwan. They showed they couldn't keep their promises to Hong Kong, so naturally, Taiwan is wary.

    Biden is sending one message to keep China from thinking it can invade Taiwan without involving the U.S., while also saying there has been no change in America's China policy. This could mean that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan was always going to provoke a response from the U.S.

    The term of art is 'strategic ambiguity.'

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    40,161

    Default Re: One China?

    I often wonder what is said in back channels vs what is said in public.

    We seem to bend over backwards not to offend bullies who are both paranoid and easily offended (Russia, China, North Korea,...).
    "Where you live in the world should not determine whether you live in the world." - Bono

    "Live in such a way that you would not be ashamed to sell your parrot to the town gossip." - Will Rogers

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,218

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoez View Post
    Biden claimed that the US would defend Taiwan. I believe he's made that comment before. I haven't heard that he would "put US boots on the ground". I've seen articles saying that the statement was then "walked back" by someone at the White House, and that it was NOT "walked back".

    It is one of those things that the government likes some ambiguity about.

    China has since backed away from some of their militaristic rhetoric and states that, "China will do all it can for a peaceful reunification". (Not that it made the Taiwanese happy...)
    IN his 60 minutes interview he was asked if he would defend Taiwan. Biden said Yes. He was then asked if he would defend Taiwan with US troops if necessary and he again said Yes

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    20,449

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boatbum View Post
    IN his 60 minutes interview he was asked if he would defend Taiwan. Biden said Yes. He was then asked if he would defend Taiwan with US troops if necessary and he again said Yes
    It is an island nation - or by whatever name you wish to call it. US intervention wouldn’t necessarily require “Boots on the ground”. Taiwan has a military force and a growing “guard” force of civilians. US intervention would likely be in the form of air and sea power.

    The expression “boots on the ground” implies US military personnel located in Taiwan.
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NE Scotland
    Posts
    12,255

    Default Re: One China?

    Taiwan could become a popular furlough destination for US service folk.
    Also, perhaps a port like Kaohsiung could provide repair and refit services to US ships
    Structures without reference to geometry tend toward the ramshackle

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    28,519

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by isla View Post
    Taiwan could become a popular furlough destination for US service folk.
    Also, perhaps a port like Kaohsiung could provide repair and refit services to US ships
    Taiwan is a lovely place to visit because it is wealthy, civilised and has almost no tourism. Everyone I have ever met there has been polite and helpful to a stranger. This is probably because it is too expensive for tourism.

    Still, where else can you go skiing in the morning and pick a ripe mango in the afternoon?

    The USN used Subic Bay in the Philippines as a non-unionised heavy repair base and there are signs that the USN may return there in a quiet way.
    Last edited by Andrew Craig-Bennett; 09-22-2022 at 07:07 AM.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    119,342

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    and has almost no tourism
    what is there to see in taiwan?
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    28,519

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    what is there to see in taiwan?
    The National Museum. Which has all the contents that were once in the Forbidden City.

    For my Mainland Chinese friends, there is Chinese culture untouched by the Cultural Revolution - tea houses, temples, etc.

    On a lighter note, the Taipei Central Railway Station appears to have no trains (they are all in tunnels under ground) which is very Japanese. There is a street in Taipei with no street lights, because it’s in the night club district and by the time the City Fathers got round to putting up street lights there were so many neon signs that there was no need for municipal lighting. It is the only city where I have ever seen a street demonstration made up of thousands of Golf Club members. Anyway, I like the place!
    Last edited by Andrew Craig-Bennett; 09-22-2022 at 05:33 AM.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    119,342

    Default Re: One China?

    thank you andrew, that does actually sound interesting, on both counts
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,218

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoez View Post
    It is an island nation - or by whatever name you wish to call it. US intervention wouldn’t necessarily require “Boots on the ground”. Taiwan has a military force and a growing “guard” force of civilians. US intervention would likely be in the form of air and sea power.

    The expression “boots on the ground” implies US military personnel located in Taiwan.
    This sounds an awful lot like boots on the ground to me but if you want to split hairs, be my guest.

    Biden made the remark during an interview with “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday, while distancing himself from the question of whether Taiwan is or should be independent. Interviewer Scott Pelley asked the president if US forces would “defend the island.”

    “Yes, if in fact there was an unprecedented attack,” Biden replied, according to a transcript provided by the broadcaster. Pelly then asked if that meant US soldiers would defend Taiwan in the case of a Chinese invasion, unlike the current situation in Ukraine, and the president again said “yes.”
    Last edited by Boatbum; 09-22-2022 at 07:30 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,218

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    Taiwan is a lovely place to visit because it is wealthy, civilised and has almost no tourism. Everyone I have ever met there has been polite and helpful to a stranger. This is probably because it is too expensive for tourism.

    Still, where else can you go skiing in the morning and pick a ripe mango in the afternoon?

    The USN used Subic Bay in the Philippines as a non-unionised heavy repair base and there are signs that the USN may return there in a quiet way.
    It sounds very lovely, but I think the strategic significance is far more important. Taiwan makes 92% of the world's computer chips. Control of that Island would mean that all technologically advanced countries would be completely reliant upon China. That is a powerful bargaining chip - no pun intended.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    71,379

    Default Re: One China?

    …..and probably the strongest reason to support it. Though having all the worlds computer chips in one very delicately poised basket strikes me as a little foolish.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,218

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    …..and probably the strongest reason to support it. Though having all the worlds computer chips in one very delicately poised basket strikes me as a little foolish.
    Agreed. Chip making is one area where I would support subsidies, tax breaks, research facilities, job training programs .........whatever it takes to get companies to build chips in the US.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    119,342

    Default Re: One China?

    that was part of biden's initial inrrastructure and wconomic reform acts

    Quote Originally Posted by Boatbum View Post
    Agreed. Chip making is one area where I would support subsidies, tax breaks, research facilities, job training programs .........whatever it takes to get companies to build chips in the US.
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    20,449

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boatbum View Post
    This sounds an awful lot like boots on the ground to me but if you want to split hairs, be my guest.
    You may find that to be splitting hairs, but I think that it is an important distinction. If we're not entangled holding the territory physically - the Taiwanese will be able to do this - it frees up the US military to do other things and be other places.

    If China does decide to invade Taiwan, I think it might be part of a broader effort in the region.
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,218

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoez View Post
    You may find that to be splitting hairs, but I think that it is an important distinction. If we're not entangled holding the territory physically - the Taiwanese will be able to do this - it frees up the US military to do other things and be other places.

    If China does decide to invade Taiwan, I think it might be part of a broader effort in the region.
    When you say you would send troops to Taiwan to defend it, that is quite different from saying you would defend it. The former implies boots on the ground and the latter could involve boots on the ground but could also mean air and sea defense with no "troops" component.

    By splitting hairs, I mean that Biden did not say he would deploy the US army and Marines on the island. But saying you would send US troops there the message is pretty clear.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    20,449

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boatbum View Post
    When you say you would send troops to Taiwan to defend it, that is quite different from saying you would defend it. The former implies boots on the ground and the latter could involve boots on the ground but could also mean air and sea defense with no "troops" component.

    By splitting hairs, I mean that Biden did not say he would deploy the US army and Marines on the island. But saying you would send US troops there the message is pretty clear.
    Absolutely.

    But the form of defense that the US would use is an important distinction, IMO.

    Putting US troops on the ground in Taiwan could be more problematic than simply having naval and air power providing support to the Taiwanese.
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    28,519

    Default Re: One China?

    An invasion of Taiwan would be difficult. Not impossible, but difficult.

    I think that a blockade of Taiwan by sea would not be hard to do, and a blockade by air could be done at the cost of lives. These are more likely options for China.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,218

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoez View Post
    Absolutely.

    But the form of defense that the US would use is an important distinction, IMO.

    Putting US troops on the ground in Taiwan could be more problematic than simply having naval and air power providing support to the Taiwanese.
    Interestingly, I just read this....

    History Shows that to Win, Taiwan May Need Allied Boots on the Ground
    https://www.realcleardefense.com/art...nd_856261.html

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    31,315

    Default Re: One China?

    #16: Just so.
    Gerard>
    Albuquerque, NM

    Next election, vote against EVERY Republican, for EVERY office, at EVERY level. Be patriotic, save the country.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    25,828

    Default Re: One China?

    I don't get it.

    Legitimacy cannot rest on conquest, Vlad. Japan taking Taiwan didn't make it Japanese. How did throwing Japan out make it Chinese? Not by China succeeding to Japan's claim. That claim was no good. The only way legitimate government could be established is by the consent of the governed, i.e. the people of Taiwan. When did they give it?

    Looks to me like Sun Yat Sen and other claimants to be being the founder of a Republic Of China fought each other inconclusively, taking and ruling various territories by force, never getting around to actually founding a republic. That leaves the current regime's claim resting on the proposition that if a republic had been established, it would have asked for the people of Taiwan to give their consent to it, and the people of Taiwan would have given it -- which is the same them as them actually giving it. Shoulda, coulda, woulda, but didn't.

    The Communists took the mainland and did their thing there, ending the postWW2 Republic of China. They never took Taiwan, and no one other than Taiwan's people had authority to give it to them. But Taiwan's people, ostensibly, had already consented to the post-WW2 republic. There's a lot of controversy as to what was actually consented to, but the fact remains that whatever it was, it was the only thing actually consented to, and that's where we're at.

    A
    If Russia wins, there will be no Ukraine; if Ukraine wins, there will be a new Russia.

    -- Dmytro Kuleba, Foreign Minister of Ukraine

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Location
    Seoul, Korea
    Posts
    150

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    I don't get it.

    Legitimacy cannot rest on conquest, Vlad. Japan taking Taiwan didn't make it Japanese. How did throwing Japan out make it Chinese? Not by China succeeding to Japan's claim. That claim was no good. The only way legitimate government could be established is by the consent of the governed, i.e. the people of Taiwan. When did they give it?

    Looks to me like Sun Yat Sen and other claimants to be being the founder of a Republic Of China fought each other inconclusively, taking and ruling various territories by force, never getting around to actually founding a republic. That leaves the current regime's claim resting on the proposition that if a republic had been established, it would have asked for the people of Taiwan to give their consent to it, and the people of Taiwan would have given it -- which is the same them as them actually giving it. Shoulda, coulda, woulda, but didn't.

    The Communists took the mainland and did their thing there, ending the postWW2 Republic of China. They never took Taiwan, and no one other than Taiwan's people had authority to give it to them. But Taiwan's people, ostensibly, had already consented to the post-WW2 republic. There's a lot of controversy as to what was actually consented to, but the fact remains that whatever it was, it was the only thing actually consented to, and that's where we're at.
    This is factually incorrect on just about every point. I'll try to stick to the major points.

    Peripherally, to say that "Legitimacy cannot rest on conquest" is ridiculous. For the past several thousand years of human history, that's exactly what it has rested upon. If not, all us honkies in North America better pack our bags.

    Back to Taiwan, I'll skip ancient history and start at the Treaty of Shimoneseki. Japan had a war with China and won, took Taiwan. This is equivalent to our position re Texas. They took it, it was theirs, that's how history works. Fine.

    But then came the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. A good year before the end of WW II the leaders of the winning side sat down and divvied up the spoils. The island of Taiwan was determined to go to China. Japan lost that island along with the northeast and any claims to the other places they took early in the war. When Japan signed the surrender documents on the decks of the Missouri that was one of the clauses.

    So. 1945 to 1949 there was no question in anyone's mind, Taiwan belonged to China. As far as the "consent of the governed" goes, it was also totally fine. In contrast, Mongolia wanted to be its own country, petitioned the UN or whoever, and became their own country. Nothing even resembling this happened in Taiwan. They were full of people from China, spoke Chinese, had a Chinese society, there was no "independence" movement there at all. At that time there was none of this recent "We are really Japanese" stuff.

    All of this was mostly *decided by the US*, by the way. War in the Pacific was pretty much US alone, the overwhelming power in the Pacific after defeat of Japan was certainly US. We are the ones who made this decision.

    1949 everything changed. Communists won the civil war, Jiang ran away in the middle of the night with all the gold and treasure he could get his hands on. btw, Mr Craig-Bennet just remarked on this elsewhere. There is a museum in Taibei with all the stuff they stole and have not offered to return. I have no idea what the gold would be worth today, along with interest compounded quarterly. Perhaps a first step towards independence might be an offer to return what they claim is not theirs, cuz you know, they aren't China anymore but are an independent Taiwan ? Have our cake and eat it too, anyone ?

    Returning to "consent of the governed" for a moment, at this time Jiang and the KMT invaded the island and killed anyone who opposed them. There were thousands of victims, in a rather small island. They also proclaimed themselves the "true" government of China and did this for the next thirty years. The last person executed for saying otherwise was in the 1980's. The KMT only ended martial law in 1987. I happened to be there in 1996 and was astonished to behold their very first election. (I had been fed this propaganda for years too. Also unfortunately believed it.) I guess that "voting" thing must be really difficult to implement in a free democratic society -- took forty-seven years. Hong Kong seems a little slower, took them ninety-six years. Amazingly, they figured it out right before the lease was up.

    All the stuff that people in the west believe, courtesy of the New York Times, Washington Post etc etc is the smelly substance that occasionally comes out a cow's behind. Or, to quote an actual freedom fighter, "Great White Father speak with forked tongue."

    What's the actual solution for Taiwan ? God only knows. I personally think that Lincoln was mistaken and we should have let the Confederacy leave, too. After all, the only legitimacy rests on the consent of the governed, and them Mississippi guys don't seem to be consenting even to this day.

    Just a guess but I don't think that's going to happen. Between the PRC and the ROC, it's an unfinished civil war. What they do is their business, not that of the US. It has nothing to do with all the foofoo nonsense you guys spout (which, I am sorry to say, reminds me of the garbage most of the US believed and still believes about Vietnam).

    Why is it so hard for Americans to accept fact and history? It's like we replaced religion with this "liberal democracy" nonsense, which is not in fact even a liberal democracy, doesn't work, never has, never will, but just like the Dominicans in the Inquisition, we're gonna push it down everyone's throats on the planet, like it or not.

    The underlying fact is, all this outraged talk about rights and consent and so on is just a cover for the US to play power games. It's all about military power and coercion. According to the treaties created by the US, Taiwan is a province of China. Not that our own treaties ever meant anything, as far as I know there's never been a single one we haven't broken.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    28,519

    Default Re: One China?

    There were two Chinese societies on Taiwan:

    There were, first of all, the actual “Native Taiwanese”, who are genetically and linguistically close to the Filipinos. They make up about 1-2% of the population now. They are now called the “aboriginal Taiwanese”.

    Then there are the ethnic Han whose first language is Xiamenhua. Their ancestors settled on Taiwan up to 1885 or so. They are the only people whose forebears were invaded and occupied by the Japanese Empire who actually like the Japanese. The Japanese were a model Colonial Power. Roads, education, railways and all the other good stuff. They tend to vote DPP. They are now called “native Taiwanese”

    Finally there are the ethnic Han whose first language is Putonghua. Their forebears arrived in 1949. They tend to vote KMT.

    Taiwan from 1949 up to the death of Cash My Cheque was a place in which the Japanese colonisers had been in effect replaced by the Chinese colonisers, who were not as nice.

    The language of instruction in schools became Putonghua. Xiamenhua speaking children were literally put at the back of every class. Only Putonghua speakers got to University, joined the Armed Forces or joined the Government and the Civil Service.

    Anyone who knows the history of the Industrial Revolution in England knows what happened next. The native Taiwanese went into business… Formosa Plastics, Evergreen, Taiwan Semiconductor…

    Nixon recognised China and Chiang ChingKuo, son and chosen heir of the Generalissimo, did something which to my mind qualifies him as a Great Man. He announced that the only way that Taiwan could survive was to seize the moral high ground. A series of privatisations bought off the military and the rest of the KMT elite. The first sign that things were really changing was the enforcement of international copyright. The rule of law, a free Press, and actual elections followed.

    If only Syria had done the same…
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    62,272

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    Legitimacy cannot rest on conquest. . .
    Oh yeah? Maybe not initially, but wait a while.

    Thanks, Andrew, that's helpful; makes me a little less ignorant about that part of the world
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Location
    Seoul, Korea
    Posts
    150

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    There were two Chinese societies on Taiwan:
    Umm, this is quite oversimplistic, but I'm not gonna go there. It's pointless. I think any discussion of Taiwan before the treaty of Shimonoseki is not so relevant. It's like talking about the Lakota Sioux when we are discussing South Dakota's current trick of become a tax haven. Except for raw power, what happens in the present should be based on the legal status of the island over the past hundred years or so, not back in the Ming dynasty.

    Nixon recognised China and Chiang ChingKuo, son and chosen heir of the Generalissimo, did something which to my mind qualifies him as a Great Man. He announced that the only way that Taiwan could survive was to seize the moral high ground. A series of privatisations bought off the military and the rest of the KMT elite. The first sign that things were really changing was the enforcement of international copyright. The rule of law, a free Press, and actual elections followed.
    Apparently you are a fan of the rule of law. Treaties are considered the highest law of the land, at least in the US. (Why and how we trample them so frequently is a different story.)

    So, simple sequence :

    Treaty of Shimonoseki cedes the northeast and Taiwan to Japan to end a war. Side point : if Taiwan were not part of China then how could a war-ending treaty cede these areas to Japan ? As of 1895 Taiwan became a Japanese territory by the exact same process that Texas became part of the United States. Accepted ?

    1944-1945, the Allies at Cairo and Potsdam declare that post-war, Taiwan and Manchuria will be returned to China. August 1945 Japan signed the articles of surrender reiterating the declarations at Potsdam and Cairo. Easy to look up.

    Taiwan returns to China. This state exists for four years. There is no debate about whether Taiwan is "part of China" or not. Do you dispute this ?

    1949 Jiang loses the civil war and runs off to Taiwan island with an army of 2 million. He and his army conquer the island and kill thousands and declare themselves the "true" government of China (that big hunk of land to their west, with 800 million people rather than his twenty or so.)

    It's cute that someone came along sixty years later and decided to change the storyline but Real Life™ doesn't work that way. If you believe in law, in responsibility, in ethics, then sorry, there's no debate to be had. By all the signed treaties, written by the United States and signed by all parties, Taiwan is a part of China and their current desire to secede has as much standing as the kooks in Idaho who want to do the same thing. Ain't gonna happen. Didn't happen when the Confederacy wanted to go, either. Or the Quebecois. Or the separatists in Catalonia. I am not arguing on the basis of emotion, these are historic and legal facts. Whether anyone thinks it's good or not is beside the point.

    In reality, Taiwan has a lot less justification than those other places. Taiwan put themselves where they are. They spent fifty years screaming to the rooftops that they were the "real" China. So now that we believe them, sorry, but there is only ONE China, governed from that place up north with the forbidden city and the great wall and all the other chinesific goodies and yup, it includes Taiwan, both legally and ethically. Everything else is squirming.

    Jiang lost the war because he and the KMT were slimy, corrupt little toads whom the people hated. Same as Vietnam. That makes twice that the people of a country have declined the American offer of a vicious sh!tty puppet government, in favor of their own choice -- hence the unending stream of dishonest hateful propaganda from the US press. Unfortunately, most people believe that garbage.


  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,218

    Default Re: One China?

    Interesting discussion.

    Based on this does Taiwan now belong to China or is it entitled to its own sovereignty? If the latter should the US aid their defense, including boots on the ground, if China invades?

    If China gains control, every developed nation will be controlled by them until such time as they can develop alternate computer chip sources.
    Last edited by Boatbum; 09-30-2022 at 09:24 AM.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    25,828

    Default Re: One China?

    The right of conquest is a right of ownership to land after immediate possession via force of arms. It was recognized as a principle of international law that gradually deteriorated in significance until its proscription in the aftermath of World War II following the concept of crimes against peace introduced in the Nuremberg Principles. The interdiction of territorial conquests was confirmed and broadened by the UN Charter, which provides in article 2, paragraph 4, that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

    -- wikipedia, Right Of Conquest
    If Russia wins, there will be no Ukraine; if Ukraine wins, there will be a new Russia.

    -- Dmytro Kuleba, Foreign Minister of Ukraine

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    25,828

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by HRDavies View Post
    This is factually incorrect on just about every point. I'll try to stick to the major points.
    This is the only point: did the people of Taiwan consent to its current government?

    No one else could have.
    If Russia wins, there will be no Ukraine; if Ukraine wins, there will be a new Russia.

    -- Dmytro Kuleba, Foreign Minister of Ukraine

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    28,519

    Default Re: One China?

    Davies is so determined to pick a fight that he hasn’t spotted that I’m not saying that there isn’t one China.

    I’m not saying anything about the Ming Dynasty.

    I gave a brief but accurate description, based on personal knowledge, of the state of society and of politics on the island of Taiwan.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Location
    Seoul, Korea
    Posts
    150

    Default Re: One China?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    Davies is so determined to pick a fight that he hasn’t spotted that I’m not saying that there isn’t one China.

    I’m not saying anything about the Ming Dynasty.
    Davies is not picking a fight, but it's important to recognize reality. This kind of thing

    This is the only point: did the people of Taiwan consent to its current government?

    No one else could have.
    is unproductive nonsense. We have 6,000 years of human history to look at but some people insist on this emotional silliness. This kind of appeal has nothing to do with law or history and in fact, the people saying these things almost universally don't know a damn thing about the actual issues.

    Factually about half of Taiwan was part of China for centuries. The very name "Taiwan" comes from the imperial government when it made the island a complete province, separate from Fujian. So all this stuff about which language and which group came and went, it's immaterial to today's problem. The current situation starts in 1895.

    This is really really simple. Areas don't get to secede, except by force. This was true in the United States, it is true in Canada, it is true in Spain, it's going on in Palestine right now, it's just the way things work. For multiple reasons, most of which they created themselves, Taiwan is not going to just walk away from its history.

    How the PRC and ROC settle the problem is up to them. But one thing for sure, interference by the United States is not going to help. Taiwan trying to play both ends against the middle is not what I would recommend, but their own risk is up to them. China is not going to "invade", that's a load of crap spread by the US eastern Establishment, the exact same way they did with their Bao Dai puppet government in Vietnam. If the US keeps it's incompetent arrogant paws out of the situation, it will be resolved quietly. Already any factory of any size has its facilities on the mainland. Much of what people think is "Made in Taiwan" actually comes from Guangdong or Zhejiang or Fujian. Keep the US and their belligerent F35's out of the situation and it will settle itself quietly because money talks. Add the incompetent US Navy into the mix (SSN Connecticut, anyone ?) and we're talking grief for a lot of people. Are people here aware that every single time that Kim Jong un is reported in the Times as throwng a fit, the incident has been preceded by US Navy "exercises" including simulated landings fifty feet off the shores of North Korea ? They don't mention that, do they ? Ever ?

    How many of you here lived through Vietnam ? Didn't you learn anything ?

    The US provokes these incidents, so we have an excuse to unleash the stupid army and make an even bigger mess. This has been our mo at least since the Mexican War (check Grant's memoirs, he was too straightforward to approve this behavior). The US has the brains of a flea and the morals of Vlad the Impaler. It is probably the biggest threat to world peace today.

    I gave a brief but accurate description, based on personal knowledge, of the state of society and of politics on the island of Taiwan.
    On some points I'd say not particularly accurate but the underlying thing is, it doesn't matter. Jiang jie shi is not going to run off and declare himself king of the world, then forty years later decide "oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean that, I meant something entirely different." Yeah right.

    And Idaho is not going to secede from the Union. We should face facts instead of going off on some emotional hiking trail into the woods. I'd say the situation is quite equivalent - most of the people in Boise really really hate the federal government but so too bad so sad, they are not going to become another country without a helluva lot of destruction and unhappiness.

    btw, when you say "I admit there is only one China" then you've already committed to Taiwan returning to the PRC. The entire constitution of Taiwan is based on the claim that they are the real and true China, and they even go farther and claim to have territorial rights over Mongolia, which the PRC gave up decades ago. Taiwan is worse in the matter of territorial and ridiculous claims than the People's Republic. They are not a "liberal democracy" based on "rule of law and respect for individual rights" and all that crap. I too have worked there, for many months at a time. Do you have a Taiwan visa ? I do/did. It's okay but it does not resemble the schtick that uninformed people here believe. Foreigners are being played like fools by the western governments, esp the US.

    (And that stuff about being "the real China, without the Cultural Revolution" is unfortunately wishful thinking. I fell for that as well, only to be quite disappointed. All the little customs and behaviors that make China China, do not exist in Taiwan. They have the Orientalism disease bigtime, where they will play "tea ceremony" for hours, but it's like Disney runs the place, it's not real. They should put one of those big signs over the airport gate, like "ChinaLand, (all rides are E tickets), home of the Exotic Orient" .... but there's no there, there. Even the accent is awful.)

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    28,519

    Default Re: One China?

    Dear Davies,

    I do wish you would respond to what I write, and not to what you seem to wish I that I wrote.

    Please read my post #4.

    I find it quite possible to like Taiwan and it’s people and culture and at the same time to like the People’s Republic. So do many of my friends who are citizens of the People’s Republic. My reference to Taiwan preserving some aspects of Chinese culture comes from Mainland friends. My employers, a large SOE in the PRC, are particularly close to a large Taiwanese corporation that is so close to the DPP that there used to be a joke that you never heard Putonghua in its offices. They stand by their desks and sing the Company Song twice a day, a very Japanese thing to do; we find this faintly absurd but we respect their professionalism.

    An aspect of Taiwan that I’ve touched on is that after fifty years as a Japanese colony a certain amount of Japanese culture has been absorbed there. That doesn’t make it a bogus orientalist culture; it makes it Taiwan.

    We disagree about very little when it comes to ascertainable facts. If you feel a need to be the Bilge’s resident Old China Hand, I gladly consent to your having that title.

    But please deal with what I say, if you must refer to me at all.
    Last edited by Andrew Craig-Bennett; 09-30-2022 at 02:09 PM.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •