Very good. ^_^
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/09/06/2003512568
QuoteUN told to drop 'Taiwan is part of China': cable
TERMS OF REFERENCE:Other countries were also urged to tell the UN that they too were unhappy with its use of terminology when referring to Taiwan
By J. Michael Cole / Staff Reporter
A number of Western governments, with the US in the lead, protested to the UN in 2007 to force the global body and its secretary-general to stop using the reference "Taiwan is a part of China," a cable recently released by WikiLeaks shows.
The confidential cable, sent by the US' UN mission in New York in August 2007, said that after returning from a trip abroad, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had met then-US ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad to discuss a range of issues, including "UN language on the status of Taiwan."
"Ban said he realized he had gone too far in his recent public statements, and confirmed that the UN would no longer use the phrase 'Taiwan is a part of China,'" said the cable, which was sent to the US Department of State and various US embassies worldwide.
During a meeting with then-California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on July 27 that year, Ban had defended the UN's decision not to accept a renewed attempt by Taiwan to join the UN on July 23 by saying that UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 asserted that Taiwan was a part of the People's Republic of China.
"Membership is given to a sovereign country. The position of the United Nations is that the People's Republic of China is representing the whole of China as the sole and legitimate representative Government of China," Ban had said in response to a question on Taiwan's status. "The decision until now about the wish of the people in Taiwan to join the United Nations has been decided on that basis. The resolution that you just mentioned [2758] is clearly mentioning that the Government of China is the sole and legitimate Government and the position of the United Nations is that Taiwan is part of China."
The same month, the US was reported to have presented a nine-point demarche in the form of a "non-paper" to the then-UN under-secretary-general for political affairs restating the US view that it took no position on Taiwan's sovereignty and rejected recent UN statements that the world body considers Taiwan for all intents and purposes to be an integral part of China.
The cable said that the UN missions of Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand had also consulted with the UN on the subject, adding that in reaction to the US demarche, the Canadian mission had followed with a demarche of its own and "received the same commitment that the UN would no longer use the phrase."
It added that Australia had held similar low-level exchanges with the UN's Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), while the Japanese mission had met OLA Assistant Secretary-General Larry Johnson, who confirmed "that in his most recent correspondence on this matter to the correspondence from the Solomon Islands and Swaziland he had dropped the unhelpful phrase."
The US' UN mission also urged New Zealand "to make clear to the UN that they too are monitoring the UN's terminology and that they share USG [US government] concerns about the need for increased caution during the presidential campaign in Taiwan."
Mainland China is a renegade province.
The ghost of Nixon haunts us still.
Is the existence of an independent Taiwan really of fundamental strategic importance to the US? At what point do the drawbacks of supporting the RoC against the PRC outweigh the benefits? I would posit that the threshold is not very high.
We should support Taiwan's independence on the principle of the matter.
If that's not enough for you, possession of Taiwan means that China would have control of the sea lanes connecting the ROK and Japan to the Middle East. Possession of Taiwan would also greatly enhance the Chinese industrial and technological base.
Why is it very good? What's the point of supporting one cronyist cleptocratic country against another?
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 03:04:18 AM
Why is it very good? What's the point of supporting one cronyist cleptocratic country against another?
I don't know how to break it to you Marty, but Chiang Kai Shek is dead.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 14, 2011, 02:57:38 AM
Is the existence of an independent Taiwan really of fundamental strategic importance to the US?
No it's not. But keeping your bargaining chips as long as you can makes sense.
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2011, 03:06:08 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 14, 2011, 02:57:38 AM
Is the existence of an independent Taiwan really of fundamental strategic importance to the US?
No it's not. But keeping your bargaining chips as long as you can makes sense.
That's a fair enough assessment and one that I can agree with. But the problem then becomes knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 03:03:38 AM
We should support Taiwan's indepence on the principal of the matter.
Oh, he offered you a job there, did he?
China wants Taiwan because of posterity, and the US defends it for the same reason. Nothing changes, and everybody is happy.
Yeah pretty much, China is just going through the motions of continuing to claim Taiwan these days.
Of course, if things go to shit in China (as they will sooner or later) then they might look for a way to get the plebs supporting the government....
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 03:04:18 AM
Why is it very good? What's the point of supporting one cronyist cleptocratic country against another?
Because it weakens the other.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 03:03:38 AM
We should support Taiwan's independence on the principle of the matter.
Taiwan's not declared independence and they don't want it. One China!
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 07:12:22 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 03:03:38 AM
We should support Taiwan's independence on the principle of the matter.
Taiwan's not declared independence and they don't want it. One China!
Yeah, if we wanted to stand on principle, we should go back to recognizing the ROC as the legitimate government of all of China. Even on a practical level, that wouldn't force us to abandon trade with the mainland, and it's not like we need to be able to use the PRC as a counterweight to the USSR anymore.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 14, 2011, 02:57:38 AM
Is the existence of an independent Taiwan really of fundamental strategic importance to the US? At what point do the drawbacks of supporting the RoC against the PRC outweigh the benefits? I would posit that the threshold is not very high.
US arms sales to Taiwan, which China is rather unhappy about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 07:12:22 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 14, 2011, 03:03:38 AM
We should support Taiwan's independence on the principle of the matter.
Taiwan's not declared independence and they don't want it. One China!
I think they do, they're just worried about upsetting the PRC. The only reason Taiwan still keeps its claims on the continent is if it gets rid of them it is pretty much declaring independance which will annoy the reds.
Quote from: Brazen on September 14, 2011, 07:33:16 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 14, 2011, 02:57:38 AM
Is the existence of an independent Taiwan really of fundamental strategic importance to the US? At what point do the drawbacks of supporting the RoC against the PRC outweigh the benefits? I would posit that the threshold is not very high.
US arms sales to Taiwan, which China is rather unhappy about.
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that those arms sales are of fundamental strategic importance to the US? If that's it, I can't agree with that at all. Or are you saying that the drawback of the PRC being unhappy about American arm sales to Taiwan is enough to outweigh any advantages we gain from backing Taiwan? I don't really buy that either.
No kidding. Supporting the RoC, and more abstractly democracy and liberty, is an end in itself, you cynics.
When did Europe become the isolationist branch of Western civilization?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 14, 2011, 11:21:39 AM
No kidding. Supporting the RoC, and more abstractly democracy and liberty, is an end in itself, you cynics.
When did Europe become the isolationist branch of Western civilization?
Agree. I'd be less inclined to support the RoC if it was some sort of military dictatorship/basket case, but they have blossomed into a genuine democracy. That's worth supporting. Incidentally I think the Nixon solution to the RoC-PRC problem was probably the most brilliant diplomatic move of the last century.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 03:04:18 AM
Why is it very good? What's the point of supporting one cronyist cleptocratic country against another?
You really are a clueless cretin.
I always find discussion like this just bizarre.
It is total doublespeak.
The reality is that Taiwan is a separate and soverein nation from China. Whether China wants to admit it, and whether Taiwan wants to admit it, that is the reality.
I don't know why people who are not involved in the political game of pretending like Taiwan is or is not sovereign insist on pretending like it is more than a game.
Supporting one over the other? huh?
There is no question of supporting Taiwan over China - last I checked Taiwan was not planning or threatening to invade China and remove their government, at least not for the last several decades. There is no equivalence between the two when it comes to the issue. If China started making noise about taking over South Korea, that would be about as legit as them taking over Taiwan in any actual practical sense.
Would people say "Meh, what do I care about South Korea for?" in that case? Hell, maybe they would, but at least then it would be simple honest "I don't give a shit" rather than some kind of bizarro buying into the doublespeak that claims that Taiwan doesn't really exist.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 01:59:29 PM
I always find discussion like this just bizarre.
It is total doublespeak.
The reality is that Taiwan is a separate and soverein nation from China. Whether China wants to admit it, and whether Taiwan wants to admit it, that is the reality.
I don't know why people who are not involved in the political game of pretending like Taiwan is or is not sovereign insist on pretending like it is more than a game.
Eh convenient agreed upon fiction is the very basis of so many international agreements why does this one offend you so much? If peace and positive relations are preserved by this fiction what difference does it make? Sort of like how NATO is an alliance of equals.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2011, 10:03:39 PM
Mainland China is a renegade province.
The seat of the Dragon Throne is in mainland China... he who sits in it rules legitimately.
Quote from: PRC on September 14, 2011, 02:53:09 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2011, 10:03:39 PM
Mainland China is a renegade province.
The seat of the Dragon Throne is in mainland China... he who sits in it rules legitimately.
A little person?
Quote from: PRC on September 14, 2011, 02:53:09 PM
The seat of the Dragon Throne is in mainland China... he who sits in it rules legitimately.
The Kuomintang should have taken it with them when they left.
China has a better claim on Taiwan than Tibet. But it's a lot harder to get a carrier group to the Himalayas.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2011, 03:01:26 PM
China has a better claim on Taiwan than Tibet. But it's a lot harder to get a carrier group to the Himalayas.
The PRC Ministry that deals with Taiwan is the same that deals with Hong Kong and Macau. I think as long as everyone keeps the fiction going Taiwan, like the SAR, are kind-of geese that lay the golden egg. Tibet's a lot less economically useful whatever its status.
Quote from: PRC on September 14, 2011, 02:53:09 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 13, 2011, 10:03:39 PM
Mainland China is a renegade province.
The seat of the Dragon Throne is in mainland China... he who sits in it rules legitimately.
Does the Party sit on a throne now?
Well, their surging economy suggests they've held the Mandate of Heaven ever since Mao died.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2011, 03:23:28 PM
Well, their surging economy suggests they've held the Mandate of Heaven ever since Mao died.
Mandate of Heaven in 2011 = US military backing.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 02:46:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 01:59:29 PM
I always find discussion like this just bizarre.
It is total doublespeak.
The reality is that Taiwan is a separate and soverein nation from China. Whether China wants to admit it, and whether Taiwan wants to admit it, that is the reality.
I don't know why people who are not involved in the political game of pretending like Taiwan is or is not sovereign insist on pretending like it is more than a game.
Eh convenient agreed upon fiction is the very basis of so many international agreements why does this one offend you so much? If peace and positive relations are preserved by this fiction what difference does it make? Sort of like how NATO is an alliance of equals.
I don't mind the fiction, I mind that when people like us who have no reason to pretend like the fiction is not fiction still do so.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2011, 03:23:28 PM
Well, their surging economy suggests they've held the Mandate of Heaven ever since Mao died.
Have you ever been on a mandate? No? Then STFU.
The Republic of China is NOT part of Communist China, mkay thx.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 03:38:08 PMI don't mind the fiction, I mind that when people like us who have no reason to pretend like the fiction is not fiction still do so.
They've not declared independence and, to the best of my knowledge, a large portion of Taiwanese society - especially those with family ties in mainland China - don't want to. So it's not simply a fiction that they're not independent, they're not. But there is an element of fiction to it and all politics really. I think it's like seeing the TNC as the real government of Libya when they had the same right to claim that (control over the country) as Gadaffi.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 03:48:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 03:38:08 PMI don't mind the fiction, I mind that when people like us who have no reason to pretend like the fiction is not fiction still do so.
They've not declared independence and, to the best of my knowledge, a large portion of Taiwanese society - especially those with family ties in mainland China - don't want to.
So?
Whether they declare it or not, they are in fact independent.
Quote
So it's not simply a fiction that they're not independent, they're not.
Uhhh, no, the fiction is that they are dependent, which they rather clearly are not. In every practical sense, they have an independent government and economy which Beijing has no direct control over.
Quote
But there is an element of fiction to it and all politics really. I think it's like seeing the TNC as the real government of Libya when they had the same right to claim that (control over the country) as Gadaffi.
In that case there is a disputed control. In this case, there is no dispute. China has no control over Tawian, except insofar as they are able to push them around in the same fashion all gigantic countries push little countries around.
Taiwan is just as independent in respect to China as South Korea, in every way other than rhetoric.
And I suspect most of the hesitance towards just coming out and saying so amongst most Taiwanese is not because they don't want to be indpendent, but simply because they don't want to take the risk that declaring the reality would entail.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 03:48:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 03:38:08 PMI don't mind the fiction, I mind that when people like us who have no reason to pretend like the fiction is not fiction still do so.
They've not declared independence and, to the best of my knowledge, a large portion of Taiwanese society - especially those with family ties in mainland China - don't want to. So it's not simply a fiction that they're not independent, they're not. But there is an element of fiction to it and all politics really. I think it's like seeing the TNC as the real government of Libya when they had the same right to claim that (control over the country) as Gadaffi.
I thought a majority of Taiwanese were native Taiwanese however.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 03:56:48 PMSo?
Whether they declare it or not, they are in fact independent.
I think independence is basically performative. You've got to want and say it before other people should try and foist it on you.
I think it's kind of like people saying Marcus Bachmann's gay. It may be screamingly obvious to everyone else but it's rude to point it out and pointless unless he says it himself.
QuoteTaiwan is just as independent in respect to China as South Korea, in every way other than rhetoric.
I'd say Taiwan's not comparable to South Korea simply because the relation to the mainland and attitudes to China are, from my understanding, hugely important in Taiwanese politics. It's more like a free Belarus without the formal independence.
QuoteAnd I suspect most of the hesitance towards just coming out and saying so amongst most Taiwanese is not because they don't want to be indpendent, but simply because they don't want to take the risk that declaring the reality would entail.
This could be it. I suspect a lot of it's also the cross-straits trade and tourism and it just doesn't seem worth it. They get to be functionally independent without, as you say, the risk. But I imagine for some they also believe it. I can't think of a comparable example where two countries share a language, a culture, a lot of history and are governed by opposing sides of a civil war. Declaring independence would, I think, be quite a shift for Taiwanese identity from Chiang to some country that's separate and totally independent from China.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 14, 2011, 03:25:50 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2011, 03:23:28 PM
Well, their surging economy suggests they've held the Mandate of Heaven ever since Mao died.
Mandate of Heaven in 2011 = US military backing.
I'm pretty sure that if the US attacked mainland China today, it would have been defeated.
On the other hand, if China decided to attack Taiwan, then I would be willing to bet good money the US troops there would withdraw after offering a token resistance to save face.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2011, 04:59:10 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 14, 2011, 03:25:50 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2011, 03:23:28 PM
Well, their surging economy suggests they've held the Mandate of Heaven ever since Mao died.
Mandate of Heaven in 2011 = US military backing.
I'm pretty sure that if the US attacked mainland China today, it would have been defeated.
On the other hand, if China decided to attack Taiwan, then I would be willing to bet good money the US troops there would withdraw after offering a token resistance to save face.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg683.imageshack.us%2Fimg683%2F363%2Fcanttellifstupidortroll.jpg&hash=c30586686e56b735b74b47dff94c6488c90f49af)
Yeah, Marty is stupid. It's not American troops in Taiwan that defends the island. It's the 7th fleet. I don't think there's even a large US military force in Taiwan.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FURalg.jpg&hash=dfd60c0f0c77e4523a71d679292a349ede743fc6)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2011, 04:09:44 PM
This could be it. I suspect a lot of it's also the cross-straits trade and tourism and it just doesn't seem worth it. They get to be functionally independent without, as you say, the risk. But I imagine for some they also believe it. I can't think of a comparable example where two countries share a language, a culture, a lot of history and are governed by opposing sides of a civil war.
The British Empire. :cry:
The religious wars in France also.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 14, 2011, 09:58:45 PM
The religious wars in France also.
Man, I hate that event. I WAS NICE TO THE PROTESTANTS.
I was thinking of that too :lol:
This forum shows its roots.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 14, 2011, 10:36:10 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 14, 2011, 09:58:45 PM
The religious wars in France also.
Man, I hate that event. I WAS NICE TO THE PROTESTANTS.
Actually I always thought it was Francis' mistake to tolerate the Calvinists. Their presence on a massive scale was either going to have them make a bid for power or piss off the Catholics so much as to provoke a backlash...and there was the affair of the Placards and off we went.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 05:07:12 PM
Yeah, Marty is stupid. It's not American troops in Taiwan that defends the island. It's the 7th fleet. I don't think there's even a large US military force in Taiwan.
I'm not sure that there are
any US combat troops stationed there.
Quote from: dps on September 14, 2011, 11:17:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 05:07:12 PM
Yeah, Marty is stupid. It's not American troops in Taiwan that defends the island. It's the 7th fleet. I don't think there's even a large US military force in Taiwan.
I'm not sure that there are any US combat troops stationed there.
We pulled our troops out and closed our embassy in the 1970s to make our new Red Chinese buddies happy.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 11:20:44 PM
Quote from: dps on September 14, 2011, 11:17:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 05:07:12 PM
Yeah, Marty is stupid. It's not American troops in Taiwan that defends the island. It's the 7th fleet. I don't think there's even a large US military force in Taiwan.
I'm not sure that there are any US combat troops stationed there.
We pulled our troops out and closed our embassy in the 1970s to make our new Red Chinese buddies happy.
:contract: Martinus' information, like the rest of Poland, is only 40 years behind. Not so bad, really, when you think about it. That's quite a bit of progress, actually.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 14, 2011, 11:28:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2011, 11:20:44 PM
Quote from: dps on September 14, 2011, 11:17:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 05:07:12 PM
Yeah, Marty is stupid. It's not American troops in Taiwan that defends the island. It's the 7th fleet. I don't think there's even a large US military force in Taiwan.
I'm not sure that there are any US combat troops stationed there.
We pulled our troops out and closed our embassy in the 1970s to make our new Red Chinese buddies happy.
:contract: Martinus' information, like the rest of Poland, is only 40 years behind. Not so bad, really, when you think about it. That's quite a bit of progress, actually.
Yeah, but 40 years ago we had nuclear weapons too. Maybe the Soviets didn't tell them.
Quote from: ValmyActually I always thought it was Francis' mistake to tolerate the Calvinists. Their presence on a massive scale was either going to have them make a bid for power or piss off the Catholics so much as to provoke a backlash...and there was the affair of the Placards and off we went.
I don't actually remember anything about the War of Religion other than it forcibly disintegrates my country, no matter how many Frances worth of "aggrieved noblemen" I exterminate, and I stopped reading event texts a decade ago. :P
Sometimes I just straight up went Calvinist, though, because it renders the Dutch, Swiss, and Scots targetable, and it's fun to pretend.
I always went counter-reform, as any good frog would.
Tuez les tous :sleep:
Quote from: dps on September 14, 2011, 11:17:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 05:07:12 PM
Yeah, Marty is stupid. It's not American troops in Taiwan that defends the island. It's the 7th fleet. I don't think there's even a large US military force in Taiwan.
I'm not sure that there are any US combat troops stationed there.
There might be some on vacation. There really is no reason to have combat soldiers there. The Navy is sufficent to keep the Chicoms out. As John Jervis the Earl of St. Vincent once said "I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea."
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2011, 12:13:20 AM
I always went counter-reform, as any good frog would.
Tuez les tous :sleep:
I always forget about CRC. Like, I was playing an Austria game earlier today and it didn't occur to me to go CRC and get CBs against all those asshole Lutheran Germans till the game started hitting me over the head with the fact that I was supposed to be interfering with their way of life.
I'm a selfish editor, too. Had to add an option B to that bullshit with Karl's will. I
diploannexed Burgundy, that shit is
mine, old man.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2011, 12:21:23 AM
Quote from: dps on September 14, 2011, 11:17:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2011, 05:07:12 PM
Yeah, Marty is stupid. It's not American troops in Taiwan that defends the island. It's the 7th fleet. I don't think there's even a large US military force in Taiwan.
I'm not sure that there are any US combat troops stationed there.
There might be some on vacation. There really is no reason to have combat soldiers there. The Navy is sufficent to keep the Chicoms out. As John Jervis the Earl of St. Vincent once said "I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea."
Can the Chunnel be collapsed to prevent Unterseelowe?
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 01:59:29 PM
If China started making noise about taking over South Korea, that would be about as legit as them taking over Taiwan in any actual practical sense.
Not really. China's claim on Taiwan is a lot more legitimate than a claim on S.Korea would be.
Quote from: Brazen on September 14, 2011, 07:33:16 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 14, 2011, 02:57:38 AM
Is the existence of an independent Taiwan really of fundamental strategic importance to the US? At what point do the drawbacks of supporting the RoC against the PRC outweigh the benefits? I would posit that the threshold is not very high.
US arms sales to Taiwan, which China is rather unhappy about.
I suspect you misread my post - or else I'm missing something - because I can't make heads or tails of your response.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 03:00:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 01:59:29 PM
If China started making noise about taking over South Korea, that would be about as legit as them taking over Taiwan in any actual practical sense.
Not really. China's claim on Taiwan is a lot more legitimate than a claim on S.Korea would be.
My claim to be an heir to the throne of Spain is more legitimate than my claim to the throne of Russia, too, I guess.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 03:23:05 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 03:00:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 01:59:29 PM
If China started making noise about taking over South Korea, that would be about as legit as them taking over Taiwan in any actual practical sense.
Not really. China's claim on Taiwan is a lot more legitimate than a claim on S.Korea would be.
My claim to be an heir to the throne of Spain is more legitimate than my claim to the throne of Russia, too, I guess.
Perhaps. And China's claim to Taiwan is fantastically more legitimate than both of those.
Taiwan has never been part of the PRC, and is not the government of choice of most of its citizens. I don't see how the PRC has any claim to Taiwan stronger than "because we want it".
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 09:17:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 03:23:05 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 03:00:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2011, 01:59:29 PM
If China started making noise about taking over South Korea, that would be about as legit as them taking over Taiwan in any actual practical sense.
Not really. China's claim on Taiwan is a lot more legitimate than a claim on S.Korea would be.
My claim to be an heir to the throne of Spain is more legitimate than my claim to the throne of Russia, too, I guess.
Perhaps. And China's claim to Taiwan is fantastically more legitimate than both of those.
How so?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 09:17:07 AM
Perhaps. And China's claim to Taiwan is fantastically more legitimate than both of those.
I am sorry did the Manchu Dynasty return to power at some point today and I missed it?
Having looked into it a bit more closely(skimmed the wiki article :blush:), it appears China's claim on Taiwan is roughly as strong as Russia's claim on the Ukraine.
@Berkut: Heh, if you can't think of any reasons why China's claim on Taiwan isn't stronger than Ide's claim to be emperor of Russia, I doubt we will have any room for finding common ground in this discussion.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 09:51:14 AM
@Berkut: Heh, if you can't think of any reasons why China's claim on Taiwan isn't stronger than Ide's claim to be emperor of Russia, I doubt we will have any room for finding common ground in this discussion.
The claims are made up anyway. The reason China has a claim on Taiwan is that they say they do and are strong enough to make everybody else agree. That is why it is legitimate.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2011, 10:00:44 AM
The claims are made up anyway. The reason China has a claim on Taiwan is that they say they do and are strong enough to make everybody else agree. That is why it is legitimate.
And that they had actual control of the area in the past, and the people of the area are quasi-Chinese.
Not exactly. Some claims are more plausible than others for reasons beyond brute force. History, tradition and culture contribute greatly to the validity of claims.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2011, 10:07:29 AM
And that they had actual control of the area in the past, and the people of the area are quasi-Chinese.
Please tell me when the PRC controlled Taiwan. And there is a Chinese state in power on Taiwan. So I do not see how those have to mean Taiwan legitimately should be part of the PRC. I mean you have identical claims being made all over the world for equally 'legitimate' reasons. To extent people consider them legitimate depends on who is doing the claiming. It is China doing it so we all go along with it for the sake of international harmony and basic common sense.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 10:07:43 AM
History, tradition and culture contribute greatly to the validity of claims.
Maybe in nationalist fantasy land. We do not go out of our way to force Slovakia to pretend their Hungarian region is not really part of Slovakia but actually part of Hungary.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2011, 10:12:51 AM
Please tell me when the PRC controlled Taiwan. And there is a Chinese state in power on Taiwan. So I do not see how those have to mean Taiwan legitimately should be part of the PRC. I mean you have identical claims being made all over the world for equally 'legitimate' reasons. To extent people consider them legitimate depends on who is doing the claiming.
I didn't say anything about the PRC. But Taiwan was part of "China" in the 18th and 19th centuries and still appears to consider itself to be, hence the name and the lack of a formal declaration of independence. I wouldn't support reunification against the will of either side, just as I wouldn't in the case of the Koreas or the Germanies. However, there is definitely more to the claim than just a powerful nation imposing its will on a weak neighbor.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2011, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2011, 10:07:29 AM
And that they had actual control of the area in the past, and the people of the area are quasi-Chinese.
Please tell me when the PRC controlled Taiwan.
Why on earth does the victory of the CPP invalidate centuries of Chinese history and make China start at year 0 in 1949?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 10:40:19 AM
Why on earth does the victory of the CPP invalidate centuries of Chinese history and make China start at year 0 in 1949?
Why on earth does ancient history validate anything? I guess the Germans were legitimate to invade Poland since Danzig and the Polish corridor were legitimately theirs? No. They were strong so they took it and used history and ethnicity as their political justification. Incidentally nobody was particularly convinced by the justice of their cause.
But also there is a Chinese government in power in Taiwan so the claim it must belong to the Chinese because of history is not even particularly compelling from some sort of self-determination nationalist standpoint. The issue is the claim that the PRC is the only legitimate government of every part of the world that ever belonged to a previous Chinese state. I do not see why that is super just and proper. But they make it so with their political clout.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2011, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 10:07:43 AM
History, tradition and culture contribute greatly to the validity of claims.
Maybe in nationalist fantasy land. We do not go out of our way to force Slovakia to pretend their Hungarian region is not really part of Slovakia but actually part of Hungary.
So when Germany annexed Czechoslovakia, it was made OK by simple reason of force? Clearly not - nobody regarded its claim as legitimate. Yet its claim on Austria was regarded by many as legitimate. Why would that be, when simple force made both a reality?
Or why, for instance, did Fredrick the Great alienate so many in his conquest of Silesia, which was almost universally regarded as illegitimate?
Clearly there are factors beyond brute force that go into determining the legitimacy of claims.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2011, 10:45:49 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 10:40:19 AM
Why on earth does the victory of the CPP invalidate centuries of Chinese history and make China start at year 0 in 1949?
Why on earth does ancient history validate anything? I guess the Germans were legitimate to invade Poland since Danzig and the Polish corridor were legitimately theirs? No. They were strong so they took it and used history and ethnicity as their political justification. Incidentally nobody was particularly convinced by the justice of their cause.
But also there is a Chinese government in power in Taiwan so the claim it must belong to the Chinese because of history is not even particularly compelling from some sort of self-determination nationalist standpoint. The issue is the claim that the PRC is the only legitimate government of every part of the world that ever belonged to a previous Chinese state. I do not see why that is super just and proper. But they make it so with their political clout.
I don't get it. Why would "The PRC has a claim on Taiwan that is more legitimate than a random bogus claim" mean more than just that?
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2011, 10:45:49 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 10:40:19 AM
Why on earth does the victory of the CPP invalidate centuries of Chinese history and make China start at year 0 in 1949?
Why on earth does ancient history validate anything? I guess the Germans were legitimate to invade Poland since Danzig and the Polish corridor were legitimately theirs? No. They were strong so they took it and used history and ethnicity as their political justification. Incidentally nobody was particularly convinced by the justice of their cause.
But also there is a Chinese government in power in Taiwan so the claim it must belong to the Chinese because of history is not even particularly compelling from some sort of self-determination nationalist standpoint. The issue is the claim that the PRC is the only legitimate government of every part of the world that ever belonged to a previous Chinese state. I do not see why that is super just and proper. But they make it so with their political clout.
Because if history and culture mean nothing for determining the validity of states, then we're left with the simple calculus of might makes right.
But perhaps I am misunderstanding your position. Is it that history or culture have zero bearing on the validity of claims? And that China's claim on Taiwan is equally legitimate to its claim on Angola? Or is it just that might makes right? That China's claim on Taiwan is only valid because they have the potential ability to enforce it? Or is it the belief in self-determination for all peoples?
I support the RoC's independence, but to claim that China has no legitimate reason to consider it a part of China strikes me as absurd.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 10:57:13 AM
Because if history and culture mean nothing for determining the validity of states, then we're left with the simple calculus of might makes right.
I am talking about the validity of claims on other people's territory you do not currently control. Taking other people's stuff sorta depends on your might does it not?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 09:51:14 AM
@Berkut: Heh, if you can't think of any reasons why China's claim on Taiwan isn't stronger than Ide's claim to be emperor of Russia, I doubt we will have any room for finding common ground in this discussion.
FU, Camerus. I would be a fine tsar.
But yeah, at what point did PRChina get a shield on Formosa? I mean, fuck, might as well say Japan has a legitimate claim to it. At least they held it for sixty years. It's like saying Britain has a legitimate claim on the territory of the United States.
Well... :hmm:
Britain already lost all its overseas cores since it's been more than fifty years. And they cannot use the nationalism CB either since the US isn't British culture anymore.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 10:57:13 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2011, 10:45:49 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on September 15, 2011, 10:40:19 AM
Why on earth does the victory of the CPP invalidate centuries of Chinese history and make China start at year 0 in 1949?
Why on earth does ancient history validate anything? I guess the Germans were legitimate to invade Poland since Danzig and the Polish corridor were legitimately theirs? No. They were strong so they took it and used history and ethnicity as their political justification. Incidentally nobody was particularly convinced by the justice of their cause.
But also there is a Chinese government in power in Taiwan so the claim it must belong to the Chinese because of history is not even particularly compelling from some sort of self-determination nationalist standpoint. The issue is the claim that the PRC is the only legitimate government of every part of the world that ever belonged to a previous Chinese state. I do not see why that is super just and proper. But they make it so with their political clout.
Because if history and culture mean nothing for determining the validity of states, then we're left with the simple calculus of might makes right.
But perhaps I am misunderstanding your position. Is it that history or culture have zero bearing on the validity of claims? And that China's claim on Taiwan is equally legitimate to its claim on Angola? Or is it just that might makes right? That China's claim on Taiwan is only valid because they have the potential ability to enforce it? Or is it the belief in self-determination for all peoples?
I support the RoC's independence, but to claim that China has no legitimate reason to consider it a part of China strikes me as absurd.
In my opinion, the CCP doesn't have any claim to be the legitimate government over any place beyond the claim of might makes right.