China Geopolitical News Thread

[Equation]

Lastly ROC was the first to occupy the island after Japan renounced the territory so based on first claim ROC has stronger claim then PRC.

How can one lay claim and own something that one is NOT an official recognized sovereign state from the UN Charter? So in other words the Taiwan island thus belongs to the PRC.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 was passed in response to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668 that required any change in China's representation in the UN be determined by a two-thirds vote referring to Article 18[1] of the UN Charter. The resolution, passed in October 25, 1971, recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations" and expelled "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations."[2]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blackstone]

This part is debatable since according to the San Francisco peace treaty Japan merely renounced territorial sovereignty over Taiwan not returned sovereignty. Second PRC is not a signatory of SF peace treaty so PRC does not have recognition of any claim within the treaty. Lastly ROC was the first to occupy the island after Japan renounced the territory so based on first claim ROC has stronger claim then PRC.

All of that means nothing, since the UN recognizes PRC as "China," and doesn't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state. The US also recognizes "One China," with PRC as the legitimate government of said entity.

 

[Jeff Head]

All of that means nothing, since the UN recognizes PRC as "China," and doesn't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state. The US also recognizes "One China," with PRC as the legitimate government of said entity.

That is indeed true today, but not so prior to 1971 and UN Resolution 2758.

Up until that time, when SB is talking about, the recognized entity was the ROC, which moved onto Formosa/Taiwan. I believe this is what SB is referring to.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

That is indeed true today, but not so prior to 1971 and UN Resolution 2758.

Up until that time, when SB is talking about, the recognized entity was the ROC, which moved onto Formosa/Taiwan. I believe this is what SB is referring to.

Yes and no.

Since Japan's actions were before the UN Resolution it means Taiwan made first claim.
Although UN does not recognize ROC, it does not mean the government does not exsist. Neither does the One China policy in which it means that there is only one nation that claims name of China which does not mean an independent government does not exsist on the island of Taiwan.
In fact there are some nations that establishes relationship with Taiwan and not PRC.

Basically it the same with the Far East military tribunal results where Legal non-conformities exsists since the transfer occured before the resolution not after.

 

[Blackstone]

Yes and no.

Since Japan's actions were before the UN Resolution it means Taiwan made first claim.
Although UN does not recognize ROC, it does not mean the government does not exsist. Neither does the One China policy in which it means that there is only one nation that claims name of China which does not mean an independent government does not exsist on the island of Taiwan.
In fact there are some nations that establishes relationship with Taiwan and not PRC.

Basically it the same with the Far East military tribunal results where Legal non-conformities exsists since the transfer occured before the resolution not after.

The government running Taiwan does indeed calls itself the Republic of China (ROC), and has since 1928. However, there's theory and then there's the real world, and in the real world, only 22 nations recognize ROC, and that number gets smaller as time goes on. Taiwan is a provincial government, and its residents basically accepts that status. The 'one China' policy is a fact for all governments with any degree of real power, except The Vatican. Full stop.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

The 'one China' policy is a fact for all governments with any degree of real power, except The Vatican. Full stop.

First if you examine the map above you'll find that majority of nations in light grey recognize the PRC as the legitimate government of China, but with informal relations with Taiwan.
Second if you re-examine the reason why the one China' policy was accepted through a bi-lateral agreement between PRC and each nation you'll find that it's just a relic of the cold war in which the western nations persuaded PRC to maintain neutrality in the cold war in exchange for acknowledgement which became the One Chine policy. (The UN resolution is a different matter but the two is not interconnected so they can be considered separately)

Now with change in global economic and politics tectonics, the US for example could unilaterally renounce the one China policy with very little consequences since I really do not think PRC would start a war over this action.

Basically the One China policy is not written in stone and it doesn't need to start from Taiwan to change the situation.

 

[tphuang]

View attachment 10294

First if you examine the map above you'll find that majority of nations in light grey recognize the PRC as the legitimate government of China, but with informal relations with Taiwan.
Second if you re-examine the reason why the one China' policy was accepted through a bi-lateral agreement between PRC and each nation you'll find that it's just a relic of the cold war in which the western nations persuaded PRC to maintain neutrality in the cold war in exchange for acknowledgement which became the One Chine policy. (The UN resolution is a different matter but the two is not interconnected so they can be considered separately)

Now with change in global economic and politics tectonics, the US for example could unilaterally renounce the one China policy with very little consequences since I really do not think PRC would start a war over this action.

Basically the One China policy is not written in stone and it doesn't need to start from Taiwan to change the situation.

You are completely wrong here. At the time of negotiations back in the 70s and 80s, DXP made it pre-requisite condition for establishing biltateral relationships that they must pursue a One China policy and only recognize PRC as China. This happened at a time when China had very little leverage. Every Chinese administration has assumed that position since. No Chinese gov't would be able to survive power if it renounces that position. China's positiion has only strengthened since to the point where no country outside of US dare to even export weapons to ROC. If US were to officially recognize ROC today, it will loose bilateral relationship with China tomorrow. If an any point UN recognizes ROC, PRC would leave UN.

If you don't understand this, then you should read the biography on DXP by Ezra Voegel. If you do understand this and are delibrately arguing against it, then I ask you to stop, because it's not productive conversation and will antagonize other people.

 

[tphuang]

Do you really think US and/or other western nations care IF PRC becomes more bellicose and belligerent?

You know if PRC leaves the UN it's just repeating history when Japan left United League of Nations in the 30's.
Only problem is which nation is going to ally with PRC going against the US and other nations?
More realistic problem is which nations are going to make trade with PRC if that situation actually comes to place?

Yes, China would do the nuclear option of selling all of it's US treasury/agency/corporate bond holdings along with ECB holdings. It would stop trading with Western countries. That would cause immediate chaos in the Western financial market and start recessions in Western economies. Now, it would cause similar or maybe even larger problems in China if trading stops. However, that's something China is willing to stomach for an issue it holds dear. Which Western gov't can tell their population that their actions caused a huge recession just so they can stick it to China when the government in PRC and ROC are already happy with status quo.

i can go further into details on the financial impacts, but since this is a new thread, let's keep the discussion from verring to that direction. The point here is that there is a lot of integration between PRC and Western economies. Any major disruption in economic activity would cause a lot of chaos in the world economy.

Also, it seems to me that when you use languages like "which nation is going to ally with PRC going against the US and other nations", you are proposing that it's desirable to have a situation where PRC are at cold war or even worse relationship with other countries. I understand that you may feel certain resentment from Chinese posters using harsh languages toward you for your pro-Japanese views. I think as a forum here (at least amongst moderators), we are hoping for peaceful relationships between countries. So, I ask you to be respectful toward that end.

 

[tphuang]

I suggest you do a little more unbiased critical analysis between the two. There is quite a lot of similarities. The difference is the world economy is more fair in practice compared to the early 1900's so you don't have to declare war to gain vital natural resources like oil.

alright, let's stop here so we don't turn this into a discussion on China vs 1930s Japan, since that is too political. Any such posting will be deleted.

 

[Blackstone]

View attachment 10294

First if you examine the map above you'll find that majority of nations in light grey recognize the PRC as the legitimate government of China, but with informal relations with Taiwan.

What does it mean when governments have "informal" relations with another? It means they might like the said entity (in this case Taiwan) better for whatever national interest purposes, but they also wish good relations with the Communist Party of China. You and I are in general agreement on the Communist overlords in Beijing, but as much as The West (including Japan and ROK), dislike the current hybrid State Capitalist governing system that's "Communist" in name only, it has wide support from the vast majority of Chinese citizens. And who are we to tell about 70% of 1.3 billion people they should want revolution?

Second if you re-examine the reason why the one China' policy was accepted through a bi-lateral agreement between PRC and each nation you'll find that it's just a relic of the cold war in which the western nations persuaded PRC to maintain neutrality in the cold war in exchange for acknowledgement which became the One Chine policy. (The UN resolution is a different matter but the two is not interconnected so they can be considered separately)

That simply doesn't matter. China is run by a tiny group of elites that has the general support of their people and is the second largest economy in the world. The West and every other nation on Earth will simply have to deal with it, because the the PRC is probably the least-bad entity to drag China (often kicking and screaming) into the 21st. Century.

Now with change in global economic and politics tectonics, the US for example could unilaterally renounce the one China policy with very little consequences since I really do not think PRC would start a war over this action.

Basically the One China policy is not written in stone and it doesn't need to start from Taiwan to change the situation.

The US is quite so irresponsible nor short-sighted enough to do as you propose, not even that pack of irresponsible amateurs currently in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.