Miscellaneous News

birdlikefood

birdlikefood

Junior Member
Registered Member
The original speech of the ambassador to France does not violate any international law, nor does it contradict China's diplomatic principles today. The important principle of respecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity established in the Charter of the United Nations is the cornerstone of modern international law and international relations.

The ambassador's statement: "From the point of view of international law, even the republics of the former Soviet Union have no valid status, because there is no international agreement to implement their sovereign state status". This sentence is not so much an expression of opinion as a factual statement. However, the media will hype this statement as a factual statement as an expression of the attitude of the ambassador or even the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to achieve its purpose.

The view that the ambassador's speech will cause trouble for China's Taiwan policy is even more untenable. Taiwan's territorial sovereignty belongs to one China, which has never been disputed in history and in the reality of international politics. "One China" only encounters challenges within the island of Taiwan, and there are no problems internationally. The Taiwan referendum is to fundamentally change the status quo of China's sovereignty and establish a new sovereign state.

This is fundamentally different from the Ukraine issue.

You can criticize Mr. Ambassador for needing more mature language confrontation experience and skills, but you cannot criticize him for being stupid.
 
Last edited:
Chevalier

Chevalier

Major
Registered Member
It’s obvious that abiding by UN rules, wording and laws according to the Anglo led west is pointless given the alacrity that the anglos will abandon those laws if they are out at a disadvantage eg WTO, the American obsession with “guardrails“.
No, the only laws that the Anglo led west truly respects is Vae Victus, woe to the conquered. The anglos believe in a Hobbesian world and behave accordingly, in history and in present in practice.

Take the latest US trying to force South Korea not to sell chips to China since their own Anglo companies are being sanctioned by China, and yet when Australia suffered Chinese sanctions, it was America who was stealing Australian market share.

Vae Victus, that is all the anglos and their minions believe in. As Putin said, the anglos “have no principles”.
 
E

Eventine

Senior Member
Registered Member
KYli said:
I don't know why the ambassador said what he has said. And I am not going to speculating the reason. However, when EU top officials are already threatened to sanction China for Taiwan, why should China play nice. Too many people want China to act like a saint with impeccable perfection but give leeway to other countries to insult and demonize China.

When the US already sanctioned China from right to left from top to bottom. When EU broke diplomatic protocol by visiting Taiwan. And telling China that it is none of China's business. But somehow a few inflammatory words from an ambassador is such a big deal. Grow some skin please, China's interests have been trampled for the last few years. Now, you still care about EU nations' sensitive feeling. When did they care about China.
Click to expand...
The problem is the Chinese belief that they can separate the EU from the US, which they largely cannot. See, Chinese strategists think in terms of rational interests, believing others to be like themselves in wanting to advance their position in the great game. They think the problem is the US, and only the US, when in fact, it hasn't played out that way.

But the US's vassals are largely content where they are. Macron is one man - he certainly doesn't represent all of France, much less the EU. Europeans will play nice with China where there is business to be done, and they'll throw in the occasional put down against the Americans - because American arrogance really is irritating - but at a base, fundamental level, Europeans identify with the West and its values. This is a cultural fact.

For this reason, no European politician can get away with pivoting to China even if it's in their best interest to do so. Their public will eat them alive for preferring "oriental tyrants" to their own. It's just not possible for European leaders to team up with China, or even stay neutral in a conflict between China and the US. Their public will demand that they defend Western values.

Since China's modern values are fundamentally incompatible with that of the West's, there's not much to realized, ultimately, in courting Europeans. Europeans will never respect or love the PRC. Not unless it became a Western democracy like them. Such being impossible, the best that China can get out of Europe is a recognition of their own weakness, because Europeans are pretty much screwed, economically. So to the extent that China can work with Europe, it will be because Europe has no choice but to continue to do business.

But never take that as an indication that Europe will therefore bow to Chinese political demands. The Europeans, despite their weakness, are too proud for that; and they'd gladly sacrifice their own interests to rage, one last time, against the dying of the light.
 
Last edited:
S

supersnoop

Colonel
Registered Member
I watched the French interview. Really taken out of context.

My French is “trop mal” at best, but he specifically talks about the history of Crimea and how it was a simply made a part of Ukraine SSR by Khrushchev.

He says there was no official accord to determine the status (borders) of these countries. This is factually correct. Many conflicts have been fought over the territory of ex-Soviet republics, Chechnya, Dagestan, Nargono-Karabakh (twice), South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, etc.

These territories continue to be disputed as a legacy of the hasty disintegration of the USSR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top