Hacker News Reader

Comment by Barrin92 | Hacker News Reader

Neither does the US. Taiwan is only recognised by IIRC 12 natinos, mostly small island states. This has become another weird internet talking point as international recognition pretty much unanmiously switched to the PRC in the 1970s.

View on HN

> Neither does the US. Taiwan is only recognised by IIRC 12 natinos, mostly small island states. This has become another weird internet talking point as international recognition pretty much unanmiously switched to the PRC in the 1970s.

That's misleading. The US de facto recognizes Taiwan, and the only reason it doesn't recognize it de jure is that the PRC would formally cut off relations if it did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_in_Taiwan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_Economic_and_Cultural_R...

More importantly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwa...

Like, it's ok that we sell Taiwan fighter jets and tanks to defend themselves against China, as long as we say that Taiwan belongs to china.

I'll never understand politics.

My guess it’s okey to do that because Chinese internal politics is based on PR which is populistic in nature. What is the proportion of people who would go out looking for lists of American exports into Taiwan vs the proportion of people who would hear Taiwan being pronounced by the president of the US?

The WHO de facto recognizes Taiwan as well.

If by "de facto recognizes" you mean they suddenly have trouble with their Skype connection the moment Taiwan is mentioned.

Which is exactly the point!

Taiwan is a unique proposition, and eviscerating the WHO for having trouble with it without acknowledging that everywhere else has the same problem makes it look like the person is either ignorant or has some agenda.

Well, the WHO probably reads what comes to it from Taiwan, but they don't publicly give lip service to it because that would piss of china, the very large country whose cooperation they needed given that the apparent origin of the pandemic there.

The existence of political factors (which are not the fault of the WHO) makes it less than perfect, but people using it as a cudgel against the organization are (not you necessarily) are insinuating that the WHO's failure to be perfect thus makes it scientifically useless. This is an obvious bad-faith argument deployed for rather obvious political ends.

> the only reason it doesn't recognize it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations#R...

The only reason it doesn't recognize it is because US kicked RoC out of UN by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations#R...

> The only reason it doesn't recognize it is because US kicked RoC out of UN by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758

Huh? The Wikipedia article you linked says the US voted "No" on Resolution 2758. I don't see how you can claim the US did the kicking by opposing the resolution that did the kicking.

That article also states that before that vote...

> ...the United States was proposing that while the credentials of the PRC representatives would be accepted and the PRC would be seated as China’s representative with a seat on the Security Council, the ROC would continue to enjoy representation in the General Assembly.

The "No" is a gesture. If US was serious about the "No' where won't even be a Nixon visit or Resolution of any kind.

Keep in mind RoC was one of the five founding members of UN.

> The "No" is a gesture. If US was serious about the "No' where won't even be a Nixon visit or Resolution of any kind.

But the question isn't just the recognition of Taiwan/ROC, in isolation by itself. It also includes the recognition of the PRC, the existence of which is a fact on the ground that's difficult to ignore.

Sure the US could have continued to plug its ears and ignore the PRC, but that was untenable and becoming increasingly so. It's pretty clear that the US's preferred option would have been formal recognition of both Taiwan and the PRC, but it doesn't always get what it wants, so it has had to contort its official position and practice deliberate ambiguity, instead.

It's the awkward way they one representative handled a question on Taiwan. Pretending he didn't hear the question. I think it speaks more to the unwillingness of a world health organisation to even discuss politically dangerous topics.

Here's a short clip of the interview for those who haven't seen it yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCFPFWsIPmM

>I think it speaks more to the unwillingness of a world health organisation to even discuss politically dangerous topics.

Which is perfectly reasonable if you understand that these questions are looked at through the lens of international diplomacy and these people don't just wing geopolitical questions because every single answer can cause an international shitstorm (not just in regards to China, but every territorial conflict really). This may look awkward to the ordinary viewer but it's not really.

The WHO has a fairly strong interest in staying out of politics and being a health organisation, so whatever diplomatic position they take is mostly just going to be whatever the status quo is. If you think the non-recognition of Taiwan is unethical then you should take that up with your respective government, a guy speaking for the WHO isn't really in any position to make incindiary political commentary.

Its not that it is unethical

But it does support the statement that "The WHO is a political organization with medical leanings".

Personally I think that statement puts it a bit too strongly. It would be like saying "PyCon is a feminist organization with technical leanings."

I’m curious what possible behavior by the WHO you would consider not to indicate that it’s a political organization.

Why not view it as a medical organization with political constraints?

It's not international diplomacy when WHO ignored Taiwan's warning emails from December and went with China's lies instead.

The WHO has such a strong interest in staying diplomatic that sometimes you might need to rely on a local body to protect your interests.

But that's besides the point. I don't look at WHO for geopolitical opinion. I look at it for health advice. And there's where it failed.

Could you give specific examples of where the WHO failed to give the best advice possible at the time?

Or even any cases where they were wilfully blind?

I saw that video and was shocked that a representative from WHO would behave that way, pretending not to hear the question and hanging up... utterly childish behaviour. I mean, how the hell am I supposed to take an organisation like that seriously?

Politics are a fact of international relations. It's childish to think an international organization that depends on its member countries for funding can just completely ignore that or blow it off, rather than eat shit occasionally in order to work around it.

Sure, they can make a bold impassioned speech about how science is far beyond petty concerns like national sovereignty and so on, but this isn't a movie where a great speech suddenly brings everyone to their senses. In reality the WHO works through public health departments in nearly 200 countries and also gets its funding from governments, so if they spit int he face of sovereignty, they'll cease to exist in any meaningful way and aggregate health outcomes will definitely be worse.

Straw man - you're making an argument against a point I didn't make or even insinuate.

I didn't say organisations can or should ignore politics - of course, politics affect every organisation, especially those that work across borders.

My entire comment was about the childish behaviour of the WHO represenatative when asked about Taiwan[0] - he was literally one step away from putting his fingers in his ears and shouting "na na na na na!".

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCFPFWsIPmM

The mandate of the WHO is to improve world health. Thus avoiding politically sensitive issues is correct if that helps the organization to reach its goals.

You are missing the point entirely; the point is that WHO as an International HEALTH organization shouldn't take sides in geopolitical issues.

Bringing the behavior of US-- a sovereign state-- into the discussion is completely inappropriate.

Maybe formally, but Trump has implicitly recognized it[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Tsai_call

Pretty much all global institutions have informal or de-facto relationships with Taiwan, that's besides the point. Not recognizing Taiwan formally has been the position of just about any institution or country on the globe for 50 years.

nitpick: it's been about 40 years. E.g., the US officially switched recognition to PRC in 1979.

Nope. The US just changed it’s official position to recognition of Taiwan as an independent entity, as part of the TAIPEI Act in response to all this.

The TAIPEI Act doesn't change the US's position on recognition as a country.

It specifically says "the US should advocate for Taiwan’s membership in all international organisations in which statehood is not a requirement"

Note the statehood is not a requirement thing.

I think it would be great if Taiwan had observer status at WHO, and I think the TAIPEI Act should help towards this. But the point remains: Taiwan is an unusual entity, and WHO is far from alone in having trouble with this.

Section 1(a)(3):

"(3) Taiwan is a free, democratic, and prosperous nation of 23,000,000 people and an important contributor to peace and stability around the world."

All due respect, but this is lunacy. The way the guy reacted then hung up is unconscionable. The WHO is clearly corrupted by China's money.

And the US is still connected to Taiwan and provides them military support. And we have a $250M 'de facto' embassy there.

Honestly, I'm so shocked and dismayed by your comment, that I think I want to stop participating on Hacker News. Your perspective is relativism ad infinitum. This is the thing I fight most against.

This isn't a community for hackers & painters anymore. Eternal Relativism is impossible to win against.

Edit: since people are misunderstanding this post, I am 100% pro-ROC and anti-PRC. I wish the ROC could rename itself to something else without triggering a PRC invasion. Check my comment history. I'm 100% pro-ROC and I support the ROC's continued (since 1912) independence as a sovereign entity. 中華民國萬歲

"Taiwan" isn't a country. It's an island controlled by the Republic of China alongside its other holdings. The ROC is a state that has existed since 1912 with continual international diplomatic recognition since then. Other countries switching diplomatic recognition from the ROC to the PRC didn't magically make the ROC vanish.

I really dislike the fact that the media and government in the US refers to the ROC as "Taiwan". It muddies the conversation and I constantly have to explain to people that there are two governments/countries over there, one from 1912 and one from 1949.

That is what Chinese claim. I think what Taiwan says matters too.

This is NOT what the People's Republic of China claims, the PRC does not recognize the government of the RoC.

False. And don't use the term "Chinese" as it's ambiguous. This is not what the PRC claims.

The ROC has existed since 1912 and has only occupied Taiwan since 1945 (some claim since 1952 and the Treaty of San Francisco). The ROC has been an independent state with continuous diplomatic recognition since 1912. It does not need to declare independence. I just take issue with people calling the ROC "Taiwan" as it gives ammo to PRC shills who intentionally muddy the conversation with their claim that "Taiwan is a part of China" where the term "China" is ambiguous or referencing the "One China" principle which the US doesn't even recognize (acknowledges the existence of, but does not adhere to).

> I just take issue with people calling the ROC "Taiwan" as it gives ammo to PRC shills who intentionally muddy the conversation with their claim that "Taiwan is a part of China"

...Calling it "Republic of China" is straight up saying "[this area] is a part of China". Naming it "Taiwan" is giving it an identity independent of China.

No, the current situation is that there are two governments both claiming to represent "China", not that the ROC is part of what you are calling "China" (PRC). The ROC can't amend its constitution to rename itself without triggering a PRC invasion.

You are using "China" to refer to the PRC which is misleading and muddies the conversation. I'm against calling the PRC "China" as much as I am against calling the ROC "Taiwan". Please use the full name or the acronym to avoid ambiguity.

Taiwan has:

- a military

- a government

- a language

- a judicial system

- foreign relations, however hampered they are by the Communist party

It also happens to be in a state of cold war with their nominally Communist neighbour.

If it's not a country, nothing is.

So you're saying that the Republic of China Armed Forces belong to an entity called "Taiwan"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_Armed_Forces

"Taiwan" passports say "Republic of China" on them.

My passport stamps from when I entered Taiwan say "Republic of China".

Taiwan is just _one_ of the islands that the ROC controls. Calling the ROC "Taiwan" muddies the conversation and helps the PRC narrative that "Taiwan is a province of China".

The ROC has been a de facto independent country since 1912 when it was founded. The existence of the PRC since 1949 has not changed that.

On the military and foreign relation really matters in this list. In my understanding, the only reason these two still exists is because US is backing them up since WW2.

Every one of the many Taiwanese people I know refer to it as Taiwan, too. It's very rare to hear anyone refer to it as the ROC, unless in the context of specifically making a distinction from the PRC, or in a formal document.

Right, calling the ROC and all of its holdings "Taiwan" just muddies the conversation and gives ammo to PRC shills claiming "Taiwan is a province of China" which deliberately uses the name of a single ROC holding and the ambiguous "China" term.

Do you tell your friends about your summer trip to the Republic of Korea? Or were you visiting the Kingdom of Belgium that year? Do those friends invite you to visit their hometowns in the French Republic, or the Federal Republic of Germany? Maybe you can stop at the Grand Dutchy of Luxembourg along the way from one to the other?

Common names are common for a reason!

When shills from an aggressor nation in a highly politicized international conflict intentionally inject ambiguity into the names used by the states on either side of the conflict, you should strive to be as articulate as possible to avoid misunderstandings.

While you are technically correct, and it's true this is a real issue in PRC/ROC politics it's a strange hill to die on here.

I'd note that you linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_Armed_Forces to support your argument.

But the very first sentence of that page is "The Republic of China Armed Forces, commonly known as the Taiwanese Armed Forces..."

People commonly refer to the United States of America as "America" which is odd since there's also Central and South America. Being common doesn't equal being correct, and in this case the ambiguity is used by the aggressor state (PRC) to get people to believe a certain narrative. I'll continue to inform folks where I can as most people aren't aware of the situation between the ROC and PRC. I don't care about downvotes on this site _especially_ if it's because I'm stating facts that people do not like.

I don't have any dislike for the fact that the ROC is an independent country, whether my government diplomatically recognizes them as such or not. I'm just pointing out that, if a Taiwanese family invites you to dinner, they're going to be weirded out by you continually saying "Republic of China" throughout the conversation.

I have lots of Taiwanese friends, but I appreciate your concern. I do use 中華民國 when talking about politics or anything related to the government or cross-strait relations. If I'm talking about the island of Taiwan specifically, I have no problem saying "Taiwan".

That sounds good. =) By the way, and not to put too fine a point on it, is there a reason why you don't call them Republic-of-Chinese friends?

Because all of them are actually from the island of Taiwan (not Kinmen or other holdings of the ROC), and they generally (and increasingly) do not want to be associated with "the Chinese": https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/course/news.php?Sn=166

"China" is a bad brand name nowadays. I really wish they could formally rename their country with a resumption of the civil war.

You'd better write to the US government too.

Here's the TAIWAN ALLIES INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVE (TAIPEI) ACT OF 2019. It starts: To express United States support for Taiwan's diplomatic alliances around the world.

The name "Republic of China" (as opposed to "People's Republic of China") isn't used. However there are sentences like this:

Since the election of President Tsai Ing-wen as President of Taiwan in 2016, the Government of the People's Republic of China has intensified its efforts to pressure Taiwan.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/167...

lol, see my first post in this thread. I said I didn't like the fact that the USA calls the ROC "Taiwan", and I think you are overestimating my ability to influence USA foreign policy. The USA doesn't have formal diplomatic relations with the ROC so using "Taiwan" is a kludge.

Taiwan is the common name for the state that officially goes by the name Republic of China. It's de-facto administrative boundaries have been the island of Taiwan for the last 70 years. That's long enough for most people stop caring all that much. Many countries in todays world were still colonies back then.

The ROC had existed continuously since over 30 years before it occupied the island of Taiwan. What about people in Kinmen? Do you consider them part of "Taiwan"? Please use the official government name to stop aiding the PRC in its misinformation campaign.

Sometimes, I'll hear someone talk about a place called "Virginia", and I'll have no idea what they are talking about. Eventually, I figure out through context clues that they are referring to the Commonwealth of Virginia. I wish they would save me the time of having to constantly explain why they are wrong.

Bad analogy. This would be like people calling Rhode Island "Newport". The official state name is (the State of) "Rhode Island" (and Providence Plantations), and calling it by the name of one of its territories makes no sense.

Yet we all knew you meant Rhode Island by saying Newport.

I didn't

Let's try a few others.

South Beach?

LA?

Vegas?

Even people from Fremantle wouldn't expect to say "South Beach" and have people outside Perth know where that is.

Tangential factoid: often people (especially tourists) say Newport when they actually mean Aquidneck Island.

Source: I've lived in that area.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com