Hacker News Reader

Comment by yogthos | Hacker News Reader

The elephant in the room is that Taiwan is a Chinese province and Taiwan's legal standing is not in question [1]. This is the position held by the UN, and it's the fundamental basis for having diplomatic relations between US and China per Potsdam Proclamation [2] that was signed 77 years ago between China, the US & the UK. This position has never officially changed. And here's what US State Department says on their official page [3]:

    The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations.
    The United States has a longstanding one China policy**, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act,
    the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances.  We oppose any unilateral changes
    to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait
    differences to be resolved by peaceful means.

[1] https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/no-taiwans-status-is-not-unc...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

[3] https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/

View on HN

This explanation gives an incomplete view of US/Taiwan/China relations.

US policy is one of "deliberate ambiguity"[1].

As the quote above says:

> we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means.

An uniformed reader might take that to mean that the US doesn't support the Taiwanese government.

An informed reader realizes what it is saying is that the US does not expect the Taiwanese government to give up a claim to be the government of mainland China. Obviously this is quite a different interpretation, and what "deliberate ambiguity" means.

To quote the Wikipedia article above:

> There is deliberate ambiguity regarding the government of the country of 'China' (as well as what land this country constitutes). Currently, two governments claim legitimate rule and sovereignty over all of China, which they claim includes Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, as well as some other islands.

The "six assurances" noted in the comment above also include this "deliberate ambiguity":

> 5: The United States would not alter its position about the sovereignty of Taiwan which was, that the question was one to be decided peacefully by the Chinese themselves, and would not pressure Taiwan to enter into negotiations with China

> 6. The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity

The reality of the situation is that UN recognizes Taiwan as being part of China and so does US in black and white on the state department page. The whole deliberate ambiguity policy has no actual legal standing, it's just US pretending that it has a right to meddle in internal affairs of China.

You might be interested to know that the status of the sovereignty of Ukraine was not in question at any point right up until the very second that Putin said the Kyiv government was a Nazi government, and invaded. Russia itself was a signatory to the accord that guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, yet here we are.

And this has what to do with US interfering in the politics a Chinese province again?

To quote one of the six assurances mentioned in your quote above:

> 6. The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

US State Department literally recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan, so does UN and practically every nation in the world.

> US State Department literally recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan,

No, it explicitly references the Six Assurances right there, which says it doesn't:

> The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

US State Department says in black and white on their website that Taiwan is part of China. The fact that you keep trying to pretend there's some ambiguity here is beyond hilarious.

Avtually, he is correct and you are badly misunderstanding the U.S. position of strategic ambiguity [0]. The PRC and the ROC believed for decades and each one claimed that they are both the one true China and the other is an imposter. The US agrees that there is one true China, but they won't say which one. Confusing? That's pretty much the point.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambigui...

That's complete and utter nonsense because US has formal relations with PRC and does not have formal relations with ROC.

Yet the US sells arms to Taiwan, sends politicians to visit, conducts freedom-of-navigation exercises in the strait, etc. "Formal relations" are meaningless, they're just lip service.

Yes, US does extraordinary levels of interference in China completely contrary to international law and accepted norms. This is something US would never accept done on its own territory. US simply does whatever it wants ignoring any and all international norms. And if people in US had a shred of decency then they would be horrified by the fact that their country behaves in this fashion.

I know that this is what the PRC line is, but it really is just not the case, no matter how many times it tries to say it is. US one-China policy does not, in of itself, take the position that the PRC should have control over Taiwan, nor does it take the position that mainland China should be controlled by the ROC. It is intentionally left ambiguous, and the US position has been consistent for fifty years.

If we were to stick to the legal fiction that there is only one China, you will have to follow through, instead of switching the narrative in the middle. Show me an international agreement where the government of ROC is a considered "Chinese province." In the "one China" world, foreign governments talking with a Chinese government sitting at Taipei is no more "interfering with a Chinese province" than them talking with a Chinese government at Beijing.

I've literally provided you with links demonstrating that. You can also read what UN has to say.

United Nations - Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations (October 1971): https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/192054?ln=en

UN - Final Clauses of Multilateral Treaties Handbook (2003): https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/fc/english.p...

You're being disingenuous. Look at the articles mentioned in the quote.

"Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances". In particular: "The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan"[1].

So the US supports a "One China policy", "does not support Taiwanese independence" and "does not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan." And it will supply Taiwan with weapons to defend itself, giving defacto independence. And, as you quote, the US opposed any unilateral changes to the status quo.

Confusing? Yes. Yet you're misleading people with your post, frankly speaking, if you telling people to "Just read the defence department's website".

Morally, China is trying to remove Taiwan's defacto independence, for reasons that completely ignore any idea of self-determination, whereas the US is supplying Taiwan with the weapons to choose.

There's nothing stopping Taiwan's democratic government and its people from choosing to give China control, since there are pro PRC parties in Taiwan, and even so--they have decided to resist PRC control.

You can, of course, argue the US should not give Taiwan the right of self-determination, that it should stay out of the affairs of other countries, since there are obviously economic reasons in addition to moral; but nonetheless issues of self-determination are at the heart--since the people and their well-being are always at the heart.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Assurances

Yes, the question of self-determination is almost always forgotten.

There can be no question of self determination when US pours billions of dollars into shaping politics in Taiwan.

oh, no? then who has the right of determination? you can't strip the right of a people's self-determination just because you don't like who spends money in the country.

you sound like an apologist for fascism

You evidently don't understand the concept of self determination. If your politics are hijacked by the world hegemon, that's called indoctrination. Meanwhile, fascism is something US has been actively cultivating since WW2 https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/16/the-u-s-did-not-defe...

You haven't answered the question. Who, in your view, has the right to determine the future of Taiwan?

The legitimate government of China which Taiwan is a province of.

You're evidently not here to have good faith discussion and are coming dangerously close to just being a propaganda mouthpiece

Oh, they've gone well past that point. Solid tankie.

Legitimate is such a funny word. It seeks to make objective what is in origin subjective. Who says which of the two is the "legitimate" government of China? Upon what basis? Being better at killing people in a civil war?

Or is the consent of the governed? And if so, I think saying Taiwan belongs to anyone else except the Taiwanese is a big mistake.

Oh so you agree that US should stop meddling in Taiwan.

> Taiwan's legal standing is not in question [1].

Amusingly, reference [1] that you point at is arguing that Taiwan is an independent country (the opposite to what you are saying):

> Hence, the restoration of Taiwan, Penghu, and all other appurtenant islands as an integral part of the ROC’s territory is without question legally binding. The ROC government and the majority of its people strongly disagree that Taiwan’s position is uncertain.

ROC = Republic of China, ie, Taiwan. And the author is "Director of Press & Information Dept. of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Japan." (Taipei = Taiwan of course)

[1] https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/no-taiwans-status-is-not-unc...

As I've repeatedly explained to you in this very thread, the position of the UN and vast majority of countries in the world is that Taiwan is a province of China. This is a simple fact, and it's frankly astounding that you keep trying to spin it as anything other.

It's astounding that you actually believe official positions.

It's astounding that you don't understand why international law exists.

It's astounding that you believe international law actually means anything. If it did, Russia wouldn't be invading Ukraine.

Russia invaded Ukraine using the precedent set by NATO in Yugoslavia.

You must be an incredibly stupid person to believe that a nation led by a Jewish person is some kind of haven for Nazis. FOAD.

Tell that to the native inhabitants of Taiwan.

The legal arguments on Taiwan are always very complicated, and the Diplomat article you linked to is very careful to specify Republic of China--not China--is the signatory to treaties. It is a very intentional wording as the author of the article is from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (embassy) in Japan.

Fact of the matter is that US has official relations with PRC and not ROC which isn't even recognized by the UN. There is no legal basis for treating Taiwan as a country.

They hold that official position because China demands they do to maintain relations. The US and most other western countries don't actually believe that.

US has no business interfering in Taiwan. Period.

The free people of the world have a right to protect themselves from authoritarians and to assist other free people in doing so. That seems like a pretty fundamental moral principle to follow.

Being a vassal of the US is not freedom. Also, every instance of US "assisting" a country has resulted in creating hellish conditions for people of that country. Stop helping.

Western Europe, Taiwan, and South Korea and now all wealthy democracies thanks in a large part to US assistance.

It hasn't been successful every time the US has gone to a country's aid, but some countries just can't be helped.

LMAO this same South Korea? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/young-sout...

The US supported the dictators Chiang Kai-Shek and Chiang Ching-Kuo when they were oppressing the people of Taiwan.

US also supported dictators in South Korea and the Philippines, as well as in Latin America.

From the end of WW2 to the end of the Cold War the US foreign policy was primarily focused on stopping communism. In some cases they supported dictatorial governments because the alternative at the time (at least in their eyes) would have been worse.

Yeah, weird how US always sided with the brutal dictators while USSR sided with the masses of the people in the countries. It's just so hard to say which was on the right side of history.

So? Are you claiming that means the US can't help the Taiwanese in their goal of self determination?

One has to be incredibly naive to believe that US is constantly at war killing countless millions of people to protect freedoms. US is an empire that subjugates countries to its will to extract their labour and resources. Here's what US protecting freedoms looks like in practice

https://ia800309.us.archive.org/26/items/fp_Killing_Hope-US_...

https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/15/up-to-six-million-people-...

Who does, besides the Taiwanese?

I'll try explaining this in more familiar terms for you. A province is like a state in US, and the central government of China is akin to the federal government in US. I hope that helps clear things up for you.

Ah. So you are saying that mainland China should be governed by the exiled government in Tapei. Got it.

No, I'm not saying that because that would make me an imbecile.

The US likes to have cute "official positions" that are completely orthogonal to their actual behavior. Cf its positions that there must be a "two state solution" in Palestine, or its position on Northern Cyprus, etc.

Lacking a real executive power, international law is basically a conversational framework in which we phrase diplomacy, which ultimately remains a balance of power. Or more simply, power ultimately always trump international law.

Which is to say, the legal position on Taiwan is frankly insignificant compared to the interests of China and the US (not to mention the people of ROC themselves), as either party will end up doing whatever they can get away with. They may cherry pick some international law arguments, or make up something, but it's only a talking point either way.

Sure, and if you look at the map it becomes obvious that US cannot beat China by force in their own backyard. So, all US is accomplishing in the long run is to create conditions that may lead to a direct conflict between two nuclear superpowers because US wants to be able to project its power in Asia.

Perhaps, but my point is, the legal position is almost irrelevant. To flip it around, if ROC was clearly a legally independent entity and PRC didn't like it, this whole debacle would look the same.

The only reason there is a debacle is because US is interfering in internal affairs of a country half way across the world.

This kind of tussle is sadly part and parcel of being a superpower. China does it, Russia does it, US does it. Like with nuclear deterrence, it sucks but if you don't do it, you lose to those who do.

Except US does it on a whole different scale. What US is doing in Taiwan would be equivalent to China or Russia funding and arming a separatist movement in Texas or Florida.

And of course, you're right that we live in a might makes right world, but there in lies the problem for US. As China becomes more powerful and assertive, this kind of behavior will lead to a confrontation sooner or later.

> The elephant in the room is that Taiwan is a Chinese province and Taiwan's legal standing is not in question [1].

I believe you haven't read the link you yourself posted.

I believe one of us didn't. Also, maybe keep reading the statement from US State Department until you comprehend it.

I read it. I'm quite familiar with the US and UN positions on China.

The first link doesn't say what you thing it does, though. It is even written by the de facto ambassador of Taiwan to Japan.

But even ignoring all those links, Taiwan is de facto an independent country. The PRC cannot assert any sort of power in the island, and PRC citizens are not considered Taiwanese nationals.

This is literally false according to UN and international law.

You should not believe the CCP's self serving, feigned morality. If the UN and international norms were so important to the Chinese Communist Party, they would condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which they steadfastly refuse to do. All this despite endlessly lecturing everyone for decades about territorial integrity and internationally recognized borders. Where are those principles now? All of those high-minded thoughts are forgotten the moment it is convenient for the CCP to do so.

You should not believe the US regime's self serving, feigned morality. If the UN and international norms were so important to the US government, they would not have unilaterally invaded Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other countries murdering million of people. All this despite endlessly lecturing everyone for decades about rules based world order. Where are those principles now? All of those high-minded thoughts are forgotten the moment it is convenient for the US to do so.

None of that excuses the CCP's hypocrisy ignoring Ukraine's territorial integrity, simply because they want to support Russia. I'm willing to say that the US was dead wrong in some (not all) of those situations.

Are you willing to say it is wrong for China to support Russia violating Ukraine's territorial integrity, and that they should condemn Russia without delay?

US has never been on the right side of history in the past half a century, and US is sure as hell not on the right side of history trying to start a war with China right now.

Why should China side with US over Ukraine's territorial integrity as US violates Chinese territorial integrity?

Furthermore, your entire position is incoherent here. Seems like when it comes to Taiwan you are supporting separatism, while when it comes to Ukraine you're supporting territorial integrity. Perhaps try and pick a lane first?

> Why should China side with US over Ukraine's territorial integrity as US violates Chinese territorial integrity?

I'm asking you and the CCP to stand for Ukraine's territorial integrity and to rebuke Russia. If territorial integrity and international norms are to be respected, shouldn't you and the CCP do that because it is the morale and consistent thing to do? A code of morality is not dependent on what others do, so talking about the US is a red herring.

> Furthermore, your entire position is incoherent here. Seems like when it comes to Taiwan you are supporting separatism,

I wish for the status quo and peace between China and Taiwan for as long as is practically possible. I think that major figures like Pelosi and others visiting Taiwan is pointlessly provocative and idiotic. On the other hand, Xi and the CCP constantly yelling at everyone to respect what China's territorial integrity, while condoning Putin's invasion is irreconcilable, competely devoid of morality, and oozes the worst kind of cynicism. It is detestable and you should repudiate it without delay.

First, you might not be aware of this, but vast majority of the world takes a contrary position to the west on the war in Ukraine:

https://ecfr.eu/publication/united-west-divided-from-the-res...

https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/02/27/the-global-south-ref...

https://usrussiaaccord.org/acura-viewpoint-krishen-mehta-the...

https://archive.is/2023.02.23-211202/https://www.nytimes.com...

https://archive.ph/4kbWG

Second, China released a position paper where they make their position on Ukraine pretty clear. I encourage you to read it https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/202302/t2023022...

>I wish for the status quo and peace between China and Taiwan for as long as is practically possible.

Literally the only reason there is tension is because US is interfering in internal affairs of a country half way across the world from it.

Finally, what Russia is doing in Ukraine is literally modelled on what US and NATO did in Yugoslavia. Following the exact same rationale. NATO recognized the independence of the separatist regions and then had them invite NATO to assist them militarily. This is precisely what Russia did. NATO literally established the precedent here.

> NATO recognized the independence of the separatist regions and then had them invite NATO to assist them militarily. This is precisely what Russia did. NATO literally established the precedent here.

How is that remotely comparable when there were zero the separatists movements in the Kherson and Zaphorizia Oblasts before Russia invaded those regions? Yet Russia declared them independent anyhow, and then annexed four Oblasts, which was Russia's original goal in the first place. Will you condemn Russia for all that? If not, we have nothing left to discuss.

You're doing historical revisionism here. US ran a coup in Ukraine to overthrow a democratically elected government in 2014. This resulted in a civil war between Donbas and western Ukraine. All this has been extensively documented in mainstream western media. It's pretty shocking that you appear to be utterly unaware of this.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Uk... (https://archive.ph/BAxYc)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-rus...

https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escal...

If you won't acknowledge that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is precisely what NATO was doing in Yugoslavia then there really isn't anything left to discuss.

I'll just leave you with this quote from NATO during the war in Yugoslavia:

    If President Milosevic really wants all of his population to have water and
    electricity all he has to do is accept NATO’s five conditions and we will
    stop this campaign.

https://www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990525b.htm

> You're doing historical revisionism here. US ran a coup in Ukraine to overthrow a democratically elected government in 2014. This resulted in a civil war between Donbas and western Ukraine

Says who? How many UN members out of 193 hold this position?

My latest count is that this view is held by only 3 UN members out of 193: Russia, Syria, North Korea. The list speaks for itself.

I have found this article to be a good debunker on the above "coup" talking point: https://www.thebulwark.com/what-really-happened-in-ukraine-i...

> vast majority of the world takes a contrary position to the west on the war in Ukraine

Could you define what you mean by "vast majority" here?

What I'm seeing is:

March 2022: "The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to reprimand Russia for invading Ukraine and demanded that Moscow stop fighting and withdraw its military forces, an action that aims to diplomatically isolate Russia at the world body. The resolution, supported by 141 of the assembly's 193 members"

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-general-assembly-set-censur...

March 2023: "With a thumping majority of 141 in favour, only 7 against and 32 abstentions, the assembly again issued a non-binding resolution demanding Russia's military withdrawal from Ukraine and calling for a "comprehensive, just and lasting peace".

https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/2517499/un-slams...

It seems disingenuous to leave it at "vast majority of the world"

What is your point?

What part of my comment is unclear to you?

The part where any of that matters. Which country has billions of dollars in defense spending with the US?

As the links I provided clearly explain, Taiwan is not a country. What US is doing is funding and arming a separatist movement in a province of China.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com