I understand what you’re saying here and I agree that that’s what’s going here, but making something “diplomatically palatable” is for all intents and purposes equivalent to appeasement and (in my view) automatically makes any other claims made subject to suspicion.
I mean, Atlanticists are imperialists and should be condemned, but your view is rather unhelpful since it means the vast majority of statements connected to the UN since ~1980 fall under the same view. It’s not like the PRC denies that the RoC government exists and effectively controls the island of Formosa, in our context it is just a rhetorical affectation to the effect of the RoC government not being legitimate, which is a pretty fair stance to take given the RoC’s own positively absurd territorial claims.
The ROC’s territorial claims are a side effect of the PRC’s stance on Taiwan. I don’t remember the exact details but essentially the PRC has previously declared that it would interpret any change in the ROC’s territorial claims as a declaration of war. It’s a matter of pragmatism.
Uhh the RoC’s territorial claims are a direct effect of their century-old hyper-nationalist stances that led to them losing a civil war against the peasantry of China.
Unless you think Mao somehow personally provoked them into declaring ownership over Mongolia?
The ROC has undergone a pretty big shift in its form of governance and general culture in the last ~50 years. Yes, their current claims are a remnant of their past as the government of mainland China, but given that changing their official stance runs the risk of provoking the PRC they’re effectively immutable for the time being.
I understand what you’re saying here and I agree that that’s what’s going here, but making something “diplomatically palatable” is for all intents and purposes equivalent to appeasement and (in my view) automatically makes any other claims made subject to suspicion.
I mean, Atlanticists are imperialists and should be condemned, but your view is rather unhelpful since it means the vast majority of statements connected to the UN since ~1980 fall under the same view. It’s not like the PRC denies that the RoC government exists and effectively controls the island of Formosa, in our context it is just a rhetorical affectation to the effect of the RoC government not being legitimate, which is a pretty fair stance to take given the RoC’s own positively absurd territorial claims.
Libs: I support Taiwan because China is bad
Leftists: do you support the 11 dash line then?
Libs: ???
The ROC’s territorial claims are a side effect of the PRC’s stance on Taiwan. I don’t remember the exact details but essentially the PRC has previously declared that it would interpret any change in the ROC’s territorial claims as a declaration of war. It’s a matter of pragmatism.
Uhh the RoC’s territorial claims are a direct effect of their century-old hyper-nationalist stances that led to them losing a civil war against the peasantry of China.
Unless you think Mao somehow personally provoked them into declaring ownership over Mongolia?
The ROC has undergone a pretty big shift in its form of governance and general culture in the last ~50 years. Yes, their current claims are a remnant of their past as the government of mainland China, but given that changing their official stance runs the risk of provoking the PRC they’re effectively immutable for the time being.
You sound so gullible to believe a nationalist government will give up it’s territorial claims on their own Accord lol
Given that the civil war never technically ended, I’m pretty sure a “declaration of war” just reinforces the status quo.