Well, if they are so democratic, and support other nations sovereignty as they would like their own, why don’t they remove them from their constitution? I have a feeling you have no idea of the ideology of the state on that island.
Wdym? I said it does not make sense to say appeasement politics is bad but then by supporting the government on Taiwan, and appeasing their claims. If anything we need to define sovereignity first and then support a side on conditions. Which are obvioulsy not made regarding Taiwan’s claims because of Westerners lust for hegemony.
the only claim being appeased is to what they already control, Taiwan. That’s their country. I asked for specific actions being taken by Taiwan to take territory from sovereign nations. What other claims are we appeasing? Has there been military action against Mongolia, or Japan, that we are hypocritically ignoring? What threat to other nation’s sovereignty are we ignoring from Taiwan?
the only claim being appeased is to what they already control, Taiwan
That’s not true, or at least what I would argue. You can point me to any article where some Western politician is saying “as long as Taiwan want it’s island we support that, but not more than that”. In fact, I don’t know of any conditions the US or anybody who defends Taiwanese independence, is making regarding their claims. There is no “Taiwan only” constitution that the US supports. This is the needle in the ass of the PRC. I think it would be a different situation, if Taiwan (and the US) would say "we want Taiwan to be its own country, and we recognize the PRC as the successor of China.
But they don’t do that. They actually support the ROC and everything on their constitution. Including the 11-dash line in the South China Sea, that is larger than what China is drawing with their 9-dash line That they are for the “will of the Taiwanese to just be independant on their island” is for the public of the G7 countries. Nobody is willing to give up the territories of ROC afaik. Yes the ROC can’t do anything about it in terms of military power, but they equally don’t make any steps to remove them. (But I think if the US tells it’s guys at the DPP to create such a constitution that claims only the island of Taiwan, they will only do it to provocate an attack by China. But that’s beyond my point and the map above.)
Not only has US never endorsed their claims outside Taiwan, they still dont formally endorse their claims to Taiwan itself. So no. They dont support RoC’s constitution and as far as im aware have never commented on it.
You couldn’t be more wrong. The ROC wouldn’t exist had the US not intervened in the civil war by stationing the US navy between Taiwan and the mainland. The US recognized the territorial claims of the ROC for around 30 years. The US even pushed the ROC to recognize Mongolian independence in the 60s.
And whats the part where US endorsed RoCs constitution? Youve given me an example of them protecting just the island territory, and an example of them disagreeing with their constitution.
Not only has US never endorsed their claims outside Taiwan
You keep pulling shit from your ass. The US has formerly recognized the ROC and all its claims, then put the PRC into UN instead in the cold war to get them on their side. And recognized the One-China Policy.
Now, if the US is again violating the One-China Policy, that means they deal with ROC as a state again. Here you start to pull out without sources or proof an assumption that there is an imaginary state called Taiwan, with a constitution with claims only about the island itself, and that the US is exactly protecting this state, which I said does not exist in that form.
My whole point is the absence of that nuance, and that this state the US de facto recognized has claims worse that any other country in Asia.
They dont support RoC’s constitution
I mean yes now they don’t recognize it officially, but they and the government on Taiwan do not make any considerations regarding these claims, they just still have them? That is literally my whole point.
What actions have they taken in pursuit of these supposed claims?
Well, if they are so democratic, and support other nations sovereignty as they would like their own, why don’t they remove them from their constitution? I have a feeling you have no idea of the ideology of the state on that island.
So no actions needing attention like we’re giving to China for threatening the sovereignty of other independent nations.
Wdym? I said it does not make sense to say appeasement politics is bad but then by supporting the government on Taiwan, and appeasing their claims. If anything we need to define sovereignity first and then support a side on conditions. Which are obvioulsy not made regarding Taiwan’s claims because of Westerners lust for hegemony.
the only claim being appeased is to what they already control, Taiwan. That’s their country. I asked for specific actions being taken by Taiwan to take territory from sovereign nations. What other claims are we appeasing? Has there been military action against Mongolia, or Japan, that we are hypocritically ignoring? What threat to other nation’s sovereignty are we ignoring from Taiwan?
That’s not true, or at least what I would argue. You can point me to any article where some Western politician is saying “as long as Taiwan want it’s island we support that, but not more than that”. In fact, I don’t know of any conditions the US or anybody who defends Taiwanese independence, is making regarding their claims. There is no “Taiwan only” constitution that the US supports. This is the needle in the ass of the PRC. I think it would be a different situation, if Taiwan (and the US) would say "we want Taiwan to be its own country, and we recognize the PRC as the successor of China.
But they don’t do that. They actually support the ROC and everything on their constitution. Including the 11-dash line in the South China Sea, that is larger than what China is drawing with their 9-dash line That they are for the “will of the Taiwanese to just be independant on their island” is for the public of the G7 countries. Nobody is willing to give up the territories of ROC afaik. Yes the ROC can’t do anything about it in terms of military power, but they equally don’t make any steps to remove them. (But I think if the US tells it’s guys at the DPP to create such a constitution that claims only the island of Taiwan, they will only do it to provocate an attack by China. But that’s beyond my point and the map above.)
Not only has US never endorsed their claims outside Taiwan, they still dont formally endorse their claims to Taiwan itself. So no. They dont support RoC’s constitution and as far as im aware have never commented on it.
You couldn’t be more wrong. The ROC wouldn’t exist had the US not intervened in the civil war by stationing the US navy between Taiwan and the mainland. The US recognized the territorial claims of the ROC for around 30 years. The US even pushed the ROC to recognize Mongolian independence in the 60s.
And whats the part where US endorsed RoCs constitution? Youve given me an example of them protecting just the island territory, and an example of them disagreeing with their constitution.
You keep pulling shit from your ass. The US has formerly recognized the ROC and all its claims, then put the PRC into UN instead in the cold war to get them on their side. And recognized the One-China Policy.
Now, if the US is again violating the One-China Policy, that means they deal with ROC as a state again. Here you start to pull out without sources or proof an assumption that there is an imaginary state called Taiwan, with a constitution with claims only about the island itself, and that the US is exactly protecting this state, which I said does not exist in that form.
My whole point is the absence of that nuance, and that this state the US de facto recognized has claims worse that any other country in Asia.
I mean yes now they don’t recognize it officially, but they and the government on Taiwan do not make any considerations regarding these claims, they just still have them? That is literally my whole point.
Ill be here waiting on citation