Russia opposes Taiwan’s independence in any form and considers the island an inseparable part of China, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in remarks published on Sunday.
In an interview with Russia’s TASS state news agency, Lavrov also urged Japan to “think carefully” about what he described as a course towards militarisation".
China gave it to Japan than Taiwan got liberated from Japan. China has zero valid claim on Taiwan
Like legality ever stopped any invasions by aggressive regimes
I was discussing legality though. I am aware that in real life it is still the law of the jungle who wins
Who liberated Taiwan from Japan?
It doesn’t matter. Only taiwanese has the right to decide for themselves if they want to be part of China, or japan, any other country or be indepedent
LOL. So it matters that it was part of China, then part of Japan, but it stops mattering after that? Really?
Which country liberated Taiwan from Japan?
The republic of China, i.e Taiwan.
Right, so the answer is that the legal entity known as “China” liberated the Chinese province of Taiwan from Japan, while 2 different Chinese political factions argued over who was really in charge of the legal entity of China, and in fact, the rest of the international community, which ultimately detines countries through consensus participated in this construction as well, asserting that there was only one China and choosing one political faction or the other as who they saw as the legitimate government of that singular legal entity.
So to complete the thread - the nation-state of China colonized the island nation of Taiwan in the early 1600s as frontier land, the nation-state of China incorporated it into the nation-state of China in the late 1600s, the nation-state of China ceded it under duress to the imperialist nation-state of Japan when they lost a war of aggression launched by Japan, then the nation-state of China liberated the island of Taiwan in1945, making it legally part of the nation-state of China again.
This status has not changed since then.
This seems correct, except for that last bit.
For example, when the allied forces liberated France, the liberated forces did not then own France.
The French owned France.
Correct after liberation the territory reverts to the ownership of the nation state prior to occupation
So…the republic of china, which currently exists in Taiwan.
Im glad we all agree Taiwan governs Taiwan.
So you failed to read the linked text entirely?
The goverment of China, which then became the goverment of Taiwan shortly thereafter, liberated Taiwan. Then, in the 1980s, Taiwain opened up to democracy, and elects its own leaders.
So yes, its very clear who liberated and governs Taiwan, Taiwan itself.
Taiwan itself claims to be a part of China. They claim to be the temporarily embarrassed government of China in fact.
It is an ongoing civil dispute between factions in China, of which Taiwan is a part. This is all clearly outlined in the arguments and citations above. Including yours.
You just don’t like it.
China claims Taiwan is part of its nation, but that has not been the actual case for nearly 80 years.
Taiwan has internal civil disputes about whether it is part of China only in the context of it being the legitimate goverment in exile of China. Those are the only people claiming Taiwan is part of China, so if you agree with that you must agree with them as well. Do you agree that Taiwan are the legitimate leaders of China?
No I read it. You’re just making a logical leap and refusing to admit it. Political parties do not own national territory. For example the Republican Party does not own Wyoming the United States of America does. In fact the only way that a political movement is able to claim ownership of territory owned by the nation state that the political movement is a part of is for that political movement to secede from that nation state as the Confederacy did. This is not happened in Taiwan. There is one legal entity internationally recognized in this debate and it is the legal entity of the nation-state of China. Inner workings of a given nation state are not subject to international consensus the existence of a political party inside the United States is an internal matter. Whether or not the green party exists is not a question of international consensus. But whether a nation state exists is a matter of international consensus. There has never been an international consensus that there are two nation states one in Taiwan and one in mainland China. The international consensus has consistently been for several centuries that there is one nation state called China and the internal political movements within the nation state of China are an issue exclusively for the people of China to resolve and manage.
So while you may claim that the KMT is a separate internationally legal entity from the CPC the reality is that both of those organizations are Chinese they belong to the nation of China and their schism is a matter of internal Chinese politics. The KMT and the subsequent governing body of the island of Taiwan have never declared independence nor seceded from the nation state of China.
Everything do not matter except that Taiwanese are the only legitimate people to decide if they want to be part of China, Japan, any other country or stay an independent country.
And the majority have chosen to not decide at all.
But there are differences between formal status and de facto status.
A truly independent state has its own government and its own military. This is critical because the Chinese government has been very clear that it will not attempt to reintegrate Taiwan by force, knowing that doing so will create a terrible resistance movement that will make life bad for everyone.
But the Chinese government is also clear that if the US brings its military to Taiwan and establishes the island as a de facto or actual US military base then it will invade. If Taiwan allows the US to establish such a base there, then the locla Taiwan government is not choosing independence but vassalage.
What? The CCP has been extremely consistent in its position that use of force is absolutely on the table.
EDIT: Fuck it’s .ml … got me again
Yes, the use of force is on the table IF the US or other nation uses Taiwan to create a threat of force against the mainland.
Not having an opinion is still a decision. As long as the majority of Taiwanese do not say yes then China has no right to take it even peacefully. The hypocritical west also has zero right to tell Taiwanese what they should do
How would the Chinese government “take” Taiwan peacefully? The Chinese government position is very clear on Taiwan - Taiwan will come to desire integration with the Chinese government over time as relations between the mainland and the island improve (remember Taiwan was openly fascist until 1992, which is only 34 years ago) and as relations between the island and the West deteriorate.
Right now, the status of Taiwan is as ambiguous as the status of the dominance of the Western global system. When the KMT fled after their loss, all of China was totally impoverished after a century of humiliation at the hands of the imperialists. As the imperialists do, to create division, they improve the material conditions for a subset of people - in this case they invested in fascist Taiwan and developed it into an economic power, just like they did with Hong Kong. The purpose of this was to make the people living in the island prefer working with the rich imperialists over working with the very very poor communists, and of course it worked. But, as the West continues to sunset, Taiwan will get less and less economic benefit from aligning with the imperialists, and the whole dynamic will slowly, naturally change.
The problem here, as ever, is not actually the Chinese government but the Western governments.
My point still stand . Taiwanese are the only people who has the right to decide right now they do not support reunification. Once they show intention I will switch my position
You are killing em in here. I appreciate you.