Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nl 1205 days ago
You keep quoting this, seemingly without reading it:

From the "Six Assurances" mentioned right there:

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

Additionally, the "Taiwan Relations Act" (again mentioned right there) says:

> The act authorizes de facto diplomatic relations with the governing authorities by giving special powers to the AIT to the level that it is the de facto embassy, and states that any international agreements made between the ROC and U.S. before 1979 are still valid unless otherwise terminated.

(noting the that Postdam treaty you mention elsewhere was made with the ROC government because it was in 1945)

> The TRA provides for Taiwan to be treated under U.S. laws the same as "foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities", thus treating Taiwan as a sub-sovereign foreign state equivalent. The act provides that for most practical purposes of the U.S. government, the absence of diplomatic relations and recognition will have no effect.

See:

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

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

1 comments

None of this has an actual meaning under international law. The legal standing of Taiwan is that it's part of China. Plain and simple.
> None of this has an actual meaning under international law. The legal standing of Taiwan is that it's part of China. Plain and simple.

While I understand you disagree with what I'm saying, trying to claim that the Taiwan situation is "Plain and simple" just seems an untenable claim.

The Taiwanese themselves have a different government to mainland China, with a pretty capable defense force.

There is a Taiwanese team in the Olympics.

How is any of that "plain and simple"?

It's enormously funny how you say that a document that you yourself just cited to support your argument has no actual meaning.

Try harder, little propaganda bot.