Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@warboss tzoo

the charter allows for military intervention when violence is directed against civilians who are unable to defend themselves

the bombings are reason enough to put a petition to the UN SC for approval

@ketara

look, if im wrong i fold. im not trolling.If im wrong and get corrected I learn. I will concede if im wrong.

during the earlier part of the exchange Chris himself challenged me to state a source for my stance

I gave him the UN CHARTER.

which he said was not worth a lot. and left it at that

i was then called an idealist for stating that the charter is upheld and enforced by the members of the UN.

:| now theres wrong you can let go. i couldve let go

maybe i shouldve

but then people supported him and i figured i might be wrong so i asked valid questions

and never got a satisfactory reply back

and here we are

like you said this is an internet debate so i think a little humor (which i acknowedged) is acceptable. Ive tried being tactful but that didnt work. And its hard not to resort to humor when the level of wrongness is at a disturbing level. if i misspoke i apologize

at least now i've gotten him to actually state a source so i dont think my efforts were totally in vain

and i appreciate the feedback on my grammar. I'll work on it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@biccat
fair enough
i was afraid people will just go TLR\

Re ROC/PRC
1971 was the year the resolution was passed. 1949-1950 is the year the PRC ejected ROC

so between 1950 - 1971 ROC was holding the seat "illegally"

Resolution 2758
this is the vote and process i was talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758

for the actual document:
http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-2758%28XXVI%29/page_1/rect_485,223_914,684

the list of claims by both ROC and PRC listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Taiwan





Automatically Appended Next Post:
@chris

the link you gave is written by Edgar Snow

is this the same guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Snow

Edgar Snow (17 July 1905 in Kansas City, Missouri – 15 February 1972 in Geneva) was an American journalist known for his books and articles on Communism in China and the Chinese Communist revolution. He is believed to be the first Western journalist to interview Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong, and is best known for Red Star Over China (1937) an account of the Chinese Communist movement from its foundation until the late 1930s.

if im referring to the same guy:
I would like to know what gives him an official capacity to speak in behalf of the United States regarding the relationships the country it has with China and Taiwan.

care to shed some light?

Bakerofish wrote:
@ketara

look, if im wrong i fold. im not trolling.If im wrong and get corrected I learn. I will concede if im wrong.

during the earlier part of the exchange Chris himself challenged me to state a source for my stance

I gave him the UN CHARTER.

which he said was not worth a lot. and left it at that

i was then called an idealist for stating that the charter is upheld and enforced by the members of the UN.

:| now theres wrong you can let go. i couldve let go

maybe i shouldve

but then people supported him and i figured i might be wrong so i asked valid questions

and never got a satisfactory reply back

and here we are

like you said this is an internet debate so i think a little humor (which i acknowedged) is acceptable. Ive tried being tactful but that didnt work. And its hard not to resort to humor when the level of wrongness is at a disturbing level. if i misspoke i apologize

at least now i've gotten him to actually state a source so i dont think my efforts were totally in vain

and i appreciate the feedback on my grammar. I'll work on it.

Fair enough if you meant to be humorous, but sometimes when debating on the internet, you have to be careful. The tone conveyed is always the tone you meant, and whilst you might be arguing in a fairly jocular light hearted fashion, it doesn't always necessarily come off that way, due to the lack of body language and vocal expression. The trick is to reread before you post, and ask yourself, 'Could I've just written be taken offensively?'. If so, a rephrase is in order.

I don't believe you're trying to deliberately troll here, and are simply expressing your point of view as best you can. Sometimes though, you have to agree to disagree on the net, simply because you reach a point where you realise you and the other chap are effectively arguing at each in mute incomprehension of what the other person is saying, and calling it quits is the best way forward.

Bakerofish wrote:@biccat
fair enough
i was afraid people will just go TLR

Well that's the problem with the internets. I'm sufficiently interested in your position on the issue that you've got at least one reader.

Bakerofish wrote:Re ROC/PRC
1971 was the year the resolution was passed. 1949-1950 is the year the PRC ejected ROC

so between 1950 - 1971 ROC was holding the seat "illegally"

You haven't shown how the ROC was holding the seat "illegally." They had a legitimate claim of sovereignty, and there was no requirement that the UN recognize one claimant over another.

A brief question: how do you square the claim that from 1950-71 ROC held the seat "illegally" while at the same time arguing that Ghadaffi still has legitimate sovereignty over Libya? Both involved armed insurrections against the then-sovereign.

Bakerofish wrote:Resolution 2758
this is the vote and process i was talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758

for the actual document:
http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-2758%28XXVI%29/page_1/rect_485,223_914,684

Right, this was in 1971. Until then, the UN recognized the ROC as the legitimate sovereign of China.

Bakerofish wrote:the list of claims by both ROC and PRC listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Taiwan

I understand that those are claims that are currently advanced by each side, but you haven't shown how, in 1950, control over China legally passed to the PRC from the ROC.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:You seem to be under the false impression that if we suddenly stop intervening in Africa/the Middle East we'll stop getting terrorist threats.

They can't drive a truck bomb into our base in Tripoli if we don't have a base in Tripoli.

No, they'll just bring it home to us.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:You seem to be under the false impression that if we suddenly stop intervening in Africa/the Middle East we'll stop getting terrorist threats.

They can't drive a truck bomb into our base in Tripoli if we don't have a base in Tripoli.

No, they'll just bring it home to us.

Not if we have troops guarding the US/Mexican border and not the Libyan/Egyptian border.

Because I'm SURE our military can protect our 3,507 mile land border and 12,383 miles of coastline flawlessly.

Melissia wrote:Because I'm SURE our military can protect our 3,507 mile land border and 12,383 miles of coastline flawlessly.

If they really want to smuggle a bomb into the US they could just hide the bomb inside a ton of cocaine.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:You seem to be under the false impression that if we suddenly stop intervening in Africa/the Middle East we'll stop getting terrorist threats.

They can't drive a truck bomb into our base in Tripoli if we don't have a base in Tripoli.

No, they'll just bring it home to us.

Not if we have troops guarding the US/Mexican border and not the Libyan/Egyptian border.

And what about the canucks the 9/11 hijackers entered through that border

schadenfreude wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because I'm SURE our military can protect our 3,507 mile land border and 12,383 miles of coastline flawlessly.

If they really want to smuggle a bomb into the US they could just hide the bomb inside a ton of cocaine.

Or put it in one of the hundreds of thousands of cargo containers that go through US harbors every single day. Or send it to Canda, and move it over the border.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@emperor
i dont think anyone is comfortable with that idea

Think of it this way, would the South or North in the US Civil War have accepted foreign intervention? The South was aided by the UK, but this is a lot different from the things being proposed here.

The South actively wanted England's and France's involvement to help defeat the Union. Didn't happen thanks to their over trading of cotton prior to the war (i.e had no collateral to force their hands).

@ketara
Thanks. In fairness though, if a person has decided to be offended about what I say, he will be offended regardless of how I write anything down. I was speaking in what I believe to be the appropriate level of politeness in the OT forum but I get your point about toning down the snark.

@biccat
the major difference between the PRC/ROC and Libya issue is that the PRC was able to secure both de facto and de jure while the Rebels have de facto but is unlikely to have de jure.

The PRC claimed de facto by claiming the mainland and chasing the ROC away.

Now what happens next is controversial. i dont fully understand this myself mind you so i may have details wrong:

PRC defeats ROC
ROC retreats to Taiwan island still calling itself "China"
PRC declares sovereignity over China
World War II Japan invades Taiwan
Taiwan loses sovereignity
World War II Japan loses and returns territories
Japan returns Taiwan over to "China"

then things get fuzzy

in what seems to be a clerical error of epic proportions, the PRC used this and is able to convince the UN (not all, it came down to a vote) that ROCs claim to de jure was invalid.

The Libyan rebels on the other hand may have de facto but are unlikely to prove that Gaddafi's claim to de jure is illegal. Unless they depose Gaddafi like Gaddafi deposed Libya's former monarchs, de jure is still with Gaddafi.

the rebels CAN claim independence from Libya though. they just cant be libya anymore.

history is fun

You're still wrong on your history. There was never a vote. After the Nationalists were defeated and fled to Taiwan, they continued to be recongized as 'China' in the UN, and by the West for about 20 years until the 1970s, where the US and other nations switched their recognition to the PRC, and Taiwan lost its seat on the security council, and the PRC was recognized as the government of 'China'. The PRC did indeed take de facto control of China, but the RoC never recognized this, and never handed over power as you claim is necessary. If we go by your previous definitions of de jure power transition, the RoC is still the rule of China, and the PRC isn't China, because the RoC never surrendered its power.

The PRC never persuaded the UN that the RoCs claim to power was invalied. The world just chose to recognize the new de facto situation on the ground. The PRC spent 20 years trying to get recognized as the government of CHina, and failed for those 20 years.

The rebels in Libya can very well say that they represent the people of Libya, and are thus the government of Libya.

see what i have to deal with?

Not helping your position any. You know, you say my teacher over here in St. Andrews must not be teaching me right/I am not taking in the lessons. But given that we have multiple people agreeing (loosely) with me, and saying that you are wrong with your interpretations of sovereignity...has it occured to you that YOU are the one that's mistaken here?

I mean, given that you've fallen back on sniping at me instead of refuting my arguments....

It's kinda hard to refute "the world just chose to" as an argument.

I mean really...the world just "CHOSE" to. No other reason. Caprice.

how can I argue against that?

You can show me how I'm wrong. That is my argument, that there was no vote as you claim, and that the switch of internationl recognition from the RoC to the PRC was the result of the world--especially the West--choosing to recognize the PRC. I can go into why the West would choose to do that, but I really don't feel the need. Not to mention, you'd just ignore it by declaring it 'opinion'.

umm see i've been showing people where ive been getting my info. Even the UN resolution that was a result of that vote.

while you continue to keep saying "never happened"

Ive been trying to show and prove to you how you've been wrong the entire thread.

I've been waiting for you to show me where you're getting your info. You havent answered my questions.

What do you expect me to do?

Saying 'You're wrong, lol.' doesn't really help your position at all.

Let me point out that despite all you said, the recognition of China did not happen till 1971,20 years after the conclusion of the Chinese civil war. Your argument that they played and gamed the system is simply false.

You are the one who is proposing a deviation from the accepted historical record. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

well i guess the above statement puts me in my place

Bakerofish wrote:
PRC defeats ROC
ROC retreats to Taiwan island still calling itself "China"
PRC declares sovereignity over China
World War II Japan invades Taiwan
Taiwan loses sovereignity
World War II Japan loses and returns territories
Japan returns Taiwan over to "China"

As I recall, the communists under Mao stood down/retreated and let the nationalists take over with the threat of invasion by Japan looming overhead. The nationalists, who had been winning the civil war, were forced to shift attention to the invading Japanese, suffering heavy casualties. After the Japanese were defeated, Mao came back and usurped power from the battered nationalists, who fled to Taiwan. The US, with its whole "rabid hatred of communism" it had going on back then, refuses to recognize the communists (the PRC) as the rulers of china, instead favoring the nationalists in Taiwan (the RoC). Eventually, they decided to reach out and de-marginalize the PRC for political and economic reasons.

@sir

yeah i got the timelines wrong. PRC happened after WWII

now knowing that... the PRC's claim seems to be a lot more suspect doesnt it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758

UN GA Resolution 2758 shows that the UN put it to a vote and PRC was favored by majority:

On 15 July 1971, 17 UN members requested that a question of the "Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations" be placed on the provisional agenda of the twenty-sixth session of the UN General Assembly, claiming that the PRC, a "founding member of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council, had since 1949 been refused by systematic maneuvers the right to occupy the seat to which it is entitled ipso jure".

On 25 September 1971, a draft resolution, A/L.630 and Add.l and 2 was submitted by 23 states, including 17 of the states which had joined in placing the question on the agenda, to "restore to the People's Republic of China all its rights and expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek."

On 29 September 1971, another draft resolution, A/L.632 and Add.l and 2, sponsored by 22 members, was proposed declaring that any proposal to deprive the Republic of China of representation was an important question under Article 18 of the UN Charter, and thus would require a two-thirds supermajority for approval. A/L.632 and Add.l and 2 was rejected on 25 October 1971 by a vote of 59 to 55, with 15 abstentions.

now how the PRC managed to attack the ROC's claim is a lot more blurry now.

no wonder the taiwanese are pissed

[quote=BakerofishNow what happens next is controversial. i dont fully understand this myself mind you so i may have details wrong:

PRC defeats ROC
ROC retreats to Taiwan island still calling itself "China"
PRC declares sovereignity over China
World War II Japan invades Taiwan
Taiwan loses sovereignity
World War II Japan loses and returns territories
Japan returns Taiwan over to "China"

@ seb

i think youre switching PRC and ROC there. The ROC fled to Taiwan

knowing this though, is it possible that the rebels can try something similar to wrestle de jure from Ghaddafi?

I still dont think so. The rebels dont really have the clout to swing the UN the way PRC did

thoughts?

Bakerofish wrote:@ seb

i think youre switching PRC and ROC there. The ROC fled to Taiwan

I probably did. I was trying to use your terms to help you keep it straight, and used terms you'd never use to describe those organisations in regular language. I was using ROC and PRC in terms you'd never use them to normally describe modern Chinese history.

But more importantly, you understand the history now, yeah? And most importantly, you understand that the ROC remained the recognised government of China for entirely political reasons, and not because of any kind of "clerical error".

knowing this though, is it possible that the rebels can try something similar to wrestle de jure from Ghaddafi?

I still dont think so. The rebels dont really have the clout to swing the UN the way PRC did

thoughts?

But the clout needed to swing the UN is entirely different in each case. On the one hand you had a new communist government closely aligned to the USSR during the cold war, the western countries were not at all interested in granting them official recognition.

There is no similar political reason to deny any new government of Libya their seat in the UN. Well, not at this point, we don't really know what form this government will take.

sebster wrote:
But more importantly, you understand the history now, yeah? And most importantly, you understand that the ROC remained the recognised government of China for entirely political reasons, and not because of any kind of "clerical error".

wait can you clarify this? when you say remained what do you mean? That the ROC (Taiwan) represented China in the UN until 1971? yeah i agree there. But how they got kicked off the UN though is the problem. Regardless of any political motivations a country chooses to recognize another, the letter of the law and charter had to be followed. How they accomplished that is the controversy.

the reason i say or it comes off as a clerical error to me is this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040622182920/http://www.asil.org/ajil/chinatai.htm

The multilateral Peace Treaty of September 1951 did have the legal effect of formally surrendering Japanese sovereignty over Taiwan, the Pescadores, and arguably the Diaoyu Islands, but China was not a party to the Treaty, through either the ROC or the PRC.(58) Moreover, the Treaty did not specifically identify the entity that was to inherit Taiwan.(59) That question was not clarified by the bi-lateral Peace Treaty of 1952 between Japan and the ROC, which simply recognized Japan's renunciation in the multilateral Peace Treaty of 1951.(60)

Japan gave back Taiwan to "China" but not specifically to ROC or the PRC. Since the PRC (Communist China) held de facto control over the mainland by this point they had more weight with the claim that they were the ones being referred to.

Japan then agrees: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.html

The Government of Japan recognizes that Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China.

...about 27 years after the surrender.


so... yeah.

Oh and don't forget Ben Affleck wants us to intervene in the Congo http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/08/congress.affleck/index.html

Really folks it's time to sit back and let people figure their own sh@#. Not since WW2 has anyone really appreciated U.S. intervention. Do you really think U.S. Military intervention is going to solve these problems? Our military interventions are what have created most of our enemies and made us targets of terrorist attacks.

Some people thought we would be greeted with open arms in Iraq too, that worked out well! Now we can't even afford to pay our teachers.

If other countries want military intervention so badly let them do it. Let someone else spend their money, hell maybe we can sell some weapons and actually make some money.

What we should do is find a way to get China to spend all their money and resources on these stupid excursions. While we are at it, if Europe wants U.S. bases on their soil, start coughing up some cash.

Lets clean up our own house first.

The counter point to this is had we cared enough to advise and support Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi properly maybe we could have avoided the middle east catastrophe entirely.

Now you're probably going to just ignore this, as you think I'm 'wrong', but if that's why you think it was a clerical error? That's completely wrong.

The Chinese sovereignity question would have existed anyway, as the issue was not 'who owned the island', it was that although the PRC had won a military victory, and taken control of the mainland, the RoC still existed, and still claimed it had power. As sebster explained, this was helped by the Western nations who did not want to compound their 'defeat' by the communists in China, by simply handing over a UNSC Permanent 5 seat to a communist nation.

As you said, Japan did not recognize the PRC as the government of China until 1971, the same year that the rest of the world began to recognize the PRC. The Western Nations especially switched their recognition in an attempt to capitalized on the Sino-Soviet split.

Andrew1975 wrote:Oh and don't forget Ben Affleck wants us to intervene in the Congo http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/08/congress.affleck/index.html

Really folks it's time to sit back and let people figure their own sh@#. Not since WW2 has anyone really appreciated U.S. intervention. Do you really think U.S. Military intervention is going to solve these problems? Our military interventions are what have created most of our enemies and made us targets of terrorist attacks.

Some people thought we would be greeted with open arms in Iraq too, that worked out well! Now we can't even afford to pay our teachers.

If other countries want military intervention so badly let them do it. Let someone else spend their money, hell maybe we can sell some weapons and actually make some money.

What we should do is find a way to get China to spend all their money and resources on these stupid excursions. While we are at it, if Europe wants U.S. bases on their soil, start coughing up some cash.

Lets clean up our own house first.

The counter point to this is had we cared enough to advise and support Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi properly maybe we could have avoided the middle east catastrophe entirely.

Indeed.

Yeah, some people did think we'd be welcomed with open arms in Iraq... they were not actually asking the Iraqis about it though. Unlike the Libyans who are asking for a no-fly zone.

Shiites in Iraq were asking for help from the US. That turned out well didn't it...