Macron took public action against this treaty because of domestic pressure but there is high scepticism about this conssidering that the deal was 25 years in the making.
I think this will only push euroscepticism and opposition to Macron and his allies so next elections have become even more interesting to watch. Short term we see the fall of another PM.
I don’t know much about European views on this deal, but will it create an opening for the rising far right in many countries? What is the EU’s answer to that - how will this deal help those populations of European voters?
You can do Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Beijing by train via the trans-Siberian, or via Ulan-Bataar with the trans-Mongolian.
Quite an iconic route that became much simpler administratively to travel in 2000s but perhaps again trickier now because of the situation with Russia.
We use the term "reunification" for Germany but the Federal Republic never "held territory" in the Democratic Republic. However, of course both states were the result of a split of "Germany". This is the same with the ROC and PRC so bringing both sides together, whatever the mean, is a reunification in that sense.
The narrative of rejecting the term can be said to be broadly propaganda but plays on a peculiarity that both sides don't recognise each others.
> However, of course both states were the result of a split of "Germany".
> This is the same with the ROC and PRC
It really isn't.
Note that West Germany did not have to invade East Germany to re-unify and that East Germany was on a per-capita basis much poorer than West Germany.
Unlike Taiwan, which is doing more than twice as good. So this would be more in line with Russia invading Ukraine. And that's precisely the rhetoric they are using: 'unification'.
This is all totally inacurrate and beside the point.
China has factually split, like Germany before. Whether any "reunification" happens peacefully or not is irrelevant to the use of term and so is which side is the richer.
Russia and Ukraine is obviously not the same at all, and "unification" is obviously not the same as "reunification".
Define "China." 中國? 中華人民共和國? 中華民國? 大清? 大明? 大元? The English term is far overloaded, kinda like the word "dumpling." Having this conversation in English is really hard for that reason.
The key word is 中國, typically translated literally as "middle country," though if you put it in google translate it'll just say "China." Really though, the word means "empire." Empire of what? China? No, just, The Empire. E.g. 一個中國原則 "one China principle," all things that we could call 中國 ruled by the same government.
That's the issue I have. The CPC claims a mandate of heaven for a "Chinese" meta-dynasty, claiming to have domain over everything any government in the region has ever touched (even the Mongols!). I reject this, a mandate to rule should be earned basically every day, and self determination matters far more than maintaining a dynasty of a culture.
Like many empires, the PRC is even creating an ethnostatic justification, calling everyone Han 漢族人 or Hua 華人 and claiming a mandate to rule everyone that could feasibly be called that, using race science to expand their domain. Like "white," under scrutiny, these terms are meaningless. We could translate either, in the context of their usage by the CPC, as "people the CPC thinks it should be allowed to govern." That includes people in Xinjiang, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, America, hell even Okinawa lately.
That kind of ethnostatic imperialist expansionism should be roundly rejected by anybody that values self determination. And, that's why "reunify" isn't the correct word, because there is no country on earth called "China" and there never has been, there's just a government ruling a territory that wants some more territory. The PRC isn't some magical inheritor of every racial, cultural, linguistic, and historical aspect of that region. "China" has not split with the fleeing of the KMT to Taiwan in the 50s, nor was "China" overthrown when the Taiwanese deposed the KMT military dictatorship in the 90s, or when the Qing dynasty was overthrown by the KMT.
You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact.
You are trying too hard and doing so does you a disservice because it makes you write nonsense that any sources can disprove.
So... why? Why do people get so attached to a narrative? Is it like religion, cult? Need to believe in sonething?
Past history is what it is. It does not mean that the people of Taiwan have to be forced into re-joining the mainland but let's keep the facts otherwise we are really leaving in 1984. If you want to say that the people of Taiwan have a moral right to remain independent if they wish to then just say so.
Have you considered the possibility that you are just wrong? Your 'uncontroversial and rather obvious historical fact' is neither uncontroversial nor is it obvious.
That's why we have a 32 page article on the subject on Wikipedia:
There is only one country where your 'historical fact' is seen as true, and it isn't Taiwan. And that is why China is threatening to invade, and why you yourself use Taiwan without further qualification right after 'South Korea':
The 'one China' term itself is overloaded, depending on who you ask (Chinese, Taiwanese) you get different answers.
Taiwan is an independent country, if not de jure then de facto. That China is a much larger and much more dangerous country is the only reason everybody tiptoes around this.
What is actually unbelievable is that you keep arguing against me by quoting sources that only say exactly what I have been writing all along. So I don't really understand what is this about and perhaps you don't, either...
This is bizarre at this point.
Perhaps you wrongly assume that by "China split" I meant "the PRC split" although it is abundantly clear that I didn't.
Those source do not say what you have been writing all along. Those sources make it plain that this is a controversial and complicated subject that you wish to flatten into a much simpler worldview. But that worldview is at odds with the facts, both the facts on the ground and the view of the parties involved.
You can continue to stick to your worldview, or you can admit that maybe the matter is more complex than you thought it was. The point is that there are multiple viewpoints on this and yours is not necessarily the only one and given that you claim not to have a horse in the race it is strange that you would end up carrying water for one of the parties.
Agreeing to disagree is a thing too, you're perfectly entitled to your own take on this no matter how wrong I think it is. But you are not entitled to your own facts and if you really believe this to be an uncontroversial thing then I don't think I can help you with that.
None of what I wrote is a worldview and I avoided any controversies by sticking to facts: China has split and this is explained in the first link in your previous comment, and "reunification" can therefore be an accurate term.
How is that at odds with "facts"? What "facts"? What do you think I claimed? How is it controversial? I am not sure you know at this point as you are being evasive and shifting to ad hominems.
Claiming that the Earth is round is "controversial" to flat-Earthers. Does this make it a controversial topic?
> You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact.
I also know, generally, what people mean when they say "goblin," but that doesn't mean goblins are real, and it's also true that two people might be thinking of very different things when a goblin is mentioned. Such is the same for the word "China."
> any sources can disprove.
Well then, should be pretty easy for you to disprove me with some sources then!
> So... why? Why do people get so attached to a narrative? Is it like religion, cult? Need to believe in sonething?
Please explain to us how you aren't also attached to a narrative. Are you a omnipotent entity, immune to human narratives, and the one true knower of Universal Truth? I think it's unintentional, but you come off that way, and that's why you're getting such a strong response here.
> Past history is what it is.
This sentence is genuinely meaningless.
The problem is, you've made some unsubstantiated claims (you can't even define "China"), presumed to be right, and then acted aghast when a bunch of people said "hm no, that's not quite right, here's why," and then you doubled down without providing any further substance to your argument other than just repeating in different ways, "I'm right and you're all wrong."
What's the point of talking with someone like that? I'm happy to have the conversation but I don't see the purpose when people behave like that.
Ad hominem attacks and character assassiination are the tactics of the CPC, not of democratic Taiwan...
I agree that "China" may mean several things but in the context of this discussion and previous comments it is rather clearer.
You can have a look at the Wikipedia link about the political status of Taiwan that @jacquesm posted. You can also have a look at related article about the history of China or Taiwan.
Quick summary (to mostly repeat myself as you point out but it does seem hard to get you guys to even read the links you provide yourselves, or don't want to accept them) is that China asserted control over Taiwan since the 17th century (as a reaction to European imperialism) with Taiwan acquiring province status towards the end of the 19th century. It was then ceded by China to Japan after the First Sino-Japanase war, and "reunited" in 1945.
Following the Chinese civil war the communists took over the mainland and the government kept, and retreated to, Taiwan, which led to a split with de facto two states and official policies to "reunite".
That's all there in the links mentioned. So, again, I don't understand the drama.
I never denied that Taiwan was de facto a state independent of the mainland, or that the majority of the people of Taiwan do not want to be absorbed by the PRC, or even that a portion of the people of Taiwan would like no affiliation with "China" and be simply the Republic of Taiwan. And, yes, Taiwan was never controled by the PRC (like East Germany was never controled by West Germany prior to German "reunification", and there is still no country called "Germany" or "Korea"...). But that said I do have a problem with rewriting history and fallacious arguments to further a political aim.
Someone who lives in Taiwan. Anyway, that's obviously a fallacious argument (argument from authority?) and I note that you keep avoiding engaging with the point and historical evidence and references provided (included by you!) so I don't even know what you agree or disagree with and why at this point.
Yes, just like you are a French guy living in the UK, I would take your statements about the UK or about France as more relevant and better informed than those from some random person on the other side of the globe.
The one common thing about discussions between you and others on HN about any subject that goes on for more than a few comments is that it always ends in you feigning indignation and claiming the other party is unfair towards you. Maybe get off your high horse instead and learn to see things are more nuanced than as black-and-white and simplified as you make them out to be?
Your 'historical evidence' is not nearly as simple and as clear cut as you make it out to be, it is just what you chose to extract from the body of information about the subject because it confirms your worldview or some pre-conceived idea of how things are or should be. Not necessarily how they actually are and that is a massive difference.
> China asserted control over Taiwan since the 17th
This is a great example of why your usage of this word is an expression of your agreement with the idea of an ethnostatist meta-dynasty that a government like the CPC can claim a mandate to rule, rather than a universal fact.
It seems you don't believe Khagan-emperor Kublai was Chinese, since you pin the first "Chinese" assertion of control in the 1600s, even though the Yuan dynasty claimed Penghu.
You also give away your political agenda a bit when you accurately refer to Western actions on the island as "imperialism" but simply refer to Chinese empire activity as "asserted control," rather than what it clearly was, which is also imperialism. In fact it's especially interesting you did this considering that the entire reason the dutch colonists were expelled from the island was because of a battle between two entities that wanted to be called "China": the Qing dynasty, and Zheng Chenggong's remnant Ming dynasty. So here's another question: Manchus, Chinese, or no? Qing dynasty, Chinese, or no? Both yes? Well then both the Kingdom of Tungning and the Qing dynastic territories were China, despite being engaged in a deeply ethnostatist battle defined clearly on Han vs Manchu racial identity. And now the Manchus are 華人 just like everyone else, which demonstrates my point that the words "China" and 中國 are just a political propaganda tool to claim a mandate to rule an empire. The same fight has been fought before, except this time Taiwanese people have no desire to claim the mantle of The Empire.
You believe you're stating facts when actually you're just stating support of the CPC's claim to dynastic inheritance. Thus it's not "never clearer" what's meant by "China" in a time when all people who could be labeled "Chinese" (including PRC citizens) are reckoning with what that identity means in regards to governance and nationality.
> Ad hominem attacks and character assassiination are the tactics of the CPC, not of democratic Taiwan...
You clearly have never watched even 5 minutes of Taiwanese tv or politics lol.
This is a factual statement, not propaganda. The propaganda (or political theatre in mainland China) is that the ROC does not exist and Taiwan is part of the PRC.
Reunite is propaganda because it gives credibility to the lie that these two countries are and/or were one like for instance Germany after world war II.
Taiwanese do not see themselves as Chinese, just like Ukrainians do not see themselves as Russian even if they speak the language. By playing along you are effectively carrying water for the Chinese. That may be your goal, but then you should be clear about that. If that is not your goal you should refrain from adopting the language of the party that is clearly the aggressor here. The 'ROC' moniker stems from a bunch of Chinese that fled there in 1949 after they lost their struggle with the communists inside China. They ruled Taiwan and they named it 'Republic of China', a name that has caused a lot of confusion with those unfamiliar with where it came from.
This is the reason the Chinese now lay claim to Taiwan, and it is about as misguided as it gets. They got Hong Kong by being patient, they may take Taiwan by force.
If you are playing into their hands by parroting their terminology you are fractionally helping to normalize their behavior towards Taiwan. If it should come to pass that China will take Taiwan by force that will have grave consequences, for the Taiwanese, the Chinese and the rest of the world as well due to the central spot that Taiwan occupies in the global supply chain.
Mainland China and Taiwan were one country. It is bizarre to try to deny it.
Taiwan was part of China and ceded to Japan by treaty after the first Sino-Japanese war of 1895. It was then "reunited" to China following WWII... that's really the root of the current situation since that's why the Chinese government (ROC) retreated there in 1949. Taiwan held the Chinese seat at the UN until the 1970s!
Hongkong was also seized by the UK through naked imperialistic aggression and it is testament to the power of propaganda that China be painted as "the bad guys".
Your comment is not factually correct irrespective of rights and wrongs or wishes of the people in Taiwan.
Why should people always have an ulterior motive beyond stating things as they are?...
No need to discuss further if that's going to turn into this. People really need to take a step back and a deep breath when discussing world issues.
I am not even Chinese or Asian if that is your suggestion (a little in the gutter, by the way). I don't have skin in the game and am just looking at history in the most factual way I can.
He said he was looking at history and present reality in the most factual way. Perhaps for you, your identity shapes your viewpoint more than the facts do. Why don't you provide your arguments instead of questioning his nationality?
A properly aged account that suddenly springs to life without ever before having commented on anything or submitted a single link. What a joyful occasion.
Taiwan has been Chinese territory for centuries—just like California has been part of the US. Calling China's reunification 'invasion' is like saying the US is 'invading' Texas if some rebels tried to break away. The real propaganda isn't about history—it's about pretending Taiwan is some separate country when it's been part of China longer than most modern nations even exist.
Taiwan has never declared independence from China. Popular opinions aside, the ROC govt still officially adheres to the One-China Policy which considers it to be a single country together with the mainland.
The main reason for that is because they know that if they did declare that formally (rather than just acting like it is already a fact) that China would most likely immediately respond with force. So this is not because they want it to be like that but because they are playing a longer game.
With the US unreliable and distracted all bets are off on how this will unfold, the chances China attempting to take over Taiwan have substantially increased.
It's unclear how China would have responded because they were not, and probably still aren't, in a position to mount a successful attack on Taiwan.
I think what's missing is that opinion in Taiwan in actually split. The KMT, certainly up to the last president in 2016 is simply opposed to declaring "independence" because they share the position that Taiwan is China, just obviously not the PRC.
> The KMT, certainly up to the last president in 2016 is simply opposed to declaring "independence" because they share the position that Taiwan is China, just obviously not the PRC.
That is only because of the history of the KMT, which is only a fraction of the story of Taiwan. By the same token the Dutch could invade Taiwan tomorrow morning and claim re-unification.
Right now the US have not invaded Venezuela but in effect attempted to precipitate a "coup". We shall see what happens now. Note, too that Maduro is not widely recognised as President by Western countries because of accusation of election rigging.
This is classic US action South of the border since the 19th century so I think the outrage is excessive. Perhaps people think, wrongly, that this is new becaude of Trump. What is new is that this seems actually aimed against China.
Regarding international law, it seems that it's been invoked so much in recent years that people have "drunk the Kool Aid" and actually believe that this is something carved in stone that must be obeyed, or even just actual "law"...
Perhaps people forget that countries are sovereign and can do whatever they want. The "global order" has always been based on strength: the stronger do what they want and the weaker do what they can.
What the US have just done is not something new because of Trump.
We are told about "international law" and "norms" so much that we perhaps forget that this is mostly BS.
This is the attitude that permits world wars. In the aftermath of WW2, a lot of people genuinely believed in the power of international law to prevent WW3. Now, it seems like a ton of people think that's just BS, and the fact that so many people think that is what makes it BS. If a strong majority of people actually believed in international law, it would be "real".
> Everybody that is cheering this on has a significant gap in their education.
Macron, President of the French Republic, for reference, says:
"The Venezuelan people are today liberated from the dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro and cannot but celebrate it.
By seizing power and trampling on fundamental freedoms, Nicolás Maduro has committed a grave affront against the dignity of his own people.
The transition that is now opening must be peaceful, democratic, and respectful of the will of the Venezuelan people. We hope that President Edmundo González Urrutia, elected in 2024, can ensure this transition as soon as possible."
> > If a strong majority of people actually believed in international law, it would be "real".
International law has always been BS, what works is fear of retribution by the offended party or retribution from the observers thinking they might be next and getting together to enact preventive measures
If international law had any effect people would believe in it. You're mixing cause/effect. This situation has been going on for years and the lack of response by international organizations makes people lose all confidence in them.
"International law" are voluntary agreements but countries remain sovereign. The only way to force something is to have bigger guns and/or more economic power than the other countries and, as it happens, the US are #1 on both.
Edit: The best protection we have against WWIII is not "international law", it's that the big guys can instantly nuke each others.
I don't think you're wrong, but it's one of those facts that's basically a self-fulfilling prophecy, like "the bank is failing" (which, if people think is true, quickly becomes true) or "money has value".
The US is a superpower of course, but world wars are multilateral, and US alliances are not what they were just a year ago.
You forget that the cold war wasn't won by the US alone. But by the alliance systems which centered around the US.
The US is no longer a credible partner, and without coalition forces the recreational wars in the 2000s would have been a lot less "fun".
I'm not so sure you want a global order based on strength. You don't want small countries with little to loose arming do with nukes. But voting for it is suddenly very attractive.
That's interesting because the post-WWII Western alliance system at large is largely born of the US military and economic might: most of those countries were invaded by the US and then helped economically by the US. Obviously a commom adversary (the communists) helped but it was, and still is "led" by the US for a reason.
The global order is based on strength, both military and economic strength. I am just stating the obvious here.
You and I are subject to the law. This is not voluntary and it will be enforced against us by the state.
On the other hand, countries are sovereign. They are not subject to "laws", and if they do it is on a voluntary basis. Ultimately it boils down to military and economic strength for a country to be able to stand its ground and do what it wants. We never left this behind, this has always been the case.
From the replies it seems that commenters believe that countries are subject to "laws" the same way that they are...
The goal of the rules based international order was to subject countries to laws, yes. Those laws could have been (and were various times in the past) enforced by larger organizations in the same way the state acts on citizens. Westphalian Sovereignty is not any more real than the rules based international order - clearly Venezuela's sovereignty did nothing for them here.
There was a time when Germany thought just like that. In the aftermath we decided that maybe it's not such a good idea, this might-makes-right thing and we strove for a world where transitions are peaceful because we realized that our power to kill had grown to proportions unseen in our history and because some of us - rightly, in my view - felt that the human race itself was now in the balance.
If you toss that out you have to at least acknowledge all possible outcomes. People - even powerful people, and powerful countries too - should be subject to the law because no single person and no single country stands above all the others.
Actually, what has happened to Germany is exactly an expression of what I described in my previous comments.
> powerful countries too - should be subject to the law
Perhaps so but that is idealistic. Again, countries are sovereign, there is no such things as "laws" in the sense that applies to individuals that apply to them, only voluntary agreements. Practically you would also need a level above countries with its own overwhelming force to enforce it, and that simply does not exist.
I am trying to discuss the world as it is, including indeed in the legal sense, not as it might be in dreams because that's pie in the sky and totally unbounded in scope.
Yes, you're pretending to be a 'realist' who is wise because of your grounded worldview, but you totally miss the forest for the trees: if we don't want to end with blowing ourselves up then we have to depart from the might is right and 'how the world is' mentality because that stops us from changing into a future where we will not blow ourselves up.
Your worldview is essentially a pessimistic one, mine an optimistic one: I think we are capable of change. We just make the stupid mistake of putting egomaniacs in positions of power all the time and then we are surprised by the outcomes.
Some of the most powerful words ever spoken in American history were 'I have a dream'. Dreams are good, especially if they are dreams of a better world and we all should strive to create that world, not to declare it a pipe dream and get on with the business of raping each other.
I would suggest that you take a look at the "Politics and the English Language" essay by Orwell. The person you are responding to is making a fair point that this is well trodden ground, albeit not in the most diplomatic terms. It would be helpful to engage with the arguments presented, otherwise we are just spinning our wheels here unconsciously relitigating issues from the 1930s.
Strange oblique accusation as neither Venezuela nor my comments have anytging to do with the "the 30s" or even politics (or Germany's past). Perhaps there is a lack of perspective and indeed realism in the reply or a Pavlovian reaction to "Trump" conditioned by some media (Trump is a fascist, Musk a Nazi, etc).
As said there were no arguments presented nor anything to discuss about the geopolitical situation so I don't know what to engage with.
An interesting discussiin might be about the reasons for the US' actions and their reasons for this course of action (capture) vs more classic coup.
If so, what’s the next step and how long do you think it will take for a world in which no country is above the law… but no mechanism to create and enforce such law?
Einstein had some interesting thoughts about this, I don't have a reference handy but it boils down to a UN with teeth, effectively a single world government. And I think that that is something I could get behind because countries are not stable enough over a long enough period of time to give us what we need.
Even so, there is a lot of potential for abuse there too and it will most likely never happen because human nature is what it is.
> a single world government. And I think that that is something I could get behind because countries are not stable enough over a long enough period of time to give us what we need.
I assume you would want such a world government to be some form of democracy? If so, it would mean near-zero voice for Australians (0.32% of world population), Germany (1%), The Netherlands (0.21%), UK (0.83%), France (0.83%).
It would, however, mean much more say for Russia (1.7%), China (17.2%), India (17.8%).
What moral code should such a democratic world government adopt? Would it be secular or religious?
Even if we thought that end-state is ideal, I have a very hard time seeing practical steps that get us there other than through bloodshed (similar to how many current nation states got formed). One exception might be a common enemy that unites the vast majority of humans, e.g. an alien invasion.
Given the huge coordination problem of forming and maintaining a single world government (top-down), I would prefer a more bottoms-up, federated approach where secular, democratic, free-ish market, values continue to spread.
Agreed on all of that and yes, there are obviously some very big problems that would need to be resolved. We are no closer to that today - and probably further from it - than when the UN was founded.
No, at the time they were the biggest kid on the playground, their mistake was to think that the playground would be a constant. If Germany had just taken over Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland they might have gotten away with it too. The lack of consolidation and Hitler being drunk on power caused them to continue to set higher goals.
Then once the theater of the war shifted to Global and Japan brought the USA into the war things changed rapidly.
I think this will only push euroscepticism and opposition to Macron and his allies so next elections have become even more interesting to watch. Short term we see the fall of another PM.
reply