• CCCP Enjoyer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 months ago

    I would have expected the US to be the first party to pretend the One China Policy doesn’t exist. Considering how subtle Chinese politics tend to be, and that Lai himself seems to be escalating this message, I’m guessing this will be taken as a bigger provocation and insult than it might appear. The PRC might just let Lai crash Taiwan’s economy until the DPP gives in to reality, if it weren’t for the US looming overhead, ready to make Taiwan another unsinkable aircraft carrier in a proxy war.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      It definitely seems that squeezing Taiwan economically is the plan. I do think there are red lines that would force China to react though. For example, if DPP tries to outright declare independence or if US tries to put missiles there that can hit mainland.

      • CCCP Enjoyer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Do we have a clear idea what the current buildup on the kinmen is?

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 months ago

          My understanding is that there’s nothing really major so far, but it’s hard to say since US isn’t being very open about it.

          • CCCP Enjoyer
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’ve only heard “US special forces” are there. Not sure how many, but I doubt the didn’t bring any toys.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              2 months ago

              I would guess China has a pretty good idea of what US brings there given that it’s a national security issue.

  • qwename
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    I suggest changing the title from “Taiwan presidential office” to “Taiwan authority”.

  • qwename
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    Here are the documents mentioned, hosted by USC Annenberg:

    1972 Joint Communiqué

    12. The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes. […]

    1979 Joint Communiqué

    2. The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.

    3. The United States of America and the People’s Republic of China reaffirm the principles agreed on by the two sides in the Shanghai Communique […]

    7. The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.

    1982 Joint Communiqué

    (1) […] the United States of America recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, and it acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. Within that context, the two sides agreed that the people of the United States would continue to maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan. On this basis, relations between China and the United States were normalized.

    Note that some have played around with the word “acknowledge” and say that to acknowledge something does not imply agreeing with it, which can technically be true, but I think that is a gross misuse of terminology with regards to important diplomatic relations.