Come on, brian, LOL, don't be so precious, and do yourself a favor, as you are neither thick as a whale sandwich, nor dense as a tree stump, and so perhaps it would be better for psyche as we go forward, and instead be realistic, as opposed to quoting selected documents that serve your frame of reference and paraphrases as your source desires when the actual document language gets inconvenient.
You do not actually believe the Taiwan issue will be resolved by citing agreements and whatnot somebody (and as far as the powers that be is concerned, mere anybodies) in China signed while China was weak, do you?
You do not actually believe there are 'international law' that govern who will master over Taiwan, do you?
Further, you do not truly believe Japan will rule over Taiwan again, do you?
Rather then clipping out carefully researched stuff from web sites selectively chosen, try randomly searching on "One China Policy" using Google, and click on the first URL, like here, a choice morsel by google en.wikipedia.org and, oops, what is this ?
<<The "One China" Policy is also a requirement for any political entity to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Countries that have diplomatic relations with Beijing recognize that "the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of all of China...and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China." Most countries use terms like "acknowledge", "understand", "take note of", but do not explicitly use the term "support" nor "recognize", for Beijing's position on the status of Taiwan, thus avoid having to endorse or challenge it. Most countries that recognize Beijing get around the diplomatic language by establishing "Trade Offices" that represents its interests on Taiwanese soil, while the ROC government represents in interests abroad with TECO, or Taipei Economic and Cultural Office. The name "Chinese Taipei" is the only acceptable name in most international arenas since "Taiwan" suggests that Taiwan is a separate country and "Republic of China" suggests that there are two Chinas, and thus both violate the "One China" Policy.
In many cases, this has resulted in very careful language. For example, in the case of the United States, the one China policy is stated in the Shanghai Communique which states that "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan straits maintain that there is but one China. The United States does not challenge that position." Since 1972, the United States has consistently stated its support for one China policy, although it has sometimes been unclear what was meant. One consequence is that the United States (and any other nation having diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China) does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Instead, external relations are handled via nominally private organizations such as the American Institute in Taiwan or the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei.>>
The countries acknowledge what is and does not challenge what could be because they have needs and wants and desires. As China makes more progress, with each passing day, what is will simply be. What could be simpler?
There, see, how easy that was to come to the correct frame of just is and only will be?
Beside, my speculations, and that is all the are, rests not one iota on what is written anywhere, agreed to by no one that matters. That is the defining characteristic of "just is" and "only will be".
Chugs, Jay
BTW, what do you think of this speculative analysis and literary strategem Message 20930383 , as in "can it work" and "might it be?" |
