this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
190 points (100.0% liked)
chat
8138 readers
239 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I could be wrong, but you might be confusing this with "strategic ambiguity" which afaik is keeping the PRC and ROC both guessing about how far the US will take its intervention. The "one china policy" wasn't ambiguous, it was a necessary step in order to create normal diplomatic relationships with the PRC. But once the US had normalized diplomatic relations with the PRC, it effectively said, "There is only one chain and the PRC is the legitimate government that we formally acknowledge." That is why all of these recent state visits between politicians in the US and Taiwan is so inflammatory. The US is only supposed to have "unofficial" ties to any other "government" that is supposed to represent China.
Thank you. Yes, I seem to have gotten the two mixed up and further reading supports your comment. The concept of my country's own One China Policy was raised recently when a former PM visited Taiwan and this has muddied the waters a bit. It's been a long weekend :/