Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Lithuania Challenges China


Hestia
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-lithuanias-challenge-to-china-is-risky-but-clever/a-57071394

Lithuania has pulled out of the Belt and Road initiative, and has allowed Taiwan to open a de-facto embassy in the country, named not after Taipei, but Taiwanese, which caused Beijing to retaliate economically. It's a remarkable step that's gone somewhat unnoticed in the last week. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hestia said:

https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-lithuanias-challenge-to-china-is-risky-but-clever/a-57071394

Lithuania has pulled out of the Belt and Road initiative, and has allowed Taiwan to open a de-facto embassy in the country, named not after Taipei, but Taiwanese, which caused Beijing to retaliate economically. It's a remarkable step that's gone somewhat unnoticed in the last week. 

 

I actually noticed it. I agree with Lithuania's decision.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hestia and anyone else. 

I wonder what would happen if the US, Canada, UK, the entire EU, Japan, S Korea, India and other willing countries all officially recognized Taiwan and opened embassies for them. Would China punish itself by punishing all of these countries. Would they risk a war? China hasn't really been militarily engaged since 1979. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vcczar said:

@Hestia and anyone else. 

I wonder what would happen if the US, Canada, UK, the entire EU, Japan, S Korea, India and other willing countries all officially recognized Taiwan and opened embassies for them. Would China punish itself by punishing all of these countries. Would they risk a war? China hasn't really been militarily engaged since 1979. 

My country would be cautious about this, IMO.

(Unless anti-China Kim Jin-tae becomes President--which is very unlikely)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, vcczar said:

US, Canada, UK, the entire EU, Japan, S Korea, India and other willing countries all officially recognized Taiwan and opened embassies for them.

Let's recognize our Tibetan brothers as well. And give a shout out to Hong Kong. If we all do it wtf is China gonna do? 😛 😎

For real though, I think this would be pretty great and I doubt China would do anything militarily. If anything, maybe a heightened "Cold War" stance. But until both American and Chinese leadership want the world to end... nothing that severe would happen to our countries. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

@Hestia and anyone else. 

I wonder what would happen if the US, Canada, UK, the entire EU, Japan, S Korea, India and other willing countries all officially recognized Taiwan and opened embassies for them. Would China punish itself by punishing all of these countries.

I'd be open to find out, because that's actually what a One-China-Policy should mean. When they started to insist on ''One China'' the People's Republic should have been neglected, declared a pariah and starved economically until they're abiding by a non-hostile policy. Sadly the perfect moment has been missed and now it seems to be too late... but kudos to Lithuania.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yes, let's recognize Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Tibet. And Kurdistan. AND Palestine, Western Sahara, Artsakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Sikh Punjab, Tamil Eelam, Catalonia, Veneto, and even Xinjiang, Icktheria, and Eastern Ukraine. Let's recognize EVERY nation that is effectively - or sincerely seeks - independence from a formally internationally-recognized Government who has no good intentions for such people but means to only treat them like trash and deny them basic human dignity, rights, and equality. Let's recognize ALL the modern captive nations, regardless of what side of the global geo-political divide their captor is supported from, or the captive nation is often supported, or get's sympathy from - after all, playing politics with people's basic nationhood and rights to be citizens of SOMWHERE they can feel at home is downright sociopathic, wouldn't we all agree? 

I draw the line at Artsakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Eastern Ukraine and any other that hasn't had a referendum to determine whether or not it will be independent or not (Veneto would also fit here and maybe some others). The others all have reason to and have shown that they would maybe want to. All of the above nations were invaded or ruled by authoritarians who wouldn't let a true vote be held to see whether the population actually wanted this to happen. I won't cause a diplomatic collapse with Ukraine or Georgia because Russia invaded THEM for God's sake. 

Edited by Hestia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

who has no good intentions for such people but means to only treat them like trash and deny them basic human dignity, rights, and equality.

I am inclined to 100% agree with you on this, but how is this determined? 

For instance, there's secessionists in the USA that would say that America denies them these things. Should Texas, Montana, etc. lose land because of these people? 

Would you have favored Southern secession during the Civil War? The Slave States believed that they were unequally represented in the US, losing their rights, etc. (Even though they're position was actually inflated via the 3/5th compromise). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

It's not like anyone allowed such a referendum to be peacefully conducted from the start. Transnistria and Abkhazia tried to negotiate peaceful secession from Moldova and Georgia, respectively, in the very '90's, and that went over like a lead balloon with the Tiropol and Tblisi Governments. South Ossetia realized they'd have about as much luck as Abkhazia. Violence in Artsakh started - from both sides - in 1988, before the USSR even collapsed. Eastern Ukraine was never going to go smoothly either. Besides, @Hestia, are you actually championing the defense and legitimacy of administrative maps drawn by Josef Stalin and Nikita Krushchev as being the standard of where things SHOULD be and SHOULD remain?

1. Abkhazia's military has integrated with Russia's, and is getting closer to annexation, so it's pretty clear they don't value independence.

2. South Ossetia committed ethnic cleansing against Georgians in their own borders and forced them not to return to their homes.

3. Transnistria affords their citizens few rights so there is no indication they actually want to remain under that government. They closed many Romanian language schools and limited Moldovan involvement. 

Are you defending or championing the ethnic cleansing that solidified the South Ossetian state? Or the forceful seizure and false referendum in Crimea? Or the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

 

 

 

Yes, let's recognize Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Tibet. And Kurdistan. AND Palestine, Western Sahara, Artsakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Sikh Punjab, Tamil Eelam, Catalonia, Veneto, and even Xinjiang, Icktheria, and Eastern Ukraine. Let's recognize EVERY nation that is effectively - or sincerely seeks - independence from a formally internationally-recognized Government who has no good intentions for such people but means to only treat them like trash and deny them basic human dignity, rights, and equality. Let's recognize ALL the modern captive nations, regardless of what side of the global geo-political divide their captor is supported from, or the captive nation is often supported, or get's sympathy from - after all, playing politics with people's basic nationhood and rights to be citizens of SOMWHERE they can feel at home is downright sociopathic, wouldn't we all agree? 

I don't really feel like debating you but not all calls for independence are necessarily good, and in many cases are lead by people who aren't representative of their movement and in turn, weaponize them. Vcczar made a good point. That's all I got to say for now. 

I also think your own opinion on this is ideologically and politically motivated, as is mine to be clear... given your previous comments on issues such as Israel-Palestine. 

The nations we were referring to though are only a few obvious examples of worthy, true, well intentioned causes that I voice support for and would encourage the active support of them. 

Hong Kong, Tibet, and good old Taiwan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

It's not like anyone allowed such a referendum to be peacefully conducted from the start. Transnistria and Abkhazia tried to negotiate peaceful secession from Moldova and Georgia, respectively, in the very '90's, and that went over like a lead balloon with the Tiropol and Tblisi Governments. South Ossetia realized they'd have about as much luck as Abkhazia. Violence in Artsakh started - from both sides - in 1988, before the USSR even collapsed. Eastern Ukraine was never going to go smoothly either. Besides, @Hestia, are you actually championing the defense and legitimacy of administrative maps drawn by Josef Stalin and Nikita Krushchev as being the standard of where things SHOULD be and SHOULD remain?

I think my method for accepting independence is this: 

  • Is the group wishing to secede the majority population in their area? 
  • Does that group lack equal representation, equal rights, equal justice, equal education, equal opportunities, equal acceptance, etc. than the majority of their current nation's population? Or, while treated fairly, is the group so culturally, linguistically, religiously, socially distinct as to make it make more sense for them to be their own nation. 
  • Does the group wishing to secede refrain from oppressing and/or committing injustice and violence towards minority groups in their own area? That is, do they avoid Human Rights violations. 

I think all three of the above has to be "yes." Then we'd have to have a whole other discussion on how to draw the borders. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

These situations only exist because of the aforementioned then-internal administrative map-drawing of Stalin and Krushchev, which you, like many, seem to believe should remain the default. I assure you, the creation of a separate majority-Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh Oblast under Azerbaijan SSR jurisdiction of all things and the Abkhazian ASSR and South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast being subordinate to Stalin's homeland in the Georgian SSR by Stalin and the transfer of the Novorussya," region from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR by Krushchev had ulterior motives that were based on good and benign statesmanship that maybe should be what is reevaluated, not defending the maps as of 1992, drawn by the Most Evil Man in History and his Not Much Nicer, But More Machiavelian, successor as the basis of all legitimacy. It kind of puts a stain on the whole integrity of the International Community's handing of the affair that the phantom hand of horrid Old Bolsheviks is helping to guide them.

49 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Great. Glad to hear that none of those bothers you whatsoever, including the ethnic cleansing of Georgians that would've happened either way since they were within South Ossetia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

Okay, let's try seeing it this way. So, if you removed the current de facto South Ossetian Government and tried them and those of their de facto military tried for such crimes (and Georgian Government and military who've also committed war crimes tried as well), would you then be amenable to South Ossetian independence without that Government or military personnel, or do you feel they should remain perpetually under the Georgian yoke, treated like dirt, and probably with over-the-top retribution? An interesting question, there...

Is it really so interesting? Would you care to link Georgian war crimes against the South Ossetian people, because unlike others, there were none linked in the articles about the war, unlike the ethnic cleansing that the South Ossetians did. I think South Ossetia should hold a referendum with international observers rather than under the Russian boot to decide. If they then approve it, then I think it is easily more amenable. I think you know my position on this rather than asking stupid questions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

There's war crimes in every war nowadays. They're not always as extreme or horrid or as each other, but they're always there. That was moreso JUST thrown in for my sense of justice, not because I believe they're of equal scope. The same sense of just that just gags knowing George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinpeng, Narendi Modi, Benjamin Netanyahu, Reciyp Erdogan, and and many others are NOT rotting in war crimes prisons.

You're the one who claimed that Georgia's government committed war crimes. Using the definition of war crimes, do you have evidence that shows they did in fact commit those crimes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

Not under the United National Movement or Georgia Dream Party Governments, not verifiably. But some downright nasty things were apparently done against secessionists under Shevardnadze, and many of their perpetrators are currently sitting pretty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_Abkhazia

It is also worth noting that Abkhazia did the same thing. So maybe it is the Georgians who are the ones who are suffering after all...

Edited by Hestia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Then maybe just cutting loose Abkhazia and South Ossetia rather than continue to dig into atrocity-ridden wars based on maps drawn by Comrade Stalin would be the best solution for them, too?

Countries that didn't vote for independence and committed ethnic cleansing against *their* people. Yes, a very good idea, I'm sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

Countries that weren't OFFERED a chance for a peaceful and legitimate vote for independence, because the Internationally-recognized nation to be in authority (based on Stalin's maps, again) declared their nations were indivisible from the start and secessionism was illegal. You forgot that part, which predated any violence or war crimes by anyone.

And yet, after, had no referendum to confirm its status and ejected 30k peiple or more who wouldn't support it. Not exactly strong ground to claim a state on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Patine said:

But yet, you refuse to see the ironic flaws of recognizing the use of maps by one of the biggest ethnic cleansers, war criminals, and butchers in history as the, "legitimate starting grounding," that so handicapped the legal options of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Artsakh, and made violence more or less inevitable. And you put no onus on the earliest Georgian Governments to have shown more reasonability or leniency in dealing with the issue (like allowing referendums or secession talks, for instance) before violence ever broke out. Your point of view seems very one-sided and incapable of retrospect into the root causes of the issue.

Do you have a solution how to draw the maps without causing more war and getting people to agree to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

@Pringles So, do I assume by your silence you were unable to find or accurately recall these, "comments," you accused me of making with certain intimations as to their content, and that you were likely mistaken and the posts implied in question may have been made by someone else?

No I just didn't feel like replying into yalls argument. Nevertheless, multiple users on this forum have claimed Israel is an apartheid state. If you agree with that then my comments stand, if not, then I retract what I said. Although I do know, sometime somewhere, vcczar and a few others have said that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

I have never used the word, "Apartheid," in any context but South Africa from 1948-1994, and, in it's literal English translation of, "Segregation," for the U.S. Deep South from 1877-1964 or so. I have criticized war crimes and atrocities, refusal to recognize the other's right to exist as a nation, and viewing each other's people as garbage by the more militant factions of BOTH SIDES, as I said above, and I believe they should be completely independent and sovereign of each other and each other's meddling, and that foreign nations and institutions should stop taking one side's point-of-view down the line, and completely demonizing the other. That, for the record, is MY point of view on the issue, and has been for quite a while.

Even though I'm heavily on the side of Israel's, I can certainly agree with parts of your argument as it can be a very "both sides" issue at many times, but thank you for clarifying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only should Kurdistan be independent, but Libya & Iraq should be divided into 3 regions each. Those would be their more natural borders unlike what the colonial powers drew. Also, where are states for the Yazidis and the Assyrians?

I'm not well acquainted with the situation in the Caucauses. I would be generally for independence (usually, the more the merrier). An Ossetian state would be interesting--they used to be the Alans, so they do have a separate identity. However, human rights should be considered as well.

Xinjang should absolutely be Independent from China.

As for Tibet, it seems that neither the CCP nor the Dalai Lama's government have been angels in human rights.

BTW, it seems that Bougainville will be Independent in the future.

Venice should be Independent.

Catalonia should be Independent--and the Spanish government should be prosecuted.

The situation in Israel and Palestine seems to be complicated. From what I understand, some Israelis (Right-wingers, I think) want a one-state solution (for Israel), others want a two-state solution (center & left, I think). Palestinians in general--it seems--want a one-state solution (Palestine) and reject any attempt to have a Jewish state. Arab Israelis might be nuanced.

I'm generally for Independence & secession, but the motives matter too. I would oppose a CSA, a state controlled by ISIS, or the Northwest Territorial Imperative.

 

Edited by Timur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...