Read on Twitter
This debate between @Noahpinion and @carlzha is hilarious. I like when @carlzha is like "China was invited into Korea!"
Yes. By North Korea. Which had invaded South Korea.
China was invited *to assist in an invasion*.
Yes. By North Korea. Which had invaded South Korea.
China was invited *to assist in an invasion*.
Also worth noting that Tibetan passport holders *were* issued diplomatic visas.
Also, the standard that @CarlZha uses would clearly imply that China has no right to invade Taiwan, since many countries have recognized Taiwan as legitimate in the past, and some still do today.
Also, the whole "We are inheriting the claims of the Qing Dynasty" is nonsense.
There is *zero* institutional or bureaucratic continuity between the Qing Dynasty and the PRC.
There is *zero* institutional or bureaucratic continuity between the Qing Dynasty and the PRC.
The descendants of the last Emperor live in Taiwan!
I discuss this a bit here: https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1290340798718935042?s=20
Before 2006, China had zero *practical* contestation of the Senkakus. The *first* naval challenge was in 2011. 2012-2014 was the huge runup in aggression, and the level of aggression has remained high.
I think when @CarlZha says "Oh, but the territorial claims are old..."
Yes. But the *enforcement* of them is new. Many countries have outstanding territorial claims which they do not actively contest.
Yes. But the *enforcement* of them is new. Many countries have outstanding territorial claims which they do not actively contest.
2020 saw the biggest India-China border conflict since 1962. And almost every year since 2013 has seen "the biggest India-China border conflicts since 1962." It's getting worse every year!
China is leaning heavily on Bhutan to get Bhutan to surrender a very large share of its territories. https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/chinas-bhutan-gambit/
There's clearly appetite for further territorial revisionism too among many elite Chinese figures. Vladivostok! https://twitter.com/shen_shiwei/status/1278599157305847808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1278599157305847808%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Feurasiantimes.com%2Ffact-check-has-china-really-claimed-russian-port-city-of-vladivostok%2F
Or take when @CarlZha says "why would China invade now after 71 years??"
Because for 71 years China didn't have the *ability* to conquer Taiwan. But China's naval power is increasing, and Taiwan's military weakening, and soon they *will* have the ability.
Because for 71 years China didn't have the *ability* to conquer Taiwan. But China's naval power is increasing, and Taiwan's military weakening, and soon they *will* have the ability.
And when @CarlZha says "nothing has happened" in those 71 years....
WTF???
First, Second, and Third Taiwan Straits Crises just.... didn't happen?
WTF???
First, Second, and Third Taiwan Straits Crises just.... didn't happen?
China publicly says they will invade Taiwan. They are building the naval capacity to do that exact thing. They have begun forced political re-education of Hong Kong people, demonstrated authoritarian policies aren't limited to non-Chinese minorities.
Across the Taiwan straits crisis, like 2,000 troops died in total, so that's.... uh.... "something happening"?
I understand that many liberal Chinese like @CarlZha want China to be a good global player who won't be a violent hegemon.
But nature abhors a vacuum, and China's leaders very clearly have big ambitions.
But nature abhors a vacuum, and China's leaders very clearly have big ambitions.
I mean recall: the latest conflict with India began because India was building a road *in territory which China does not even claim*! China began a troop building in response to India's internal policies in *undisputed* territories.
lol, tankies gonna tankie.
China publicly announced they would intervene in Korea on August 20th. The UN forces did not even cross the 38th parallel until October 1st.
China publicly announced they would intervene in Korea on August 20th. The UN forces did not even cross the 38th parallel until October 1st.
Sorry, responding to tweets like this: https://twitter.com/johanstrauss91/status/1310618040468410368
China had already decided to intervene in Korea before the US crossed the 38th. And the army they used to fight in Korea was already equipped and assembled in part because they'd been assembling it *to invade Taiwan*, which is another thin @CarlZha thinks didn't happen.
Of course, the ACTUAL highlight of the debate is when @Noahpinion was like "I haven't been to China since 2007" and then was like "I went to Hong Kong last year" which, ya know. Super low-key black-bauhinia thing there.
All the hilarious "Can a country invade itself?" trolls:
NK and SK both had formal diplomatic relations with other countries, including the same countries. By 1948, the two countries had both declared themselves to be sovereign, and been recognized as such.
NK and SK both had formal diplomatic relations with other countries, including the same countries. By 1948, the two countries had both declared themselves to be sovereign, and been recognized as such.
The US, UK, Philippines, France, Spain, and a handful of others all had formally recognized South Korea. North Korea was recognized by a bunch of communist countries. Many countries were processing passports for both countries.
The key point is that while ROK and DPRK both claimed the *territory* of the other, they also recognized the *de facto sovereignty* of each other (and do to this day). They carried out a variety of state-to-state interactions before the war, and do today as well.
It's all cool and stuff that countries want to litigate stuff entirely on abstracted "who claims what" grounds, but in reality possession is 9/10ths of the law. De facto conditions can in some circumstances create de jure realities.
De facto treating an entity as a state can create state-to-state-like obligations (estoppel is one example of how this can occur).
So, "Can a country invade itself?"
Well, if it de facto recognizes another entity in its claimed territory as maintaining effective control of an area, and if it carries out state-to-state-like interactions with that entity, and if both entities have international recognition...
Well, if it de facto recognizes another entity in its claimed territory as maintaining effective control of an area, and if it carries out state-to-state-like interactions with that entity, and if both entities have international recognition...
... and especially if the UN has sanctioned elections and a protective action in one and not in the other, well, it's very reasonable to describe the action by the less-UN-supported country crossing a recognized boundary in force with an intent to conquer as an invasion
Saying "Should foreign powers intervene?"
Well, it depends on international law! Both South Korea and North Korea requested intervention by other countries. But the fact is, North Korea crossed the 38th first and the UN approved support of SK,.
Well, it depends on international law! Both South Korea and North Korea requested intervention by other countries. But the fact is, North Korea crossed the 38th first and the UN approved support of SK,.
NK was inarguably the aggressor. The intervention in SK was inarguably authorized. Crossing the 38th into NK was a more debatable point, but given NK's aggressive first move, it was reasonable.
Crossing the Yalu obviously would have been wrong. But also, there's no evidence that any of the American high command were interested in a land invasion of China. Even MacArthur only asked for nukes *after* the Chinese intervention, and only to seal the border, not invade.
The paranoid fantasy of Chinese strategists that everybody is always about to invade them is a recurring delusion, but it's basically false. Nobody was planning to march on Manchuria.
Yes, in 1949, they'd just gotten through WWII. With American help. And so they.... concluded that the US was going to invade them just like the Japanese did? https://twitter.com/red8jwoe/status/1310942349565071361
