Fasces wrote:No it is not. I was referring to Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Mainland Chinese populations. Did you not see the previous three sentences? In what meaningful way can the Chinese oppress the human rights of Taiwan, a territory over which it exercises no authority? Does the North Korean government violate your human rights? In what meaningful way can the Chinese oppress the human rights of Taiwan, a territory over which it exercises no authority? Does the North Korean government violate your human rights? Your interpretation of my words makes no sense - unless it's deliberate.
Your post intentionally and deliberately mixed 2 things together without separating them in any meaningful way(Taiwan and Internal Chinese Policy), in the same bullet point. This is Goebelian levels of propaganda. Just like your plain obvious misinterpretation about the ADIZ, when you claimed that internal Chinese flights get registered as violations of the Taiwanese ADIZ; when I called you out on it, you retorted by showing a real violation of the Taiwanese ADIZ, not an internal flight from Shangai to Fuzhou or Xiamen as you had actually claimed.
In both separate cases, back-to-back, you were trying to blur the line of what is meant by "internally" which is precisely China's propaganda policy. So spare me your victim's tears, you 're not fooling anybody.
If you want to state that Taiwan is not an internal matter for CCP China, just say it out loud and be done with it instead of whining that people don't get you
. Clear words are understood just fine. Sneaky props are also understood fine too.
Rugoz wrote:"with staggering regularity"? Is that why people always come up with the same two examples, namely Chile and Iran? Both bad examples anyway, because in both there was internal conflict between institutions and no "democratic side".
Whether the US historically cares more about "democracy" than its own interests has an easy reply and Fasces is correct in that.
If a democratic government went against "US interests" or the perception of them even rhetorically
, then that democratic government did not last very long.That does not mean that China is right to claim Taiwan.
There is Greece 1967-1974. US and Britain organized a coup to remove the democratically elected government of Greece and replace it with a CIA junta that lasted until 1974. The partition of Cyprus could be used at the time as a lever to control both Greece and Turkey and it would ensure that the British bases would remain on the island. Today those calculations no longer make any sense but 'c'est la vie'.
In 1954, after Britain failed to hand over Cyprus to Greece despite offering it twice in return for Greek entry in WW1 and again in WW2(where in both cases, Greek entry was decisive for the outcome of the war), Greece put the Cyprus matter to the UN in the name of self-determination
The UN meeting was cancelled in 1955 when the Turks pogromed the Greeks of Istanbul, the Turkish government had created a false-flag operation in their Consulate in Greece by setting off a bomb in their own consulate(Ataturk's birth-house for which the Turkish PM was eventually hanged I believe). Once they set-off the bomb in their consulate, they had mobs ready to attack the Greek population of Istanbul, destroy their houses and shops in broad day-light, events for which the British were directly complicit:
Constantinople Pogrom wrote:The Greek government had appealed in 1954 to the United Nations to demand self-determination for Cyprus. Britain had a ruling mandate over the mostly ethnic Greek island, and wanted the Cyprus dispute to be resolved without being taken to the United Nations Security Council, due to fears of how the Greek and Greek Cypriot parties would portray the conflict. To this end, the British government resolved to temper Greek demands by encouraging the Turkish government to publicly express their support for Turkish-Cypriot cause, which they estimated would ensure the issue would not reach the UN Security Council. British reports from the period made disparate assessments on the state of Greco-Turkish relations; one by the British Embassy on August 1954 stated that the relationship was of a superficial nature and that a minor source of tension, such as a hypothetical Greek destruction of Atatürk's house in Thessaloniki, would cause permanent damage; while an official of the Foreign Office said that a stern stance towards Greece would be to Turkey's benefit. MP John Strachey warned that Turkey had a large ethnic Greek minority in Istanbul as a card to play against Greece if it considered annexing an independent Cyprus against the wishes of Turkish-Cypriots.
Finally, the conference fell apart on 6 September, the first day the subject of Cyprus would be broached at the conference, when news broke of the bombing of the Turkish consulate (and birthplace of Atatürk) in Greece's second-largest city, Thessaloniki.
At the time the Turkish population of Cyprus was about 15%, when the UN conference eventually took place, the Americans:
LSE paper on US participation in the Greek junta 1967-1974 wrote:
As Peurifoy’s memorandum acknowledges, the United States, at times, pursued its interests in Greece with a heavy-hand. As a result, the Greek people began to resent America’s “leadership.” By December 1954, American symbols were coming under attack. The “disengagement” of the Greek people from America’s preferred course was meticulously discussed in 1957.
In a 15-page memorandum, James K. Penfield, a political officer at the American Embassy in Greece, observed:
When the Greek public sees its desires with respect to Cyprus supported without stint in the United Nations by the Afro-Asian Bloc, by Tito, and, however tardily and hypocritically, by the Soviet Bloc, and sees the United States and each of its partners in NATO either thwart those desires or remain indifferent or neutral toward them, it lends an ever more receptive ear to those who in public speeches and in the daily press ask what Greece’s ties to the West have gained her and why she should continue to maintain them. . . . We and our policies have become less popular with the Greeks in recent years and months and we see no evidence of the existence of any force which will reverse this trend in the immediate future, barring an immediate settlement of the Cyprus issue in a manner satisfactory to Greece or a very large increase in the amount of American economic assistance.
The memo insisted, “We are not winning the battle for the Greek mind.” This led Penfield to conclude: We are passing through a period when our influence and prestige among the Greek people and with the Greek Government are undergoing a reassessment and readjustment in a changed world situation. We can no longer be as certain as we have been in the past that we shall have Greece’s support in foreign policy matters that are critical to us. . . . Unless [the reasons for disengagement] are corrected, however, there is a distinct possibility that Greece will find herself ultimately in the neutral bloc or in a “non-bloc” alignment where, we have reason to fear, a growing number of Greeks today are already finding themselves psychologically.
We have reached a new stage in Greek-American relations in which many of our decade-old assumptions and rules-of-thumb are no longer valid.
The Americans created an anti-American public by supporting the enemies of Greece and then to ensure that Greece stayed in line, they imposed a CIA dictator to ensure compliance(instead of simply correcting their own course as requested by Penfield). Doubling down on both the stupidity & the hubris. The Cyprus matter has been haunting, not just the Cypriots but also the Greeks and today both Americans, Anglo's, Europeans and the west as a whole who in hindsight may be able to see the error of their ways.
US policy readjustment in Greece begun with Bill Clinton who publicly apologized for these events during a visit in 1999 but the policy was only really changed with Obama and more properly adjusted with Biden.
Another major hubris that cost more prestige than it gained for the Americans was the destruction of Yugoslavia.
In both cases, the US, Britain and the allies went against their own allies during both World Wars.
In conclusion, you are correct in so far as US policy concerns Taiwan while Fasces is correct about historical US policy in the abstract. Fasces use of the abstract to build a case for the particular in Taiwan is definitively false and in bad faith as well.
Moreover, it is both unwise and improper(at least for irrelevant laymen) to sidestep the realities of the people involved namely the people of Taiwan and make them secondary to great power narratives.
EN EL ED EM ON
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...