Are we looking at the same Potsdam Declaration from 1945? Nowhere does it mention a one China policy. It does reference the Cairo Declaration but that also did not talk about a one China policy. That one started that Japan needs to give back the territories it took from the Republic of China including Manchuria and Taiwan. I guess Manchuria should be under control of the Republic of China instead of the People’s Republic of China.
One China policy is an internal US policy, and acknowledgement that Taiwan is part of China. In terms of international law, the only thing that matters is the fact that UN recognizes Taiwan being part of China. You keep on doing your mental gymnastics though.
Then why even mention the Potsdam Declaration as if that had anything to do with your point? You made multiple claims about it that simply don’t exist.
It has zilch to do with any sort of one China policy. You made a link that is not there. The Potsdam Declaration does not even deal with the Allies’ relationship with the Republic of China. It simply states that Japan will surrender and retreat from the territories they invaded. Please point out what lines in either the Potsdam Declaration or the Cairo Declaration that have anything to do with the Allies’ relationship with the Republic of China. Both deal with the Allies’ relationship and demands from Japan at the time.
You continue to be confused here. Postdam Declaration and One China policy are simply the basis for the dialogue between China and US, and that is the basis on which US acknowledges that Taiwan is indeed part of China. In terms of international law, the only thing that matters is the UN stance which is that Taiwan is part of China. This is in no way ambiguous.
You seem to be the one who is confused. The Potsdam Declaration is not the basis for any sort of dialog between China and the US. That deals with Japan’s surrender. It was also signed by a representative for the Republic of China. Please where in the very short declaration that it is the basis for dialog between the US and the People’s Republic of China:
We, the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.
(2) The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.
(3) The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will 3 mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.
(4) The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed milita[r]istic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.
(5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.
(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.
(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan’s war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.
(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration4 shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.
(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.
(10) We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as [a] nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strength[en]ing of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.
(11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those industries which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.
(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.
(13) We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.
You might have a point with the one China policy but mentioning the Potsdam Declaration makes no fucking sense.
How many times do I have to explain to you that it’s the UN stance that matters in terms of international law. The only reason I mentioned Postdam is as the basis for dialog. It’s clear that you’re just not reading what I’m writing. Bye.
Are we looking at the same Potsdam Declaration from 1945? Nowhere does it mention a one China policy. It does reference the Cairo Declaration but that also did not talk about a one China policy. That one started that Japan needs to give back the territories it took from the Republic of China including Manchuria and Taiwan. I guess Manchuria should be under control of the Republic of China instead of the People’s Republic of China.
One China policy is an internal US policy, and acknowledgement that Taiwan is part of China. In terms of international law, the only thing that matters is the fact that UN recognizes Taiwan being part of China. You keep on doing your mental gymnastics though.
Then why even mention the Potsdam Declaration as if that had anything to do with your point? You made multiple claims about it that simply don’t exist.
Because that was the original basis for the relationship between the west and China. I’m not sure what claims you think I made that don’t exist.
It has zilch to do with any sort of one China policy. You made a link that is not there. The Potsdam Declaration does not even deal with the Allies’ relationship with the Republic of China. It simply states that Japan will surrender and retreat from the territories they invaded. Please point out what lines in either the Potsdam Declaration or the Cairo Declaration that have anything to do with the Allies’ relationship with the Republic of China. Both deal with the Allies’ relationship and demands from Japan at the time.
You continue to be confused here. Postdam Declaration and One China policy are simply the basis for the dialogue between China and US, and that is the basis on which US acknowledges that Taiwan is indeed part of China. In terms of international law, the only thing that matters is the UN stance which is that Taiwan is part of China. This is in no way ambiguous.
You seem to be the one who is confused. The Potsdam Declaration is not the basis for any sort of dialog between China and the US. That deals with Japan’s surrender. It was also signed by a representative for the Republic of China. Please where in the very short declaration that it is the basis for dialog between the US and the People’s Republic of China:
You might have a point with the one China policy but mentioning the Potsdam Declaration makes no fucking sense.
How many times do I have to explain to you that it’s the UN stance that matters in terms of international law. The only reason I mentioned Postdam is as the basis for dialog. It’s clear that you’re just not reading what I’m writing. Bye.
But it’s not a basis for dialog…