Re: Baltics condemn China envoy's stance on ex-Soviet nations
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:57:48 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 12:53:51 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:03:45 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 6:33:57 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/baltics-condemn-china-envoys-stance-soviet-nations-98784670
"In a recent interview with the French news channel LCI, he was asked if he thought that the Crimean Peninsula belongs to Ukraine. Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, a move that most of the world denounced as illegal.
“That depends ... on how one perceives this problem,” the envoy told the broadcaster. “There’s the history. Crimea was at the beginning Russian, no? It was (Soviet leader Nikita) Khrushchev who gave Crimea to Ukraine in the era of the
Soviet Union.”
When the channel's presenter noted that according to international law, Crimea is part of Ukraine, the Chinese ambassador drew a parallel to the former Soviet republics — including the three Baltic nations — that broke free after the USSR
collapsed in 1991.
“With regards to international law, even these ex-Soviet Union countries, they do not, they do not have the status — how to say it? — that’s effective in international law, because there is no international agreement to solidify their
status as a sovereign country," he said.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis tweeted that “If anyone is still wondering why the Baltic States don’t trust China to ‘broker peace in Ukraine,’ here’s a Chinese ambassador arguing that Crimea is Russian and our
countries’ borders have no legal basis.”"
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis: "a Chinese ambassador arguing ...our countries' borders have no legal basis."
China has no problem with the Baltic states as independent nations currently members of the UN. But as long as there were no mutual acceptance between these nations and its neighbors in the form of mutual legal instruments, the borders have no legal
basis. Accepting Lithuanian as a nation hence does not obligate China to prefer its view of its border over its neighbors' view of its border.
Does it obligate China to go on French TV and say things?
In contrast, both the ROC and the PRC have mainland China and Taiwan as parts of the SAME CHINA. The dispute between the PRC and the ROC is who should represent all the Chinese people as in most civil wars. Border is not the issue. The ONE CHINA
principle accepted by the Baltic states obligated them to recognize China's view regarding the relation between the PRC and the ROC.
Not necessarily a bad move from China's point of view.
European countries play the game of explicitly accept the "ONE CHINA" principle yet act as if there were One China and One Taiwan. It is China's turn to play the same game. That is, China can have diplomatic relations with the Baltic states. It
can also cast doubt on the legitimacy of its border.
More important, the view is reasonable.
I do not agree that it's a reasonable view. The PRC/Taiwan dispute is indeed a dispute. The Chinese ambassador is wrong to equate that to the situation of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, independent countries.
Bilateral border must be bilaterally accepted. Otherwise it is just an unilateral claim. In the case of the PRC and the ROC, both have mainland and Taiwan belong to a China. In the case of the Baltic states, have their borders formally accepted
by Russia and Belarus?
"Does it obligate China to go on French TV and say things?"
It is an excellent question.
It is elementary that for an average person to understand that if he or she is going to own a piece of land, the first thing is to have its boundary clearly delineated from his neighbors. The most effective way to CONSOLIDATE his ownership of the real
estate would be a mutually accepted legal instrument. Similarly, a country obvious need a mutually acceptable instrument to CONSOLIDATE its status as a sovereignty country.
Of course, in a US dominated unipolar world, the only thing that matter is US interest, boundary is then a matter of US approval. But this kind of world order can never be a rule based system. Rather it is a US interest based system.
A Rule Based System is only a Rule Based System because it is a Multi-polar System.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)