Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/trump-suggests-taiwan-should-pay-us-for-protection.20625/page-3
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Trump Suggests Taiwan Should Pay US for Protection

blueone said:
The US does not have an active defense treaty with Taiwan
Click to expand...

There is the 1955 treaty, which is arguably never been legally repealed, and its current nonfulfilment is legitimised through a weird estoppel logic that the Republic Of China is not a party to treaties it itself signed with the US, to not to evoke again the constitutional dispute about the legality of Carter's termination note after the Goldwater case. For the US domestic law, that note has no meaning. It's not even a formal executive order.

So, whether that defence treaty is active or not wholly depends not even on its ratification status, but on whether people continue to collectively imagine that the Republic of China is not the same China which signed Republic's diplomatic instruments with America.

blueone said:
As for your last statement, go argue that with the US State Department.
Click to expand...

How it looks from the side:

— "I promise, I will die for you, and our brotherhood"

— Enemy comes

— "We never promised you anything! And you don't know how to read English", runs away
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
There is the 1955 treaty, which is arguably never been legally repealed, and its current nonfulfilment is legitimised through a weird estoppel logic that the Republic Of China is not a party to treaties it itself signed with the US, to not to evoke again the constitutional dispute about the legality of Carter's termination note after the Goldwater case. For the US domestic law, that note has no meaning. It's not even a formal executive order.

So, whether that defence treaty is active or not wholly depends not even on its ratification, but on whether people continue to collectively imagine that the Republic of China is not the same China which signed Republic's diplomatic instruments with America.
Click to expand...
Seriously? You can't be. The official policy of the US government is that the treaty you're referencing has been legally nullified. Are you expecting that a discussion on this forum affects the status of that action? That would be irrational.
 
Paul2 said:
How it looks from the side:

— "I promise, I will die for you, and our brotherhood"

— Enemy comes

— "We never promised you anything! And you don't know how to read English", runs away
Click to expand...
Let's say for the point of discussion that I agree. (I don't, but I'm curious.) What would you have us do, except listen to your position?
 
The Donald and JD have strong views and it ain’t looking good for Taiwan and the magical ecosystem on the island. Think Pooh is going to get his legacy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top