> In the multilateral case, recognition of Taiwan by the UN has long been something that China has had veto power over.
I think you are just stating that that is part of the international law, right? Law is just law. It went to effect for stakeholders agree that they can abide by bits ruling.
Texas is not independent because US does not allow that. Right? Because the law dictates that the sovereign power is legally the care giver of a group of population on a land.
This is relatively balanced description on the issue. One can certainly see that the politics have made the matter intentionally vague.
And nternational law is not necessarily written. It could be some commonly agreed principles. For example, there is no written law says US government can govern the land on here. It's based a certain aggreed upon concepts in people's mind.
The logical reasoning is starting lacking, and the preassumptions are equally entrenched.
> We will never hear the perspectives of Chinese nationals who disagree with the CCP line
This is not true. Watch Radio Free Asian, the epoch times, and many indenpent Chinese dissident channels on YouTube like Mr. Jiang Feng (https://youtube.com/c/%E6%B1%9F%E5%B3%B0%E6%97%B6%E5%88%BB). These are mostly Chinese speaking content. You of course can find a lot of English content of western media interviewing Chinese dissident.
> they will be reported and their loved ones will face fearsome punishments.
Another slander by western Media about the social situation in China. Essentialy, the media wants to paint the Chinese soceity as inhuman, and incapable of rational thinking. That of course becomes a nice subconscious justification of violence towards them, like what happened in the colonial era by White colonists to justify their policy towards Indians.
Chinese do not report their friends and family. The might expose by standers occasionally, online. But again that's not too different from someone got cancelled here.
> polluted because only one side is let through
The one sided part is the negative and inhuman side of China right?
Think yourself for a moment the slanders some IDs received when they advanced a contrararian view on China with seemingly plausible backings, and the unanimous views that portrait a unjust and inhuman Chinese society.
If you think the one-sided part is the positive part, then it bears explanation that how someone stating objective truth got slandered repetitively without any factual counterparts.
I think you are just stating that that is part of the international law, right? Law is just law. It went to effect for stakeholders agree that they can abide by bits ruling.
Texas is not independent because US does not allow that. Right? Because the law dictates that the sovereign power is legally the care giver of a group of population on a land.
You are mixing law and self conscience.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/would-war-over....
This is relatively balanced description on the issue. One can certainly see that the politics have made the matter intentionally vague.
And nternational law is not necessarily written. It could be some commonly agreed principles. For example, there is no written law says US government can govern the land on here. It's based a certain aggreed upon concepts in people's mind.