Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China Forces Norway to Adhere to ‘One China’ Policy

sentinel.tw

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 158 posts

Re: China Forces Norway to Adhere to ‘One China’ Policy

#81

Post by mikeash »

vinceguidry wrote: post #56
captainmuon wrote: post #51

International "meta"-law is so ridiculous. I mean the customary rules concerning recognition of states, embassies, passports [1], etc.. If I was ruler of a small country, I would say "of course we won't recognize Taiwan. We will foobar them. They don't get an embassy, but they get a blah ." (which de facto will be exactly the same thing) [1] Concerning passports, no matter how radically different states are, the US,…

> If I was ruler of a small country, I would say "of course we won't recognize Taiwan. We will foobar them. They don't get an embassy, but they get a blah." (which de facto will be exactly the same thing) That might not be a smart move. Small nations get a lot out of banding together and acting as a bloc. If you foobar Taiwan, it might freeze you out of diplomatic channels that are more important to you than wanking…

Taiwan is quite used to countries working around China like this. Only 20 countries have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, none of them very influential.

Re: China Forces Norway to Adhere to ‘One China’ Policy

#83

Post by imron »

mikeash wrote: post #80
imron wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow, shocking to read of such deep capitulation from a country like Norway China forces every country that it has normalised relations with to adhere to the 'One China' policy. Does your country have a Chinese embassy in it? Guess what, your country adheres to the 'One China' policy too.

It's one thing to officially adhere to "One China" and quite another to shun respected people that China doesn't like. Do other countries do that second one? The US seems to have no problem allowing the Dalai Lama to meet the President, for example.

> Do other countries do that second one?

Unfortunately yes: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/08/30/pm-has-no-plan...

Re: China Forces Norway to Adhere to ‘One China’ Policy

#84

Post by tristor »

ekianjo wrote: post #8

I dont understand the word Forcing here. Norway had a choice to continue denying The one China policy. Putting pressure on Norway thru various means is not forcing. Forcing would be done via a military operation leaving little choice.

I'm not sure I agree with you, but for what it's worth I do understand the point you are making. You are making a separation between types of pressure which are existential and those which are not. Norway could have accepted the lower exports on fish (less than 1% of their GDP) and continued on while snubbing China, but it was more beneficial to them economically to concede.

However, this isn't existential because even if China refuses to trade with Norway entirely, through the EEA the Norwegian people could continue receiving goods from China mediated through a different EEA country that has trade agreements.

At it's most dire what occurred simply wasn't an existential threat to Norway and the geographical distance meant that military reactions to trade disputes simply weren't going to occur. Thus the "force" here was mostly one of appearances, rather than reality.

That said, I'm not entirely sure I agree that this doesn't meet the definition of "forcing". Politics is squishy like that. Just because fishing is less than 1% of the GDP doesn't mean it has minimal impact on Norwegian society. The fishing industry has significant historical and cultural significance to Norway and abandoning support of that industry could very well be political suicide within Norway for the politicians that refused to play ball. You could say its simply spineless, but the optics of them snubbing China and at the same time snubbing their own fishing industry aren't especially good.

Re: China Forces Norway to Adhere to ‘One China’ Policy

#85

Post by imron »

semperdark wrote: post #64
imron wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow, shocking to read of such deep capitulation from a country like Norway China forces every country that it has normalised relations with to adhere to the 'One China' policy. Does your country have a Chinese embassy in it? Guess what, your country adheres to the 'One China' policy too.

Perhaps, but in many cases recognition that there should be "One China" also comes with the implication that Taiwan's government should be the one ruling the "One China". Did you read the linked article? Norway's statements were absolutely humiliating, most countries absolutely do not go that far.

> Perhaps, but in many cases recognition that there should be "One China" also comes with the implication that Taiwan's government should be the one ruling the "One China".

Correct. All it is, is the acknowledgement that there aren't two countries called China, and if you want to do business with China, then the People's Republic of China is the only China you are allowed to officially recognise.

> Did you read the linked article?

Yes. Other countries do go that far too.

Re: China Forces Norway to Adhere to ‘One China’ Policy

#86

Post by shaobo »

neom wrote: post #72
shaobo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also worth noting that the Permanent Court of Arbitration is only in the Hague, it is not an UN agency, and not a court in the traditional sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration

They arbitrate part of the hague conventions. the hague conventions make up part of international law. It's a court of arbitration, your comparison to the UN is apples to oranges, in fact, the UN isn't really involved in international law setting.

I am not comparing it to the UN, but how it is referred to in the media is often misleading, especially the "in the Hague" part. Quite a few articles even dropped that bit and just referred to it as an "UN court/tribunal".

It gave the impression that China is defying the UN, not saying that China wouldn't do something like that, but they didn't in this instance.

And because it is a court of arbitration, both sides have to agree to have their dispute resolved by arbitration in the first place. China did not agree to it.

Re: China Forces Norway to Adhere to ‘One China’ Policy

#87

Post by nnq »

How did Liu Xiaobo become so important? So much happening for this guy expressing his opinions, wtf?!

If an American or someone from most European countries would express similar opinions wrt his own country's government... nobody would blink a fucking eye, regardless of who gave him what prize...

(And we all know that Nobels for anything except science are 100% bullshit. Heck, I'd even question the relevance of the ones for medicine...)

Re: China Forces Norway to Adhere to ‘One China’ Policy

#88

Post by avar »

DRAOBE wrote: post #69
avar wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway and Iceland don't need to become full EU members for a China FTA creating conflicts between them and the EU. There's already overlap between products covered under Iceland's FTA with China and its FTA with the EU/EEA, but in practice it doesn't matter much because any gains from lower import duties are negated by expensive shipping from Iceland. If Norway signs a similar agreement an EEA country with open land…

Uh, what sort of conflict do you think China could provoke? I have a hard time seeing a free salmon treaty with China giving rise to more conflict than normal neighbor disputes. If Norway started selling all its oil to China, then we'd have something. But the EU borders Norway, and China doesn't so there isn't much in favour of it. In addition, China doesn't border the EU, so I don't think it sees much value in a div…

I don't know what sort of FTA Norway was in the process of negotiating in 2010, but if it's anything like the treaty it signed with Iceland in 2013 calling it a "free salmon treaty" is the understatement of the century.

You can read the full list of tariff concessions by Iceland[1], as well as the rest of the treaty[2] MFA website.

It covers anything from food, tools, machinery, to raw ore and metals to finished nuclear reactors. Almost all tariffs on Chinese goods entering Iceland are set at 0%.

This means that Iceland (or hypothetically Norway in the future) can import say cheap industrial acids from China, and use them to make finished products that could be sold to the EU market using existing EU/EEA trade deals that give preferential tariff treatment to EEA members.

That's the potential conflict I'm talking about. China's setting up agreements where a country with wide access to its internal markets has better access to cheap Chinese goods than other EU/EEA countries.

Which means that either the EU needs to slow down liberalization of trade with Iceland (and perhaps Norway in the future) least they essentially become hubs to evade EU duties on Chinese goods, which'll pull those countries further into the Chinese sphere of influence.

Or it'll need to make similar deals itself, or otherwise live with the resulting trade imbalance with Iceland and Norway becoming re-exporters of Chinese goods.

1. https://www.mfa.is/media/fta-kina/Vidauki-I---Tollaaetlanir-...

2. https://www.mfa.is/foreign-policy/trade/free-trade-agreement...

Re: China Forces Norway to Adhere to ‘One China’ Policy

#89

Post by alistairSH »

rqs wrote: post #33
demonshalo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that prize stopped mattering when Obama got it just because he was black?

Chinese here. In China, lot's of people who originally supported 刘晓波[0] shuts up after Obama's winning . So, yes, at least in China, Nobel Peace Prize is nothing now. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo

Obama won the year before Liu Xiaobo, so how does this make sense?

Re: China Forces Norway to Adhere to ‘One China’ Policy

#90

Post by HillaryBriss »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #52
klunger wrote: post #41

I live in Norway. There has been pressure for some time on the government to do this because of the salmon exports. Fishing is not as big as oil, but it is still an important part of the economy here. Losing China as a customer meant bad news for a lot of folks in the fishing industry here. Also, since Norway is trying (unsuccessfully so far, but still they are trying) to lessen dependence on oil, this loss mattered…

> Fishing is not as big as oil, but it is still an important part of the economy Meh. It employs 7k-10k people and contributes 0.7% of the economy. That is chickenfeed, and a particularly dumb thing to give up their principles over - particularly because processed fish are a fungible commodity and could be sold for the same price outside of China.

> processed fish are a fungible commodity and could be sold for the same price outside of China

yes. right. that aspect of this story puzzles me. i thought that was how globalism worked.

i mean, can't Norway just sell the fish to, say, Canada, which could then sell its farmed salmon to China, etc?

i can't quite see what difference this will make. is Norway geographically closer to China than other salmon producing nations? how do they explain this?

Post reply on HN