The US does not acknowledge that. You had it right the first time, the US "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China"
www.ft.com
www.romania-insider.com
Per the UN and all reputable sources, the vast majority of Iraqis killed after the fall of Saddam were from their fellow Iraqis, Iranians and radical Islamist extremists from neighboring Arab countries over sectarian issues. It wasn't the US sending suicide bombers into Mosques, schools, voting booths and funeral services killing 300 people at a time.
This is a very naive take. China (PRC) is making preparations already to invade Taiwan. It's pretty clear the goal is to "unite" Taiwan with the mainland, regardless of what Taiwan does. This parallels Russia's view of Ukraine (no matter what Ukraine does, Russia's goal is annexation). All US is doing is giving Taiwan the means to defend themselves in proportion to the military preparations the PRC is making.
Taiwan just elected the most pro independence president in history:
The US never officially acknowledged that Taiwan is part of the PRC (this nuance makes a big difference). You need to read the sentence that follows to understand the meaning (I added parentheses to clarify the sentence structure, and also bolded the critical part).
Let's make one thing clear, the PRC never ruled over Taiwan ever (just like how Russia never ruled over Ukraine). Thus it has nothing to do with "territorial integrity".
www.theguardian.com
Taiwan just elected the most pro independence president in history:
That does not contradict with the desires of people to maintain the status quo (see my other post for details on the DPP's latest stance).
What the US is doing is helping Taiwan maintain that status quo by enabling them to defend themselves and to make a military invasion as difficult as possible, in order to deter military moves to change the status quo.
The US never officially acknowledged that Taiwan is part of the PRC (this nuance makes a big difference). You need to read the sentence that follows to understand the meaning (I added parentheses to clarify the sentence structure, and also bolded the critical part).
"The US side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain (there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China). The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves."
Note also the use of "China" instead of the "PRC". Officially the stance in Taiwan is also that it is part of "China", just that it is the ROC, not the PRC.
The US have also made multiple clarifying statements about the "One China Policy", which of course the PRC ignores and instead substitute with their own "One China Principle"
Let's make one thing clear, the PRC never ruled over Taiwan ever (just like how Russia never ruled over Ukraine). Thus it has nothing to do with "territorial integrity".
And before you bring in the UN, note the resolution only put the PRC as the representative of "China" in the UN (kicking out the previous ROC reps), it says nothing about Taiwan.
Note, to clarify, I'm talking about the "Russian Federation," not historic "Russia". Much in the same way I'm talking about PRC in the above, not "China" which may include territorial claims from previous governments that were also known as "China" (ROC, Qing Dynasty, etc).
kyivindependent.com
Putin claims strategic battle field defeat would mean the end of Russian statehood, while the rest of world wonders where the party would be.
Strategic battlefield defeat would be end of Russia's statehood, Putin claims
"Then the question arises: why should we be afraid? Isn’t it better to go to the end?" Vladimir Putin said at a press conference at the end of his state visit to Vietnam.
/sPutin claims strategic battle field defeat would mean the end of Russian statehood, while the rest of world wonders where the party would be.
Strategic battlefield defeat would be end of Russia's statehood, Putin claims
"Then the question arises: why should we be afraid? Isn’t it better to go to the end?" Vladimir Putin said at a press conference at the end of his state visit to Vietnam.
Putin claims strategic battle field defeat would mean the end of Russian statehood, while the rest of world wonders where the party would be.
Strategic battlefield defeat would be end of Russia's statehood, Putin claims
"Then the question arises: why should we be afraid? Isn’t it better to go to the end?" Vladimir Putin said at a press conference at the end of his state visit to Vietnam.
