Philippines bends over and spreads 'em wide

[Imran Siddiqui]

What stood on their way then was the willingness of European powers to accept non-white colonies successfully breaking off-and thus would nto allow for a Phillipino state even if they had full control of the country.

LOTM is correct in that Haiti was recognized, but also the Spanish STILL held control of the largest city and best harbor: Manilla. And besides, it doesn't matter. A valid government has to be recognized as such, which is why the Taliban have NEVER been considered the valid government of Afghanistan. 3 countries, IIRC, recognized them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
haiti was recognized.

in 1804 at a time when the big powers other than France had no problem with France having LESS American possesions. Add to the the fact France gave up on it anyways as well. And yet there was still a lot of anxiety about it becuase of all them slaves.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo

haiti was recognized.

Over half a century after it declared independence (at least by us).

I assume this relates to Haiti?

Edit: France recognized Haitian independence in 1838. The US in 1862.

[GePap]

Oh, and Haiti was forced to pay 150 Million Francs for being recognized by France....

So no, white powers were not that willing AT ALL to recognize that Haiti was an independent state.

[Ramo]

Right. It still is in debt to France.

[GePap]

So Haiti declared itself a Republic in 1804 (this was followed by 16 years of civil war) but according to Imran there was no revolution since it was onyl recognized by the international community in 1838 and after...

Interestingly enough Haiti controlled all of Hispanola from 1820 to 1844- I wonder why they gave up the DR in 1844?

[Ramo]

And there was no Russian revolution until '23 or so when gov't's started to recognize it.

Dunno about the DR. I thought Spain controlled it until independence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

according to Imran there was no revolution since it was onyl recognized by the international community in 1838 and after...

No, recognition of independance of a state can apply retroactively and a 'revolution' tag thus attach. But it wasn't officially recognized as such until 1838. That's the way recognition of a change in government systems works.

[Ramo]

So let's say it's 1837, and the US decides to invade and conquer Haiti. Would that mean there was never a Haitian revolution?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the 'Haitian Revolution' and ownership of the island was not recognized, then no.

From Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

"b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed"

Yes, overthrow and succession, or as your definition wants to put it overthrow and substitution. Talk about your burying your head in the sand, you just provided a defintion that backs my point fully !

And this means what as to the definition of revolution?

Even taking YOUR definition, there was no renunciation and since Spain held the capital, there was no overthrow. They were still there. Unless you consider when North Korea was close to the gates of Seoul, they had a succesful 'revolution' and 'overthrew' the South Korean forces.

I guess in Borisland that would make some sense. But not so in the real world. There was no North Korean 'revolution' over South Korean land, but by your argument, there had to be! After all, South Korea had no effective control over that part of the country and couldn't do anything until the Americans came and bailed them out.


Btw, according to your Britannica link, they refer to before the US took power to be the Phillipine 'Revolution'. So even under your OWN SOURCES, the Phillipines did not have a revolution against the United States, which, after all, was your original contention.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No, recognition of independance of a state can apply retroactively and a 'revolution' tag thus attach. But it wasn't officially recognized as such until 1838. That's the way recognition of a change in government systems works.

Bull. When was the Industrial Revolution recognized? I don't remember..can you tell me when the new "government" of production was recognized?

Please. Revolution is a fancy name to give to a successful Revolt. The only thing you are arguing for is that success is to be measured ONLY by international recognition of a government, vs the De Facto change of control. Which is a viable but to some extent unrealistic and dogmatic approach. Cause in 1806 there was NO French governance in Haiti, as much as they might not admit it.

Ramo's simple question shows the problems with overly dogmatic lines of arguement.

and as for your Question- Santo Domingo delcared independence from Spain in 1820. It seems at this point Haiti invaded the other half of the Island and gained control but lost it by 1844-which is the date given for DR independence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When was the Industrial Revolution recognized?

The Industrial Revolution isn't a 'real' revolution. It's a social/economic movement.

Revolution is a fancy name to give to a successful Revolt.

Which is basically what I've been saying to Boris. The revolt has got to be successful to be a revolution. Partial success doesn't count.

The only thing you are arguing for is that success is to be measured ONLY by international recognition of a government, vs the De Facto change of control. Which is a viable but to some extent unrealistic and dogmatic approach.

Take it up with International Law then. A change in government for a state is not legitimate under international law unless others recognize it as such.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Take it up with International Law then. A change in government for a state is not legitimate under international law unless others recognize it as such.

Which is a wonderful BS answer for this question.

Lets take Afghanistan- the US gave Afghanistan aide in 2000 and after to combat heroin. The money did NOT go to the faction with the UN seat but to the Taliban.

At what point has "the international community" recognized anyone? For example, only three states recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan- at the same time, what did that mean? Were the dealings of those states "illegitimate"?

What about Taiwan and its recognition?

[Imran Siddiqui]

At what point has "the international community" recognized anyone? For example, only three states recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan- at the same time, what did that mean? Were the dealings of those states "illegitimate"?

The dealings themselves weren't "illegitimate" (ie, they went to someone), but the Taliban was never a legitimate government, as I've said earlier. Therefore they couldn't be a part to any treaty, which, btw, is part of the basis for the 'unlawful combatant' designation against Taliban, since Taliban fighters, as well, are not considered government/state fighters. Other treaties as well wouldn't apply to them (such as diplomatic immunity, etc).

What about Taiwan and its recognition?

It ain't recognized as a state. Same thing happens with regard to treaties. The ones which specify 'states' simply don't apply wrt to Taiwan.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


The dealings themselves weren't "illegitimate" (ie, they went to someone), but the Taliban was never a legitimate government, as I've said earlier. Therefore they couldn't be a part to any treaty, which, btw, is part of the basis for the 'unlawful combatant' designation against Taliban, since Taliban fighters, as well, are not considered government/state fighters. Other treaties as well wouldn't apply to them (such as diplomatic immunity, etc).

Of course the Taliban could enter into treaties and other diplomatic exchanges. Whether a third party would recognize them as valid is a seperate issue.

It ain't recognized as a state. Same thing happens with regard to treaties. The ones which specify 'states' simply don't apply wrt to Taiwan.

Please. At least a dozen states recognize taiwan as the Government of China. Tiawan's own constitution does not acknowledge it as seperate from China- it only states the Chinese government is illegitimate. Which brings up an interesting point- the once recognized regime of China has never given up its title and a few countries still recognize it. At what point did China's communist revolution take shape? When the Soviets recognized them? When the French did? When the UK did? Or would you argue that the Chinese revolution could not be termed thus until the 1970's when the US did and China got the UN seat?

Does that mean any mention of the Chinese revolution prior to this date was wrong on a technicality?