@f1cf1cd7 Note, too, how this journalist doesn't provide any citations for his claims. He just makes them, backed up with nothing. What "international law" is he referring to? Where can we see defined terms like "successor government" as it relates to this debt? Honestly, when I do an internet search for "successor government doctrine", all of the search results seem to be entirely centered around this concept that the PRC should have to pay for debts owed by the ROC. It's almost like this is a newly-minted term solely utilized for legislation or arguments against the PRC as it relates to this supposed debt. And all of the invocations of this phrase reference "well established international law", with no citations to this international law they're referencing. 

 @f1cf1cd7 “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda. Repetition makes a concept seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. 

 @f1cf1cd7 Ultimately, all this really is just propaganda. If any of these arguments held water or had teeth to them then the United States would no doubt have pursued this already or at least made this a matter of contention in policy and diplomatic relations, especially as it pertains to trade. ---There's no way that the Trump administration just conveniently forgot about something like this during America's "trade war" sabre rattling. Articles and performances like the one linked only serve to manipulate the emotions of the American citizenry. They have little more utility.