@f1cf1cd7 This article is just bananas.The People’s Republic of China was eventually recognized internationally as the successor government of China. Under well-established international law, the “successor government” doctrine holds that the current government of China, led by the Chinese Communist Party, is responsible for repayment of the defaulted bonds.Disregard that the Republic of China (Taiwan) still technically exists and continues to be recognized and legitimized by the United States (to who Taiwan owes this money to)---this journalist has their understanding of "successor government" all wrong. And, even if he/she wasn't wrong, it would be irrelevant, because the indebted entity in question still exists, and therefore there has been no process of succession. ---It wouldn't even be "succession" anyway, as they are/were two distinct geopolitical entities who were/are (to some degree) at war with one another, maintain their own distinct political and legal identities, maintain their own distinct economies, currencies, and trade, and foster their own independent geopolitical relations.

Furthermore, from everything I can find, the legislation concerning debts of this nature weren't even written at the time of the Chinese Civil War or the result of the contemporary status quo. And, who constitutes "international law"? I highly doubt the PRC, for example, would sign off on legislation that would hold them liable/responsible for debts they don't own on loans they never made. 

 @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.