Hacker News Reader

Comment by graeme | Hacker News Reader

As a side note to the article, I used to wonder why China tried so hold to keep possession of Xinjiang and Tibet. Surely the regions might be more trouble than they were worth?

I eventually found a map of China showing state borders. Xinjiang and Tibet are a massive portion of China, and also give China border access to many countries. Normal state imperatives to keep territory aside, these are comparatively important territories for China's global influence.

View on HN

Taiwan, being a small island, seems counter to that pattern.

I think it's simply that the chinese gov't relies on maintaining a brand of virtually absolute control. Even publicly entertaining the idea of letting territories go would be a strong signal for weakness.

edit: maybe that's what you already implied by "Normal state imperatives"

I think Taiwan goes beyond normal imperatives actually. In China they are viewed as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsinkable_aircraft_carrier

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Chain_Strategy

For a paralle, look at how vexed the US was by Cuba's changing sides in the cold war. And in that scenario the US enjoyed regional naval dominance, the inverse of today's situation in the pacific.

Beyond US rivalry, it is better to have such an island under state control for regional naval advantages as well.

And to answer your edit by such imperatives I meant states normally won't give up so much as an inch of territory if they can help it.

It's different to Cuba. Taiwan shares a culture, history, lineage and language with the mainland. Sun Yat Sen is equally revered it both, for example. And, mainlanders often have a romantic view of it. Cuba doesn't have that kind of relationship with the US - it was basically a client state where Americans partied and owned farms until Batista was overthrown.

Interestingly I think Taiwan (which also sees itself it be at heart still part of China) actually lays claim to Tibet too.

I meant ananlogous in the sense that Cuba was a Soviet base, and that it was previously a sphere of influence. Having Soviet missiles off the coast of Florida made the US uncomfortable in the same way that Taiwan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier makes the Chinese uncomfortable.

I didn't mean that was the only reason that China is interested in Taiwan. I was trying to contextualize it for American readers.

Taiwan is a unique case.

Technically, the Chinese Civil War never ended. There was no signing of a peace treaty, and all the way through the 90s you had military standoff’s between Taiwan and the Mainland, i.e. the two militaries shot at each other. The relationship between the mainland and Taiwan is legally analogous to the one between North and South Korea.

The main reason mainland China can’t recognize Taiwan is because of the huge geopolitical and legal consequences. A pillar of US-China relations is the One China Policy. Recognizing Taiwan would throw that into flux.

If China recognized Taiwan as Taiwan, or as the Republic of China, there are tons of uncomfortable questions. Would Taiwan be admitted into the UN? Could Taiwan compete in sporting events under a Republic of China flag, or would you continue calling it Chinese Taipei.

There’s also Taiwanese domestic politics. Depending on the year, some Taiwanese parties still advocate for reconciliation, and perhaps eventual reunification with the mainland.

Add to the fact that China is currently led by a leader not afraid to pull the nationalism lever, and you have a host of reasons why recognition of Taiwan is a nonstarter.

> A pillar of US-China relations is the One China Policy. Recognizing Taiwan would throw that into flux.

Only China believes in or even really cares about the One China Policy. The US, along with much of the rest of the world, recognizes Taiwan as a de-facto independent state. That might throw China into flux, but everyone else would just be happy that they can drop the pretense.

The parent comment’s question posed it as why CHINA cares so much about Taiwan. So the point still stands.

I also challenge you on whether there’s de-facto recognition of Taiwan. Diplomatic contacts are limited, and there’s no formal US embassy in Taiwan. Taiwan doesn’t get a vote in any UN body.

Lack of contacts and embassy are the minimal measures to maintain the charade.

America had to kill trade deals and accept One China in order to deal with China. So even if they disagree with it, they agree enough to shove Taiwan aside :(

It might also mess up the relationship between the CCP and Han ethnicity. There's a pretty strong equivalence drawn between "Chinese citizens" and "Han people" (Chinese ethnicity, kind of), to the point where ethnic Han people in foreign countries are called "Overseas Chinese" with the implication that they will return home at some point, or that their primary loyalty is to "China" aka the CCP. While many countries have large ethnic Chinese populations that have existed for a long time, there is no other country where ethnic Chinese people are a majority except for Taiwan. Taiwan's existence therefore kind of ruins the 1:1 relationship between Chinese nationality and ethnicity, which is not good for public harmony.

I think Taiwan goes beyond normal imperatives actually. In China they are viewed as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsinkable_aircraft_carrier

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Chain_Strategy

But, by such imperatives I meant states normally won't give up so much as an inch of territory if they can help it.

After gaining those territories, it would be politically impossible to give them up - it could only happen on dynastic collapse! Ya, they also "protect borders", but think of Russia giving up its sparsely populated Far East or America giving up sparsely populated Alaska, it really is a no go.

It's also politically useful to have internal enemies who resist the righteous occupation. You can justify all sorts of measures if you frame them as rebels against your rightful claims. This is very standard totalitarian playbook for the past century.

Interesting parallels to the US attacks and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. We go from being liberators (in our minds) to occupiers of ungrateful nations. And we have to stick around so long as people resist, because politically people hate to "lose".

Wendover Productions has an informative video on China's geography & geopolitical concerns that arise from that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiBF6v5UAAE

The TL;DR is that Xinjiang and Tibet both serve important national security purposes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com