Hypothetically speaking, if one is opposed to some or all aspects of the "One China" doctrine, what can one do locally/globally to effect change? Or is the annexation of Taiwan a near-certainty via the forces of economics?
The dragon doesn't care what you say about it so long as it's still being fed.
“Vote with your wallet” is bullshit.
Yes, you should email Apple to tell them to move out of China.
Rest assured that if Terry Gou were to promote Taiwanese independence, Foxconn would get into deep trouble quickly.
Voting with your wallet or voicing your concerns seem fairly futile to me.
What I believe could make a difference is trying to educate people on what the honest (non-partisan) reality of the situation is, to the best of your ability. When you encounter someone online stating something that is untrue (flat out wrong, generalized to the point of important detail being missed, mischaracterization of news or literature), speak up with a more accurate representation of the truth. The goal of this is not to change the mind of the person who has written something untrue (although that's a nice side benefit in the rare case it happens), it is for the hundreds/thousands of other readers who subconsciously form opinions based on the entirety of information they consume, so they they at least have a chance of hearing lesser-biased versions of reality.
For example, suppose a vaccine had a 90% success rate. This is the truth, however anti-vaxxers will focus on the 10% failure rate.
Both China and Taiwan agree there was a civil war and the losers retreated to Taiwan. However, the narrative of the event is where it differs.
Exactly.
> For example, suppose a vaccine had a 90% success rate. This is the truth, however anti-vaxxers will focus on the 10% failure rate.
And pro-vaxxers will "focus" (ie: discuss that, and only that) the success rate. But if you don't cover up the 10% and someone finds out, this is how "conspiracy theories" get started.
This is about handful of tiny countries who still maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. For example United States is not formally recognizing Taiwan as a country.
I can imagine China can easily sacrifice the entire trade with Taiwan if the sensitive issues are concerned.
European countries appear to be content to please the Chinese government, be it on trade or in academia.
There are also a ton of Taiwanese that are studying and working in China. China recently passed a law that lets Taiwanese have the same access to benefits as locals, e.g. healthcare, schools for kids, buying property, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if within a few generations, every Taiwanese has a direct connection with Mainland China again, either through a spouse, friends, or through work.
When that time comes, I can see reunification happen naturally.
And for those people who think 1 country, 2 systems is bad because of Hong Kong, take a look at Macau. They are in a similar situation, but there are no protests there at all due to all the economic benefits they got.
So if China can do that to Taiwan, I think they will be accepted with open arms.
Is the United States really willing to go to war with China over this? I don't think so. Are Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines willing to go to war with China? China's desire for Taiwan far exceeds the willingness of others to fight them over it. This is especially so since China is taking the long range approach. They aren't going to outright invade Taiwan. It's akin to a death by a thousand cuts. Slowly, but surely, they inch their way to control.
Please qualify this statement.
But hey, at least America has the decency to agonise over it, right? Very civilised indeed.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._...
To make a hand-wavy statement such as "China won’t agonize about collateral damage the way we do" makes it sound as though you think the collective American morality is somehow superior to that of the Chinese? I'm curious how one could come to such a conclusion while taking into account both recent and less recent history.
While we're at it, let me go ahead and hand-wave over the multitude of overseas abuses in a similar fashion. Lebanon, Cuba, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Iran, Libya, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria.
Now tell me, which of these points to any form of 'agonising' about human rights?
> Actually I do recall watching that one guy wave his hands a bit as he was run over by a tank in Tianemenn... or maybe it was twitching... can't recall.
Not to worry, it is a well known stereotype that Americans have very long memories of atrocities carried out by countries other than their own.
So, while it’s possible that China would use similar restraint you actually need to support that argument, because the American military does actually Agonize about this stuff.
Ex: http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/training/jt...
When compared to Venezuela, China, Russia and the other states these people keep defending, one might rightfully point out that the US not only behaves better but it's ridiculous to claim any comparison : clearly the US is morally superior to these guys. There can be no real argument about that. And about terrorists or Palestina, well, those states don't even claim their victims have anything to do with their "war", so if they have 95% collateral damage and innocents killed, they probably consider that a mistake.
In reality the point of complaining about America's use of force is a political point meant to change the politics of the US, change the balance of social power within the US.
Therefore arguments about what does and does not happen, or what is and isn't just given people's various positions ... are beside the point.
Being an island, Taiwan always had to rely on holding off an invading force for as long as possible. This historically meant until the US Navy could reinforce its defenses. Now with China’s anti access area denial strategy, this is becoming a less certain strategy.[1]
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/world/asia/china-taiwan-m...
[1] https://thediplomat.com/2017/05/chinas-a2ad-challenge-in-the...
The issue is Taiwan is capable of putting up enough of a fight to make it loud internationally and painful domestically. The population does not want to join a poorly run country with 1/4th it’s per capita GDP. It would be able to retaliate and hit major Chinease cities making it an extremely expensive war etc etc. And after they won they would not have an prosperous nation just a huge and angry mess.
PS: Most interestingly the people on the ground in Taiwan with the most information are scaling back military spending. So, presumably they believe the threat of war is minimal.
FYI: China has a no-first use policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_dest...
Not to mention most Taiwanese currently support independence, especially the young generations. Recent polls have come in around 70-80% of Taiwanese people believing they are 'taiwanese' and in no way associated with China.
China is a big bully and a disgusting entity which keeps trying to write Taiwan off the international stage, via threats to businesses. Recently they were so petty, that when the president visited a bakery (85 degrees) in LA, they were so furious that they wanted the Taiwanese bakery to say that they are 'Taiwan, China'. So fucking ridiculous. Good thing they won't be able to take Taiwan militarily for a long long time. It's a heavily fortified island preparing for such an invasion for 50 years, and history has shown that rarely has any island invasion been successful, especially since China has such a weak military that has never seen real actions.
The world is starting to see the ugly sides of China. And thank god. The Chinese government is horrible and needs to be reduced to irrelevance in the world stage.
Doesn't this answer your own question? 50 years are nothing in historical terms.
So, if those places had historical and cultural ties with other nations that go way back (like Chinese and Taiwanese people have), then yes, a recent split might not mean much for the legitimacy of a new country.
If those places were merely occupied for centuries/millennia and "gotten their independence" then no.
Heck, colonial powers designed and build states based on all kind of splits in existing peoples to "divide and conquer" them. Statehood comes and go, actual historical and national cultural ties are what's long lasting.
From your past comment histories, it is clear you are pro China in every sense of the word. Maybe you should reexamine your values and see why you are so supportive of a disgusting government.
That's quite an overreaction, considering the person you are replying to did not mention China at all.
I'm not supporting any governments, I'm for supporting peoples and exposing hypocrisy.
I have my issues with the Chinese government (for their internal behavior to their people), but Chinese foreign policy ain't it.
People from places who actively invaded tens of countries that did nothing to theirs (and meddled with mine and others nearby), cry crocodile tears about China's horrible behavior -- the drop of tourism in some Pacific islands they have a beef with...
Your feelings are easy to understand, but HN is an international site and people have strong feelings on all sides of such questions. For HN to continue as a forum for thoughtful discussion, we all need to remain respectful. If you can't do that, please don't post here.
Creating an account and showing up in the threads gunslinging is not ok, and levelling personal accusations against another user for political or nationalistc reasons is a bannable offense.
A split into two countries South / North post Civil War would be a better example.
That seems like a distinction without a difference for this topic.
It really seems like you're trying delegitimize the idea of Taiwanese independence by being extremely selective with the criteria you consider, to the point of introducing irrelevant ones to deter analogies that are favorable to it.
Yes, Taiwan is ethnically and culturally Chinese, but it's also a de-facto independent nation that's a prosperous democracy. If they want to subsume themselves into the PRC's Communist dictatorship, the decision should be up to the Taiwanese and the Taiwanese alone. If they chose independence, that choice is entirely legitimate, despite any ethic or cultural ties that may exist.
Similarly, if it's so important to the PRC that mainland China be politically united with Taiwan, they're also perfectly free to dissolve their government and place the mainland under the jurisdiction of the ROC.
So if the short timescale discounts Taiwan shouldn't it also discount China?
Of course what should matter is what the people of Taiwan want. Will the West provide enough response if it were needed? Sadly I suspect not.
The way I see it, PRC is just the current regime, China is the whole culture/nation. Tomorrow China might not be RPC, but China and Taiwan peoples will still have much longer historical ties.
It makes sense for Taiwanese people to want to have their own regime (after all the whole regime there was defined in opposition to the communist change in China), but it also makes sense for the mainland culture to consider them a part of their nation.
I'm on the side of independence as you are, but I can see why the PRC makes the claims it does.
Just remember that nobody can give you your independence when China challenges it. You must take it and be prepared to pay heavy price for it.
When China forces others to choose side, most of the world looks at what is in their own national interest, not what is fair.
Even if China is not ready to invade, they can learn from Russian type frozen conflict, sanctions and blockades. Slow paced conflict is enough to collapse Taiwan's economy. Just few missiles per week against different harbors and airfield closes Taiwan for business. Declaring Taiwan's as a war zone, effectively closes commercial air and sea traffic. Few years passes and Taiwan is like Crimea, big powers are willing to sell Taiwan to China in exchange of something else.
Your biggest advantage was economic. But China's growth means you are now tiny compared to them, and you have a reduced ability to pay other countries for diplomatic recognition.
Unlike the poster you replied to, I think this is deeply unfortunate, and deplore the fact that China wishes to gradually take you over. But, the strategic outlook is bleak: your western allies share of world GDP and military power shrinks every year, and the US has turned fickle. China meanwhile outpaces your growth every year, and is getting more and more power over countries that neighbour you.
I don't think it would ever be an invasion, but rather a slow strangling, and a carrot of union offered. And it would be a long term project.
That means Taiwan's independence is only de facto, not de jure, and that is a very bad thing for Taiwan's prospects. Particularly in a world where China now has much more economic power than Taiwan.
I'm not talking about "right". Like I said, I think Taiwan should be independent. But, I'm not optimistic about that continuing to be the case over the long run. China seems to really, really want it, and to be patient about it.
The United States still has enough force in the area to force the PRC's hand if it invaded Taiwan tomorrow, but quite frankly I think Taiwan has better prospects of seeing the next 50 years as an independent nation than the United Nations does existing in 50 years.
The difference is there is a large fraction of the population in Taiwan that is willing to trade away all of those claims including their claim to the name of China and become an independent State outside of China.
No.
The 'rest of the world' basically accepts that China and Taiwan are different countries, and would recognize Taiwan in a heartbeat if it were not for diplomatic issues.
I meant "broadly agrees" in the diplomatic sense. That's the main sense that matters for Taiwan. The US is the only country with any real measure if de facto support for Taiwan, and it is pulling back from Asia.
This article lays out the strategic logic in more detail: https://nationalinterest.org/article/say-goodbye-taiwan-9931
(The author, John Mearsheimer, is a leading international relations theorist. In 1994 he may a similar prediction when Ukraine gave up its nukes: he said they would eventually be strategically vulnerable to Russian aggression)
I'm sure most of the world would likewise reconize Hong Kong as a city state country in a heartbeat. But that is of near zero value for Hong Kong's long term prospects of independence from China.
If the world can't recognize Taiwan now, then its prospects are even worse as China grows more regionally and economically powerful.
This of course is even worse for the people of Taiwan in the future, as they will grow more and more used to independence as their position gets weaker and weaker.
Also super weird that the US continues to sell billions of dollars of arms to Taiwan.
You have your facts wrong. Chinese GDP is fake and growth is declining every year. I have many Taiwanese manufacturer friends that sees the declining Chinese sales, exploding debts, and rising wages, and have moved most of their factories out of China. Meanwhile US, Europe and Japan is stronger than ever after the 2008 crash.
Don't you see that would be same argument why China would want Taiwan back?
But the reality is Taiwan is an independent country, and is not part of China, no matter how much the PRC would wish it otherwise.
Chiang fled to Taiwan wasn’t Taiwan
considered part of China?
The Peace Treaty with Japan (Treaty of San Francisco) [3] and the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (Treaty of Taipei) [4] both did not specify that Taiwan was a part of mainland China. I think formally/legally Taiwan was Japanese until 1952 but Japan was under allied control now. The question of Taiwan's legal status was left open in the aforementioned peace treaties. This is the legal/technical root cause for the problems with Taiwan's legal status even today. (The real reason is quite different: it's Taiwan's thriving democracy which undermines and contradicts the Chinese Communist Party narrative that democracy is neither needed nor desirable for the Chinese people.)
The administration of Taiwan under Chen Yi was strained by increasing tensions between Taiwanese-born people and newly arrived mainlanders. Even back then, many Taiwanese resented the increasing streams of mainlanders coming to Taiwan as the Chinese Civil War raged on the mainland. This culminated in the February 28 1947 Incident [5], which cemented the KMT's rule.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Yi_(Kuomintang)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Province
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco
In the 17th century various European powers (Spain, Portugal, Dutch) sought to dominate Taiwan, but were eventually expelled, when the Qing dynasty (the last imperial dynasty of China) annexed Taiwan in 1683. That rule ended with the Qing's defeat in First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) [1]. Taiwan was ceded to Japan on 17 April 1895.
One interpretation is that Taiwan sees this as a bargaining chip with China, to be given up at an opportune moment, in exchange for something else, e.g. the China accepting Taiwan's independence.
However, more likely is that giving up on the claim to rule China, might trigger the China's anti-secession laws, which in turn would lead to an invasion on Taiwan.
Ask any Taiwanese person who is their people's greatest hero.
Or ask them who is their people's greatest poet or artist.
I guarantee 99% of them would name someone that was born (and died centuries ago) in China.
I think the biggest irony surrounding the "Taiwanese" identity is that the real Taiwanese, i.e. the Aboriginals, actually prefer the KMT over the DPP [1].
1. The KMT is the party that is more sympathetic to China and leans towards reunification. The DPP, the current party in control of the presidency, is pro-independence.
Yet nobody wants to join the British empire and the country Beethoven lived in no longer exists ...
Japan will quickly develop nuclear weapons.
That is not an outcome Washington wants.
As a non US citizen. What's this whole war obsession US people have?
For a fraction of US's war expenses in Afghanistan and Middle East, China is building a state of the art economic network system(Silk Route) across the Eurasia and Africa. Making the co-operation across countries very easy.
Trading and trade ties aren't exactly unethical or evil.
I think it will do the US foreign policy a great deal of good if it didn't have a 'our way or the highway' attitude all the time.