Hacker News Reader

Comment by skh | Hacker News Reader

I believe that Taiwan will eventually merge with the mainland. Perhaps via the two-systems one China route that Hong Kong did. The claims of mainland China on Taiwan are understandable and I don't fault them for their perspective on the issue.

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.

View on HN

If the US doesn’t defend Taiwan, it will lose all credibility of mutual defense with its pacific allies.

Japan will quickly develop nuclear weapons.

That is not an outcome Washington wants.

Is this an outcome desirable for any Western power? Does Germany want Japan to be forced to go nuclear?

Taiwan has a relatively strong military and while China would easily win any war, it would be crazy to fight it’s military.

As the past 60 years of US Military action have made abundantly clear, even for the best military on the planet by quite a margin no war is “easy” to win. Now, granted, China won’t agonize about collateral damage the way we do, but even then it’s not “easy”, especially if you plan to take permanent control of the territory afterwards. For that to happen, the overwhelming majority of the country has to _want_ such control, and the remaining people have to not be too heavily invested in the idea of independence. It’s pretty much the opposite of what you see in Taiwan.

> Now, granted, China won’t agonize about collateral damage the way we do

Please qualify this statement.

What’s there to qualify? You think they’ll worry as much about civilian casualties or use precision weapons?

It's funny because the situation you speak of with China is purely hypothetical while there are plenty (too many to count, really) modern day examples of the US military striking civilians all around the world.

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._...

5% collateral casualty rate, while regrettable, is very, very low, comparatively speaking. And yes, I was discussing this in context of a purely theoretical invasion of Taiwan. That's the whole point.

Comparatively speaking to what? The 20% non-military fatality rate in the decade of bombing that preceded that particular year? Vietnam? Korea?

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.

I wonder if China would treat the Tawainese civilians as gently as it treats its own? I suppose Tibet, Tianemnen, forced abortions, political prisoners, and the rest are just "hand-wavy" issues. 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.

Well, I suppose they are since you just hand-waved over them. I could hand-wave over any number of quantifiable, internal American social/geo-political issues also. Gun laws (Aurora, Sandy-hook, San Bernardino, Orlando, Mandalay Bay, Stoneman Douglas), mass for-profit incarceration of blacks/latinos for non-violent offences, forced births and closing of abortion clinics, Flint Michigan, response (or lack thereof) to hurricanes Katrina, Irma, Maria, just to name a few.

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.

The US is hardly an ideal state, but they have policies in place to limit civilian casualties and actually practice them in warfare. The process of estimating civilian casualties from each bombing run is not just as a paperwork but actually delays the use of force on a regular basis. This is a direct outgrowth of past blowback from indiscriminate total war in the past.

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...

You misunderstand the argument. You think the argument is about the justness or unjustness of killed/wounded innocent bystanders, and other collateral damage. Rightly you argue that the US behaves far better than any of it's enemies, or for that matter allies.

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.

It had a military advantage. It doesn’t anymore.[0] Taiwan has not been sold modern equipment, while China has increased military spending and operational capability.

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...

China has nuclear weapons, so in terms of total war the direct outcome is not in question.

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.

Honestly. I don’t know where you’re getting your information. Given your out of date information, and a cavalier toss about using nuclear weapons, I don’t think you’re nearly as well informed as you think you are.

FYI: China has a no-first use policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_dest...

Chinese policies (or laws, or contracts etc.) don’t mean anything

>>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 Ta

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.

I am a Taiwanese millienial and I am deeply offended by this comment. Why would you say that the claim is understandable? ? Taiwan has been an independent democratic country with its own military, economy, culture, government, rules of law, and international relations for over 50 years. The current Chinese government has never ruled over the island.

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.

>I am a Taiwanese millienial and I am deeply offended by this comment. Why would you say that the claim is understandable? ? Taiwan has been an independent democratic country with its own military, economy, culture, government, rules of law, and international relations for over 50 years.

Doesn't this answer your own question? 50 years are nothing in historical terms.

By that logic, you could say the same for any country that has gotten its independence recently (say, Singapore)..

That logic applies in context though, not as a blind rule.

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.

what does that even mean??? South Korea was established in 1948. Estonia was established in 1991. The world recognizes these legitimate countries.

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.

From your comments, 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.

>Maybe you should reexamine your values and see why you are so supportive of a disgusting government.

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...

Nationalistic flamewar is an abuse of HN and will get your account banned here. It doesn't help to create a throwaway account to do it, and in fact will eventually get your main account banned as well.

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The British tried a similar narrative with the War of 1812, and we in America are still alive and kicking. I hope the same for Taiwan and their independence.

If you remember, the United States declared war on Britain, not the other way around. Britain also arguably won the war since the result was status quo ante bellum, which is all that Britain wanted since they were at war with France at the same time for over a decade.

Are you Canadian?

Only the British and Americans weren't the same people (from a nationality perspective). Americans were merely British subjects -- from a hodge-podge of nationalities.

A split into two countries South / North post Civil War would be a better example.

> Only the British and Americans weren't the same people (from a nationality perspective). Americans were merely British subjects -- from a hodge-podge of nationalities.

That seems like a distinction without a difference for this topic.

It's only an inconsequential difference for people from not homogenous countries like the US. Peoples with cultural and historical ties with people in nearby nations do consider them extremely important.

I find it somewhat hard to believe that the United States' ethnic homogeneity (or lack thereof) has anything to do with the legitimacy of its independence from Britain (as reckoned in 1776 or anytime since).

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.

Go back further and Taiwan was under Japanese occupation and the People's Republic of China didn't yet exist.

So if the short timescale discounts Taiwan shouldn't it also discount China?

I think the point is there are different perspectives that have some merit to them. Both sides have compelling points. But one thing is clear, the PRC have always considered Taiwan part of the China and currently they will not countenance a different view on the matter. Will the U.S. be vigilant enough for long enough so that Taiwan remains independent. Personally I’m skeptical that this is so.

Always seems quite a stretch. China didn't first invade Taiwan until 1700 or thereabouts. They've been outside China for the last 120 years or so. China even formally ceded the territory to Japan in 1896 after the first China-Japan war.

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 PRC is younger than the ROC. The PRC, the government, have always considered Taiwan part of China. It’s in their constitution I believe.

Well, occupation shouldn't matter -- else Korea would be Japanese too.

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.

China's current government is 69 years old. China and Taiwan governments are roughly the same age, arguably Taiwan is older by 2 year based on the earlier formation of its constitution, the government fled to Taiwan the same year the PRC was formed, 1949.

The other side of the story is that Taiwan was was ruled as part of a single China for centuries, it was the final holdout of the KMT government that was defeated when the communists took over, and it too would have fallen if it had not been protected by the United States.

I'm on the side of independence as you are, but I can see why the PRC makes the claims it does.

You have my sympathies.

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.

Thanks for the kind words. We are always prepared to defend our country. Also, visit Taiwan!! it's a gorgeous island with warm friendly people and delicious food.

You are not in a strong position, unfortunately. The rest of the world broadly agrees that China and Taiwan are the same country. You don't have representation in the UN, or formal recognition from most countries.

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.

In what sense are Taiwan and China the same country? China has acted as a bully to deny the independent status of Taiwan, but I have no idea why you think that they don't have the right to self-determination.

In the "do other countries recognize Taiwan as a country" sense. Generally speaking, the answer is that they don't.

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy

With all due respect, the difference between de facto and de jure is just smoke and mirrors. Taiwan has been an effectively independent nation for over 50 years with fairly well defined borders and an inept organization like the United Nations is hardly your golden ticket for staking your sovereignty out on the map when the world is ruled by money, guns, drugs, and superior technology in approximately that order.

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.

Prior to the Japanese takeover of Taiwan in the 1930s people considered Taiwan part of China. After Chiang fled to Taiwan and placed himself in power he called a Taiwan the Republic of China. The PRC constitution makes it clear that they consider Taiwan a province of mainland China. After many decades of domination by Japan and Western powers it’s understandable that many leaders in the PRC want a status quo ante with regard to Taiwan. Wether one agrees with their stance or not it is certainly understandable why they think the way they do. Also, for a while it was U.S. policy that there be one China. The issue is murky enough that the U.S. still does not recognize the ROC.

And Taiwan claims the mainland, Mongolia, larger portions of Manchuria than even the PRC claims and has overlapping claims with the PRC in the South China Sea. The Republic of China Constitution makes it clear they consider the Mainland Provinces to be part of the Republic of China. After many decades of domination by Japan and Western powers it's understandable that many leaders in the ROC want a status quo ante with regard to mainland China. Whether one agrees with their stance or not it is certainly understandable why they think the way they do. The US doesn't officially recognize the ROC but it does maintain a military presence and agreement with the ROC government.

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.

I mean, China may want that, and they may eventually achieve it, but I think it will require something not far short of complete eradication of the Taiwanese to do that, which to me is probably the determining factor in what I consider "independent". As to de jure, quod jure? I don't think the historical record is in dispute over the ownership of Formosa/Taiwan. It's not that might makes right, it's that might can table the discussion, or rather slab it, and I'm sure that if China does bring those sorts of arguments to the table, their rights will be recognized by other nations, the same as was done for Tibet. But until that actually happens I think that it's only consistent to consider Taiwan an independent state.

"The rest of the world broadly agrees that China and Taiwan are the same country."

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.

Those "diplomatic issues" were the entire point of my post. And my argument is that they're going to get worse, not better, over time, as China's regional and global position strengthens.

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 see your point, but I don't think they 'agree it's not a country', rather they 'agree they can't recognize it as a country', which is not a subtle difference.

I guess my orignal post wasn't very clear, but I did immediately follow the line about "not a country" with no recognition in the UN and no formal recognition.

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.

It's interesting that the Taiwanese passport has visa free travel to 126 countries while the Chinese only has has visa free travel to 78.

Also super weird that the US continues to sell billions of dollars of arms to Taiwan.

Taiwan may be small economically, but we are still important strategically to the western world's alliance against China. The island act as a unsinkable carrier.

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.

> but we are still important strategically to the western world's alliance against China. The island act as a unsinkable carrier.

Don't you see that would be same argument why China would want Taiwan back?

How about that second paragraph. Seems to echo the reports about weakness in China's big tech companies and speculation over their artificially propped up economy (i.e. massive, debt-fueled, unnecessary government infrastructure projects)

The G7 share of world GDP has been steadily falling: http://www.economywatch.com/economic-statistics/Major-advanc...

I never gave my opinion on the matter. I just stated that the perspective was understandable and it seems you largely agree with that statement. We have the same views on the situation.

Fair enough. I misinterpreted what you meant by understandable. It had two definitons: one literal, and one moral in the sense of forgiveable

The world does not agree, but pretends to agree, so they can trade with China.

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.

It’s possible to understand a perspective while not agreeing with it. When Chiang fled to Taiwan wasn’t Taiwan considered part of China? You can’t understand why the successors to the victors of the civil war in mainland China want to control Taiwan? There are now two Chinas. It’s understandable that some want there to be one China.

   Chiang fled to Taiwan wasn’t Taiwan 
   considered part of China?

Taiwan had been under Japanese rule for 50 years. When Japan lost the war, Taiwan was governed by the Allied Powers, who appointed Chen Yi [1] from the Kuomintang (KMT) as chief executive and garrison commander of Taiwan Province [2].

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

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Taipei

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_28_Incident

What I meant was, didn’t the “Chinese people” (deliberately put in quotes) think of Taiwan as part of China? Japan took over Taiwan from China, didn’t it? As far as I know the PRC has always thought of Taiwan as part of China and I don’t think that will change soon. Thank you for the links.

Almost all Taiwanese citizens are descendants of people who migrated from the mainland. Note that Taiwan became an island only about 10000 years ago, when the sea levels rose. Taiwan was joined to the mainland before.

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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sino-Japanese_War

Why does the Republic of China still claim mainland China?

This is an interesting question! Maintaining this claim seems crazy.

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.

In a lighter note, sea salt coffee from 85° degrees bakery and maple brick toast are delicious :)

> Recent polls have come in around 70-80% of Taiwanese people believing they are 'taiwanese' and in no way associated with China.

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.

Half the English world might say Shakespeare or Beethoven.

Yet nobody wants to join the British empire and the country Beethoven lived in no longer exists ...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com