But to the spirit of your question, no there's no argument that's externally valid. The CCP has claims relating to it's legitimacy, security and territorial claims. They are not widely viewed as credible, but China has insisted on making Taiwan a red line issue so everybody else has to pretend like these claims might be legitimate.
At the end of the day it's a very large political entity trying to take complete control of a much smaller one against it's will. It's colonialism plain and simple.
It's really not that plain or simple. Any population that might have a claim to being "indigenous" to Taiwan has already been colonized by the Dutch and the Portuguese, then the Qing dynasty, then the Japanese, and finally the ROC, which is the sovereign entity that governs Taiwan today. If anything, the transition from Japanese to KMT rule was rather brutal and colonial, although Taiwan is a rather healthy democracy today and the current ruling faction, the Pan-Greens, have historically fought against that legacy.
you must be kidding yourself. just looking at news happened in the last 72 hours
-A Dupty commissioner of ROC's Transitional Justice Commission openly instructed his men to launch political attacks against a key KMT party candidate, he also urged MPs from his own party to assist him. He further pointed out that his vision for the ROC's Transitional Justice Commission is the Eastern Depot [1] style secret police. His passionate speech was secretly recorded by a member from his own party and released to the public. Your favourite pan-green forces want Eastern Depot [1] style secret police to be re-installed, yet you choose to troll here that they are progressive and better than KMT. What a bloody joke!You have to wonder what happens if the tap was not released to the public.
There no link provided but you mean the Eastern Bureau? A historical 600 year old police force? Comes across as a strange reference to make regarding current affairs.
Doesn't every country have departments within their intelligence community that operate relatively away from the public eye. Seems quite uncontroversial to me without them breaking laws, perverting justice or other nastiness.
From the mainland government's perspective, that country is the People's Republic of China, governing from Beijing. For Taiwan, that country is the Republic of China, currently governing from Taipei having fled the mainland. The civil war has never officially ended, and each lays claim to the others territory as the rightful owner.
This is the basis of the "One China Policy" that you might read about every now and then. The vast majority of countries around the world switched to recognising the PRC instead of the ROC many decades ago, and the PRC offers financial incentives for doing so, which matters to small countries, notably in the Pacific. They also threaten the opposite for anyone who recognises the ROC instead, or more recently, any entity that lists Taiwan as anything other than part of China.
Airlines were recently threatened by the PRC for listing Taiwan as a separate country instead of a region - I believe most capitulated. This is the key argument you are looking for at least in the context of corporations such as Apple, who seems to think they're big enough to stand up on this one. Qantas on the other hand, backed down immediately.
Beyond corporations though, more generally, it is not so much about China claiming sovereignty over Taiwan - it is about the opposite being the case as well. At the point where Taiwan renounces its claim on the mainland, China will consider it the first official step on the path to Taiwan's independence. It has repeatedly said that this is a red line it will not allow Taiwan to cross without a forceful response. Another red line, for example, being Taiwan's possession of nuclear weapons.
I believe Taiwan could have declared independence in the 1990s and come out on top in any military confrontation with the PRC. However, there was not enough support amongst the population at the time[1] - most people considered themselves "Chinese" as opposed to "Taiwanese". That is now starting to reverse, but IMO Taiwan is no longer in a position to successfully defend itself if the PRC decides to act. The US has given no guarantees it would defend Taiwan in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence.
So to sum up: Taiwan is not treated as a normal independent country by most entities because the PRC has enough clout (economically and militarily) to threaten those who wish to do so.
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/0...
the 1943 Cairo Declaration explicitly stated that Taiwan belongs to China and it should be "restored" to China. it is a part of the post-WWII world order.
Taipei skyline.jpg Taipei skyline. Currency New Taiwan dollar (NT$) NT$29.2 per US$ (Apr 2018) Fiscal year Calendar year Trade organizations WTO, APEC, ICC and others (as Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu) Statistics GDP Nominal: $571.5 billion
using your logic here, please don't argue further more, otherwise you'd be arguing with yourself - who care about the tiny island called taiwan.
When the Republic of China retreated to Taiwan they did not have to file for asylum or apply for a Visa. Taiwan was part of China. The Communist Party is declaring when they won the civil war they gained control over all of China, including Taiwan.
This is the narrative for Taiwan not having sovereignty, and not necessary my own views.
Another way to look at it is if the Confederacy never surrendered to the union and instead retreated to Cuba and became the dominant political force on that island.
So this analogy might work better if Confederacy was the one who won, and Union retreated to Cuba.
Today, Cuba happens to be a highly desirable location (strategically, or for resources, or etc.). So Confederates, who now control continental U.S., want to maintain their claim on it.
Meanwhile, nowadays a majority of the people in USA (a government which controls only Cuba) consider themselves Cubans, and almost no one in USA cares about regaining control of continental U.S.
But Confederates feel that, if USA renounces control of continental U.S., it would be a step towards USA independence, which would further weaken Confederate claim over Cuba. So they pressure USA to keep referring to themselves as "USA" instead of "Cuba". Additionally, they think that the "one America" stance depends to some extent on USA retaining continental U.S. in its official borders. (But in reality, no USA citizens, aka Cubans, care about these borders continuing to include continental U.S.)
I almost feel like control of Taiwan is more a matter of national pride for the PRC than geopolitics at this point. Yes, the PRC would love to get the USA out of the South China Sea, but there are already American forces in Japan that aren't leaving anytime soon. Yes, the PRC would love to add Taiwan to its territory, but it should be mostly happy enough just to continue building economic ties. However, both the government and the people see possession of Taiwan as unfinished business and this is what I think drives their dramatic reactions in cases like this Apple incident, which is what I was trying to illustrate with the analogy.