This is quite a stretch too. The relationship and interdependence of the two is very complicated. China is one of the largest market to which Taiwan exports their goods (and in large part, the culture) and China has used this to pressure Taiwan in the past.
How is it different as opposed to, say, Russia and Ukraine? Mutual trade is big and one player may have more leverage (as is almost always the case with two countries in proximity to each other), should we count Ukraine’s stats in favor of Russia’s?
In both cases there are similarities in language and ethnicity, and in case of Taiwan there additionally are US military troops stationed.
Counting the power of Taiwan for China and Ukraine for Russia is likely more predictive of the future than not counting them. Lines on a map and citizenship papers are easier to redo than centuries (millenia for China/Taiwan) of culture/language.
This is NOT an endorsement of China taking over Taiwan, which I do NOT want and think would be a bad thing.
More predictive in what regard? The only way I can see it being usefully predictive is if you count on the larger entity annexing the smaller one. An I missing something?
That’s why I object to article’s angle: it uses “China” to refer to an aggregate in one case (lumping ROC and PRC together), and to PRC in another case (quoting their president and intentions to dominate global economy).
Counting ROC in PRC’s favor serves to tip the numbers and make article’s premise seem more compelling, but since PRC and ROC are separate economies the premise is false. It almost makes it look like a major business publication is playing a political game.
There are MANY ways to derive benefit from a relationship between countries: it’s not binary annex/not-annexed.
That's incorrect.
The US does not endorse that Taiwan is owned by China and that there is only one China (which includes Taiwan), in the terms that China recognizes it. The US policy is to recognize China's position, and that is all it represents. If your premise were correct, the US would not be selling military weapons to Taiwan to defense itself from China.
This explains it moderately well:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38285354
> What is the 'One China' policy?
> It is the diplomatic acknowledgement of China's position that there is only one Chinese government. Under the policy, the US recognises and has formal ties with China rather than the island of Taiwan, which China sees as a breakaway province to be reunified with the mainland one day.
> The One China policy is a key cornerstone of Sino-US relations. It is also a fundamental bedrock of Chinese policy-making and diplomacy. However, it is distinct from the One China principle, whereby China insists Taiwan is an inalienable part of one China to be reunified one day.
> The US policy is not an endorsement of Beijing's position and indeed as part of the policy, Washington maintains a "robust unofficial" relationship with Taiwan, including continued arms sales to the island so that it can defend itself.
At the end of the day, legal structures are convenient fictions with no mother nature or computer compiler to check the logic for consistency or completeness.
Exactly. Most countries have relations with Taiwan, and they only keep their stances ambiguous to not lose business with PRC.
Fun example is Nauru, which accepted $130 million from PRC to abandon relations with ROC, and then a couple years later promptly did a 180-degree turn and stood with ROC again.
Remember that there are two sovereign states that call themselves China
> The relationship and interdependence of the two is very complicated. [The US] is one of the largest market to which [Canada] exports their goods (and in large part, the culture) and [the USA] has used this to pressure [Canada] in the past.
“The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.”
I think that's a bit disingenuous. No-one would seriously claim that those two countries are beholden to China in anything other than trade. Meanwhile Taiwan has a freaking "independence movement". Would there be an independence movement if a country is truly independent already? They call themselves the Republic of China for pete's sake. A fact, needless to say, not lost on the mainlanders.
I'm not any kind of expert but I know enough that it's not as simple as "separate country, game over". Every decision Taiwan makes is taken with careful consideration of the mainland's reaction. And I know exactly what the mainlanders think of Taiwan - renegade island to be brought to heel ASAP. Probably not by brute force - although that possibility always lurks, and no-one would stop them. No, they'll do it the Chinese way - long-game manipulation until they hold all the cards. There's no if here, there's simply when.
Some countries simply can't exist in the long term, especially when they're right next to a much larger party with designs on them - doubly so if there's some sort of history. Ukraine was/is one. HK too. The clock is ticking for DPRK, it's just a question of who's going to own the mess afterwards. The clock is set further out for Taiwan but.. the writing on the wall is so clear you could read it from space.
Don't get me wrong, I think all of this sucks. I love Taiwan and don't want to see it subsumed into the Borg. That doesn't really change anything, though.
All these years later, Taiwan still maintains their claims, actually they maintain technically larger claims on the mainland past PRC borders than even the PRC claims.
If we expand the Ukraine/Russia example to other neighbors in the region for whom Russia is a big trade partner and who share linguistic/ethnic roots, do you claim none of those countries can exist long term and a USSR-like territory is about to be reestablished?
In reality, some of those countries (say Kazakhstan) are growing richer and more influential. There are always other trade partners—Ukraine is increasingly trading with Europe, and global trade isn’t going anywhere.
Taiwan has future, even if it requires some strategic thinking and inventiveness.
The situation with Hong Kong is very different, it is not a country in nearly as much sense of the word as Taiwan is. It was in fact officially ceded to PRC—though now that PRC is no longer recognizing the corresponding documents they signed in 1997, maybe there is some hope for Hong Kong independence indeed!
> China is one of the largest market to which Taiwan exports their goods (and in large part, the culture) and China has used this to pressure Taiwan in the past.
My comment:
> You could say China has control over Australia and the United States for the same reason
Your comment:
> No-one would seriously claim that those two countries are beholden to China in anything other than trade.
Totally agreed, but you considered trade sufficient in your original comment.