Who is next? Taiwan?
I know plenty of businesses in Taiwan that set up factories right across the way in Xiamen. It's been well underway for the past 20 years.
I am more curious what would happen, if say 50% of Taiwanese agree to some sort of reunification with Mainland through a referendum? How would the US react especially given the amount of US military resources and other strategic interests in Taiwan?
The current political regime in mainland China is actually the best thing for the US and a transition to democracy would be bad because that would make reunification more likely, at least possible, and it would take away much of the arguments the US use against China.
If the nationalists had defeated the communists and the mainland and Taiwan had remained united, I doubt that the tensions between China and the US would be less than they currently are, for example, because these tensions are not caused by the political regime in Beijing, they are much more profound.
In any case, the US cannot realistically intervene militarily directly against China whatever happens.
I disagree, and this is a fun thought experiment.
1. The relationship would be a hybrid of the relationships that the US has with both Japan / South Korea and India. - China would be a friendly enough, export focused economy that's too large to be bullied by the US - It would historically have been a Cold War ally, giving it a larger edge over India
2. The West would have access to China's economy.
3. There would be less uncertainty about laws, helping the business climate.
4. Silicon Valley's crown would have been usurped 10 years ago or even far earlier. Why? Because China would have more personal freedoms and protections like with speech. Freedom of speech is instrumental to places like Silicon Valley where creativity is vital. Things like the adoption of the Internet would have been far earlier.
5. HK would have long been a shadow of itself. Shanghai would have taken its place far sooner.
6. While corruption would still be bad, it would be much better than present circumstances due to a free press and more transparency.
7. Tensions with Japan would be worse, due to freedom of speech and much earlier economic and technological rivalry
8. Chinese global economic influence and dominance would be much greater and would have happened much faster and earlier.
9. Chinese media such as TV shows and movies would be way more interesting instead of the boring period pieces or variety shows they keep cranking out today.
10. The male to female ratio would be almost equal due to more civil rights for women which leads to more economic opportunities for females
We could go on what China could have been... the Asian equivalent of the US. This would be a cool TV series. Reminds of The Man in High Tower TV show.
If a Japanese expat got killed in some protest, it would be a major diplomatic problem and China might have to apologize, which would look bad.
I am not trying to dream up what China could have been. I am saying that the tensions between China and the West stem from a trend that is more profound that the current Chinese regime. For example I think that virtually everything China is criticised about in its geopolitical policies and actions would be unchanged with a different regime because these are not things dreamed up by the communists but are deeper both in historical terms and in geopolitical interests terms. The communist party itself is a product of these trends and this struggle, not the cause.
The tensions between China and the West result from China's rise, not from the CCP being in power. China is not more or less 'friendly' because of the CCP. They are simply asserting themselves, advancing their interests, and trying to right perceived historical wrongs.
How 'friendly' countries are between each others (and China isn't really unfriendly) depends on their interests, not really on political regimes. Case in point: The US are extremely friendly with Saudi Arabia.
'friendly' in this context is pretty meaningless, but if you insist:
Korea is 'friendly' (well half of it) with the West because it sees it in its interests in order to balance China (and Japan) and because as a small country there is no reason not to be friendly, plus there are American troops there to remind them. They were as 'friendly' under the military dictatorship.
Japan is 'friendly' because it sees it in its interests (against Russia and China, especially during the cold war) and because it was not left a choice anyway.
When Vietnam opens up to the US it is to balance China's rise. The US are quite happy with that although Vietnam's regime is very similar to China's. Why? shared interests again.
China does not need to balance between the big guys and to stay on their good side in that way. It is one of the biggest guys, so it acts like the US do, and that is the root of the problem for the US.
Hopefully this clarifies the "geopolitical realities".
To think that if 2 countries are both democracies they will be 'friendly', or that if they aren't they won't be, is very naive, frankly.
This is a weak argument because a non-CCP China would be even more economically entwined with the West since its market would be a lot more open ie shared interests. It would share more political culture as well e.g. Tienanmen and Xinjiang would never have happened. Also if your argument was correct, developed Western nations would have a lot more beef with both India and Brazil today, and with Japan decades previous. They don't. A modern KMT China would a much stronger version of Japan or South Korea. History still sides more with my argument.
So, no, the US will not attack China directly, in the same way that China will not attack the US directly.
Edit: Using 'intervene' in response to a comment on direct military intervention should be clarified if you don't mean exactly that...
OTOH see how protests in Delhi have turned out over another draconian law. On the day Trump himself was in Delhi in Feb 2020, more than 10 people got killed in violence.
The fact they haven't outright invaded and smashed Hong Kong is hardly high praise.
There is zero chance that the CCP will hold up their end of any bargain Taiwan makes to join it, and the situation in Hong Kong proves it.
It makes me sad thought that North Koreans still have to suffer their relic of past regime, which is just net-negative for the population at whole. Yet their lives and well-being is just a part of the geopolitical chess board, and the regime will continue to exist as long as Chinese leaders seem fit.
They can wave at each others (almost).
Xiamen from Taiwan: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@24.4496222,118.2383558,3a,75y...
It's so tragic.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/17/taiwan-maoist-military-...
If Taiwan is ever going to unite with China peacefully, it is going to come after China changes its stance.
Or has it shown that a losing party will grasp at any straw to explain why they failed?
Advertisement has been a major part of democracies for 100s of years.
What does this mean?
For China this is the great unknown. Obviously they could retake the island on their own, albeit suffering casualties, but the question is what U.S. involvement might look like.
It could be anything ranging from saber rattling D.C. and not a single shot fired to full-scale war dragging in regional allies (South Korea, Australia, Japan, and others) in the ultimate raison d'etre to try to stop the rise of China. It could break out into a regional war with China and North Korea versus the U.S. and allies who decide it is a fight worth fighting - Japan and South Korea most likely.
I think most likely the Chinese will focus on a publicity campaign unless the U.S. is in a severely (historical not seen in the last 100+ years) weakened position, because while annoying, it's not worth the risk of such a huge war. You can basically change a country through influence, so why not just wait and go through things that way?
Korea and Japan won't either because they clearly have not the strength and, for Japan, are prevented from doing so by their constitution. Frankly it would be suicidal for them to do that so they won't.
If Taiwan were to be taken by force it would have serious consequences, politically and economically, but no-one would launch a military attack on China in response. The US, and perhaps others, would likely help Taiwanese forces, though.
All pre-revolution government debt has been in default since the revolution. China claims it is the responsibility of Taiwan and Taiwan claims it is the responsibility of China. They owe many trillions to bondholders all over the world.
If the two merge, they can't dodge the claims anymore and still be part of the world financial system. It will have to be negotiated, and US law allows the government to collect on behalf of American bondholders. Any settlement will be very painful for China if they insist on taking Taiwan by force.