Everybody knows about the backstory, there was a civil war, KMT fled to Taiwan creating two Chinas sort of, maybe, neither recognises the other, whole thing. ROC (Taiwan) ended up transitioning from military rule to a multi-party democracy, while the PRC (mainland China) didn’t do that (they did reform economically, “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and all that, but still a one-party state, not a multi-party democracy). The status quo right now is that Taiwan is in the grey area of statehood where they function pretty much independently but aren’t properly recognised, and both sides of the strait are feeling pretty tense right now.
Taiwan’s stance on the issue is that they would like to remain politically and economically independent of mainland China, retaining their multi-party democracy, political connections to its allies, economic trade connections, etc. Also, a majority of the people in Taiwan do not support reunification with China.
China’s stance on the issue is that Taiwan should be reunified with the mainland at all costs, ideally peacefully, but war is not ruled out. They argue that Taiwan was unfairly separated from the mainland by imperial powers in their “century of humiliation”. Strategically, taking Taiwan would be beneficial to China as they would have better control of the sea.
Is it even possible for both sides to agree to a peaceful solution? Personally, I can only see two ways this could go about that has the consent of both parties. One, a reformist leader takes power in the mainland and gives up on Taiwan, and the two exist as separate independent nations. Or two, the mainland gets a super-reformist leader that transitions the mainland to a multi-party democracy, and maybe then reunification could be on the table, with Taiwan keeping an autonomous status given the large cultural difference (similar to Hong Kong or Macau’s current status). Both options are, unfortunately, very unlikely to occur in the near future.
A third option (?) would be a pseudo-unification, where Taiwan becomes a recognised country, but there can be free movement of people between the mainland and Taiwan, free trade, that sort of stuff (sort of like the EU? Maybe?). Not sure if the PRC would accept that.
What are your thoughts on a peaceful solution to the crisis that both sides could agree on?
edit: Damn there are crazies in both ends of the arguments. I really don’t think giving Taiwan nukes would help solve the problem.
I think the current best solution, looking at the more reasonable and realistic comments, seems to be to maintain the status quo, at least until both sides of the strait are able to come into some sort of agreement (which seems to be worlds away right now given their current very opposing stances on the issue)
Let me guess, you don’t think they have a legal claim to the island under UN law?
I don’t really care if they do, to be honest. I value self-determination more.
Are you implying UN law is even remotely relevant here? Or anywhere?
International law is what the CCP claims gives them the right. So no, I am not implying, I am stating it is relevant. Even if you disagree with the law, how do you expect this to be resolved peacefully without international law?
I don’t expect it to be resolved peacefully. Imperialism rarely is.
Edit: also, the UN is a joke. It’s just a tool the security council uses to bully other nations. It exists entirely for their benefit. This is like pointing to law under monarchy to support the king’s position. It’s totally circular.
Imperialism? How is this imperialism?
World power attempting to subordinate and subsume its neighbor by threats of invasion? How is it not imperialism?
Arguably the US’s defense of Taiwan is also imperialist but a more benign form than the CPC’s actions here. The Taiwanese people are just pawns in the struggle for global domination.
Please consult the graph:
Because imperialism isn’t when invasion. You really should learn what words mean before you use them. Imperialism is a capitalist phenomena where high stage capitalist powers enforce(through force or other means) unequal exchange and super exploitation upon subordinate nations to extract super profits. The PRC has never done that.
That’s just a nonsense definition invented by Stalin to apologize for his own imperialism. No one else uses that definition. I’ll agree that this is a form of imperialism but it is far from the only form. The absurdity here is that by this definition classical empires like Rome didn’t even engage in imperialism. When your definition excludes the textbook empire, maybe that’s a sign that something has gone wrong here…
Although arguably the PRC has done that even by this muddled definition.
You’re just factually wrong.
That definition wasn’t “invented by Stalin.” It comes from Lenin in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, written in 1916, before the USSR even existed. Stalin didn’t “make it up.” Lenin analyzed imperialism as a specific stage of capitalism: monopoly capital, finance capital, export of capital, division of the world, and super-profits extracted from subordinate nations. That’s standard Marxist political economy, not a post-hoc excuse. The fact you’re this wrong about it is genuinely incredibly impressive.
You’re also mixing up empires with modern imperialism. They are not the same thing.
Rome conquered territory through pre-capitalist slavery and tribute. Modern imperialism works through banks, corporations, debt, unequal exchange, and enforced dependency. Capitalist imperialism is what matters on the modern age, not every conquest in human history. Saying “Rome doesn’t fit Lenin’s definition” isn’t a gotcha, it just shows you don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Now on your snide comment about China.
Imperialism today looks like this: exporting finance capital, imposing structural adjustment, extracting monopoly rents, enforcing dollar hegemony, surrounding the globe with military bases, and keeping whole regions permanently underdeveloped.
China does none of that.
The PRC doesn’t run IMF shock therapy. It doesn’t control global reserve currency. It doesn’t force privatization. It doesn’t maintain hundreds of overseas bases. It doesn’t drain super-profits from the Global South. Chinese investment is infrastructure-heavy, bilateral, and negotiated, which is exactly why so many formerly colonized countries prefer dealing with China over the West.
Calling that “imperialism” is just liberal brainrot: “big country doing geopolitics = imperialism.”
I hope you can grow up and learn and stop preaching arrogantly on things you clearly know less than 0 about I understand it’s the American way but it is incredibly frustrating to be constantly lectured by uneducated labour aristocrats.
Not only was the USSR not imperialist, but it was Lenin that formulated the Marxist analysis of imperialism, not Stalin, and Lenin further relied heavily on John A. Hobson’s formulation of imperislism. Lenin took Hobson’s base observations and re-analyzed using a Marxist frame. Stalin had no part in that, and it seems like you’re trying to invent a reason to not take Marxist analysis of imperialism seriously. Lenin’s work on imperialism predated the USSR, and actively informed how the bolsheviks struggled for socialism in tsarist Russia.
This is extremely easy to verify, so I’m not sure where you got this idea from. Either you genuinely didn’t know, and thus didn’t care enough to learn or verify, or you made it up knowing how easy it is to debunk. Neither points to reasonable argument.
The Roman Empire was pre-capitalist, and thus its mechanisms for extraction were entirely different from what Marxists analyze as modern-day imperialism. Call it whatever you wish, Marxists do not critique what we call imperialism because of its name, but because of its function as the primary contradiction driving global struggle and development today.
What you call “muddled” is in fact a far more scientific analysis than “big country bully small.” Further, no, the PRC does not fall into the Marxist analysis of imperialism.
Are you unaware of the history of Taiwan? How it became “independent”?
I am familiar. How is that relevant here?
How is it relevant? Are you serious? How are you claiming this is imperialism? It’s an island that a murderous dictator fled to after losing a bloody civil war. It was then recognized as “China” at the UN for years. Like how is reunification==imperialism in your mind?
Let me guess, you think the UN matters more than the people living there?
Nah, just think people who are ignorant of their own laws should think more before they make their ignorance more widely known.
Yes because the only possible reason someone might not support a law they live under, is because they are ignorant of it