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)
Why do you keep acting like I’m arguing in favor of unification? When have I ever said anything to make you think that? I support, just like nearly everyone in Taiwan does, the status quo. Which you can’t seem to concieve of as an option, because you think the realm of the abstract is somehow “more real” then reality.
Why? Why would you omit them? There’s no basis for it! Why are the only two positions you’ll consider “independence” and “unification” when those collectively represent only 5%, and are both clearly bad options a fact you obviously agree with as evidenced by the fact that you don’t actually support breaking the status quo in practice. The only way I can understand this is if you think the abstract world is somehow “more real” than material reality.
Only if the region we’re talking about is North Korea. Every country is connected to and influenced by the global economy, in no way can a region’s economy be considered a purely internal issue. No man is an island.
After the American Revolution, there was a question of whether the states would unify into a single, cohesive entity, or be loosely aligned, or completely independent. The threat posed by European powers was a major reason why the states joined together in a union.
Do we need to go back in time and nuke Europe so that the states can truly and freely decide whether they want to be together or not? It’s nonsense. Security concerns always exist and always factor in to such decisions, and have since the very formation of states. Again, you are trying to let people decide these things in a vacuum, but there are no vacuums anywhere and never have been.
I didn’t say you were. I was just asking you why very few people in Taiwan seem to go for supporting “status quo, but move towards unification” when it doesn’t confer the same risks as “status quo, but move towards independence” in antagonising China if enough people polled that way.
As I’ve said multiple times now, status quo is in itself a soft-form of independence and that I regard continued supermajority support for it in itself to be pro-independence in itself, but the next step (formalisation) is still broadly desired, but considered unrealistic currently on grounds of not antagonising China (which is a terrible situation they should not be placed in).
Right, okay, but still aspects within its own economy in relation to the rest of the world would be considered to make it non-viable. Not only is Taiwan already effectively independent anyway, formalising it and becoming officially independent would make no change to anything here.
No? What a strange comparison. There are many points of observation we can use to determine whether or not the states within the USA continue to consent to being in the union even if their original fusion was indeed unification on grounds of intimidation from others. A national identity did form from that, as indeed a national identity seems to now exist within Taiwan.
You know you’re simply not going to change my position on this issue. I do believe that pro-independence as an option on Taiwan is far more popular than pro-unification, and that status quo in itself is already a form of soft-independence in itself.
That’s not what “pro-independence” means in this context at all. “Pro-de-facto-independence” is know as “maintaining the status quo.” “Pro-independence” means breaking with the status quo and not just accepting de facto independence. Don’t go around redefining the terms.
I don’t see anything strange about it. Has there ever been any state that formed without security concerns influencing their decisions?
But there are still rival states that could pose a threat if the US balkanized. How can we know if people are only consenting to being in the union because of those security concerns? Oh no!
It’s so ridiculous. How, I mean, this just doesn’t make any sense. Is collective defense not the primary purpose of states? How can you possibly evaluate anything if you have to completely sanitize the world of security concerns first??
I swear, this Idealist nonsense breaks my brain completely. Makes absolutely zero sense on any level.
I’ve seen many Taiwanese regard their current situation as independence in itself, and so regard continued support for the status-quo as broad support for that. As I asked: Why do very few people in Taiwan seem to go for supporting “status quo, but move towards unification” when it doesn’t confer the same risks as “status quo, but move towards independence” in antagonising China if enough people polled that way.
Possibly. I don’t know. I don’t know what the point is here. For one, Taiwan isn’t even in a union with China - so this logic doesn’t even make sense. It’s more a gentleman’s agreement to not say certain words and is backed up by most nations playing along. It’s all a farce, where as US constituent states do actually come under federal law.
I really don’t get your point here at all. Taiwan is not actually a part of the PRC. It’s more akin to a gentleman’s agreement recognised by both sides over terminology and the rest of the world plays along. It’s all a farce. US constituent states in comparison are actually under federal law, and elect representatives to congress and the senate and vote in Presidential elections.
Not sure when I did that. I just pointed out that a people not opting to vote (or in this case hold an official independence referendum) for certifying their official independence because of threats from another country is quite a distinct for why people in Quebec or Scotland, for instance, might reject independence.
You are not changing my position on this. I believe that if the Taiwanese had the opportunity to vote for independence without the looming threat of being invaded by their neighbour, they would do so, and do so pretty quickly. You can reply 100 times. I will reply back every single time with the same stock response. This will just go on and on and on.
Why do you keep thinking that I’m arguing for unification or arguing that people support unification? You keep asking this irrelevant shit.
WHAT? When? How? In what universe could that possibly happen? How, what, how do you think the world works???
It’s not supposed to be a direct comparison. It’s supposed to demonstrate the absolute absurdity of treating the existence of security concerns as somehow invalidating people’s perspectives on geopolitics.
I don’t see what’s confusing about it. You’re saying that the Taiwanese people’s perspective on independence is influenced by security concerns and therefore invalid, and we should look at what they would be if there were no such concerns. I’m saying that, idk, Texans perspective on independence is also potentially influenced by security concerns, so if we applied the same logic, then we could not possibly say that we know for sure they “genuinely” want to be part of the US. It could be that they’re worried that seeking independence would cause them to be invaded.
The same logic could just as easily be applied to any polity in the world, since security concerns are a universal thing. So this whole framework of analysis is completely incomprehensible, as soon as you apply it consistently.
I haven’t disputed that. And if you apply some other random conditions, like an alien invasion you could get them to support unification. But the thing that they actually support, as things actually are, is the status quo. And that matters more than some abstract principle and more than what they might support in this or that hypothetical.
I didn’t. I just asked. I’d like an answer.
And why independence as compared to unification is so much popular as an option. And why most Taiwanese appear to identify as Taiwanese rather than Chinese. These are all markers that support my position.
I haven’t studied the emergence of every single country.
I don’t think so. Texas would be quite easily able to be independent. I would argue strongly that if it seemed like most Texans actually did want independence and we had active pro-Texan independence movements and campaigns but the federal government was repressing them and threatening them for exploring this route that - it would still be true that most Texans want independence regardless of how the USA’s activity in relation to that suppresses enthusiasm for it. The same would also be true of Taiwan here, for comparison.
If you haven’t disputed that, then we don’t really disagree. And the alien invasion is not remotely as realistic (even if its also unrealistic) as China changing or relaxing their policy here. Do you actually think you’re going to convince me to change my position? I won’t stop replying.
Why? Again, establish relevance.
You don’t have to to know that every country exists in a world with security concerns.
OK, but what if the vast majority of Texans polled said that they wanted to remain a part of the US, but there was an implicit threat that if they declared independence, the US might decide to attack? Should we assume that all the Texans are lying and only saying that under duress and that they clearly want to leave?
I am just trying to get you to ground yourself in reality because you are so far out there it’s utterly delusional. Maybe I should stop but your brainworms are just so weird and bizarre that I can’t help myself.
Curious on what your answers will be. These things to me are part of why I hold the position I do on Taiwan here.
It would depend on the scale of the vote, presence of local parties and organisations, other polls too (Texas identity polling, opinion polling of other countries) etc and other local metrics. It’s true that if the USA was much more domestically restrictive on independentism campaigning we couldn’t necessarily get a clear view on how people within states actually feel so at a certain point or state control and oppression, it would be somewhat shrouded.
Although the USA is an interesting example here because, yes, there’s no real meaningful legal path for states to secede from the Union - but campaigning on and running for parties or as a candidate that has that as an aspiration is in itself perfectly legal, and people can feel free to answer opinion polls regarding separatism without consequences from Washington. So I think if Texas did want to leave, it would show.
Bringing this to Taiwan specifically - I don’t think someone who wants independence (officially) in an ideal world is “lying” or “under duress” as such - that makes no sense. Just that they are being realistic and don’t want to poke China by contributing to a poll that if everyone else did would possibly upset Beijing, moreover, even if the poll itself (or collection of polls didn’t) - they might think that actual official independence is non-viable just on the grounds that any official exploration would upset Beijing. But that still would not change that those people still would ideally support independence.
As I said, you’re not going to convince me otherwise of my position that most Taiwanese people would like Taiwan to become an independent country officially, but just not enough that they’d risk being bombed over it. It’s not that deep.
I don’t see anything to explain. The overwhelmingly popular answers are all about maintaining the status quo, not disrupting it for the sake of pride. Therefore, we should conclude that the status quo is what the Taiwanese people want.
Even the number of people who want to maintain the status quo while moving towards unification is still higher than the number of people who want independence. Because of how popular my position, that of maintaining the status quo is.
WHAT??? Then on what basis are you dismissing their perspectives?
Is that not the whole reason why you’re advocating this insane nonsense about security concerns somehow invalidating people’s geopolitical perspectives? That if you’re only supporting something because you’re worried about security threats if the thing is not done, that it’s coerced and doesn’t represent your “real” preference?
I’m not trying to convince you out of that position. I’m trying to convince you out of the position that “wanting Taiwan to be an independent country, purely as an abstract ideal that you recognize as impractical and are not willing to actually support” somehow makes a person “pro-independence” as opposed to “pro-status quo.”