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)

  • Skavau@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Yeah, I doubt they’re going to agree with your interpretation of democracy.

    And I will reply to who I like.

    • QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Who are you to say what they agree or disagree with. I pointed out we have elections and democracy. That is a fact that they seemingly didn’t know. Why are you here spamming me and accusing me of bullshit just because you are illiterate.

      • Skavau@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I think it’s likely that they reject how elections are done in China as valid forms of democracy in this case. I know you only reply here to do apologetics for the PRC because it’s pretty obvious your bias is in favour of them.

        And I “spam” because you reply back. Me replying to a post once is not what constitutes spam. I always reply to people.

        • QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Why are you still speaking for them. “Apologetics” is when I try explain history to an American illiterate. And I call it spam because you have seemingly sought me out across multiple conversations in this thread you weren’t involved in to insert your idiocy.

          • Skavau@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Why are you still speaking for them.

            Just saying what I think is likely.

            Apologetics” is when I try explain history to an American illiterate. And I call it spam because you have seemingly sought me out across multiple conversations in this thread you weren’t involved in to insert your idiocy.

            I just scanned the thread again after not being around for hours to see any new conversations. Found one. I reply to who I like in a thread, no matter who it is if I feel I have something to say. It’s no good continually replying to someone to say “stop spamming me”. I’d argue it’s absurd.