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)
China should accept Taiwans sovereignty as a separate Chinese country, and stop being such a little bitch. The end.
Well Taiwan sees itself as part of mainland China, just not a part of the communist regime
Not anymore really, the Taiwanese government has abandoned claims to the mainland.
Abandoning claims is not the same as abandoning the view that they belong
Not really. Not many people in Taiwan really think that anymore. They’ve moved on.
How do you know?
Most people in Taiwan identify as Taiwanese over Chinese. Most people in Taiwan push for status-quo in polling, and of those that don’t, the second-most popular opinion is independence.
What, you truly think an island with the population of 23 million think its logistically possible for them to overcome an over a billion population difference and somehow take the mainland back under the banner of the ROC? The mainland also has nukes.
This is not what I meant. The taiwanese sees themselves as part of China, not an independent country. Just not a region that’s compatible with the communist party which is the issue here. Maintaining the status quo doesn’t contradict that.
If the CCP goes away the issue is gone.
Removed by mod
Going by some other users claims in this thread, you replying to me here in another chain constitutes harassment.
No. It’s both reasonable to accept that most of the opinion poll responses say status-quo but also that it’s likely that this is heavily buffered by the geopolitical situation and that many of the ‘status quo’ respondents would like to seek independence, and this can be supported based on a number of other metrics that I have already mentioned to you.
Moreover, my point there was questioning the user above’s claim that the Taiwanese as a majority now seriously believe and want to somehow take the mainland back for the ROC.
Didn’t read.
So we’re at that level now, are we?
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.
Are you unaware of the history of Taiwan? How it became “independent”?
I am familiar. How is that relevant here?
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
Lets be realistic. If the confederates ran away to Key West after the civil war, would the US accept a hostile state, backed by a hostile super-power, claiming to be the government of all of USA right off their coast?
Not sure why you’re copping some hate, but your analogy is pretty accurate.
If the Confederates managed to hold out for 60 years, reformed, democratised and abandoned their past and wanted to renounce their claim to the USA and become their own independent state under their own identity - I would support them in that.
Albeit even then comparison isn’t quite right because Taiwan is closer to being the Union in this analogy, and the PRC the Confederates. It would be more like if the Union lost and fled to a safepost.
mmyes, the defeated right-wing nationalist warlordists are the Union in this analogy. very good.
i would like to learn your secret: how do you become so informed on things you know nothing about?
The comparison here is rooted who is the original compared to the two, not their ideologies. So in that sense, Taiwan would be the Union and Confederates would be the PRC.
Libs don’t actually care about the matter, they simply want to justify pre-existing positions, so anything that doesn’t support this feels hostile to them. In another comment thread I have someone who’s never been to Hong Kong asking me to provide citations about what HK is like.
What ‘pre-existing’ positions exactly?
In this case? <enemy of the west> bad. They don’t feel any need to learn about Taiwan or Xinjiang or HK or Tibet beyond its utility in proving this, and certainly don’t care how it might affect the actual people living there.
You can observe the same phenomenon with Russia; no matter the data, somehow its indicative of Russia bad and justification to increase hostile action, even at the expense of Russia’s victims.
I don’t think that HK, Xinjiang or Tibet are relevant here. My own position is that the Taiwanese don’t want to be part of the PRC. And that’s all that matters.
We have polling, it says the people of Taiwan overwhelmingly want staus quo. What they want doesn’t matter to you.
And do you also accept they don’t want to be part of the PRC?
Status quo is de-facto independence. But moreover, do you think the threats from the mainland over the prospect of the Taiwanese pursuing independence officially somewhat tempers and changes how the Taiwanese react to polls on this issue? And even then, in a direct comparison - pro-independence positions appear to be nearly 4 times as popular than unification positions within the pollling. Why is this?
They did even worse, they let them stay!
It’s not even key west it’s more like they ran away to Maine
No? But then Taiwan doesn’t actually seriously maintain this anymore. It’s all a front. They have to say this because repudiating the ‘one China’ system could be interpreted as a declaration of independence, which would be interpreted as a green light for China to invade.