> Well, first, it's not exactly like forcing the PRC to do anything like that is practical. Well "force" as in sanction the PRC until it backs down from its mi

> Well, first, it's not exactly like forcing the PRC to do anything like that is practical. Well "force" as in sanction the PRC until it backs down from its militaristic position. Of course it's up to the PRC how to react, but the world shouldn't tacitly accept its military belligerence. > And, second, externally imposed partitions haven't exactly been sources of peace and stability, historically. I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this. How is there an externally enforced partition? The current status is that there are two countries. That wasn't externally enforced. It was the result of a stalemate between the two sides in a civil war and the inability of either side to fully beat the other. Also how would the PRC and the ROC signing a peace treaty not be the epitome of "peace and stability"? Are you actually implying that the PRC's claims that it may someday invade the ROC better represent "peace and stability" than the current status quo of two countries* co-existing more-or-less peacefully? I presume I just am misunderstanding you though because I find your statement very confusing. Feel free to correct me. *They treat each other as countries whether they are willing to use the word or not.