8 ms·

I don't buy this. If the government would stop making "reunification" so prominent in official rhetoric, eventually there would be room to back down from the ha

I don't buy this. If the government would stop making "reunification" so prominent in official rhetoric, eventually there would be room to back down from the hardline view on Taiwan. Maybe not tomorrow, but certainly in 30 or 50 years. The government is feeding the flames of nationalism by making Taiwan such a prominent issue. The reason the CCP won't back down on Taiwan is not because they can't, but exactly because it's an issue which encourages nationalism and internal unity.

FooBarWidget 5y ago
Saying that Taiwan is merely a nationalism and internal unity issue, and that people's views are merely a result of propaganda, ignores the very history of how Taiwan came to be and how the Chinese civil war developed. Your take also ignores the fact that unification is Chinese core value, which is valued more than western freedom of speech, and that this core value has been around for thousands of years. But more importantly, you dodged the military strategic significance of Taiwan. Telling China to give up Taiwan is like asking China to give cut off its lifeline. At the end of the day, your point boils down to that China ought not to think that way, for reasons that you believe are the only legitimate reasons. But that is useless: Chinese do view things that way, and if foreign forces pressure China to let Taiwan go, then they will fight to the end.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Then there will be a war. Sad.
- zucker42 5y ago
  > Your take also ignores the fact that unification is Chinese core value It seems to me that you are saying that a contemporary political position (that Taiwan should be ruled by the same government as mainland China) is in fact a "core value". Unity can be a value, but the political position that the island of Taiwan is an integral part of China, and China can't be unified without it, is not. That's the position which is encouraged by propaganda and government rhetoric, and mirrors similar positions with regards to, for example, Tibet.
  - FooBarWidget 5y ago
    That is correct. But as I said: Taiwan is being used by the US as a strategic military location to contain China. As long as this situation persists, China can't accept any other situation than Taiwan being part of the same state. Were this danger to disappear then I foresee much greater chances of Taiwan emerging as a independent state, probably as one that is aligned with PRC in the same manner Canada is to the US.
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      The US _removed_ troops from Taiwan when they recognized the PRC. China has had every opportunity to bring Taiwan into its orbit by simply having enough sense to not threaten Taiwan so much as to to force it to seek out allies against it. Taiwan has shown that it clearly considered business interests to trump any differences in political philosophy. If China would simply declare that it wouldn’t attack Taiwan, then the US wouldn’t have an in any longer. The fact that Taiwan can be used strategically against China is due to China’s shortsighted thinking and nothing else. It’s complete inability to treat neighboring countries like Taiwan as anything but vassals is mind blowing. The PRC government is playing a dangerous game.
      - FooBarWidget 5y ago
        The US removed troops as part of the One Child Policy. That policy is now being undermined by the DPP, US and Lituania, where "undermining" includes selling weapons to Taiwan, sailing more warships near China, and AUKUS. It's not exactly a peaceful situation right now where China's worries are completely made up.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        > The US removed troops as part of the One Child Policy. Say what? Can you give some background (and, especially, evidence or documentation) for this? Because that sounds completely insane.
- hollerith 5y ago
  >unification is Chinese core value, which is valued more than western freedom of speech, and that this core value has been around for thousands of years. I don't have an opinion on that. Just want to point out that out of the previous 2500 years, China has been unified for only 500 years, and 300 of those 500 years was spent under the yoke of a foreign invader (the Mongols).
  - Aperocky 5y ago
    > I don't have an opinion on that. Just want to point out that out of the previous 2500 years, China has been unified for only 500 years, and 300 of those 500 years was spent under the yoke of a foreign invader (the Mongols). This is not true, Mongol rule only lasted for about 100 years. Han dynasty lasted 400 years. Tang about 300 years, Ming and Qing together lasted about 550 years. All of that adds to about 1250 years of unified times. That did not count Qin or Sui or Northern Song, which are unified that just happened to be short lived. I don't know where you got your numbers.
    - Atomskun 5y ago
      Why are you counting Qing dynasty into that?
      - ospider 5y ago
        Because you are using "Qing" -- A Chinese pinyin word to refer to that dynasty?
        Atomskun 5y ago
        I'm not the original poster. Anyway, the point is that Qing dynasty was also "foreign" because it was reigned by Manchu.
        FooBarWidget 5y ago
        It was foreign, but they sinicized and they claimed to be representatives of Chinese civilization, so in the course of history it was eventually accepted that they were legitimate successors. This is in contrast to imperial Japan, which explicitly did not claim to be a successor of Chinese civilization, which was one of the reasons why they continued to be viewed as foreign.

FooBarWidget 5y ago

Saying that Taiwan is merely a nationalism and internal unity issue, and that people's views are merely a result of propaganda, ignores the very history of how Taiwan came to be and how the Chinese civil war developed. Your take also ignores the fact that unification is Chinese core value, which is valued more than western freedom of speech, and that this core value has been around for thousands of years. But more importantly, you dodged the military strategic significance of Taiwan. Telling China to give up Taiwan is like asking China to give cut off its lifeline. At the end of the day, your point boils down to that China ought not to think that way, for reasons that you believe are the only legitimate reasons. But that is useless: Chinese do view things that way, and if foreign forces pressure China to let Taiwan go, then they will fight to the end.

stickfigure 5y ago
Then there will be a war. Sad.
zucker42 5y ago
> Your take also ignores the fact that unification is Chinese core value It seems to me that you are saying that a contemporary political position (that Taiwan should be ruled by the same government as mainland China) is in fact a "core value". Unity can be a value, but the political position that the island of Taiwan is an integral part of China, and China can't be unified without it, is not. That's the position which is encouraged by propaganda and government rhetoric, and mirrors similar positions with regards to, for example, Tibet.
- FooBarWidget 5y ago
  That is correct. But as I said: Taiwan is being used by the US as a strategic military location to contain China. As long as this situation persists, China can't accept any other situation than Taiwan being part of the same state. Were this danger to disappear then I foresee much greater chances of Taiwan emerging as a independent state, probably as one that is aligned with PRC in the same manner Canada is to the US.
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    The US _removed_ troops from Taiwan when they recognized the PRC. China has had every opportunity to bring Taiwan into its orbit by simply having enough sense to not threaten Taiwan so much as to to force it to seek out allies against it. Taiwan has shown that it clearly considered business interests to trump any differences in political philosophy. If China would simply declare that it wouldn’t attack Taiwan, then the US wouldn’t have an in any longer. The fact that Taiwan can be used strategically against China is due to China’s shortsighted thinking and nothing else. It’s complete inability to treat neighboring countries like Taiwan as anything but vassals is mind blowing. The PRC government is playing a dangerous game.
    - FooBarWidget 5y ago
      The US removed troops as part of the One Child Policy. That policy is now being undermined by the DPP, US and Lituania, where "undermining" includes selling weapons to Taiwan, sailing more warships near China, and AUKUS. It's not exactly a peaceful situation right now where China's worries are completely made up.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        > The US removed troops as part of the One Child Policy. Say what? Can you give some background (and, especially, evidence or documentation) for this? Because that sounds completely insane.
hollerith 5y ago
>unification is Chinese core value, which is valued more than western freedom of speech, and that this core value has been around for thousands of years. I don't have an opinion on that. Just want to point out that out of the previous 2500 years, China has been unified for only 500 years, and 300 of those 500 years was spent under the yoke of a foreign invader (the Mongols).
- Aperocky 5y ago
  > I don't have an opinion on that. Just want to point out that out of the previous 2500 years, China has been unified for only 500 years, and 300 of those 500 years was spent under the yoke of a foreign invader (the Mongols). This is not true, Mongol rule only lasted for about 100 years. Han dynasty lasted 400 years. Tang about 300 years, Ming and Qing together lasted about 550 years. All of that adds to about 1250 years of unified times. That did not count Qin or Sui or Northern Song, which are unified that just happened to be short lived. I don't know where you got your numbers.
  - Atomskun 5y ago
    Why are you counting Qing dynasty into that?
    - ospider 5y ago
      Because you are using "Qing" -- A Chinese pinyin word to refer to that dynasty?
      - Atomskun 5y ago
        I'm not the original poster. Anyway, the point is that Qing dynasty was also "foreign" because it was reigned by Manchu.
        FooBarWidget 5y ago
        It was foreign, but they sinicized and they claimed to be representatives of Chinese civilization, so in the course of history it was eventually accepted that they were legitimate successors. This is in contrast to imperial Japan, which explicitly did not claim to be a successor of Chinese civilization, which was one of the reasons why they continued to be viewed as foreign.