8 ms·

That is a fundamental misreading of China's relationship with Taiwan and China's intentions. China is likely to never attack Taiwan as long as the status quo is

That is a fundamental misreading of China's relationship with Taiwan and China's intentions. China is likely to never attack Taiwan as long as the status quo is maintained, and as long as they believe that eventual peaceful reunification is possible. China's policy on Taiwan has not changed for decades. The height of military tensions were in the late 50s, when China and Taiwan were shelling each other. In later decades, they still sometimes deliberately shelled each other as a statement to others that the China-Taiwan issue is a domestic Chinese issue. Nowadays neither side has unleashed a shot for well over 30 years. The US has maintained the One China Policy for decades as well. Officially they haven't changed the policy, but unofficially they are trying to change it into a "Taiwan Independence Policy" without admitting that they are. This is where a lot of recent US-China tensions come from, especially on the military side. Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it.

buildbot 4y ago
This is only the second time I have heard someone reference actual shelling of Taiwan, the other was my Mother in Law who lived there for awhile - I tried to find info about it online and came up blank, is there a good source you know of?
- hnthrowaway0328 4y ago
  Google 金门炮战 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis
  - buildbot 4y ago
    That seems somewhat earlier than the 70-80s? Edit - either I misread or they changed it to 50s, my bad. That would he the second straight crisis.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
fartcannon 4y ago
What about what they did in Hong Kong? They changed the rules once, what stops them from doing it again? History clearly means nothing.
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  Deviations in agreements is not a thing exclusive to China. Agreements in international politics are made for a purpose. Perhaps to keep peace, or to protect some interest, etc. If the situation changes such that that purpose can no longer be served — especially if that purpose is an extremely important core interest — then any country will seek to deviate from agreed upon behavior. For example, the US clearly agreed on the One China Policy but they are now changing it. Because the US no longer values the original purpose that the One China Policy served. So the question "will China renegade on its agreement or not?" is best answered with another question: "What is China's core interest? What purpose does an agreement serve to China?" It is unfortunately here where big misreadings happen. Popular western understand of China says that China does things because they are "authoritarian", "expansionist", "power hungry", etc. But a true analysis of China's interest would show that one of China's core interests is territorial integrity, defined largely by the territory it had inherited from the Qing empire in 1911, and the Republic of China in 1949. China's policy on territorial integrity has not changed since 1949. We may not always agree with China's interests. Maybe they conflict with ours. But properly understanding those interests will at the end of the day surely yield better outcomes than misreading China with stereotypes.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    > Deviations in agreements is not a thing exclusive to China. Yes, but merely looking at the agreement that China broke recently with the invasion of Hong Kong, a reasonable person would assume that there's a much higher risk of them breaking more agreements than another arbitrary country that hasn't been invading other countries recently. Said another way, most people currently will trust France to honor a pact more than they trust Russia. ...not that that somehow makes violating the agreement with and invading Hong Kong somehow morally excusable. China seems pretty similar to Russia right now - with an authoritarian dictator planning to use military force to invade nearby countries. You can even draw parallels between their mindsets - Putin wants to recreate the glory of the Soviet Union and views the old USSR countries as "his", just as Xi Jinping wants to recreate the glory of old China and views Hong Kong and Taiwan as his. > So the question "will China renegade on its agreement or not?" is best answered with another question: "What is China's core interest? What purpose does an agreement serve to China?" I don't see what purpose this statement has. It's clearly in China's core interest to be aggressive and expansionist and invade nearby countries and steal IP from other countries, but none of that is right, and none of that changes the fact that they're an aggressive enemy who pose a threat to the whole Asia region at least, if not the whole world.
aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
> Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it. Your comment was excellent, and helpful to me. Thanks. I do disagree that China isn't watching US reaction through a million lenses to see how they can best increase their odds rolling over Taiwan with minimal damage. My strongest evidence? Political changes in Hong Kong.
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  China is definitely watching the US, but I don't think it's for the reason you imagine. China prefers peaceful reunification. They don't want to fight a war if they don't have to. At the same time, peaceful reunification is a core interest of China. Which means that they will go to war, but only if they believe peaceful reunification is no longer possible. So yes they do watch the US to make calculations. But even if the US is weak, they still don't want a war as long as they believe peaceful reunification is possible. Furthermore, Taiwanese reunification is not only a core interest, it's also possibly the most emotional one for the Chinese. Large portions of the population support reunification, and they will overthrow whichever leader lets Taiwan go. This is why "raising the stakes" by announcing military support for Taiwan does not deter China. Quite the opposite: they encourage China to go to war, costs be damned, because such foreign support signal that peaceful reunification will become impossible. As for Hong Kong, see my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31705632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31705632
  - hueyluey 4y ago
    For many chinese people this is such an emotional issue because the chinese government has been very keen in promoting these emotions. They let go Mongolia and no one is still crying about that. The communist party could at least let off some steam on the issue if they wanted to...but they don't
  - indymike 4y ago
    > China prefers peaceful reunification. The people of Taiwan, just like those of Ukraine do not want to be re-absorbed. > Quite the opposite: they encourage China to go to war, costs be damned, because such foreign support signal that peaceful reunification will become impossible. It already is impossible. I think the world, save Beijing is moving on.
indymike 4y ago
> That is a fundamental misreading of China's relationship with Taiwan and China's intentions. China is likely to never attack Taiwan as long as the status quo is maintained, and as long as they believe that eventual peaceful reunification is possible. China's policy on Taiwan has not changed for decades. The problem is that the status quo may not be acceptable to the people of Taiwan and reunification is not acceptable not even slightly wanted by the people of Taiwan. The's not really any chance of a reunification of the current China and the current Taiwan. > Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it. Not really, if Putin had quickly succeeded I have not doubt that WWIII would have started with a failed attempt to take Taiwan followed by WWIII. There's no scenario where A) China can take Taiwan, and B) Taiwan will accept Chinese rule. That died 70 years ago.
- Adraghast 4y ago
  > Not really, if Putin had quickly succeeded I have not doubt that WWIII would have started with a failed attempt to take Taiwan followed by WWIII. What qualifications allow you to make claims with such confidence?
  - indymike 4y ago
    ?
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  You know, the early 2000s looked pretty promising, with China and Taiwan having normalized relations for a while and with cross-strait business blooming. Back then a large portion of Taiwanese identified as Chinese. Today's tensions haven't always been there. As little as 10 years ago, Taiwanese supported reunification (though on their terms, e.g. the ROC government takes over the mainland) Ironically, Taiwan is very pro-Japan nowadays even though Japan was a colonizer in the early 20th century. Given this, it's not at all set in stone that relations will stay bad if peace endures.
thesausageking 4y ago
TSMC also guarantees China won't attack Taiwan in the near term. They're about 30% of the semiconductor industry and their most advanced foundries are only in Taiwan and no one else has been able to replicate them elsewhere. An invasion would cripple tech in China and the West, so the US would get involved and it would lead to a full scale war which no one wants.
throw10920 4y ago
> China is likely to never attack Taiwan as long as the status quo is maintained, and as long as they believe that eventual peaceful reunification is possible. Put another way: if the people of Taiwan decide that they don't want reunification, then China is going to invade and take them by force.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  That’s not what was said whatsoever. Make your own comments, don’t try and fail to interpret others’ comments and restate them.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    That looks like "drawing conclusions", not like "attributing thoughts". "B wants stasis¹" // "Hence if A breaks it by removing doubts, B will act" - this is what was actually diplomatically declared, reminded, renewed in the past hours. ¹"stasis" - not the most proper expression of what is sought, but just to remain close to the original post in question.
    - imwillofficial 4y ago
      It doesn’t look like “drawing conclusions at all” They said “Put another way:” That is literally restating what the OG commenter said but with spin.
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        Seems fully legit. «Put another way» completes what the original poster wrote, in a different telling perspective. The OP said, "A will refrain from B under condition C: the general intention of A is to refrain from B". The replying poster noted, "Admitting that A intends to refrain from B under condition C, the intention is also not to refrain from B, failing condition C". The replying poster is correctly noting that the relation is not just "C→¬B", but "C→¬B ∧ ¬C→B". FooBarWidget notes one half of the story; throw10920 remarks that the other half is also present. Correctly one states - reassuringly - "do not see a false extreme: B is not an absolute set intention", but the other notes that at the same time it should not be forgotten that "B is a set conditional intention". Which is what A has stated for a long time: "the reunification will happen: peacefully if possible, coercively otherwise". The 'put another way' formula is logically imperfect but rhetorically admissible, it is in a clear context. Of course throw10920 did not "repeat" what FooBarWidget wrote, «what was said»: he proceeded in the debate from the immediately preceding move posing a new "line". It is a "put another way" not in terms of restricting to the original poster's idea (thus re-reading it), but starting from the poster's idea in the context of given information.
kmonsen 4y ago
The U.S. never had a one China policy. It officially acknowledges that China has a one China policy. It might sound the same, but it is not. Which it why it also has the policy to sell Taiwan weapons to defend itself, and sometimes the policy to actually defend Taiwan. Note that it’s policy on China is changing. Obama started to build a pacific alliance, Trump was a bull in a China shop but escalated the policy of disengagement from China. Biden has maintained Trump’s policy even though it would help with his biggest domestic problem (inflation) to reverse it, while also making clear he will defend Taiwan even if it means war with China.
liuliu 4y ago
Agreed up until: > Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it. This is a major change in the global status quo (given that China is closely aligned with Russia now). I disagree with your parent comment on "unless Russia is humiliated". It is yet unclear either way would increase China's appetite for Taiwan. If Russia is defeated, China may find it is necessary to reunite with Taiwan to maintain its geographical security given Russia would no longer be able to support / project support for China's military move in the future. If Russia wins, China may find it is a strategical weak point for U.S. allied forces and it is a good time to reunite with Taiwan given higher nationalism. Again, it is yet unclear. One thing certain though: the uncertainty increased substantially following Russia's war on Ukraine.
rnk 4y ago
That's not true from my perspective as an American. China didn't historically make the same kind of continuing and increasing bellicose actions and claims as they do today. They have grown slowly over time, perhaps as China's military power has increased. Yes 50 years ago there was attacks, but China seems to be more threatened by the emergence of true democracy in Taiwan, and the development of later generations in a more independent societal direction (the people who left mainland China were being replaced/aged out of leadership by people who had never lived in China). My Taiwanese friends have also told me that China has significantly increased their concern for the future.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  That's certainly a very American perspective. Ongoing PRC claims has been consistent since they were inherited from ROC days. They even fought war in SCS with NVietnam when their military was poverty tier. The reality is PRC rise in region has been EXTREMELY peaceful relative to level military expansion which itself is modest relative to GDP. All while settling 12/14 again, ROC inherited land border disputes with more concessions. PRC has done nothing particularly bellicose except defending claims she inherited, again not of her own making. The only possible except of Senkaku which again also ROC/TW claims. Japan BTW, has border (maritime) disputes with 100% of her neighbours despite being WW2 loser who should have territory constrained by treaty. Meanwhile SCS is a multiparty shit show, even then PRC managed to drop a dash line with North Vietnam when other parties made zero progress. The "peaceful" region rise of PRC is historically unprecedented. There's a reason why western analysts has to bemoan about "grayzone" warfare... because PRC military has been extremely constraint. Even relative to ROC days when TW regularly blockaded military shipping and spent spy missions over PRC territory. TW just coping with reality that military balance has completely shifted in PRC favor. Tranch of US weapon sales to TW in 90s made TW one of the most advanced military powers in the region, but that's been chipped away to the point that TW itself is essentially hopeless regardless of level of US weapon sales. As for being threatened by democracy, like TW broken politics and industrial stagnation outside of semiconductors is regularly memed on mainland. People don't generally look to TW as a model... or SK or JP or even US (anymore). PRC is threatened by renewed TW seccessionism weaponized by US because at the end of the day, the civil war never ended and they consider TW Chinese clay.

buildbot 4y ago

This is only the second time I have heard someone reference actual shelling of Taiwan, the other was my Mother in Law who lived there for awhile - I tried to find info about it online and came up blank, is there a good source you know of?

hnthrowaway0328 4y ago
Google 金门炮战 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis
- buildbot 4y ago
  That seems somewhat earlier than the 70-80s? Edit - either I misread or they changed it to 50s, my bad. That would he the second straight crisis.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

fartcannon 4y ago

What about what they did in Hong Kong? They changed the rules once, what stops them from doing it again? History clearly means nothing.

FooBarWidget 4y ago
Deviations in agreements is not a thing exclusive to China. Agreements in international politics are made for a purpose. Perhaps to keep peace, or to protect some interest, etc. If the situation changes such that that purpose can no longer be served — especially if that purpose is an extremely important core interest — then any country will seek to deviate from agreed upon behavior. For example, the US clearly agreed on the One China Policy but they are now changing it. Because the US no longer values the original purpose that the One China Policy served. So the question "will China renegade on its agreement or not?" is best answered with another question: "What is China's core interest? What purpose does an agreement serve to China?" It is unfortunately here where big misreadings happen. Popular western understand of China says that China does things because they are "authoritarian", "expansionist", "power hungry", etc. But a true analysis of China's interest would show that one of China's core interests is territorial integrity, defined largely by the territory it had inherited from the Qing empire in 1911, and the Republic of China in 1949. China's policy on territorial integrity has not changed since 1949. We may not always agree with China's interests. Maybe they conflict with ours. But properly understanding those interests will at the end of the day surely yield better outcomes than misreading China with stereotypes.
- throw10920 4y ago
  > Deviations in agreements is not a thing exclusive to China. Yes, but merely looking at the agreement that China broke recently with the invasion of Hong Kong, a reasonable person would assume that there's a much higher risk of them breaking more agreements than another arbitrary country that hasn't been invading other countries recently. Said another way, most people currently will trust France to honor a pact more than they trust Russia. ...not that that somehow makes violating the agreement with and invading Hong Kong somehow morally excusable. China seems pretty similar to Russia right now - with an authoritarian dictator planning to use military force to invade nearby countries. You can even draw parallels between their mindsets - Putin wants to recreate the glory of the Soviet Union and views the old USSR countries as "his", just as Xi Jinping wants to recreate the glory of old China and views Hong Kong and Taiwan as his. > So the question "will China renegade on its agreement or not?" is best answered with another question: "What is China's core interest? What purpose does an agreement serve to China?" I don't see what purpose this statement has. It's clearly in China's core interest to be aggressive and expansionist and invade nearby countries and steal IP from other countries, but none of that is right, and none of that changes the fact that they're an aggressive enemy who pose a threat to the whole Asia region at least, if not the whole world.

aaaaaaaaata 4y ago

> Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it. Your comment was excellent, and helpful to me. Thanks. I do disagree that China isn't watching US reaction through a million lenses to see how they can best increase their odds rolling over Taiwan with minimal damage. My strongest evidence? Political changes in Hong Kong.

FooBarWidget 4y ago
China is definitely watching the US, but I don't think it's for the reason you imagine. China prefers peaceful reunification. They don't want to fight a war if they don't have to. At the same time, peaceful reunification is a core interest of China. Which means that they will go to war, but only if they believe peaceful reunification is no longer possible. So yes they do watch the US to make calculations. But even if the US is weak, they still don't want a war as long as they believe peaceful reunification is possible. Furthermore, Taiwanese reunification is not only a core interest, it's also possibly the most emotional one for the Chinese. Large portions of the population support reunification, and they will overthrow whichever leader lets Taiwan go. This is why "raising the stakes" by announcing military support for Taiwan does not deter China. Quite the opposite: they encourage China to go to war, costs be damned, because such foreign support signal that peaceful reunification will become impossible. As for Hong Kong, see my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31705632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31705632
- hueyluey 4y ago
  For many chinese people this is such an emotional issue because the chinese government has been very keen in promoting these emotions. They let go Mongolia and no one is still crying about that. The communist party could at least let off some steam on the issue if they wanted to...but they don't
- indymike 4y ago
  > China prefers peaceful reunification. The people of Taiwan, just like those of Ukraine do not want to be re-absorbed. > Quite the opposite: they encourage China to go to war, costs be damned, because such foreign support signal that peaceful reunification will become impossible. It already is impossible. I think the world, save Beijing is moving on.

indymike 4y ago

> That is a fundamental misreading of China's relationship with Taiwan and China's intentions. China is likely to never attack Taiwan as long as the status quo is maintained, and as long as they believe that eventual peaceful reunification is possible. China's policy on Taiwan has not changed for decades. The problem is that the status quo may not be acceptable to the people of Taiwan and reunification is not acceptable not even slightly wanted by the people of Taiwan. The's not really any chance of a reunification of the current China and the current Taiwan. > Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it. Not really, if Putin had quickly succeeded I have not doubt that WWIII would have started with a failed attempt to take Taiwan followed by WWIII. There's no scenario where A) China can take Taiwan, and B) Taiwan will accept Chinese rule. That died 70 years ago.

Adraghast 4y ago
> Not really, if Putin had quickly succeeded I have not doubt that WWIII would have started with a failed attempt to take Taiwan followed by WWIII. What qualifications allow you to make claims with such confidence?
- indymike 4y ago
  ?
FooBarWidget 4y ago
You know, the early 2000s looked pretty promising, with China and Taiwan having normalized relations for a while and with cross-strait business blooming. Back then a large portion of Taiwanese identified as Chinese. Today's tensions haven't always been there. As little as 10 years ago, Taiwanese supported reunification (though on their terms, e.g. the ROC government takes over the mainland) Ironically, Taiwan is very pro-Japan nowadays even though Japan was a colonizer in the early 20th century. Given this, it's not at all set in stone that relations will stay bad if peace endures.

thesausageking 4y ago

TSMC also guarantees China won't attack Taiwan in the near term. They're about 30% of the semiconductor industry and their most advanced foundries are only in Taiwan and no one else has been able to replicate them elsewhere. An invasion would cripple tech in China and the West, so the US would get involved and it would lead to a full scale war which no one wants.

throw10920 4y ago

> China is likely to never attack Taiwan as long as the status quo is maintained, and as long as they believe that eventual peaceful reunification is possible. Put another way: if the people of Taiwan decide that they don't want reunification, then China is going to invade and take them by force.

imwillofficial 4y ago
That’s not what was said whatsoever. Make your own comments, don’t try and fail to interpret others’ comments and restate them.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  That looks like "drawing conclusions", not like "attributing thoughts". "B wants stasis¹" // "Hence if A breaks it by removing doubts, B will act" - this is what was actually diplomatically declared, reminded, renewed in the past hours. ¹"stasis" - not the most proper expression of what is sought, but just to remain close to the original post in question.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    It doesn’t look like “drawing conclusions at all” They said “Put another way:” That is literally restating what the OG commenter said but with spin.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      Seems fully legit. «Put another way» completes what the original poster wrote, in a different telling perspective. The OP said, "A will refrain from B under condition C: the general intention of A is to refrain from B". The replying poster noted, "Admitting that A intends to refrain from B under condition C, the intention is also not to refrain from B, failing condition C". The replying poster is correctly noting that the relation is not just "C→¬B", but "C→¬B ∧ ¬C→B". FooBarWidget notes one half of the story; throw10920 remarks that the other half is also present. Correctly one states - reassuringly - "do not see a false extreme: B is not an absolute set intention", but the other notes that at the same time it should not be forgotten that "B is a set conditional intention". Which is what A has stated for a long time: "the reunification will happen: peacefully if possible, coercively otherwise". The 'put another way' formula is logically imperfect but rhetorically admissible, it is in a clear context. Of course throw10920 did not "repeat" what FooBarWidget wrote, «what was said»: he proceeded in the debate from the immediately preceding move posing a new "line". It is a "put another way" not in terms of restricting to the original poster's idea (thus re-reading it), but starting from the poster's idea in the context of given information.

kmonsen 4y ago

The U.S. never had a one China policy. It officially acknowledges that China has a one China policy. It might sound the same, but it is not. Which it why it also has the policy to sell Taiwan weapons to defend itself, and sometimes the policy to actually defend Taiwan. Note that it’s policy on China is changing. Obama started to build a pacific alliance, Trump was a bull in a China shop but escalated the policy of disengagement from China. Biden has maintained Trump’s policy even though it would help with his biggest domestic problem (inflation) to reverse it, while also making clear he will defend Taiwan even if it means war with China.

liuliu 4y ago

Agreed up until: > Anything Russia does to other states has got absolutely nothing to do with it. This is a major change in the global status quo (given that China is closely aligned with Russia now). I disagree with your parent comment on "unless Russia is humiliated". It is yet unclear either way would increase China's appetite for Taiwan. If Russia is defeated, China may find it is necessary to reunite with Taiwan to maintain its geographical security given Russia would no longer be able to support / project support for China's military move in the future. If Russia wins, China may find it is a strategical weak point for U.S. allied forces and it is a good time to reunite with Taiwan given higher nationalism. Again, it is yet unclear. One thing certain though: the uncertainty increased substantially following Russia's war on Ukraine.

rnk 4y ago

That's not true from my perspective as an American. China didn't historically make the same kind of continuing and increasing bellicose actions and claims as they do today. They have grown slowly over time, perhaps as China's military power has increased. Yes 50 years ago there was attacks, but China seems to be more threatened by the emergence of true democracy in Taiwan, and the development of later generations in a more independent societal direction (the people who left mainland China were being replaced/aged out of leadership by people who had never lived in China). My Taiwanese friends have also told me that China has significantly increased their concern for the future.

dirtyid 4y ago
That's certainly a very American perspective. Ongoing PRC claims has been consistent since they were inherited from ROC days. They even fought war in SCS with NVietnam when their military was poverty tier. The reality is PRC rise in region has been EXTREMELY peaceful relative to level military expansion which itself is modest relative to GDP. All while settling 12/14 again, ROC inherited land border disputes with more concessions. PRC has done nothing particularly bellicose except defending claims she inherited, again not of her own making. The only possible except of Senkaku which again also ROC/TW claims. Japan BTW, has border (maritime) disputes with 100% of her neighbours despite being WW2 loser who should have territory constrained by treaty. Meanwhile SCS is a multiparty shit show, even then PRC managed to drop a dash line with North Vietnam when other parties made zero progress. The "peaceful" region rise of PRC is historically unprecedented. There's a reason why western analysts has to bemoan about "grayzone" warfare... because PRC military has been extremely constraint. Even relative to ROC days when TW regularly blockaded military shipping and spent spy missions over PRC territory. TW just coping with reality that military balance has completely shifted in PRC favor. Tranch of US weapon sales to TW in 90s made TW one of the most advanced military powers in the region, but that's been chipped away to the point that TW itself is essentially hopeless regardless of level of US weapon sales. As for being threatened by democracy, like TW broken politics and industrial stagnation outside of semiconductors is regularly memed on mainland. People don't generally look to TW as a model... or SK or JP or even US (anymore). PRC is threatened by renewed TW seccessionism weaponized by US because at the end of the day, the civil war never ended and they consider TW Chinese clay.