4 ms·

> I feel like most of the escalation is coming from the West though. They're the ones tossing around sanctions and national-security noise on speculation-- Chin

> I feel like most of the escalation is coming from the West though. They're the ones tossing around sanctions and national-security noise on speculation-- China might invade Taiwan. China is free to anytime declare their intention of never invading Taiwan. China is free to anytime officially recognize the fact that the PRC and the ROC are two separate governments of two separate countries. China is free to anytime clarify to the world that they truly value peace. But really it doesn’t seem that they do.

user_named 4y ago
Taiwan claims that China belongs to them. Why do you not require them to declare anything?
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  Because they’re not constantly threatening China with war.
- stale2002 4y ago
  Do you understand that Taiwan would love to do exactly that, but that China would take such a statement as a declaration of independence and would engage in military action? Taiwan literally wants to do exactly what you proposed. They want to renounce having anything to do with China.
  - user_named 4y ago
    ROC already claims that China belongs to them. Do you understand that?
    - stale2002 4y ago
      You don't really understand, actually. They do not want to take over china, and they do not claim that china belongs to them. Instead, what is happening is that they are not clarifying this stance publicly, because if they clarify that they are not part of china, then china will threaten military action against them. Taiwan is already independent, has no intention of unifying with china, and instead just has to play this game because china threatens them.
rsj_hn 4y ago
counterpoint: The US is free at any time to stop invading other countries, trying to overthrow other countries, and enter into conflicts thousands of miles from their borders. But really, it doesn't seem that they do. The US has invaded or attacked over 120 countries since 1991[1]. Absolutely none of them were a threat to the United States. How many countries has China invaded in the same period? How many has it bombed? Imposed sanctions on? Occupied? [1]https://sites.tufts.edu/css/mip-research/ https://sites.tufts.edu/css/mip-research/
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  The US isn’t threatening to invade Taiwan. China is.
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    The article is about prospects of war between the US and China. According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country, and any disputes between the mainland and Taiwan is an intra-chinese dispute, not a dispute between two separate countries, and not anything that involves the U.S. at all. Now if, for some reason, Taiwan declares independence, then it will be up to other nations to recognize that declaration of independence or not. But that has not happened. Let me ask you, did you recognize the independence of Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, South Ossetia, Kurdish Republic in Iraq, or The Republic of Tigray? Each of these had de facto control -- they have their own police, flag, they control their territory, etc. Some even have oil. These actually declared independence whereas Taiwan never did. But you will respond, other nations didn't recognize their independence, to which I will ask, who recognizes Taiwanese independence? Not even Taiwan. So what we have here is the phenomenon of a "breakaway region". That is, territory in one nation that is not under the control of the central government, but under local control in that territory, but which no one recognizes as an independent nation. There are many such breakaway regions in the world. Usually the central government tries to conquer the breakaway region, and sometimes it fails. This is generally not considered an "invasion". Do you think it was an invasion when Georgia tried to reconquer South Ossetia, or when Ukraine attacked the DNR and LPR or when Ethiopia attacked Tigray? Or did you view that as an internal matter, of putting down a rebellious breakaway region? Think carefully before you answer, as we are looking for consistency. What about Serbia and the province of Kosovo? Moldova and Transnistria? It does seem like there is a whole lot of cherry picking going on here, where if there is an enemy of the U.S. fighting a breakaway region, then we have to honor the bold independence movement, but when there is a friend of the US fighting a breakaway republic, then we condemn the evil separatists. In both cases, the US ends up fighting on one side of what is really a civil war we have no business involving ourselves in, and because we choose sides purely based on friend/enemy distinctions and not according to any consistent principles, it sure looks a lot like more international meddling. Therefore I reject any moral impetus that forces the US to get itself involved in trying to support or oppose separatist movements half way around the world, or to pick sides in civil wars. We lack the military capability, we lack popular support, and we need to stop adopting these self-destructive and globally destructive policies.
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
Easier said than done. Preservation of national sovereignty is one of the touchiest issues in modern Chinese politics. This has to do with Chinese history. For China, the modern era essentially began when British gunboats arrived in 1840 and forced the Qing dynasty to open up its ports to the opium trade. There followed a series of conflicts in which China was progressively humiliated and ever more dominated by foreign powers - the Europeans and Japanese. China had to allow opium in, had to exempt Europeans from Chinese law on Chinese territory, and had to give the Europeans and Japanese enclaves and spheres of influence within China. The British took Hong Kong, the Germans took Jiaozhou Bay, various countries took parts of Shanghai. When Chinese peasants rebelled against foreign influence and started killing Europeans, a eight-nation army landed at Tianjin,[0] marched to Beijing, burned down the Summer Palace, and forced China to pay a massive indemnity. After the Chinese people overthrew the imperial system, the new republic was, in fact, controlled by various local warlords. The Japanese progressively took more of China, before launching a full-blown invasion of the rest of China in the 1930s. A core goal of both the Nationalist and the Communist parties was to re-establish Chinese national sovereignty. What put an end to all of this was the end of the Chinese Civil War and the establishment of the "New China," as the Chinese call their post-1949 state. Because of this history, the issue of national sovereignty is incredibly sensitive in China. It's easy to say, "China should just give up its claim to Taiwan," but that would be an incredibly explosive suggestion in China, especially if it were something that China was forced to do under outside pressure. Finally, I'll add that in China, the ROC is not seen as a separate country from the PRC. Taiwan is seen as the last redoubt of the old Chinese government. This is also how the ROC understood itself until fairly recently. For most people in China, asking them to cede Taiwan is asking them to cede part of China, which is a non-starter. 0. A portrait of soldiers from the eight nations (plus Australia and the British Raj, minus Russia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance#/media/File:Troops_of_the_Eight-Nation_Alliance_(except_Russia)_that_fought_against_the_Boxer_Rebellion_in_China,_1900._From_the_left_Britain,_United_States,_Australia,_India,_Germany,_France,_Austria-Hungary,_Italy,_Japan._(49652330563).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance#/media/F...
- UltraViolence 4y ago
  Taiwan was never Chinese to begin with and never has been. Just because the Nationalists fled there doesn't give them the right to invade or lay claim to the island. They could, for all I care, invade Taiwan and relocate all the Chinese to China and leave Taiwan well alone.
hakfoo 4y ago
Do other powers have to make these promises? Does anyone pester Rishi Sunak for guarantees they won't he won't try to retake Massachusetts? It feels like any sort of restrictive foreign-policy promise is a no-win. A "no invasion" promise would be a license for every seperatist element to push their agenda, which feels like losing a huge amount of influence. It also seems like it could tie their hands in an actual crisis (i. e. a terrorism scenario where the Taiwanese government refused to cooperate in investigation/prosecution)

user_named 4y ago

Taiwan claims that China belongs to them. Why do you not require them to declare anything?

CogitoCogito 4y ago
Because they’re not constantly threatening China with war.
stale2002 4y ago
Do you understand that Taiwan would love to do exactly that, but that China would take such a statement as a declaration of independence and would engage in military action? Taiwan literally wants to do exactly what you proposed. They want to renounce having anything to do with China.
- user_named 4y ago
  ROC already claims that China belongs to them. Do you understand that?
  - stale2002 4y ago
    You don't really understand, actually. They do not want to take over china, and they do not claim that china belongs to them. Instead, what is happening is that they are not clarifying this stance publicly, because if they clarify that they are not part of china, then china will threaten military action against them. Taiwan is already independent, has no intention of unifying with china, and instead just has to play this game because china threatens them.

rsj_hn 4y ago

counterpoint: The US is free at any time to stop invading other countries, trying to overthrow other countries, and enter into conflicts thousands of miles from their borders. But really, it doesn't seem that they do. The US has invaded or attacked over 120 countries since 1991[1]. Absolutely none of them were a threat to the United States. How many countries has China invaded in the same period? How many has it bombed? Imposed sanctions on? Occupied? [1]https://sites.tufts.edu/css/mip-research/ https://sites.tufts.edu/css/mip-research/

CogitoCogito 4y ago
The US isn’t threatening to invade Taiwan. China is.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  The article is about prospects of war between the US and China. According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country, and any disputes between the mainland and Taiwan is an intra-chinese dispute, not a dispute between two separate countries, and not anything that involves the U.S. at all. Now if, for some reason, Taiwan declares independence, then it will be up to other nations to recognize that declaration of independence or not. But that has not happened. Let me ask you, did you recognize the independence of Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, South Ossetia, Kurdish Republic in Iraq, or The Republic of Tigray? Each of these had de facto control -- they have their own police, flag, they control their territory, etc. Some even have oil. These actually declared independence whereas Taiwan never did. But you will respond, other nations didn't recognize their independence, to which I will ask, who recognizes Taiwanese independence? Not even Taiwan. So what we have here is the phenomenon of a "breakaway region". That is, territory in one nation that is not under the control of the central government, but under local control in that territory, but which no one recognizes as an independent nation. There are many such breakaway regions in the world. Usually the central government tries to conquer the breakaway region, and sometimes it fails. This is generally not considered an "invasion". Do you think it was an invasion when Georgia tried to reconquer South Ossetia, or when Ukraine attacked the DNR and LPR or when Ethiopia attacked Tigray? Or did you view that as an internal matter, of putting down a rebellious breakaway region? Think carefully before you answer, as we are looking for consistency. What about Serbia and the province of Kosovo? Moldova and Transnistria? It does seem like there is a whole lot of cherry picking going on here, where if there is an enemy of the U.S. fighting a breakaway region, then we have to honor the bold independence movement, but when there is a friend of the US fighting a breakaway republic, then we condemn the evil separatists. In both cases, the US ends up fighting on one side of what is really a civil war we have no business involving ourselves in, and because we choose sides purely based on friend/enemy distinctions and not according to any consistent principles, it sure looks a lot like more international meddling. Therefore I reject any moral impetus that forces the US to get itself involved in trying to support or oppose separatist movements half way around the world, or to pick sides in civil wars. We lack the military capability, we lack popular support, and we need to stop adopting these self-destructive and globally destructive policies.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

Easier said than done. Preservation of national sovereignty is one of the touchiest issues in modern Chinese politics. This has to do with Chinese history. For China, the modern era essentially began when British gunboats arrived in 1840 and forced the Qing dynasty to open up its ports to the opium trade. There followed a series of conflicts in which China was progressively humiliated and ever more dominated by foreign powers - the Europeans and Japanese. China had to allow opium in, had to exempt Europeans from Chinese law on Chinese territory, and had to give the Europeans and Japanese enclaves and spheres of influence within China. The British took Hong Kong, the Germans took Jiaozhou Bay, various countries took parts of Shanghai. When Chinese peasants rebelled against foreign influence and started killing Europeans, a eight-nation army landed at Tianjin,[0] marched to Beijing, burned down the Summer Palace, and forced China to pay a massive indemnity. After the Chinese people overthrew the imperial system, the new republic was, in fact, controlled by various local warlords. The Japanese progressively took more of China, before launching a full-blown invasion of the rest of China in the 1930s. A core goal of both the Nationalist and the Communist parties was to re-establish Chinese national sovereignty. What put an end to all of this was the end of the Chinese Civil War and the establishment of the "New China," as the Chinese call their post-1949 state. Because of this history, the issue of national sovereignty is incredibly sensitive in China. It's easy to say, "China should just give up its claim to Taiwan," but that would be an incredibly explosive suggestion in China, especially if it were something that China was forced to do under outside pressure. Finally, I'll add that in China, the ROC is not seen as a separate country from the PRC. Taiwan is seen as the last redoubt of the old Chinese government. This is also how the ROC understood itself until fairly recently. For most people in China, asking them to cede Taiwan is asking them to cede part of China, which is a non-starter. 0. A portrait of soldiers from the eight nations (plus Australia and the British Raj, minus Russia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance#/media/File:Troops_of_the_Eight-Nation_Alliance_(except_Russia)_that_fought_against_the_Boxer_Rebellion_in_China,_1900._From_the_left_Britain,_United_States,_Australia,_India,_Germany,_France,_Austria-Hungary,_Italy,_Japan._(49652330563).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance#/media/F...

UltraViolence 4y ago
Taiwan was never Chinese to begin with and never has been. Just because the Nationalists fled there doesn't give them the right to invade or lay claim to the island. They could, for all I care, invade Taiwan and relocate all the Chinese to China and leave Taiwan well alone.

hakfoo 4y ago

Do other powers have to make these promises? Does anyone pester Rishi Sunak for guarantees they won't he won't try to retake Massachusetts? It feels like any sort of restrictive foreign-policy promise is a no-win. A "no invasion" promise would be a license for every seperatist element to push their agenda, which feels like losing a huge amount of influence. It also seems like it could tie their hands in an actual crisis (i. e. a terrorism scenario where the Taiwanese government refused to cooperate in investigation/prosecution)