| Clearly if China was not being coercive/threatening they would declare themselves as an independent country. They operate as an independent country. They have their own military. The leader does not answer to China. They make effort away from china rather than closer. They are de facto independent. Do you think that position is held because of the consequences of messing with the status quo, or do you think it's there because it's truly believed? Do you think any Taiwanese citizens are sitting there plotting the running of Continental Taiwan? >So, yeah. Until Taiwan could make up its mind about their national identity and cross-strait relationship with Mainland China, it's still an internal issue. This statement isn't at all good faith. Clearly it's much more complex than that. You are saying the party line while ignoring any possibility of good faith argument otherwise. There is no invocation of the idea of what is morally right. There is no contemplation of what the Taiwanese people see as best for themselves. What do you think would happen in Taiwan today if they rescinded their "right" to rule China?
If you were Taiwanese, what would you want to happen?
If you were Non Han Taiwanese, what would you want to happen?
How do you think Taiwanese children grow up learning about the China Taiwan situation?
What kind of culture do you think young Taiwanese are indoctrinated with?
How do you think a society that has freedom of speech considers its loss?
How do you think a society that has rule of law considers its loss?
What was the Taiwanese reaction to Hong Kong?
Why do Taiwanese keep buying weapons?
Is all Chinese trade to Taiwan a "gift"?
What types of punitive things would China do for being embarrassed by Taiwan's rejection?
Is the KMT/DPP of today, the same ruling "party" with the same "mindset" of yesteryear?
Did the KMT have to step back on their pro China stance to become viable?
Are the children of these "rebels" supposed to pay for the crimes of their parents?
Do you not see the slightest problem with the situation of holding a gun to someones head and then shouting "ARE YOU INDEPENDENT?!""Look, they said they're not independent, this is obviously an internal issue." > How would you think that would affect those people's future? That scenario makes no sense and there is insufficient information to judge it. It doesn't resonate with me. I wold probably be on one of the Islands. |
You argued about "good faith" but your entire argument is based on one side being bad actor while ignoring the contemporary issue inside Taiwan itself. Taiwan already repeatedly stated that they don't need to "declare independence" since PRC is the rogue one. Unlike Tibet, it never got conquered. Unlike Hong Kong, it never handed over by previous custodian (Japan "acknowledge" whoever control Taiwan as its government, but establish diplomatic relationship with PRC later).
What matters is how they identify themselves as sovereign state. Separation of identity only started to formally considered after DPP won their first presidency in 2000. Meaning that majority of the adult population was raised with pan-China identity rather than separate Taiwanese identity. Which shows in 2004 referendum, where it failed due to low turnout. Since then, their strategy is to gradually push for identity shift while empowering indigenous population as counterbalance against KMT's popularity.
Subsequent position by KMT politician also soften the stance to acknowledge a stalemate (that PRC is not a rebel but de facto ruler of Mainland China) but refused to cede the position of de jure claimant.
> There is no invocation of the idea of what is morally right. There is no contemplation of what the Taiwanese people see as best for themselves.
Who are we to be a moral arbiter and decide what's best for others using warships? To call it a settled issue while Taiwanese still in the process of identity transition is, quite frankly, authoritarian decision.
Which is the point of my argument: they're currently sorting it out. And so far PRC is unwilling to use force to settle the dispute, which is a good sign. Any provocation by third party only put the Taiwanese in difficult position, since they are only treated as a proxy to pressure and "contain" China.
> Do you not see the slightest problem with the situation of holding a gun to someones head and then shouting "ARE YOU INDEPENDENT?!"
I don't, because that's not what happened. Taiwan is not the one China point the gun at, the rest of the world is. Don't you think its funny that for all the noise the West make, none of them formally acknowledge Taiwan sovereignty and dare to establish diplomatic relationship?
Compare the situation with state breakups in Caucasus and Balkan region, and you'll see that as long as PRC is "useful" and not as powerful, they'll be happy playing two legged approach.
> "Look, they said they're not independent, this is obviously an internal issue."
It's not due to lack of independence claim (see above), but because its pertained to the national identity, regardless of what current politician in power said. You don't "label" people as Taiwanese, Han, Hakka, Hokkien, etc. They have all the right to think, decide, and act upon their identity on their own volition. Whether pan-China identity or Taiwanese identity prevails is up to the Taiwanese citizen, hence it's an internal issue.
The problem with externally-triggered aggressiveness is that they also provide opportunity for pro-unification side within Taiwan to push their narrative and hold back the transition to "maintain the peace" by pushing pan-China identity.
> That scenario makes no sense
But that's exactly what happened with Taiwan-China situation. One is the exiled successor government, while the others is communist rebel that maintain control of the territory.