What is Taiwan?

[CumbrianLefty]

Taiwan is a de facto independent country that is separate from the People's Republic of China (PRC/Mainland China).

The only reason Taiwan doesn't have more international recognition of its nationhood is due to economic and military bullying by the PRC.

No, that isn't the "only" reason even if it is a significant one.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

No, that isn't the "only" reason even if it is a significant one.

Semantics. It's the main/primary reason why.

[Yeahsayyeah]

I really do not understand, how a country claiming all of your territory ist less of a threat than this country claiming to be a different nation.

[Badger]

We would all be best to defer to jaichind on this one.

Jaichind certainly influences my thinking deeply on this matter.

Jaichind's entire worldview is based on which country he can make the most money in with child slavery.

Plus an abiding belief in might makes right - that is a Verbatim quote from him - and unreserved Han nationalism. He's a supporter of option 3 obviously, and just as obviously wrong.

[It’s so Joever]

I am Taiwanese too, why should some idiot from Scarsdale get “priority” over the millions of Taiwanese who may think differently?

Taiwan does not have the goal of “liberating the mainland” and you can bet that if either side pursued that goal Jaichind would immediately cry for them to stop once it hits his stupid portfolio.
Psychopaths have little belonging in politics.

[Mr. Smith]

Not real, just like its neighbor, it's a good enough explanation for the one certified carbon negative nation after all.

[jaichind]

Biden's very profound thoughts on this topic.  His ideas are so deep and profound that I am still working out the implications of his ideas on this topic.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

option 2, obviously.

most importantly though, the home country of some of my best friends who have brought me treats and cool tchotchkes from there, and sent me pretty pictures when they went back home

[dougbasedrino]

hot

[jaichind]

I really do not understand, how a country claiming all of your territory ist less of a threat than this country claiming to be a different nation.

It has to do with regime legitimation within the Chinese ecosystem.   For Chinese dynasties to have legitimacy they must strive to rule over the entire Chinese political ecosystem or they will be viewed as a joke or regional government that lacks the true mandate of heavens.  For ROC not to accept this goal and for the PRC to do nothing would call into question the legitimacy of the PRC as a truly great Chinese dynasty.

Just to be clear the goal does not have to translate into immediate action or even immediate results.  What is critical is the goal remains central to the regime's purpose.  The entire Eastern Jin Dynasty (266-420) was all about the reconquest of the North to reunify the Chinese political ecosystem (much like various East Roman Empire attempts at reconquest of the West a couple of hundred years later.)  There were several times Eastern Jin came close to succeeding but failed due to internal backstabbing.  You see, Eastern Jin was really controlled by a dozen powerful political families that took turns in government and being in the opposition.  Reconquest of the North was a slogan at regime legitimation that was never meant to succeed ergo the backstabbing.  If some of the political families were able to lead the Eastern Jin to reconquer the North it would mean a) the relative decline in power of the other political families and b) the capital will move back North which means less power for every political family.  As a result, when a couple of political families who were running the Eastern Jin government at the time came close to actually winning a war of Northern Reconquest the other families worked to backstab those efforts even as they shouted slogans of "Onward to requesting of the North !!! Victory !!!"

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

Very competent reasoning, except for one but: to say that the communists allegedly represent another Chinese dynasty, it's like calling Lenin the Kipchak Khanate's Khan in all seriousness and making grandiose conclusions and forecasts from this.

[jaichind]

Very competent reasoning, except for one but: to say that the communists allegedly represent another Chinese dynasty, it's like calling Lenin the Kipchak Khanate's Khan in all seriousness and making grandiose conclusions and forecasts from this.

I pointed out that for a while that this is the route CCP is going.  If you look at how classical Chinese civilization and Chinese dynasties of old are depicted in media, it is clear that CCP's political path is to position itself as another Great Chinese dynasty and tie itself to the dynasties of old.  This move is something I would very much support and would enhance my support for CCP.

One unique part of the speech Xi gave is for the first time he explicitly tied the CCP to the historical China.  He pointed out

"The Chinese nation is a great nation. With a history of more than 5,000 years, China has made indelible contributions to the progress of human civilization. After the Opium War of 1840, however, China was gradually reduced to a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society and suffered greater ravages than ever before. The country endured intense humiliation, the people were subjected to great pain, and the Chinese civilization was plunged into darkness. Since that time, national rejuvenation has been the greatest dream of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation."

Before other CCP speeches mostly talked about 1921 and 1949 as the starting point of Chinese history.  This time he explicitly tied the CCP to the historical China as well as 1840 (First Opium War) as the real starting date of the struggle of the CCP.  It places the CCP role as the entity to create rejuvenation of Chinese civilization.

Previous CCP leaders in the past have hinted a such a role but now Xi is now explicit about it.  Such speech could have easily came from a leader of an alternative "White" China.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

Very competent reasoning, except for one but: to say that the communists allegedly represent another Chinese dynasty, it's like calling Lenin the Kipchak Khanate's Khan in all seriousness and making grandiose conclusions and forecasts from this.

I pointed out that for a while that this is the route CCP is going.  If you look at how classical Chinese civilization and Chinese dynasties of old are depicted in media, it is clear that CCP's political path is to position itself as another Great Chinese dynasty and tie itself to the dynasties of old.  This move is something I would very much support and would enhance my support for CCP.

One unique part of the speech Xi gave is for the first time he explicitly tied the CCP to the historical China.  He pointed out

"The Chinese nation is a great nation. With a history of more than 5,000 years, China has made indelible contributions to the progress of human civilization. After the Opium War of 1840, however, China was gradually reduced to a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society and suffered greater ravages than ever before. The country endured intense humiliation, the people were subjected to great pain, and the Chinese civilization was plunged into darkness. Since that time, national rejuvenation has been the greatest dream of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation."

Before other CCP speeches mostly talked about 1921 and 1949 as the starting point of Chinese history.  This time he explicitly tied the CCP to the historical China as well as 1840 (First Opium War) as the real starting date of the struggle of the CCP.  It places the CCP role as the entity to create rejuvenation of Chinese civilization.

Previous CCP leaders in the past have hinted a such a role but now Xi is now explicit about it.  Such speech could have easily came from a leader of an alternative "White" China.

The fact that this comparison comes from Xi Jinping, and not from you, really changes things. This speech is a very disturbing sign. In addition to the fact that I recognize Putin's messages in this, which are more familiar to me, this is completely in the same vein as Hitler's concept of the Three Reichs and Mussolini's idea of restoring the Roman Empire.

[jaichind]

The fact that this comparison comes from Xi Jinping, and not from you, really changes things. This speech is a very disturbing sign. In addition to the fact that I recognize Putin's messages in this, which are more familiar to me, this is completely in the same vein as Hitler's concept of the Three Reichs and Mussolini's idea of restoring the Roman Empire.

This is an issue of civilizational universalism vs multipolar competing civilizations (which would be the position Putin's pseudo Euroasianism and my extreme Chinese nationalism would be).

Within the Chinese context, as with almost everything else, I am on the extreme Right.  Right vs Left within the Chinese context in the modern era is really "Has the Chinese civilization failed?" and "What is your view of the Taiping rebellion?"  How each modern Chinese regime in each era stood on these topics is a perfect predictor of my alignment within each era.

I always felt the great Chinese political divide was over the issue "Has the Chinese civilization failed?"  The Taiping rebellion was explicitly over that issue which is why I always felt that the Taiping rebellion is the demarcation line for beginning of modern Chinese history.  How a political force views the Taiping is the best way to get their view on "Has the Chinese civilization failed?"

The battle lines over since the 1850s on the question "Has the Chinese civilization failed?"

1850s-1860s.  Ching dynasty: No.  Taiping: Yes
1890s-1910s:  Ching dynasty: No (negative view of Taiping)   KMT: Yes (positive view of Taiping)
1910s-1920s:  Beiyiang: No (negative view of Taiping)   KMT: Yes (positive view of Taiping)
1930s-1970s:  KMT: No (negative view of Taiping)   CCP: Yes (positive view of Taiping)
1990s-now:     CCP: No (negative view of Taiping)   Various Lib/Dem opposition: Yes

I think these days CCP should really stand for Chinese Civilization Party.   For me the answer to the question is clearly and any point in time I always back the political force that is negative on the Taiping which these days is the CCP when it comes to anti-Chinese civilization alternatives.  

What I find really encouraging is that since the dark days of 1950s-1960s now there is a massive Chinese majority for "No" to that key question  "Has the Chinese civilization failed?" which the CCP now needs to tap into and encourage to keep power.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

If I were a Chinese nationalist, I would have a positive attitude towards the Taipings, since it was an uprising of the Chinese people against foreign conquerors (Manchus) and foreign colonialists (aliens from Europe and the United States). Unless the Taiping faith was a strange synthesis of Christianity, Taoism and Buddhism, but this is in tune with the religious situation in Taiwan, and atheists live in the PRC and they should not be concerned about the issue of religion at all, isn't that what Grandpa Mao taught?

[jaichind]

If I were a Chinese nationalist, I would have a positive attitude towards the Taipings, since it was an uprising of the Chinese people against foreign conquerors (Manchus) and foreign colonialists (aliens from Europe and the United States). Unless the Taiping faith was a strange synthesis of Christianity, Taoism and Buddhism, but this is in tune with the religious situation in Taiwan, and atheists live in the PRC and they should not be concerned about the issue of religion at all, isn't that what Grandpa Mao taught?

There are different variants of Chinese nationalism.  The mainstream one would be my Greater Chinese nationalism which is more about Chinese civilization and there are others like Greater Han nationalism.  How to view Sung General 岳飛(Yue Fei) and his battles against the Jin dynasty would be a good acid test.  Greater Chinese nationalists like me view the Manchurian-based Jin dynasty as another Chinese dynasty and would respect Yue as a symbol of loyalty but not a national hero while Greater Han nationalists would view Yue as a national hero.   Over the last few decades for sure the Greater Chinese nationalist narrative has been gaining ground over the Greater Han nationalism.

The Taiping regime is extremely problematic.  Their actions in the first few years are very much like the actions of the Radical Stage(1792-1794) of the French Revolution where they acted to erase traditional Chinese civilization.  They had their version Thermidorian Reaction a few years later but it was way too late.  The Ching had successfully rallied Chinese civilizational traditionalists around them to help put down the Taipei rebellion.  The Ching rallying cry against the Taiping was "protect Chinese civilization" even though their ruling elites were of Manchurian origins.   It worked and the Taipings got limited support and was eventually defeated despite significant anti-Ching sentiments in the South.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

By "Taiwan," are you referring to the geographical term of the island of Taiwan (including or excluding whatever negligible islets exist within swimming distance)? Are you referring to the collective territory of Taiwan and the Penghu Islands (the territories which are the homelands of both Taiwanese aborigines and the pre-1949 "Taiwanese Han," which are also the territories that constituted Japanese Taiwan)? Or are you referring to the entirety of the territories correctly referred to as the "Free Area of the Republic of China," which, in addition to Taiwan and Penghu, includes the islands of Kinmen and Lienchiang (alternatively Quemoy and Matsu, respectively) - islands which are geographically on the "Mainland Chinese side" of the Taiwan strait, where the majority of citizens who live there identify with a "Chinese" national identity and do not identify with a "Taiwanese" national identity, and in which the overwhelming majority of voters favor the "pro-reunification" Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party, even if only in its official name anymore) and Pan-Blue coalition parties over the pro-independence DPP and pan-Green Coalition parties, in which a growing number of citizens are beginning to openly sympathize and identify with the People's Republic of China in resistance to the "Taiwanese independence movement" and out of frustration with the KMT, and which both the PRC and the ROC itself organize as being part of "Fujian Province"?

Even if "Taiwan" may ever (even though it shouldn't) be considered "not a part of China," Kinmen and Lienchiang are without any dispute part of Fujian, China and not part of "Taiwan." If "Taiwan" has the right to "declare independence from China," then Kinmen and Lienchiang must have the right to declare "independence" from "Taiwan" and (re-)join "China."

I really do not understand, how a country claiming all of your territory is less of a threat than this country claiming to be a different nation.

Because in this case only the latter, and not the former, sets the very problematic precedent that any "part of China" has the "right" to "secede" or "declare independence" from "China" on the mere basis that the local government decided to do so, or that a vote was spontaneously held in which a majority of participants voted "yes."

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

Because it sets the very problematic precedent that any "part of China" has the "right" to "secede" or "declare independence" from "China" on the mere basis that the local government decided to do so, or that a vote was spontaneously held in which a majority of participants voted "yes."

The Kuomintang is much older than Mao's Soviet collaborators. It was the Kuomintang that stood at the origins of the formation of a real Chinese state in the course of national, civilizational and social liberation from the Manchus. In fact, the PRC is a province that broke away from the Chinese nation-state, even if, thanks to intensive Soviet assistance, this began to look the other way around in terms of territory sizes.

[Lord Halifax]

Even if "Taiwan" may ever (even though it shouldn't) be considered "not a part of China," Kinmen and Lienchiang are without any dispute part of Fujian, China and not part of "Taiwan." If "Taiwan" has the right to "declare independence from China," then Kinmen and Lienchiang must have the right to declare "independence" from "Taiwan" and (re-)join "China."

pedantry, it's like arguing Shetland and Orkney should have the right to secede from an independent Scotland and (re-)join the UK. What matters is Taiwan's current borders not how they were established or what they historically were.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Even if "Taiwan" may ever (even though it shouldn't) be considered "not a part of China," Kinmen and Lienchiang are without any dispute part of Fujian, China and not part of "Taiwan." If "Taiwan" has the right to "declare independence from China," then Kinmen and Lienchiang must have the right to declare "independence" from "Taiwan" and (re-)join "China."

pedantry, it's like arguing Shetland and Orkney should have the right to secede from an independent Scotland and (re-)join the UK. What matters is Taiwan's current borders not how they were established or what they historically were.

1) Shetland and Orkney have never been part of England, Wales, Ireland, or Northern Ireland and have always been part of Scotland for the entirety of Scotland's union with England. On the other hand, Kinmen and Lienchiang have never been part of any polity called "Taiwan" and have always been part of Fujian Province, China for the entirety of the period of the ROC's seat of government being located in Taiwan since 1949. This comparison is nonsense

2) That said, why shouldn't Shetland and Orkney be allowed to rejoin the UK if the rest of Scotland leaves, if a majority of the people who live in Shetland and Orkney want to remain in the UK?

The overwhelming majority of the people of Kinmen and Lienchiang never agreed nor ever wanted to be part of any country other than China. They did not choose to be governed by a state separate from the one governing the (rest of) Mainland China. If you don't recognize the right of the people of Kinmen and Lienchiang not to take part in Taiwan declaring independence from China, then you are a supporter of neither "modern liberal democracy" nor "national self-determination." You are clearly just anti-Chinese (if not in your intention, then in your function).

[jaichind]

Even if "Taiwan" may ever (even though it shouldn't) be considered "not a part of China," Kinmen and Lienchiang are without any dispute part of Fujian, China and not part of "Taiwan." If "Taiwan" has the right to "declare independence from China," then Kinmen and Lienchiang must have the right to declare "independence" from "Taiwan" and (re-)join "China."

pedantry, it's like arguing Shetland and Orkney should have the right to secede from an independent Scotland and (re-)join the UK. What matters is Taiwan's current borders not how they were established or what they historically were.

But those same "borders" were a result of military action.  When the PRC was formed on Oct 1 1949 the ROC armed forces still controlled part of or all of the provinces of Hunan, Fujian, Chekiang, Guangdong,  Guangshi, Guichou, Sichuan, Yunnan, SiKang (PRC has since folded this province into Sichuan and Tibet but is a still a province under ROC Constitution), Sinjiang, and of course Taiwan.
TaChen Islands of Chekiang Province were controlled by the ROC up until 1955 when the PLA defeated the ROC forces there and took over that island.  If these current "borders" are "legitimate" through military action of the PLA then surely the PLA can further "legitimize" the border with a future military assault on ROC-held territory.

Besides under this logic and using a current situation, one can also say "Russia currently controls part of or all of 4 Ukraine Oblasts, it does not matter how they were established or what they historically were they are part of Russia's borders"

Do not get me wrong.  I support such a view which is one of "might make right."  My point is that this argument that is being made only works with a "might makes right" framework.

[jaichind]

The overwhelming majority of the people of Kinmen and Lienchiang never agreed nor wanted to be part of any country other than China. They did not choose to be governed by state separate from the one governing the (rest of) Mainland China. If you don't recognize the right of the people of Kinmen and Lienchiang not to take part in Taiwan declaring independence from China, then you are not a supporter of neither "modern liberal democracy" nor "national self-determination." You're clearly just anti-Chinese (if not in your intention then in your function).

In the summer of 1992 when I was in college I spent a few weeks back on ROC.  That was pretty much the year I came out of the closet with more pro-CCP views as a part of a move toward radical reunification.  I actually participated in a Unification vs Independence debate at my cousin's college.  During the debate,  the pro-independence side pretty much used the argument of "supremacy of popular sovereignty" to justify the right of self-determination of Taiwan.

I posed the following extreme hypothetical "What if myself and a bunch of radical pro-unification elements were to move to an uninhabited island off the shore of Taipei and the vote to join the PRC followed by the PRC showing up to build a massive military base?  Or what if I bought a house right next to the ROC Presidential Palace and then voted 1-0 to join PRC? Would those situations be allowed under  "supremacy of popular sovereignty"?"

The response of course was not from the pro-independence side which focused on the sustainability of such a territory on why this logic would not hold.  I retorted "Such territories will be sustainable if they joined PRC" which the pro-independence side claimed as circular logic.  Of course, neither side convinced the other as one would expect.

The use case of Kinmen and Lienchiang came up by others on the pro-unification side.  Just to be fair some of the pro-independence side was fine with Kinmen and Lienchiang becoming independent of an independent Taiwan or joining PRC.  The pro-independence argument back in the 1990s was more about a Hoklo identity and was more OK to see Kinmen and Lienchiang go.  The current generation of pro-independence thought is more about ideology and civilizational universalism and mostly would oppose  Kinmen and Lienchiang going their own way.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Biden's very profound thoughts on this topic.  His ideas are so deep and profound that I am still working out the implications of his ideas on this topic.

This might not be profound, but it's comprehensible and ought to be uncontroversial given the probable consequences of the alternatives. The objective reality on the ground is option 2, though.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Though in theory I support reunification under the Republic of China, for now I support the status quo I guess.  I really wish the Nationalists had won, so many things would be better if that happened, for both China and the world.

[Neptunium]

Definitely a country which is different from China.