It is in the culture of chinese to unify everything under its culture. It is a culture empire by nature. Before accepting the reality, Taiwan claim the whole china and in fact sort of still do they sort of still do to southern china sea.
There is nothing in chinese culture allow difference. Harmony is all under one rule only. No federalism. International approach to culture ... we will not see but one day if it is it will try to take on all culture barbarians. There is nothing but to keep all non-barbarian within the Great Wall. Even if it is e-Great Wall.
Globally one might say we should consider a model for one extra powerful (strong or big country as chinese woukdvput it) group. One may say just like America, Eu, Russia, Arabs ... that might be just worry of japan, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, ... past culture colony of china should be worry.
but given its one belt one road and the china of china taken of Africa, I am afraid it is much worst.
We are not talking about a country that respect humanity basic rights. Check out the 7 we do not talk about you know what is in store for the world or at least within.
Good luck to us. Hope it all fail. But prepare for the worst.
*
Not sure how strong support of us on Taiwan (and HONG kong) even though both has an American act to sort of protect their different level of independence. Good luck.
Maybe you can check this observation of mine but it appears that ethnically Chinese (Han) people seem to often equate criticisms on Mainland China poitics as being synonymous with attacks of ethnic Chinese people. It is very normal to see criticisms of China met with objections from Chinese people who are Singaporean or from the EU.
It also seems to me that Taiwan and Hong Kong are sitting at a place where they feel they are ethnically/culturally connected but don't want the political aspects of being a part of the mainland. On the other hand, people from the mainland (or connected to the mainland) seem to view those as the same things.
ROC (Taiwan) is the defacto legitimate government of China. They were defeated in war by communist forces and fled to Taiwan. At the time (1949-onward), America acknowledged ROC as the legitimate government of China, but only intervened to protect them in the Taiwan strait. You can simply read more detail on Wikipedia, etc(1). Then after Mao won control of China, he went on to oversee arguably the manslaughter and murder of more people than any other tyrant in history.
I think you mean de jure. A mainland Chinese would not go to Taiwanese courts or abide by Taiwanese law, so you cannot say that most living in Qing China's imperial borders recognize the legitimacy of TW's govt.
Internationally, more countries abide by the PRC's One China policy than exclusively recognize TW, so it does not have international de facto legitimacy as well.
De jure... well, that would still be arbitrary. Go further back and one might consider the hereditary Qing successors to be the legitimate rulers. Or you might consider legitimacy to be conferred by the Mandate of Heaven, and by that reasoning China has never been more prosperous than the present in absolute terms, so then the PRC holds legitimacy.
Dejure is indeed a better-suited term than defacto. My mistake.
I was just trying to tell the history and articulate what happened. The meaning I intended was that the world and the US were allied with and recognized ROC. It is a case of "might makes right" where no court or treaty ever agreed to pass control, only war did.
> ROC (Taiwan) is the defacto legitimate government of China. They were defeated in war by communist forces and fled to Taiwan.
They were defeated, and yet still considered the "defacto legitimate government of China"? How does that work? I would think very few people consider the ROC the "legitimate" government of Mainland China.
> America acknowledged ROC as the legitimate government of China
I'm just stating what the historical facts are. Even the UN charter still to this day lists ROC as the legitimate government of China, but in the 70s they started letting the PRC sit in that seat.
> They were defeated, and yet still considered the "defacto legitimate government of China"? How does that work? I would think very few people consider the ROC the "legitimate" government of Mainland China.
They weren't totally defeated, but retreated to a "rump state" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rump_state) that still exists as an independent entity. Many countries, especially in the middle of the 20th century, would have preferred that government regain control of China from the Communists.
For an even more extreme example where that actually happened, look at the Baltic states. Their annexation by the Soviets was never recognized by many non-Communists states, and eventually their states re-established independence in a way that's generally considered continuous with their per-annexation states. They didn't even have the benefit of having rump states during the Cold War.
> However, the Estonian government in exile did serve to carry the continuity of the Estonian state forward. The last prime minister in the duties of the president, Heinrich Mark, ended the work of the government in exile when he handed over his credentials to the incoming President Lennart Meri on October 8, 1992. Meri issued a statement thanking the Estonian government in exile for being the keepers of the legal continuity of the Estonian state.
