The only thing that will stop china from interfering in Taiwan is, universal consciousness willing, South Korea and Japan along with the other Asian nations having enough sway with China to keep them at bay. I very much prefer not to entertain WW3, but as others have said many times recently, if it is going to start, it may very well be over Taiwan.
The issue is, the CCP sees Taiwan as theirs when in reality China belongs to Taiwan.
It would seem a treaty acknowledging Taiwan as an independent sovereign would be an ideal outcome, but it's weird to see nations express wounded pride, imo
That would be like saying the US belongs to the Native Indians, the Vikings or the British. It might be true, but what is the point exactly? Like it or not but Might Is Right and in less than 20 years Might equals PRC above all else (including the US, yes).
> That would be like saying the US belongs to the Native Indians, the Vikings[...]
That's not quite right. The government of Taiwan consists (consisted?) at least partially of the literal former government of the country now commonly known as China before the "cultural revolution" that murdered tens of million of people and put the CCP into power.
The closest analogy that you can get is the idea that the US belongs to the British (as they were our former government) - which you can make a decent case for, although I would still argue that the vastly different natures of the Revolutionary War and the Cultural Revolution still make them distinct.
The Republic of China was the government of China from 1912 until 1949 when it was overthrown by the CCP and retreated to Taiwan. Until at least 1971 the UN recognized it as the legitimate government of all of China.
The poster's comment is outdated, but that's the historical background -- and why it's less crazy than you might have assumed without knowing the history.
There is more relevant history: when the ROC retreated to Taiwan, they killed a lot of the upper crust of the Taiwanese already on the island. Truth is, while Japan treated Korea fairly bad, they treated Taiwan as an almost province, so that fostered a lot of distrust between the KMT and the Taiwanese on the island before they arrived, leading to atrocities. The pre-1949 Taiwanese distrust the mainlanders a lot (represented by both the ROC and PRC).
Most Taiwanese would rather refer to throw off the legacy of the ROC completely, but doing so would be considered an act of war by the PRC.
I remember my mind being blown when I read about internal Taiwanese politics and learned that both parties are more or less anti-independence.
The liberals / doves think it would provoke China, and be too high a price to pay for something that's already de facto truth.
But the conservatives / hawks argue against it because they deny the legitimacy of the PRC, so why would Taiwan need to declare it's independence from rebels in its own country?
> Possession counts for a lot more than theoretical legal legitimacy.
So in your mind, the act of murder "counts for a lot more" [0] than someone's right to their own life, and theft does not exist, since whoever possesses something owns it?
[0] What's the unit we're counting in? How do you "count" intellectual integrity or moral character?
>Might does not make right in questions of rule of law
Sure it does. The laws are written by those who can enforce them. That is by definition those with Might. If that is barbarism then all of earth is under barbarism (and I'd argue that this is true).
History is full of good examples. The Nuremberg trials is a great example of Might Is Right. The exact same laws used against the Nazis never were enforced on US citizens.
Rule of law does not have baked into it that laws are written by the mighty, or even that they can or will be enforced, consistently or otherwise. Merely that laws exist, can be made, and unmade, and should be followed.
After all, there was a reason the Founders advised that it was a great evil to put a law on the books that couldn't be reasonably enforced due to the tendency to deligitimize the authority in question.
The current status quo depends on the PRC pretending that Taiwan is ruled by a regional government, while the Taiwanese government has restricted its actual scope to Taiwan. To this effect, in 1991 Taiwan has added articles to its constitution to account for the fact that its government has only control over the "Taiwan Area".
The actual policy of the Taiwanese government depends on who is in charge at the moment. The Pan-Blue Coalition favors reunification, while the Pan-Green Coalition tries to assert a separate Taiwanese national identity.
The claim on the rest of China is still there, but only because it cannot be dropped in practice. The PRC would interpret dropping the claim on the rest of China as a declaration of Secession and Independence, which would have diplomatic and possibly military consequences.
I also don't understand your comment. I went so far as to quickly skim through the history of Taiwan and I don't understand why you said China belongs to Taiwan?
Why were the Fourth Republic upstarts allowed to take control from the Vichy regime? De Gaulle's people ran for the hills and lost any claim to their old territory.
I expect his argument is that the former national government of mainland China fled to Taiwan during the revolution.
This is true, but it doesn't make a strong argument for legitimacy. Former governments flee countries frequently, and unless there is a rapidly implemented plan to try to get them back into power they are generally ignored.
Taiwan is better viewed as a breakaway state than having any legitimate stake in the government of mainland China.
One could even argue that the agreement Great Britain had for the 100 year lease of Hong Kong was with the Nationalist (Taiwan) government and not the PRC.
Whether it is colonial or not does not matter for legitimacy. A blanket rejection of treaties on the basis of being colonial and unfair would invalidate all border agreements between former colonial countries.
Of course, the international community can condemn treaties and push for decolonialization, but in most cases this is foiled by the refusal of the colonial power to give up the claim. Examples: Falkland islands, West Sahara, Goa (reconquered by India using military force).
In many cases, it is advantegeous for both parties to seek a peaceful decoloniazation treaty, which becomes a part of international law and formal basis for the future claim on the decolonized territory.
It has a huge impact in practice. The international community will look much more favourably on a country that violates a colonial treaty with its former Metropolis than with any other country.
In practice, colonial era treaties are less legitimate. No one except the parties directly materially affected care.
> the agreement Great Britain had for the 100 year lease of Hong Kong was with the Nationalist (Taiwan) government and not the PRC
This appears to be a difficult argument to make in a consistent way. HK was ceded to GB a the Treaty of Nanking[1] which was between the UK and the Qing Dynasty Chinese government. It was later expanded in 1897, again with the Qing Dynasty.
That Dynasty collapsed in the early 20th century. That was followed by the warlord era, and then the nationalist government in the 1930s. That lasted until defeated by the Communist government in 1949.
So there were only around 20 years the Nationalist government governed mainland China, and it was long after the treaty ceding HK.
So the smart thing for the British government to have done would have been to declare the treaty invalid when the PRC came to power. GB could have claimed Hong Kong in perpetuity and the PRC would not have dared to stand up to GB in that era.
Well apart from over 70 years of mostly stable government (with Tiananmen square being the exception) they are broadly recognized by most countries and the UN and have been for close to 50 years.
There's little evidence of support in China or even in Taiwan for the idea that the Taiwan government are the legitimate government of mainland China, and Taiwanese ambition is pretty much limited in practical terms to self government.
Indeed, I don't believe Taiwan claims China in anyway I can find reference to.
