Hypothetically speaking, if one is opposed to some or all aspects of the "One China" doctrine, what can one do locally/globally to effect change? Or is the annexation of Taiwan a near-certainty via the forces of economics?
Don't buy stuff that's made in China, and optionally (but importantly) then email that CEO of the company whose stuff you decided not to buy that was made in China, explaining why.
The dragon doesn't care what you say about it so long as it's still being fed.
One of China's strategies for subverting Taiwanese democracy is to court Taiwan's elites: you are allowed to get very rich in China, as long as you agree with the one-China policy and increase ties with the mainland.
Rest assured that if Terry Gou were to promote Taiwanese independence, Foxconn would get into deep trouble quickly.
So? Many other countries have factories in China. But now even Samsung has most production in Vietnam. I have no doubt Foxconn will move most of production out of China soon. Foxconn is investing heavily in India production.
Yes, you should email Apple to tell them to move out of China.
> Hypothetically speaking, if one is opposed to some or all aspects of the "One China" doctrine, what can one do locally/globally to effect change?
Voting with your wallet or voicing your concerns seem fairly futile to me.
What I believe could make a difference is trying to educate people on what the honest (non-partisan) reality of the situation is, to the best of your ability. When you encounter someone online stating something that is untrue (flat out wrong, generalized to the point of important detail being missed, mischaracterization of news or literature), speak up with a more accurate representation of the truth. The goal of this is not to change the mind of the person who has written something untrue (although that's a nice side benefit in the rare case it happens), it is for the hundreds/thousands of other readers who subconsciously form opinions based on the entirety of information they consume, so they they at least have a chance of hearing lesser-biased versions of reality.
> From what I see, the problem isn't so much with the truth, but rather the narrative and interpretation of these facts.
Exactly.
> For example, suppose a vaccine had a 90% success rate. This is the truth, however anti-vaxxers will focus on the 10% failure rate.
And pro-vaxxers will "focus" (ie: discuss that, and only that) the success rate. But if you don't cover up the 10% and someone finds out, this is how "conspiracy theories" get started.
I don’t have a dog in this fight either way, but the us doesn’t seem particularly interested in defending our allies anywhere right now, so I imagine that China is going to start flexing its muscles in more and more obvious ways. I think even if you think trump is an anomoly, America is tiring of maintaining the post WWII order, and China is only just ramping up its interest in expanding its sphere of influence.
Russian interference in US elections has made a lot of Americans more hostile to autocracies. The effect varies in strength with political affiliation, and different groups within the country have held different levels of animus to autocracy over decades. But there is a base level of fundamental conflict between liberal society and illiberal society that never goes away.
Of course not. PRC is itself engaging in trade with Taiwan.
This is about handful of tiny countries who still maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. For example United States is not formally recognizing Taiwan as a country.
They severely reduced the amount of trade with Norway for six years after Norway gave the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese dissident. That's not Taiwan, but I think that if they'd be willing to do that for a dissident, how much more so regarding Taiwan. The Chinese government has a solid history of attempting to control actions of other countries by "punishing" their businesses when they do something China doesn't like.
The intermarriage rate between Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese is extremely high. Something like 80% of all international marriages in Taiwan are with Mainland Chinese.
There are also a ton of Taiwanese that are studying and working in China. China recently passed a law that lets Taiwanese have the same access to benefits as locals, e.g. healthcare, schools for kids, buying property, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if within a few generations, every Taiwanese has a direct connection with Mainland China again, either through a spouse, friends, or through work.
When that time comes, I can see reunification happen naturally.
And for those people who think 1 country, 2 systems is bad because of Hong Kong, take a look at Macau. They are in a similar situation, but there are no protests there at all due to all the economic benefits they got.
So if China can do that to Taiwan, I think they will be accepted with open arms.
I believe that Taiwan will eventually merge with the mainland. Perhaps via the two-systems one China route that Hong Kong did. The claims of mainland China on Taiwan are understandable and I don't fault them for their perspective on the issue.
Is the United States really willing to go to war with China over this? I don't think so. Are Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines willing to go to war with China? China's desire for Taiwan far exceeds the willingness of others to fight them over it. This is especially so since China is taking the long range approach. They aren't going to outright invade Taiwan. It's akin to a death by a thousand cuts. Slowly, but surely, they inch their way to control.
It had a military advantage. It doesn’t anymore.[0] Taiwan has not been sold modern equipment, while China has increased military spending and operational capability.
Being an island, Taiwan always had to rely on holding off an invading force for as long as possible. This historically meant until the US Navy could reinforce its defenses. Now with China’s anti access area denial strategy, this is becoming a less certain strategy.[1]
China has nuclear weapons, so in terms of total war the direct outcome is not in question.
The issue is Taiwan is capable of putting up enough of a fight to make it loud internationally and painful domestically. The population does not want to join a poorly run country with 1/4th it’s per capita GDP. It would be able to retaliate and hit major Chinease cities making it an extremely expensive war etc etc. And after they won they would not have an prosperous nation just a huge and angry mess.
PS: Most interestingly the people on the ground in Taiwan with the most information are scaling back military spending. So, presumably they believe the threat of war is minimal.
Honestly. I don’t know where you’re getting your information. Given your out of date information, and a cavalier toss about using nuclear weapons, I don’t think you’re nearly as well informed as you think you are.
As the past 60 years of US Military action have made abundantly clear, even for the best military on the planet by quite a margin no war is “easy” to win. Now, granted, China won’t agonize about collateral damage the way we do, but even then it’s not “easy”, especially if you plan to take permanent control of the territory afterwards. For that to happen, the overwhelming majority of the country has to _want_ such control, and the remaining people have to not be too heavily invested in the idea of independence. It’s pretty much the opposite of what you see in Taiwan.
It's funny because the situation you speak of with China is purely hypothetical while there are plenty (too many to count, really) modern day examples of the US military striking civilians all around the world.
But hey, at least America has the decency to agonise over it, right? Very civilised indeed.
5% collateral casualty rate, while regrettable, is very, very low, comparatively speaking. And yes, I was discussing this in context of a purely theoretical invasion of Taiwan. That's the whole point.
Comparatively speaking to what? The 20% non-military fatality rate in the decade of bombing that preceded that particular year? Vietnam? Korea?
To make a hand-wavy statement such as "China won’t agonize about collateral damage the way we do" makes it sound as though you think the collective American morality is somehow superior to that of the Chinese? I'm curious how one could come to such a conclusion while taking into account both recent and less recent history.
I wonder if China would treat the Tawainese civilians as gently as it treats its own? I suppose Tibet, Tianemnen, forced abortions, political prisoners, and the rest are just "hand-wavy" issues. Actually I do recall watching that one guy wave his hands a bit as he was run over by a tank in Tianemenn... or maybe it was twitching... can't recall.
Well, I suppose they are since you just hand-waved over them. I could hand-wave over any number of quantifiable, internal American social/geo-political issues also. Gun laws (Aurora, Sandy-hook, San Bernardino, Orlando, Mandalay Bay, Stoneman Douglas), mass for-profit incarceration of blacks/latinos for non-violent offences, forced births and closing of abortion clinics, Flint Michigan, response (or lack thereof) to hurricanes Katrina, Irma, Maria, just to name a few.
While we're at it, let me go ahead and hand-wave over the multitude of overseas abuses in a similar fashion. Lebanon, Cuba, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Iran, Libya, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria.
Now tell me, which of these points to any form of 'agonising' about human rights?
> Actually I do recall watching that one guy wave his hands a bit as he was run over by a tank in Tianemenn... or maybe it was twitching... can't recall.
Not to worry, it is a well known stereotype that Americans have very long memories of atrocities carried out by countries other than their own.
The US is hardly an ideal state, but they have policies in place to limit civilian casualties and actually practice them in warfare. The process of estimating civilian casualties from each bombing run is not just as a paperwork but actually delays the use of force on a regular basis. This is a direct outgrowth of past blowback from indiscriminate total war in the past.
So, while it’s possible that China would use similar restraint you actually need to support that argument, because the American military does actually Agonize about this stuff.
You misunderstand the argument. You think the argument is about the justness or unjustness of killed/wounded innocent bystanders, and other collateral damage. Rightly you argue that the US behaves far better than any of it's enemies, or for that matter allies.
When compared to Venezuela, China, Russia and the other states these people keep defending, one might rightfully point out that the US not only behaves better but it's ridiculous to claim any comparison : clearly the US is morally superior to these guys. There can be no real argument about that. And about terrorists or Palestina, well, those states don't even claim their victims have anything to do with their "war", so if they have 95% collateral damage and innocents killed, they probably consider that a mistake.
In reality the point of complaining about America's use of force is a political point meant to change the politics of the US, change the balance of social power within the US.
Therefore arguments about what does and does not happen, or what is and isn't just given people's various positions ... are beside the point.
>>Is the United States really willing to go to war with China over this? I don't think so. Are Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines willing to go to war with China? China's desire for Ta
As a non US citizen. What's this whole war obsession US people have?
For a fraction of US's war expenses in Afghanistan and Middle East, China is building a state of the art economic network system(Silk Route) across the Eurasia and Africa. Making the co-operation across countries very easy.
Trading and trade ties aren't exactly unethical or evil.
I think it will do the US foreign policy a great deal of good if it didn't have a 'our way or the highway' attitude all the time.
I am a Taiwanese millienial and I am deeply offended by this comment. Why would you say that the claim is understandable? ? Taiwan has been an independent democratic country with its own military, economy, culture, government, rules of law, and international relations for over 50 years. The current Chinese government has never ruled over the island.
Not to mention most Taiwanese currently support independence, especially the young generations. Recent polls have come in around 70-80% of Taiwanese people believing they are 'taiwanese' and in no way associated with China.
China is a big bully and a disgusting entity which keeps trying to write Taiwan off the international stage, via threats to businesses. Recently they were so petty, that when the president visited a bakery (85 degrees) in LA, they were so furious that they wanted the Taiwanese bakery to say that they are 'Taiwan, China'. So fucking ridiculous. Good thing they won't be able to take Taiwan militarily for a long long time. It's a heavily fortified island preparing for such an invasion for 50 years, and history has shown that rarely has any island invasion been successful, especially since China has such a weak military that has never seen real actions.
The world is starting to see the ugly sides of China. And thank god. The Chinese government is horrible and needs to be reduced to irrelevance in the world stage.
Just remember that nobody can give you your independence when China challenges it. You must take it and be prepared to pay heavy price for it.
When China forces others to choose side, most of the world looks at what is in their own national interest, not what is fair.
Even if China is not ready to invade, they can learn from Russian type frozen conflict, sanctions and blockades. Slow paced conflict is enough to collapse Taiwan's economy. Just few missiles per week against different harbors and airfield closes Taiwan for business. Declaring Taiwan's as a war zone, effectively closes commercial air and sea traffic. Few years passes and Taiwan is like Crimea, big powers are willing to sell Taiwan to China in exchange of something else.
Thanks for the kind words. We are always prepared to defend our country. Also, visit Taiwan!! it's a gorgeous island with warm friendly people and delicious food.
It’s possible to understand a perspective while not agreeing with it. When Chiang fled to Taiwan wasn’t Taiwan considered part of China? You can’t understand why the successors to the victors of the civil war in mainland China want to control Taiwan? There are now two Chinas. It’s understandable that some want there to be one China.
Chiang fled to Taiwan wasn’t Taiwan
considered part of China?
Taiwan had been under Japanese rule for 50 years. When Japan lost the war, Taiwan was governed by the Allied Powers, who appointed Chen Yi [1] from the Kuomintang (KMT) as chief executive and garrison commander of Taiwan Province [2].
The Peace Treaty with Japan (Treaty of San Francisco) [3] and the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (Treaty of Taipei) [4] both did not specify that Taiwan was a part of mainland China.
I think formally/legally Taiwan was Japanese until 1952 but Japan was under allied control now.
The question of Taiwan's legal status was left open in the aforementioned peace treaties. This is the legal/technical root cause for the problems with Taiwan's legal status even today.
(The real reason is quite different: it's Taiwan's thriving democracy which undermines and contradicts the Chinese Communist Party narrative that democracy is neither needed nor desirable for the Chinese people.)
The administration of Taiwan under Chen Yi was strained by increasing tensions between Taiwanese-born people and newly arrived mainlanders. Even back then, many Taiwanese resented the increasing streams of mainlanders coming to Taiwan as the Chinese Civil War raged on the mainland. This culminated in the February 28 1947 Incident [5], which cemented the KMT's rule.
What I meant was, didn’t the “Chinese people” (deliberately put in quotes) think of Taiwan as part of China? Japan took over Taiwan from China, didn’t it? As far as I know the PRC has always thought of Taiwan as part of China and I don’t think that will change soon. Thank you for the links.
Almost all Taiwanese citizens are descendants of people who migrated from the mainland.
Note that Taiwan became an island only about 10000 years ago, when the sea levels rose.
Taiwan was joined to the mainland before.
In the 17th century various European powers (Spain, Portugal, Dutch) sought to dominate Taiwan, but were eventually expelled,
when
the Qing dynasty (the last imperial dynasty of China) annexed Taiwan in 1683. That rule ended with the Qing's defeat in First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) [1]. Taiwan was ceded to Japan on 17 April 1895.
> Recent polls have come in around 70-80% of Taiwanese people believing they are 'taiwanese' and in no way associated with China.
Ask any Taiwanese person who is their people's greatest hero.
Or ask them who is their people's greatest poet or artist.
I guarantee 99% of them would name someone that was born (and died centuries ago) in China.
I think the biggest irony surrounding the "Taiwanese" identity is that the real Taiwanese, i.e. the Aboriginals, actually prefer the KMT over the DPP [1].
1. The KMT is the party that is more sympathetic to China and leans towards reunification. The DPP, the current party in control of the presidency, is pro-independence.
This is an interesting question! Maintaining this claim seems crazy.
One
interpretation is that Taiwan sees this as a bargaining chip with China, to be given up at an opportune moment, in exchange for something else, e.g. the China accepting Taiwan's independence.
However, more likely is that giving up on the claim to rule China, might trigger the China's anti-secession laws, which in turn would lead to an invasion on Taiwan.
The other side of the story is that Taiwan was was ruled as part of a single China for centuries, it was the final holdout of the KMT government that was defeated when the communists took over, and it too would have fallen if it had not been protected by the United States.
I'm on the side of independence as you are, but I can see why the PRC makes the claims it does.
You are not in a strong position, unfortunately. The rest of the world broadly agrees that China and Taiwan are the same country. You don't have representation in the UN, or formal recognition from most countries.
Your biggest advantage was economic. But China's growth means you are now tiny compared to them, and you have a reduced ability to pay other countries for diplomatic recognition.
Unlike the poster you replied to, I think this is deeply unfortunate, and deplore the fact that China wishes to gradually take you over. But, the strategic outlook is bleak: your western allies share of world GDP and military power shrinks every year, and the US has turned fickle. China meanwhile outpaces your growth every year, and is getting more and more power over countries that neighbour you.
I don't think it would ever be an invasion, but rather a slow strangling, and a carrot of union offered. And it would be a long term project.
"The rest of the world broadly agrees that China and Taiwan are the same country."
No.
The 'rest of the world' basically accepts that China and Taiwan are different countries, and would recognize Taiwan in a heartbeat if it were not for diplomatic issues.
Those "diplomatic issues" were the entire point of my post. And my argument is that they're going to get worse, not better, over time, as China's regional and global position strengthens.
I meant "broadly agrees" in the diplomatic sense. That's the main sense that matters for Taiwan. The US is the only country with any real measure if de facto support for Taiwan, and it is pulling back from Asia.
(The author, John Mearsheimer, is a leading international relations theorist. In 1994 he may a similar prediction when Ukraine gave up its nukes: he said they would eventually be strategically vulnerable to Russian aggression)
I see your point, but I don't think they 'agree it's not a country', rather they 'agree they can't recognize it as a country', which is not a subtle difference.
I guess my orignal post wasn't very clear, but I did immediately follow the line about "not a country" with no recognition in the UN and no formal recognition.
I'm sure most of the world would likewise reconize Hong Kong as a city state country in a heartbeat. But that is of near zero value for Hong Kong's long term prospects of independence from China.
If the world can't recognize Taiwan now, then its prospects are even worse as China grows more regionally and economically powerful.
This of course is even worse for the people of Taiwan in the future, as they will grow more and more used to independence as their position gets weaker and weaker.
In what sense are Taiwan and China the same country? China has acted as a bully to deny the independent status of Taiwan, but I have no idea why you think that they don't have the right to self-determination.
In the "do other countries recognize Taiwan as a country" sense. Generally speaking, the answer is that they don't.
That means Taiwan's independence is only de facto, not de jure, and that is a very bad thing for Taiwan's prospects. Particularly in a world where China now has much more economic power than Taiwan.
I'm not talking about "right". Like I said, I think Taiwan should be independent. But, I'm not optimistic about that continuing to be the case over the long run. China seems to really, really want it, and to be patient about it.
With all due respect, the difference between de facto and de jure is just smoke and mirrors. Taiwan has been an effectively independent nation for over 50 years with fairly well defined borders and an inept organization like the United Nations is hardly your golden ticket for staking your sovereignty out on the map when the world is ruled by money, guns, drugs, and superior technology in approximately that order.
The United States still has enough force in the area to force the PRC's hand if it invaded Taiwan tomorrow, but quite frankly I think Taiwan has better prospects of seeing the next 50 years as an independent nation than the United Nations does existing in 50 years.
Prior to the Japanese takeover of Taiwan in the 1930s people considered Taiwan part of China. After Chiang fled to Taiwan and placed himself in power he called a Taiwan the Republic of China. The PRC constitution makes it clear that they consider Taiwan a province of mainland China. After many decades of domination by Japan and Western powers it’s understandable that many leaders in the PRC want a status quo ante with regard to Taiwan. Wether one agrees with their stance or not it is certainly understandable why they think the way they do. Also, for a while it was U.S. policy that there be one China. The issue is murky enough that the U.S. still does not recognize the ROC.
And Taiwan claims the mainland, Mongolia, larger portions of Manchuria than even the PRC claims and has overlapping claims with the PRC in the South China Sea. The Republic of China Constitution makes it clear they consider the Mainland Provinces to be part of the Republic of China. After many decades of domination by Japan and Western powers it's understandable that many leaders in the ROC want a status quo ante with regard to mainland China. Whether one agrees with their stance or not it is certainly understandable why they think the way they do. The US doesn't officially recognize the ROC but it does maintain a military presence and agreement with the ROC government.
The difference is there is a large fraction of the population in Taiwan that is willing to trade away all of those claims including their claim to the name of China and become an independent State outside of China.
I mean, China may want that, and they may eventually achieve it, but I think it will require something not far short of complete eradication of the Taiwanese to do that, which to me is probably the determining factor in what I consider "independent". As to de jure, quod jure? I don't think the historical record is in dispute over the ownership of Formosa/Taiwan. It's not that might makes right, it's that might can table the discussion, or rather slab it, and I'm sure that if China does bring those sorts of arguments to the table, their rights will be recognized by other nations, the same as was done for Tibet. But until that actually happens I think that it's only consistent to consider Taiwan an independent state.
Taiwan may be small economically, but we are still important strategically to the western world's alliance against China. The island act as a unsinkable carrier.
You have your facts wrong. Chinese GDP is fake and growth is declining every year. I have many Taiwanese manufacturer friends that sees the declining Chinese sales, exploding debts, and rising wages, and have moved most of their factories out of China. Meanwhile US, Europe and Japan is stronger than ever after the 2008 crash.
How about that second paragraph. Seems to echo the reports about weakness in China's big tech companies and speculation over their artificially propped up economy (i.e. massive, debt-fueled, unnecessary government infrastructure projects)
I never gave my opinion on the matter. I just stated that the perspective was understandable and it seems you largely agree with that statement. We have the same views on the situation.
>I am a Taiwanese millienial and I am deeply offended by this comment. Why would you say that the claim is understandable? ? Taiwan has been an independent democratic country with its own military, economy, culture, government, rules of law, and international relations for over 50 years.
Doesn't this answer your own question? 50 years are nothing in historical terms.
Well, occupation shouldn't matter -- else Korea would be Japanese too.
The way I see it, PRC is just the current regime, China is the whole culture/nation. Tomorrow China might not be RPC, but China and Taiwan peoples will still have much longer historical ties.
It makes sense for Taiwanese people to want to have their own regime (after all the whole regime there was defined in opposition to the communist change in China), but it also makes sense for the mainland culture to consider them a part of their nation.
I think the point is there are different perspectives that have some merit to them. Both sides have compelling points. But one thing is clear, the PRC have always considered Taiwan part of the China and currently they will not countenance a different view on the matter. Will the U.S. be vigilant enough for long enough so that Taiwan remains independent. Personally I’m skeptical that this is so.
Always seems quite a stretch. China didn't first invade Taiwan until 1700 or thereabouts. They've been outside China for the last 120 years or so. China even formally ceded the territory to Japan in 1896 after the first China-Japan war.
Of course what should matter is what the people of Taiwan want. Will the West provide enough response if it were needed? Sadly I suspect not.
That logic applies in context though, not as a blind rule.
So, if those places had historical and cultural ties with other nations that go way back (like Chinese and Taiwanese people have), then yes, a recent split might not mean much for the legitimacy of a new country.
If those places were merely occupied for centuries/millennia and "gotten their independence" then no.
Heck, colonial powers designed and build states based on all kind of splits in existing peoples to "divide and conquer" them. Statehood comes and go, actual historical and national cultural ties are what's long lasting.
China's current government is 69 years old. China and Taiwan governments are roughly the same age, arguably Taiwan is older by 2 year based on the earlier formation of its constitution, the government fled to Taiwan the same year the PRC was formed, 1949.
what does that even mean??? South Korea was established in 1948. Estonia was established in 1991. The world recognizes these legitimate countries.
From your past comment histories, it is clear you are pro China in every sense of the word. Maybe you should reexamine your values and see why you are so supportive of a disgusting government.
Nationalistic flamewar is an abuse of HN and will get your account banned here. It doesn't help to create a throwaway account to do it, and in fact will eventually get your main account banned as well.
Your feelings are easy to understand, but HN is an international site and people have strong feelings on all sides of such questions. For HN to continue as a forum for thoughtful discussion, we all need to remain respectful. If you can't do that, please don't post here.
Creating an account and showing up in the threads gunslinging is not ok, and levelling personal accusations against another user for political or nationalistc reasons is a bannable offense.
From your comments, it is clear you are pro China in every sense of the word. Maybe you should reexamine your values and see why you are so supportive of a disgusting government.
That's quite an overreaction, considering the person you are replying to did not mention China at all.
>Maybe you should reexamine your values and see why you are so supportive of a disgusting government.
I'm not supporting any governments, I'm for supporting peoples and exposing hypocrisy.
I have my issues with the Chinese government (for their internal behavior to their people), but Chinese foreign policy ain't it.
People from places who actively invaded tens of countries that did nothing to theirs (and meddled with mine and others nearby), cry crocodile tears about China's horrible behavior -- the drop of tourism in some Pacific islands they have a beef with...
The British tried a similar narrative with the War of 1812, and we in America are still alive and kicking. I hope the same for Taiwan and their independence.
If you remember, the United States declared war on Britain, not the other way around. Britain also arguably won the war since the result was status quo ante bellum, which is all that Britain wanted since they were at war with France at the same time for over a decade.
Only the British and Americans weren't the same people (from a nationality perspective). Americans were merely British subjects -- from a hodge-podge of nationalities.
A split into two countries South / North post Civil War would be a better example.
> Only the British and Americans weren't the same people (from a nationality perspective). Americans were merely British subjects -- from a hodge-podge of nationalities.
That seems like a distinction without a difference for this topic.
It's only an inconsequential difference for people from not homogenous countries like the US. Peoples with cultural and historical ties with people in nearby nations do consider them extremely important.
I find it somewhat hard to believe that the United States' ethnic homogeneity (or lack thereof) has anything to do with the legitimacy of its independence from Britain (as reckoned in 1776 or anytime since).
It really seems like you're trying delegitimize the idea of Taiwanese independence by being extremely selective with the criteria you consider, to the point of introducing irrelevant ones to deter analogies that are favorable to it.
Yes, Taiwan is ethnically and culturally Chinese, but it's also a de-facto independent nation that's a prosperous democracy. If they want to subsume themselves into the PRC's Communist dictatorship, the decision should be up to the Taiwanese and the Taiwanese alone. If they chose independence, that choice is entirely legitimate, despite any ethic or cultural ties that may exist.
Similarly, if it's so important to the PRC that mainland China be politically united with Taiwan, they're also perfectly free to dissolve their government and place the mainland under the jurisdiction of the ROC.
Be critical and unsupportive of American businesses that work with the CCP. Cite explicitly their human rights record and policy on Taiwan. Don't swallow narratives about the vaguely positive outcomes that could come from collaboration with the regime, nor unquestioningly embrace ideologies that requires expansion into the mainland as a moral or logical necessity.
> There is an ongoing discussion about China weaponizing tourism
And America tried the same tatic with Cuba and many other countries. It's an effective tatic. China isn't doing anything new that hasn't been done before.
A) Cuba w/Soviets pointed nuclear missiles at the US. Iran's government perpetually declares they want to destroy the US. that's a tad offside compared to 'listing Taiwan as a country'.
B) The US very very rarely controls where it's citizens can go.
The moral/relative arguments used by the pro/defend China camp are tiring.
"Why does the US still embargo Cuba when it's no longer a military threat? Do you think that Cubans in Florida play an outsized role in US politics?"
That's complicated but the Cuban regime is still to this day fairly totalitarian and are openly hostile to the US, which is not some little diplomatic thing.
Cuba pointed missiles at the US because the US was openly gearing up for one of its many invasions of Cuba, shortly after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. The Soviets put nukes there because the US put nuclear missiles into Turkey.
The US government has declared they want to destroy the US. It has been the US interfering in Iran, not vice versa.
The US banned Nobel Prize winner
Linus Pauling from leaving the US, only giving him one shortly before his second Nobel prize to avoid international embarrassment.
Playwright and former Marilyn Monroe husband Arthur Miller was denied a passport, blocking him from seeing the Crucible open in London.
Civil rights icon Paul Robeson was denied a passport, explicitly to deny him the opportunity to talk about the state of national oppression of those of African descent in the US.
Also NY Post reporter William Withy Jr., Corliss Lamont, Howard Fast, Rockwell Kent...
In more recent days one can not drive a car in the US without a license, travel a plane without one, take an Amtrak train without one or ride a Greyhound bus without one. The US absolutely exercises control over where its citizens can go, many of these restrictions are new.
You don't need a license to travel Amtrak. In many cases you don't even need a ticket when boarding the train. I routinely buy mine after it has left the station.
Hell no, I love the low friction travel. But I haven't been asked for an ID on Amtrak since the mid 2000s when they still served booze on that line. On the line I use most frequently they never ask for an ID. And a ticket for tomorrow works for today. Almost nothing nothing in that faq is adhered to on my experience.
It's reasonable to note that it's a much smaller offense in this case than with Cuba, regardless of what one may think of the merits. There's a difference between holding a grudge over acts like expropriation and revolution and trying to enforce correct speaking and writing by everyone. The latter seems hypersensitive and quixotic. It would be silly if the US cut off travel to Canada because they recognized the existence of the new government of Cuba.
The embargo is still in effect. I recently took a cruise to Havana. I was annoyed at the frequent reminders to those of us passengers who are US citizens about our restrictions on engaging in unallowed economic activity. Passengers who were not citizens of the Land of the Free have no such restrictions.
They have a limited agreement with the US. There's a video (I think it was on Vice) about how its a hot spot for Chinese tourists to pick up tech at US prices and gamble away from Chinese supervision.
The other arose from a nuclear standoff that was the closest we ever came to starting World War 3 and therefore the destruction of all human life as we know it.
I remember this basic "argument" from my childhood. After getting caught doing something of dubious moral value a child would say "Well everyone else is doing it". You knew it was wrong but you did it anyway and justified it by pointing out that "everyone else" did it. One of these days I'd love to see a grown up country come along and just do the good thing. Probably never happen since people are the same everywhere and really only like to point out shortcomings when they aren't the beneficiary but it would be so nice to find that there actually is an adult somewhere in the room.
One of these days I'd love to see a grown up country come along and just do the good thing.
I like your parent/child allusion and who wouldn't? However, there is no parent available that could cuff the miscreant and make it all good. Besides: what exactly is "the good thing"?
I'm a Brit. In the past Britain might be said to have imposed itself a little bit across the planet. I'm not sure that the world is ready yet for either your or my country's style of nation scale parenthood.
That said: we can persuade around 2 billion people to watch a Californian princess become a Duchess and convince those watchers and the rest of the world that the opposite happened! The US and its mythology can be pretty persuasive but I defy you to beat that 8)
... I was a bit unfair on assuming a few things. Meghan Markle became the Duchess of Sussex on marring Prince Harry. Strictly speaking she is not a Princess but I defy anyone to enforce that fact ...
The Royal family is so cool. Its like a look through a time machine. These are real Queens and princes and dukes and lords. They don't exactly do what they used to back in the day, but the look at the ceremony and the "authenticity" is really neat.
I just wish the Queen of Canada visited more. She doesn't even live here.
The Queen of Canada absolutely does live there - Rideau Hall is her residence. I accept she spends rather more time here in the UK these days but she is >90 years old.
The Canadian, British, Australian, New Zealand, etc etc Monarchy is a bit of a funny old thing but I think that through the Commonwealth (QEII's personal project) and other initiatives it is very useful and a force for good. At the moment the Royal Family are very, very popular in the UK (it hasn't always been so). They seem to have managed to re-invent themselves rather cleverly over the last 20 years or so.
The recent Royal marriage was frankly breathtaking - Harry is prince no. 2 and Megan is a Yank and yet the firm turned this into a fairy tale. Harry is as near a war hero as can be allowed and Megan is a pretty lass and clearly very bright and talented - good initial ingredients. Throw in a bloody great castle and chapel, amazing weather and a few other things and you get a right old tear jerker of a wedding.
The Queen of Canada was in attendance.
I live in the south west of England in a county called Somerset. I'm roughly 130 miles away from Buck Pal. You are a few thousand miles away but we both have the same link to our Royals.
> Cuba's communist government nationalized property from people and corporations without any compensation.
That's not anyone else's business. Countries should be free to a certain extent to act as they wish. It's not for America to decide what political system another country should have.
>The communist Cuban government acceded to hosting Soviet nuclear missiles...
I think you skipped a key part of history usually referred to as "Bay of Pigs Invasion"...
> That's not anyone else's business. Countries should be free to a certain extent to act as they wish. It's not for America to decide what political system another country should have.
Until you nationalize American-owned businesses, then yes it is.
I don't know. Do you think the damages the communist government have caused over the decades to the Cuban people are justified?
The embargo didn't ultimately work, and neither did the government.
I was just responding to the idea that an island that is no threat whatsoever to China, and which has never had nuclear missiles pointed at China, and which has not ever nationalized property from citizens of China was somehow equivalent to the Cuba situation.
The US invaded and seized Guantanamo Bay in 1898. What was the cause for that?
It's a standard American imperial idea. The US seizure and continual occupation of Guantanamo Bay is "legal". Cubans reclaiming what Americans stole in other parts of Cuba is "illegal".
It's quite a joke. The US invading and seizing sugar plantations from 1898 to 1959 is legal, the American thieves being driven out is "illegal" and "without any compensation".
This sort of imperial hubris is why Arabian patriots have been flying planes into the Pentagon.
You've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. It's normal to comment occasionally on a politicized topic, but using the site primarily for this is crossing the line that the guidelines draw: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. There are lots of reasons why we draw the line there, but what it boils down to is that we can't both have a site for intellectual curiosity—the mandate of this place—and also have ideological warfare. The one destroys the other, regardless of which ideology you favor. Flamewar comments like the one you just posted are an excellent illustration of this.
If you'd please review the site rules and use this place as intended from now on, we'd appreciate it.
> China isn't doing anything new that hasn't been done before.
If you drop sufficient detail from any comparison you can indeed come to such a conclusion, but it isn't an honest conclusion. In this case the detail that was dropped is the motive for engaging in the "same tactic", and in this case the motive is very different.
In my opinion, this style (discarding non-trivial details until two different scenarios can be declared ~identical) of reporting, in both formal mainstream print & media journalism as well as the more casual but still extremely influential late night talk shows, is what has caused such a large percentage of the public to hold opinions that do not line up very well with reality, and you can observe this in online discussions when people get very emotionally upset with those who disagree with them - they "know" something to be a fact, because they likely did in fact hear something very similar to what they believe reported in a serious news outlet. But if you ask them to provide any citations that include this extra detail (say, during a discussion over an instance of the story that does include the dropped details), unsurprisingly they are utterly incapable of finding any evidence. And rare is the case where the person in question be able to realize their mistake, and change their beliefs.
And if you fact check the media outlets on any of this, you'll almost always find that what they literally say is indeed factually true, it's just that they've dropped a whole bunch of context, resulting in their readers having a distorted understanding.
Palau is a great place but also a place that doesn't have trouble courting international controversy. They were among the only countries willing to take ex-prisoners from Guantanamo Bay and were willing to refuse some large tourist hotel investments.
As one of the best destinations for scuba and snorkling in the world, I think Palau will be fine despite Chinese sanctions.
> Gourmet Master Co. slumped 7.5 percent in Taipei trading Thursday, wiping $120 million from its market value, after a newspaper in China published calls to boycott the chain for hosting the Taiwanese leader at a store in Los Angeles.
> On April 25, a letter from the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) landed on the desks of 36 international air carriers. In it, the CAAC reminded readers that on February 27 the Chinese government had instructed airlines to review their websites, and remove any material that “mistakenly” identified Taiwan, Macau and Hong Kong as independent regions.
There is no significance. Taiwan gave them some money. Palau will be fine and certainly weighed which decision gives more money. These places go back and forth like churning credit card bonuses. China could pay every one of them more so that there are no countries recognizing Taiwan as the "one China" but why bother? They are left as chips to send a message when needed.
None of this is news, and the only reason it's now all over the place is probably because the State Department or some three lettered agencies gave a directive to ramp up the propaganda machine.
For those with longer memories, from 1949 to 1979, the US and most of the world denied that (the current) China existed and recognized Taiwan as China. The game has been played for decades now.
I think it is reasonable to expect China to topple foreign governments in the near future. It has a powerful military, a highly nationalist government and an ambition to own at least everything within the Nine Dash Line, or more.
And that's pretty scary because we in Hong Kong have felt the chilling effect of Chinese meddling into the judiciary, media and government.
I’m actually hoping Trump formally recognizes Taiwan. That’s the real sledge hammer. In all of their negotiations with China on trade, I’m really curious if that has come up as a threat.
Really, I'm not entirely sure why the G-8, the G-20, or even just EU + US + Japan + SK doesn't just do this as a group. It's not like China has a feasible retaliation option if they did, and it's certainly not going to retreat back to pre-1980 style isolation.
SK will never do it because it might destroy the progress on NoKo. Japan would, EU probably not. Germany might, U.K. won't until EU exit deals are done, Canada might, Australia won't, not in their interest. It'd be interesting!
