I've always felt that the obsession that the Chinese government has with Taiwan has a lot to do with the CCP still being butthurt over the escape of the Nationalists after the Chinese Civil War. They essentially never achieved complete victory over the Kuomintang. I wonder if the CCP were no longer governing China whether there would be such a focus on re-annexing Taiwan.
That's a big part of it. Another big, enduring part is that Taiwan is living proof that Chinese culture and democracy mix perfectly well (something the CCP tries to deny) and a living body of culturally Chinese people who have experience with democratic governance. In other words, it's a big looming legitimacy boulder sitting above the CCP's head -- they fear every day that it will break off and fall.
> Taiwan is living proof that Chinese culture and democracy mix perfectly well
On the contrary, Taiwan is the proof that Chinese culture and democracy don't mix well. In fact that is why CNP lost in the first place and retreated to the island. China will always need a strong federal government to lead, or it would just break into smaller counties like EU.
Taiwan is the proof that
Chinese culture and democracy
don't mix well.
Could you elaborate on this wild claim? While you do so, please bear in mind that pretty much every authoritarian ruler ever in human has justified itself by claiming that his subjects are not ready for, or not interested in democracy.
Chiang Kai-shek rules Taiwan with an iron fist, and democratisation began for real only in the 1980s, including allowing free press, lifting bans on new political parties. Incidentally it was Chiang Ching-kuo, who was appointed by Chiang Kai-shek as premier, see [2] for more detail. Taiwanese citizens are certainly very happy with their blossoming democracy, and are a shining beacon that the mainland will hopefully eventually follow.
break into smaller counties like EU.
Why would it be a bad thing if China would split into smaller countries? Smaller countries are much less dangerous to their neighbours than big countries when they fail catastrophically (note that all countries fail catastrophically from time to time).
BTW, The EU is composed of smaller countries, and a voluntary organisations. Maybe the mainland should charm Taiwan (and HK) into a voluntary union, rather than bully and terrorise?
(In fairness, it must be said that both, Mainland China, and the states making up the EU, have a long and violent history of warring states.)
I like how quick you label people as soon as they share different political view.
> Could you elaborate on this wild claim?
Taiwan enjoyed a short period of economic boom only thanks to China opened up its market to Taiwan and had policies encouraging business from Taiwan to do so. This almost has nothing to do with their political system.
And now things have turned around. Taiwan's democratic system is a drag on their economy and prone to foreign influence. (Buying outdated weaponary from States? Continuous internal political struggles?) Whereas China has a much more unified vision under a strong leadership and on track to seek total economic dominance.
Taiwan wouldn't need weapons were it not for the unacceptable bullying from China. Let's not forget that China also supported Pol Pot just a few decades ago.
Continuous internal political struggles?
Vigorous political debate is the hallmark of a democracy.
seek total economic dominance.
Sounds horrifying. I recommend veiling your threats in a more gentle language, maybe you can fool more people that way.
> Taiwan wouldn't need weapons were it not for the unacceptable bullying from China.
I see that we would never convince the other at this point. But I do hope that you open up your eye one day and don't give into those radical left ideology.
I don't know if you are living in either China or Taiwan to know the dynamics of this complex situation. If not, your source would be only from your parents and biased narrative of west media. And those people most likely don't understand it either.
Watch more Jordan Peterson video maybe. Be a good citizen of the world.
Jordan Peterson isn't exactly a friend of communist parties, have a look at what he's got to say about Mao. Xi's bullying of Taiwan is directly out of Mao's playbook.
> Jordan Peterson isn't exactly a friend of communist parties
I never said JP would embrace any communist ideology. I was merely pointing out that you should see and think before you make ignorant claims without any actual data or seeing things with your own eyes.
> Xi's bullying of Taiwan
I don't understand why you keep saying bullying. For a tiny little island still holding claim to the mainland, China is being extremely nice. (Imagine Mexico government still holding claims to States that U.S. has taken by force, how would U.S. government react to that?) All I see around me is Taiwan business taking advantage of Chinese market and Taiwanese employees enjoy the fruit of China's development. There may be frictions, but it certainly wouldn't come near to the level that U.S. is exploiting it's neighbors in the continent.
Hope you would stop being a hypocrite before pointing figures.
For a tiny little island still
holding claim to the mainland,
China is being extremely nice.
That is because of the "One China" consensus that the ROC and the PRC currently adhere to. A one-sided change of this status, e.g. by Taiwan renouncing being rulers of all of China, might trigger the PRC's anti-secession laws, which in turn would lead to an invasion of Taiwan by the PRC.
Another dimension is that if the mainland was actually interested in free trade, as required by e.g. the World Trade Organization (WTO), the mainland had to be open to other countries ...
As an aside, you accept Mainland's claim to TW, but not the symmetric claim of TW to the mainland. So you are applying double standards. Hmmm ...
As a further aside, it was a big strategic blunder of the KMT not to rescind its claim to be the legitimate rulers of the mainland when Nixon switched from the KMT to Mao as the official rulers of the mainland, and let the mainland into the UN. At the time, the mainland was very weak, desperate for international recognition, and would probably have accepted such a deal. (Pure speculation: Nixon deliberately encouraged the KMT to keep claiming mainland rulership, so as to instate a frozen conflict [2] / do divide-and-conquer against Mao. Again, I have no evidence for this, but that sort of Machiavellian trick has been used by empires since time immemorial to weaken its competitors.)
Taiwan business taking
advantage of Chinese market
That's part of the PRC's subversion strategy: get access to Taiwanese technology, institute a brain-drain, and most important: buy the acquiescence of the Taiwanese rich -- rest assured that Taiwanese companies can only succeed on the mainland, as long as they are not questioning the PRC's stance on Taiwan.
you keep saying bullying.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. [1] is today's example of bullying.
Not dissimular to Saudia Arabia vs Iran: the latter -- however imperfect a democracy -- is a daily reminder that there is no reason whatsoever why the Haus of Saud should be ruling Arabia.
Bizzarely, even today, Taiwan's interpretation of the "One China" consensus is that Taiwan, is the legitimate ruler of all of China, including the mainland.
I'm not sure why, maybe the Taiwan sees this as a bargaining chip, to be given up at an opportune moment, in exchange for something else, e.g. the Mainland accepting Taiwan's independence. I suspect this would have been possible at some point when the PRC was weak (maybe in the 1960s or 1970s) but seems unlikely now. I read somewhere that this might be because a formal acceptance of no longer being rulers of all of China, might trigger the Mainland's anti-secession laws, which in turn would lead to an invasion on Taiwan by the Mainland.
