Hacker News Reader

Comment by graeme | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

"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.

This article lays out the strategic logic in more detail: https://nationalinterest.org/article/say-goodbye-taiwan-9931

(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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy

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.

The world does not agree, but pretends to agree, so they can trade with China.

But the reality is Taiwan is an independent country, and is not part of China, no matter how much the PRC would wish it otherwise.

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.

> but we are still important strategically to the western world's alliance against China. The island act as a unsinkable carrier.

Don't you see that would be same argument why China would want Taiwan back?

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)

The G7 share of world GDP has been steadily falling: http://www.economywatch.com/economic-statistics/Major-advanc...

It's interesting that the Taiwanese passport has visa free travel to 126 countries while the Chinese only has has visa free travel to 78.

Also super weird that the US continues to sell billions of dollars of arms to Taiwan.

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.

Fair enough. I misinterpreted what you meant by understandable. It had two definitons: one literal, and one moral in the sense of forgiveable

Reply on news.ycombinator.com