Hacker News Reader

> there is very little for China to lose and a lot to gain by simply letting Taiwan go.

The thing about autocracies is that they fight every day to remain in power - they're very hollow things, that need to clamp down on their own people. Even if people seem fine with it, things can go sideways quickly.

Now imagine having a thriving democracy right next to them, where people have the perks of freedom that comes with democratic values.

That's what this is all about. The same in Ukraine - imagine seeing another former Soviet country, Ukrainians thrive as a democracy aligned with the EU - which by the way is an ethnic group many Russians see as inferior (addressing them by "ethnophobic" terms, like they did with Chechens). It's a threat to the regime.

These are the claims of autocracies, everyone around them must be less than them in comparison, else people will start to get agitated and might they are better off with democracies.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40427620 brings an excellent counterpoint to your post - why won't Taiwan itself drop the unrealistic claims on all of China?

Let's be real here: no one thinks that Taiwan is in any capacity to invade and take China.

The BBC had an interview with Tsai Ing Wen that I think that offers a really good perspective on how Taiwan sees itself on the world stage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9d_S_K5X_k

Taiwan doesn’t fully drop the legal pretence of being China because the /mainland authorities/ would complain. Otherwise, they would do it immediately.

(Compare the CPG’s vetoing of democratisation in Hong Kong prior to in the 50s and 60s.)

the Republic of China in Taiwan is the legitimate government of the country west of Taiwan.

Even forgetting context behind reunification, PRC accepting US has forever military presence in East Asia is not easy, it's impossible. Medium/long term, the only way to pacify region for PRC is to unify with TW _AND_ kick US military out of east Asia, that includes JP/SKR/PH. TW is just another link in US security architecture preventing PRC regional hegemony, as long as that exist there will always be friction. PRC not interested in normalized relations with US under those circumstances anyway. Don't forget TW was/is explicitly used to contain PRC, it's threat by proximity throughout history = it has has lost privelege to even be non-aligned in the future. As long as there's US military hardware in region, kicking US out of East Asia makes a material difference, and TW as unending civil war that PRC has legal right to restart at anytime is as legitimate freebie cassus belli as PRC will have to try to dislodge US presence in the region. Accepting US has forever military presence in East Asia is not easy, it's impossible. It's not about how little to loose, but how much to gain.

    > PRC accepting US has forever military presence in East Asia is not easy

They already do: see Japan and SK and the US military presence in Taiwan is minimal. There is no base there and no large scale military presence and likely wouldn't need to be if China decided that it's less friction to simply normalize relations and economically embrace Taiwan instead.

I have cousins that moved to China and married Chinese citizens because that's where the the opportunity and money is. If China wanted to garner allies in SE and east Asia, it's actually easy: be a better ally than the US rather than be a bully.

The fact that Japan and SK exist as a democracies right next to China means that a fully free Taiwan isn't a threat at all. China changing their stance on Taiwan would quite dramatically shift the political dynamics with virtually no sacrifice on their end.

PRC historically did out of inability, but now actively developing military so eventually they won't have to concede to status quo contrary to their interests.

US IndoPac presence is massive and increasing. Largest theater in terms of deployed US military in recent times. Currently US bases in region used to deploy US ELINT up to territorial waters of PRC. THAAD in SKR gathering info on PRC MIC. This kind of behaviour was worse when PRC had basically 0 military capabilities, infact US/ROC "aggression" even worse when PRC incapable, ROC had port closure / blockade policy on PRC shores for decades, US used ROC based blackcat squadron to fly U2s into PRC territory. This is what happened when PRC was largely harmless.

Historically, US+ROC has always caused friction for PRC, regardless of what PRC was doing/could do. The entire US post war security architecture in region was deliberately created largely for PRC containment. Hence PLA build up with long term goal of driving US out. And one day PRC will likely fight for it, because war is going to be ultimately preferrable / easier than to normalize / "accept" relations with current levels of US presence/influence in region, which has been sufficiently antagonistic for PRC interest historically that it's not long term sustainable. US could either abdicate influence voluntarily (unlikely) or PRC can fight for it, because traditionally that's how outside hegemons gets displaced. There's no reason for PRC to concede to US dictating terms in region if she doesn't have to.

>If China wanted to garner allies

IMO PRC does not want allies. PRC wants regional hegemony. PRC wants to kick US out. Possibly punish JP/SKR into Cuba for choosing to align with US in TW scenario, it gets to dictate more terms in region by default. ASEAN gets to hedge right now with SKR offshoring, JP infra investments until they don't, after which hedging stops. SKR/JP in PRC hegemony universe will acquiesce to PRC interests if they want to avoid Cuba treatment. Let's not forget US didn't exactly "garner" allies, it made them by military intervention in those countries and spending generations purging anti US influence and cultivating pro US influence. Trying to peacefully win over region is a suckers game. The hegemon racket isn't to compete for influence, but to eliminate competitors, and reeducate populations so they align with hegemon interests over multi generational time scale. TBF, historically war IS the easy option to mold regional geopolitics. Maybe the only option left, can't alliance via marriages, and any PRC softpower efforts on democracies will just be met with foreign influence accusations by western propaganda, which has weight because US hardpower allows her softpower to flourish in region.

>virtually no sacrifice

This presumes long term PRC is also fine with US aligned JP/SKR in region. PRC's not. SKR/JP/PH can exist as democracies in post US Indopac world, the system doesn't really matter. Democracies may even be preferrable since it's easier to elite capture, see how compromised KMT was. Just like how US fine with MENA autocrats as long as they buy into US order for region, and operate US military hardware. Region can do whatever they want, as long as they don't support US security architecture explicitly contrary to PRC interests. Note recent (and reoccuring) joke of TW legislature boxing match. Entire narrative PRC threatened by neighbouring east asian democracy is western wank. PRC simply wants US military out of region, it does not want to settle in a framework where US can limit PRC ambitions in her backyard. To accept so is to accept PRC should be subject to US whims, it is sacrificing EVERYTHING. It's not about PRC can't coexist with democracies, PRC can't coexist with US in her backyard. PRC can't coexist with US postwar vision for East Asia designed to limit PRC, which also means PRC can't coexist with independant TW. Those historically aligned with US to contain PRC are still ongoing threats and can't be accomodated long term. TLDR is there's too much tainted history for US security in region for PRC to settle. It's simply not in their self interest. Hence IMO "easier" / "better" to eventually fight to reset regional order and reapportion long term spoils. Which of course is going to be terrible, but increasingly likely.

   > IMO PRC does not want allies.

If you look at it realistically, China will never conquer Japan, for example.

Whether they are formal "allies" or not, being on good terms with an important economic partner like Japan and the US is in the best interest of China.

PRC doesn't need to conquer Japan, it can cripple it same way US did Cuba for going against regional hegemon interest. Remember Operation Starvation in WW2 that crippled JP as a viable country was US bombers based from Chinese mainland. Today is PRC has magnitude more theatre strike fire power to turn Japan into Cuba/Yemen/Gaza than US vs JP in WW2. Ask why aren't US and Cuba allies, because US would rather have Cuba as an example. Why are US and Canada allies, because US kicked British Empire hegemony out of North America for trying to wield British Canada to contain US, so much so that US tried to annex Canada twice. It wasn't until Canada, a fundmentally anti-America project fully made herself subservient to US foreign policy that "good" relations and even alliance is possible. Those are the increasingly likely options options for US partners around PRC, be PRC's Cuba, or PRC's Canada.

>Japan and the US is in the best interest of China

Why not flip that, why isn't JP and US being on good terms with PRC, with closing military gap, in their best interest? They're the ones contemplating meddling in an ongoing Chinese civil war, one that they've kept frozen for last 70 years. They clearly don't have PRC interests in mind. It's a little absurd to think it's on PRC to make nice on their terms that's premised on violating on PRC sovereignty.

The economic reality is JP and US are not "important" trading partners in the sense that PRC isn't trade dependant anymore, PRC exports to entire western bloc is ~10% of GDP. US/JP also relatively low export GDP. The reason WHY war is likely between these powers is because they are some of the least trade dependent large powers, for reference SKR export GDP is 40%, TW is like 60%. PRC/US/JP mutual trade is A LOT in absolute terms due to sheer size of economies, but is still single digit percentage of GDP with ongoing decoupling in strategic sectors. It's not worth concessions on important sovereignty issues.