Isn’t the strongest reason for China not to attack Taiwan is because it is militarily quite risky, and a failed attempt would be pretty catastrophic for the legitimacy of the Party? Also S. Korea and Japan probably build nuclear arsenals sufficient for MAD (mutually assured destruction) deterrence with China as well, and maybe the Philippines and other countries in the region do as well. Maybe that stuff is in part 2.
Robert, I thought about this question recently and I have an explanation for China's obsession over Taiwan that I think complements yours. I think what China and the Chinese are the most afraid of is the concept of "chaos," or luan. China is not so much a "civilizational state" as it is a state of gravity (no pun intended). In China's dynastic history, only a strong central government could keep the country together and united. Every time that the center weakened, the periphery would break off, and eventually the country would descent into chaos. When China falls into chaos, that's when disasters happen: millions die through war, starvation, and deprivation, and tens of millions more are uprooted. To the Chinese people, the only thing that could prevent such a disaster is a strong central government that could exert a powerful gravitational pull over all of China, not excepting the most remote periphery. And, if the central government cannot, it is a sign of unforgivable weakness because it is symptomatic of the state's inability to prevent China from falling into chaos. If the PRC lets Taiwan slip away today, it probably would be only a slight exaggeration to say that the writ of Xi Jinping would stop being respected outside of Xinhuamen tomorrow.
I do think the commitment to peaceful reunification for China is genuine as well. It doesn't serve China's interests to solve such matters by violence: a ruined Taiwan is no use to anyone. We already have the precedent of Hong Kong where China did not resort to violence to push for reunification even during the throes of mass insanity under Mao -- and China was amply rewarded for its patience. Frankly, in my opinion, China today could easily force Taiwan to surrender if it so chooses (and I realize this take is controversial). Viewing it solely through the military lens as many western analysts do is foolish and myopic.
Of course, "peaceful reunification" in the Chinese context doesn't mean that everyone will come together to sing the kumbaya. It'll be peace with Chinese characteristics, but what that means is a discussion for another time.
Taiwan is the second freest country in Asia according to Freedom House’s latest report. And one of the things that brings down its score slightly is interference from the PRC. Taiwan is totally expected to give up its free press and democratic culture and become a province of the PRC? Why would the people of Taiwan accept this? I don’t see any difference here with the UK demanding the Republic of Ireland joining them again under the threat of force.
I know it's hard to swallow. Again, I do not want to pass normative judgment about what "should" happen. My focus is on what the most likely outcome is. For that, I will not bet my money on the majority of people in Taiwan defending their Freedom House score when the time comes.
If Americans are willing to die for Taiwan, they might consider fighting. But I doubt Americans are, in which case, Taiwanese will not die for it just because people outside expect them to.
Something that's under-appreciated: At heart, some/many/probably even most of the Taiwanese are culturally Chinese, and peace and living a life rank above "freedom". You already start to see the emergence of those voices, such as Guanzhang, who were once diehard DPPs, etc, advocating for reunification negotiation. This is the result of PRC information warfare? For sure. But this warfare won't have any teeth if there is no soil for it.
What also doesn't help is that many Taiwanese also seem disillusioned about their "freedom". Cases like the political persecution of popular TPP leader Ko Wen-Je made many young people realize there is quite a lot of delusion in this "freedom". Will they defend this delusion?
Hong Kong is a great example. For those who really care about "freedom", they left (and they are allowed to leave). All in all, it was estimated ~300,000 HKers left post NSL. That's fewer than 5% of the local population. That's the reality for the price of "freedom" in this part of the world.
The UK - Ireland analogy is close. Except that the UK, in this case, is 70x larger than Ireland. So a closer analogy is probably UK and Wales, which is much easier to absorb.
I guess the fundamental question is whether a region of a country should always be allowed to separate--eg Barcelona from Spain or Quebec from Canada.
BTW, Switzerland is an interesting example in that several regions of neighboring countries have wanted to join Switzerland, but Switzerland refused (Vorarlberg, Como and Varese)
There is something unique about China is that we have gone through many cycles of unity and disorder, and each time disorder brought disasters, so the national memory was keenly repulsive of it
This is a more level headed explanation of your views on reunification than previous attempts. But it still is ultimately an attempt at sanewashing china's imperialist agenda.
You are the second-greatest genius after that unparalleled genius mentioned above. The blogger should reflect on why his platform attracts so many "geniuses".
I enjoyed the article. Whenever this topic is brought up, I always bump against the inevitability that nobody seems to care about what Taiwan wants. They have made it very clear that they aim to pursue an independent and democratic future. If Beijing simply allowed that future, they would certainly back away from Washington and pursue closer relations with China.
But, Xi and his cohort do not view that as a viable option, so Taiwan feels obligated to arm itself to the teeth with American weapons.
Again, I like this essay, but I also don't really care about China's opinions about Taiwan. I really only care about Taiwan's opinions about Taiwan, and I think that's why Beijing's opinions on the matter are so unpopular worldwide.
And my point isn’t about whether this is popular or not or whether people should care about Beijing’s take. My main point is, since it’s existential for Beijing (and many people don’t realize enough about this point) Beijing also won’t care about the popularity of its viewpoint.
However, Beijing will care about the exact means, which is the subject of next part.
Also, my challenge to you is, if without war, without any bloodshed, without any life lost, Taiwan eventually enters into some kind of “merger” agreement with China, what will be your position?
That's not really a challenge. That's a fairly simple answer. If it's voted for democratically by the Taiwanese people in a referendum, then so be it. If it's imposed on them similarly to what happened in Hong Kong, then it's a typical case of CCP imperialism.
I genuinely don't think that the average Chinese citizen will agree that trying to peacefully solve the issue created by imperialism is itself an act of imperialism. And this is where perceptions and frameworks for understanding the world eventually will clash.
I don’t trust or like US foreign policy at all as an American, but the Chinese logic on this always reminds me of US logic on Latin America. Might makes right in some ways, but we don’t have to pretend that makes it moral
Not a precise analogy. Latam would be SEA in this case. Taiwan is more like a Hawaii or Alaska that was occupied by the confederates in the alternate universe. Very different animal
I agree not entirely precise, and SEA is probably a better analogy to Latam. Cuba is probably the closest analogy in the real world since it is so close to the US and so intertwined with our politics. Ultimately I think China gets to make the decision here and I don't think the US has a role to play, whatever my own opinions on the subject. I'm just hopeful that the US will be less xenophobic if and when China takes over so we can take in a substantial portion of the Taiwanese diaspora (both for humanitarian and self-interested economic reasons).
They are very good people. The level of xenophobia though is a real question. If I were born an American I would advocate for attracting and retaining all of these best talents
Isn’t this just revanchism? Russia wants Ukraine, Serbia wants Kosovo, Hungary wants Slovakia. You can build a national mythology around a missing province, but other countries don’t have to take it seriously.
The fact that Taiwan has the strategic chip factories is another reason to push back against PRC demands.
I will address the second point in the future post. It's actually one of the keys to why this could be resolved peacefully. Short answer: China doesn't care about these factories.
I am sure no other countries want to "take it seriously". But when the time comes, will those countries oppose it in real terms? That will be the more important question to ask. Because when it comes to China, it's not just that China "wants", but China "could".
Finally, my job is to describe the realities of today, not to pass judgement. Those realities will shape decisions. It's those the trajectories of those decisions that I and many of my readers care about the most.
“But I think, to be really fair, if we were to hold a referendum on it, we should also involve the 1.4 billion people living on the mainland. It’s not fair to exclude them from voting on an issue of life-and-death for themselves.”
That’s moral judgement right there. I’m not saying you’re wrong, it’s one of the great debates of international studies but as I said in my original comment, many big countries feel they should have a vote in the futures of small nearby countries!
How would China crumble if the status quo wrt Taiwan were to continue? Is there a risk that this goal may divert CCP's attention away from domestic concerns that may be more important for citizens?
Simple logic dictates that the status quo will only lead to independence, which will force CPC's hand sooner or later. The second question will be answered in the upcoming Part 2. The short answer is that while Taiwan is important, it's also not worth sacrificing the whole nation for. It's a complete package. That's why peaceful reunification is much preferred.
Looking forward to part 2! I dont understand how the status quo would lead to Taiwan independence (couldn't Taiwan and CCP continue saying what they have been for the last few years indefinitely) or force CCP's hand. For instance, BJP in India has been claiming that it will take over POK for a really long time but that promise is yet to be fulfilled. What is different that would force CCP's hand? Would there be a civil war in China if Taiwan were to become independent?
The generations of DPP presidents and administrations made sure that slowly and gradually inching toward both de facto as well as de jure independence is the goal. It’s not a really equilibrium situation where both sides respect boundaries. That equilibrium is closest to the framework set up by CPC and KMT back in the 90s, which is essentially “let’s be vague here but respect some boundaries, like for example accepting that we are both “China” but we just have different interpretations, and we can leave this topic open for discussion. “ But that framework was essentially trashed now.
Think about it in terms of squatter's laws (Adverse Possession) that exist in many Western nations. If you take up a piece of land for a period of time, exert control over it, develop it, etc., and the land owner does nothing or fails to evict the squatter, then eventually the title to the land passes to the squatter. Similar processes exist in international law, feeble as it appears now. The USN makes yearly visits to tiny islands all around the world that the US took possession of back when they were valued for Guano, and now are valued as potential points of military control, and similar logic behind so called Freedom of Navigation patrols, use it or lose it. Similarly, a family may lose it's right to assert citizenship if after x generations (x dependent on both domestic and international law and legal precedent) no one has returned to reside in their former homeland.
I understand this reasoning but the American response (Washington neocons aside) comes partly from the fact that we actually have friends of Taiwanese descent who will be honest with us about their opinions on the mainland. They have their own cultural identity at this point and can read, so they know they will lose their freedoms if and when China takes over as Hong Kong precedent shows, and naturally they don’t want that. So ultimately reunion requires use of force in the same way that Russia taking Ukraine required use of force. I suspect many Americans agree China would rather use peace, but the DPP wouldn’t be a successful party in Taiwan if there were any warm feelings for the mainland there.
Perhaps it is a mistake to assume that your friends “of Taiwanese descent” represent a realistic understanding of how a resolution will eventually unfold. A gradual integration is already well underway, economically and culturally.
The same could be said for Russia and Ukraine prior to the war. I have no doubt China will own Taiwan 50 years from now and I don't think it will be a long war - maybe a blockade, a few bombings, and then surrender once it becomes clear nobody is coming to Taiwan's aid. China is patient and has probably already surpassed the US in power, so this isn't me doubting China's capabilities. It's just that conquest is rarely bloodless in history even when one power is obviously superior.
I expect quite a bit of violence during the period of reunification, but it will be mostly Taiwanese born against Taiwanese born, such as control over recent mainland immigrant based crimes like prostitution. Gang violence and it's associated corruption feedstock is barely under control in Taiwan. It is highly likely in the disturbance of the balance by re-unifcation, military or otherwise that large scale gangland violence will breakout.
https://www.youtube.com/@StraitTalkXY (Zhong) Xiangyu at Strait Talk with Xiangyu has a few videos about how past violence in Taiwan came about through language/territory based parochial criminal economic associations rubbing up against KMT political/economic corruption parochial/chauvinism.
Americans have normalized that their happiness is build on genocide and exploitation either quietly remembered* or vociferously celebrated ala Pete Hegseth/DJT. All of this even though a middle class majority is a fast disappearing phenomena of only 70-90 years, so for most of that history America has been brutality without benefits, so yes, violence first. May Day started after the Haymarket massacre (which propaganda has changed into Haymarket riots). One of the few places May Day isn't celebrated is in "Greater" America (USA and Canada). The idea that all that violence is unnecessary causes too much cognitive dissonance, and in communal society an anathema.
*English Bob, a character in the beginning of the Clint Eastwood movie "Unforgiven" is given a career/occupation that slips right past the audience. "He kills Chinamen for the railroad." Chinamen being shanghai'd/kidnapped forced labour to be disposed of once the project was completed.
Isn’t the strongest reason for China not to attack Taiwan is because it is militarily quite risky, and a failed attempt would be pretty catastrophic for the legitimacy of the Party? Also S. Korea and Japan probably build nuclear arsenals sufficient for MAD (mutually assured destruction) deterrence with China as well, and maybe the Philippines and other countries in the region do as well. Maybe that stuff is in part 2.
Indeed
You are truly an unparalleled genius
Robert, I thought about this question recently and I have an explanation for China's obsession over Taiwan that I think complements yours. I think what China and the Chinese are the most afraid of is the concept of "chaos," or luan. China is not so much a "civilizational state" as it is a state of gravity (no pun intended). In China's dynastic history, only a strong central government could keep the country together and united. Every time that the center weakened, the periphery would break off, and eventually the country would descent into chaos. When China falls into chaos, that's when disasters happen: millions die through war, starvation, and deprivation, and tens of millions more are uprooted. To the Chinese people, the only thing that could prevent such a disaster is a strong central government that could exert a powerful gravitational pull over all of China, not excepting the most remote periphery. And, if the central government cannot, it is a sign of unforgivable weakness because it is symptomatic of the state's inability to prevent China from falling into chaos. If the PRC lets Taiwan slip away today, it probably would be only a slight exaggeration to say that the writ of Xi Jinping would stop being respected outside of Xinhuamen tomorrow.
I do think the commitment to peaceful reunification for China is genuine as well. It doesn't serve China's interests to solve such matters by violence: a ruined Taiwan is no use to anyone. We already have the precedent of Hong Kong where China did not resort to violence to push for reunification even during the throes of mass insanity under Mao -- and China was amply rewarded for its patience. Frankly, in my opinion, China today could easily force Taiwan to surrender if it so chooses (and I realize this take is controversial). Viewing it solely through the military lens as many western analysts do is foolish and myopic.
Of course, "peaceful reunification" in the Chinese context doesn't mean that everyone will come together to sing the kumbaya. It'll be peace with Chinese characteristics, but what that means is a discussion for another time.
Taiwan is the second freest country in Asia according to Freedom House’s latest report. And one of the things that brings down its score slightly is interference from the PRC. Taiwan is totally expected to give up its free press and democratic culture and become a province of the PRC? Why would the people of Taiwan accept this? I don’t see any difference here with the UK demanding the Republic of Ireland joining them again under the threat of force.
I know it's hard to swallow. Again, I do not want to pass normative judgment about what "should" happen. My focus is on what the most likely outcome is. For that, I will not bet my money on the majority of people in Taiwan defending their Freedom House score when the time comes.
If Americans are willing to die for Taiwan, they might consider fighting. But I doubt Americans are, in which case, Taiwanese will not die for it just because people outside expect them to.
Something that's under-appreciated: At heart, some/many/probably even most of the Taiwanese are culturally Chinese, and peace and living a life rank above "freedom". You already start to see the emergence of those voices, such as Guanzhang, who were once diehard DPPs, etc, advocating for reunification negotiation. This is the result of PRC information warfare? For sure. But this warfare won't have any teeth if there is no soil for it.
What also doesn't help is that many Taiwanese also seem disillusioned about their "freedom". Cases like the political persecution of popular TPP leader Ko Wen-Je made many young people realize there is quite a lot of delusion in this "freedom". Will they defend this delusion?
Hong Kong is a great example. For those who really care about "freedom", they left (and they are allowed to leave). All in all, it was estimated ~300,000 HKers left post NSL. That's fewer than 5% of the local population. That's the reality for the price of "freedom" in this part of the world.
The UK - Ireland analogy is close. Except that the UK, in this case, is 70x larger than Ireland. So a closer analogy is probably UK and Wales, which is much easier to absorb.
I guess the fundamental question is whether a region of a country should always be allowed to separate--eg Barcelona from Spain or Quebec from Canada.
BTW, Switzerland is an interesting example in that several regions of neighboring countries have wanted to join Switzerland, but Switzerland refused (Vorarlberg, Como and Varese)
There is something unique about China is that we have gone through many cycles of unity and disorder, and each time disorder brought disasters, so the national memory was keenly repulsive of it
[100% of this article is written with human hands.]
Let's be honest, it was written with cat's paws, two pair to be precise.
Lol
This is a more level headed explanation of your views on reunification than previous attempts. But it still is ultimately an attempt at sanewashing china's imperialist agenda.
Wow, what a progress for me
You are the second-greatest genius after that unparalleled genius mentioned above. The blogger should reflect on why his platform attracts so many "geniuses".
I enjoyed the article. Whenever this topic is brought up, I always bump against the inevitability that nobody seems to care about what Taiwan wants. They have made it very clear that they aim to pursue an independent and democratic future. If Beijing simply allowed that future, they would certainly back away from Washington and pursue closer relations with China.
But, Xi and his cohort do not view that as a viable option, so Taiwan feels obligated to arm itself to the teeth with American weapons.
Again, I like this essay, but I also don't really care about China's opinions about Taiwan. I really only care about Taiwan's opinions about Taiwan, and I think that's why Beijing's opinions on the matter are so unpopular worldwide.
And my point isn’t about whether this is popular or not or whether people should care about Beijing’s take. My main point is, since it’s existential for Beijing (and many people don’t realize enough about this point) Beijing also won’t care about the popularity of its viewpoint.
However, Beijing will care about the exact means, which is the subject of next part.
Also, my challenge to you is, if without war, without any bloodshed, without any life lost, Taiwan eventually enters into some kind of “merger” agreement with China, what will be your position?
That's not really a challenge. That's a fairly simple answer. If it's voted for democratically by the Taiwanese people in a referendum, then so be it. If it's imposed on them similarly to what happened in Hong Kong, then it's a typical case of CCP imperialism.
I genuinely don't think that the average Chinese citizen will agree that trying to peacefully solve the issue created by imperialism is itself an act of imperialism. And this is where perceptions and frameworks for understanding the world eventually will clash.
I get very uncomfortable when one person talks about the “average” any citizen. Let’s leave it here.
I don’t trust or like US foreign policy at all as an American, but the Chinese logic on this always reminds me of US logic on Latin America. Might makes right in some ways, but we don’t have to pretend that makes it moral
Not a precise analogy. Latam would be SEA in this case. Taiwan is more like a Hawaii or Alaska that was occupied by the confederates in the alternate universe. Very different animal
I agree not entirely precise, and SEA is probably a better analogy to Latam. Cuba is probably the closest analogy in the real world since it is so close to the US and so intertwined with our politics. Ultimately I think China gets to make the decision here and I don't think the US has a role to play, whatever my own opinions on the subject. I'm just hopeful that the US will be less xenophobic if and when China takes over so we can take in a substantial portion of the Taiwanese diaspora (both for humanitarian and self-interested economic reasons).
They are very good people. The level of xenophobia though is a real question. If I were born an American I would advocate for attracting and retaining all of these best talents
No
Isn’t this just revanchism? Russia wants Ukraine, Serbia wants Kosovo, Hungary wants Slovakia. You can build a national mythology around a missing province, but other countries don’t have to take it seriously.
The fact that Taiwan has the strategic chip factories is another reason to push back against PRC demands.
I will address the second point in the future post. It's actually one of the keys to why this could be resolved peacefully. Short answer: China doesn't care about these factories.
I am sure no other countries want to "take it seriously". But when the time comes, will those countries oppose it in real terms? That will be the more important question to ask. Because when it comes to China, it's not just that China "wants", but China "could".
Finally, my job is to describe the realities of today, not to pass judgement. Those realities will shape decisions. It's those the trajectories of those decisions that I and many of my readers care about the most.
“But I think, to be really fair, if we were to hold a referendum on it, we should also involve the 1.4 billion people living on the mainland. It’s not fair to exclude them from voting on an issue of life-and-death for themselves.”
That’s moral judgement right there. I’m not saying you’re wrong, it’s one of the great debates of international studies but as I said in my original comment, many big countries feel they should have a vote in the futures of small nearby countries!
Stooge identified.
A manhole identified
How would China crumble if the status quo wrt Taiwan were to continue? Is there a risk that this goal may divert CCP's attention away from domestic concerns that may be more important for citizens?
Simple logic dictates that the status quo will only lead to independence, which will force CPC's hand sooner or later. The second question will be answered in the upcoming Part 2. The short answer is that while Taiwan is important, it's also not worth sacrificing the whole nation for. It's a complete package. That's why peaceful reunification is much preferred.
Looking forward to part 2! I dont understand how the status quo would lead to Taiwan independence (couldn't Taiwan and CCP continue saying what they have been for the last few years indefinitely) or force CCP's hand. For instance, BJP in India has been claiming that it will take over POK for a really long time but that promise is yet to be fulfilled. What is different that would force CCP's hand? Would there be a civil war in China if Taiwan were to become independent?
The generations of DPP presidents and administrations made sure that slowly and gradually inching toward both de facto as well as de jure independence is the goal. It’s not a really equilibrium situation where both sides respect boundaries. That equilibrium is closest to the framework set up by CPC and KMT back in the 90s, which is essentially “let’s be vague here but respect some boundaries, like for example accepting that we are both “China” but we just have different interpretations, and we can leave this topic open for discussion. “ But that framework was essentially trashed now.
Think about it in terms of squatter's laws (Adverse Possession) that exist in many Western nations. If you take up a piece of land for a period of time, exert control over it, develop it, etc., and the land owner does nothing or fails to evict the squatter, then eventually the title to the land passes to the squatter. Similar processes exist in international law, feeble as it appears now. The USN makes yearly visits to tiny islands all around the world that the US took possession of back when they were valued for Guano, and now are valued as potential points of military control, and similar logic behind so called Freedom of Navigation patrols, use it or lose it. Similarly, a family may lose it's right to assert citizenship if after x generations (x dependent on both domestic and international law and legal precedent) no one has returned to reside in their former homeland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse%20possession
I understand this reasoning but the American response (Washington neocons aside) comes partly from the fact that we actually have friends of Taiwanese descent who will be honest with us about their opinions on the mainland. They have their own cultural identity at this point and can read, so they know they will lose their freedoms if and when China takes over as Hong Kong precedent shows, and naturally they don’t want that. So ultimately reunion requires use of force in the same way that Russia taking Ukraine required use of force. I suspect many Americans agree China would rather use peace, but the DPP wouldn’t be a successful party in Taiwan if there were any warm feelings for the mainland there.
Perhaps it is a mistake to assume that your friends “of Taiwanese descent” represent a realistic understanding of how a resolution will eventually unfold. A gradual integration is already well underway, economically and culturally.
The same could be said for Russia and Ukraine prior to the war. I have no doubt China will own Taiwan 50 years from now and I don't think it will be a long war - maybe a blockade, a few bombings, and then surrender once it becomes clear nobody is coming to Taiwan's aid. China is patient and has probably already surpassed the US in power, so this isn't me doubting China's capabilities. It's just that conquest is rarely bloodless in history even when one power is obviously superior.
I expect quite a bit of violence during the period of reunification, but it will be mostly Taiwanese born against Taiwanese born, such as control over recent mainland immigrant based crimes like prostitution. Gang violence and it's associated corruption feedstock is barely under control in Taiwan. It is highly likely in the disturbance of the balance by re-unifcation, military or otherwise that large scale gangland violence will breakout.
https://www.youtube.com/@StraitTalkXY (Zhong) Xiangyu at Strait Talk with Xiangyu has a few videos about how past violence in Taiwan came about through language/territory based parochial criminal economic associations rubbing up against KMT political/economic corruption parochial/chauvinism.
3) Use of force > 1) Reunification > 2) Peace
Americans have normalized that their happiness is build on genocide and exploitation either quietly remembered* or vociferously celebrated ala Pete Hegseth/DJT. All of this even though a middle class majority is a fast disappearing phenomena of only 70-90 years, so for most of that history America has been brutality without benefits, so yes, violence first. May Day started after the Haymarket massacre (which propaganda has changed into Haymarket riots). One of the few places May Day isn't celebrated is in "Greater" America (USA and Canada). The idea that all that violence is unnecessary causes too much cognitive dissonance, and in communal society an anathema.
*English Bob, a character in the beginning of the Clint Eastwood movie "Unforgiven" is given a career/occupation that slips right past the audience. "He kills Chinamen for the railroad." Chinamen being shanghai'd/kidnapped forced labour to be disposed of once the project was completed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbLVMrEa0iA
A terrific essay.
Thank you sir!
Nah. Six weeks to go at most.
Sorry, six weeks for what?
A nice way to make a statement about how to behave if one wants to gain friends, influence people and be a leader.