-province.
Fujian and Guangdong are larger and more populous than Taiwan. Shanghai alone have massive population, strong economy and probably bright future. I think there are no guarantee that Taiwan will become "most powerful province".
-rare earth
Taiwan is not the only one who need it. And rare earth also exist outside China, now is just unprofitable to mine it, if China raise the price, or limit selling, some other country will start mine it. There are no need for unification just because of single commodities. There are a lot of stuff that only mined in one or two country.
a) Group policy versus independent policy
i think "pursue incredibly similar policy" and "policies that China currently engaging" should be put under question. There are no guarantee this will continue to last. no Temporary Problem didn't mean future problem wouldn't arise.
and while probably true that increased clout outweighs the independent policy issue, this is no simple economic problem, And Taiwanese is the one who should decide if it true and worth Unification or Independence.
2) Military
Trust Issues can also be resolved in few decades without unification. Canada, after all, didn't point missile at DC and arm its border with USA. and unification also didn't resolve trust issues, look at South Yemen, or Eritrea, or South Sudan. if the problem is "trust", unification is not always the solution.
3) Immigration
practically, this is relatively minor matter, China already have internal passport system. But if we talk about unification, long-term problem arise, can Taiwan trust "unified China" government about immigration. USA will not tolerate one of his states refuse to accept immigrant from another states. China also allow immigration to Tibet. Can Taiwanese accept loss of this "sovereign rights" ?
4) Canada/USA joining versus China/Taiwan joining
i think its strange that Canada "had only one chance" while Taiwan not, isn't Taiwan also refused to join Communist Rebellion ? , and people who refused to join communist rebellion also flee to Taiwan. its very similar to Canada.
"No opportunity to do so" ? why not now ? or 1930 ? or 2030 ? This is very strange statement. The reason Canada did not join USA is because Canadians did not want to. if Canadians really want to join USA, opportunity will be created.
[[quoteblock]] but I just don't like the emotional aspect of it. There's no pragmatic logic to it and there's no physical gain. In fact, it's nearly the opposite. You are weaker to outside influences and external threats.[[quoteblock]]
but unification also have "emotional aspect" to it. If not Taiwan could join Japan or USA, or Canada could join USA or Brazil instead became part of commonwealth.
and "outside" influences and "external" threats are emotional statement. you could argue that England are "outside" and "external" to Canada, and Canada better off join USA. Taiwan could also argue that Beijing is "outside" and "external".
[[quoteblock]] But, with the way China is changing alongside Taiwan, and even changes in Hong Kong, all of whom are shifting toward greater democracy, there's a real chance here that if you play the cards right, you have the largest democracy powerhouse in the world. [[quoteblock]]
China did not need Taiwan to become "largest democracy", They could do it alone.
—-
breadloaf, i think we are debating unnecessary details here. All of this is fairly minor matter that we debated because you ask for benefit of independence. The main question is "nationalism". I think unification between people who perceive themselves as different people are folly, the question is are Taiwanese believe themselves Taiwanese or Chinese ? they still not decide one way or the other. All other benefits of unification or independence is fairly minor compared to that.
I'm also a bit skeptical of the whole "democracy powerhouse route". I think one of the major strengths of democracy is how it can tailor to the individual systems each country has. For example, a British Democracy is still much different than an American Democracy or a Canadian Democracy. While I understand that Taiwanese democracy provides an inspiration and blueprint for potential Chinese democracy, it's still important to evolve it in a specific way. We need diverse democracies to keep each other in check. Since you've stated that these democratic countries would still be more likely to exploit each other, that would still continue this policy of exploitation wouldn't it?
edited 23rd Dec '12 6:26:48 PM by blueflame724
I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living thingsThe suggestion is, of course, that autocracies cannot exploit each other. Which is patently false. Just a quick glance at a history book will tell you all you need to know about that: Rome, Egypt, Kush, Assyria, Babylon, various flavours of China towards everybody else in the vicinity, various flavours of European entity before representative forms of government became a fad... etc., etc.
Yup: none of those abused their position to strong-arm the neighbours, at all. Nope.
Face it: you get countries, you get 'em trying to get one over next-door.
It's a human thing.
![]()
How does "American Democracy" work better for the US than "British Democracy" or "Canadian Democracy" would? If these different kinds of democracies are equally good why isn't the PR Cs democracy on the lowest level of government, oligarcy on higher levels just as valid?
Solution: have one big house. Then there's no next-door.
![]()
![]()
How does that factor into this discussion? This isn't a China Threat Thread. Besides, China was invaded and sacked twice. When has it delivered payback? Not even to the Japanese.
But I am no fan of the idea of Taiwan getting stronger because of China. Assuming it does want to stop receiving gift horses from USA entirely, it will see definite materials flow, no doubt. But it's the minds of the Taiwan populace that decides its own outcome, and only time will wear it off.
x4 , Pray tell, since China has been very consistent, when did it show signs that it would exploit another foreign country? From what we've been given, fashion brands and other manufacturers have been poluting China's waters and soils, lowering its environmental quality for the sake of profit. Call it benediction, but that is an exploit of China, not from China.
edited 24th Dec '12 6:04:57 AM by Cassie
What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...![]()
![]()
Well, there was that time when it invaded, sacked, and colonized Tibet. That was fun.
edited 24th Dec '12 4:12:26 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiIn a way its truth...
on the other hand they did free some peasent from virtual slavery at the hands of a totalitarian theocratic state.
and replaced it with a totalitarian Maoist state I know... just saying.
edited 18th Jan '13 3:00:26 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
You don't get to explain away war crimes because the people you murdered, stole from, raped, abducted, enslaved etc etc etc because their government was nasty. Not to mention trying to degrade Tibetan culture and make the country a colony. China is the world's largest colonial power.
edited 18th Jan '13 3:56:38 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei
That's what the West always say about Dalai and Tibet. On the other hand, China is effectively ceasing the theocratic rule which made Tibet what it was (the horrible serf mess). Only the monks burn themselves because they can't find a living by flouting spirituality anymore.
![]()
Any evidence to support that claim? The colonial power, by definition, can only be applied to United Kingdom of the past. Colonized lands don't get drawn in official and UN-approved maps.
edited 18th Jan '13 10:28:12 PM by Cassie
What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...@ deathpigeon
I would not force it.
However, we're just debating benefits because the Taiwanese have not indicated strongly one way or another, so they've basically said *shrug*.
@ philippe
I'm of the opinion that is how they should base their decision rather than one of whether they believe their ethnicity has shifted due to the decades of separation.
@ blueflame
I did not mean to say that Taiwan's style of democracy is what the rest of China will have. I merely meant that the whole country together can be democratic and I was under the impression that your opinion was that unification is not right because China is not democratic. I personally don't (and should not) care about how they make it democratic everywhere in China/Taiwan.
@ Greenmantle
While I'm not going to really appreciate China's take of Africa's raw materials, the Africans did choose to cut off all trade relations with the west and go with the Chinese because they felt the Chinese treated them better. So that sorta says something about the crap we do/did to them.
So I don't think it is relevant to the discussion (but I suppose we aren't asking them to merge with any Western country).
@ Achaemenid
That didn't happen in Tibet.
I think you are referring to the uprising and the subsequent crackdown on it which led to the exile of the dalai lama? The actual takeover by communists was referred to as a unification war and it was bloodless. Granted, the clergy were pretty unhappy about the takeover because they were communists, you should note that they were in fact "in it" with the rest of China (since they were with the nationalists who weren't anti-religious).
The rest of the terrible crimes that happened in Tibet were China-wide and not ethnic-specific, so I wouldn't characterise it as such. We should really just be talking about China's crimes in the past as general overall terrible atrocities that should never be repeated. Framing them as racist when they were not would detract from their actual crimes.
edited 18th Jan '13 10:32:56 PM by breadloaf
Yea I am not justifyng the chinese.
It similar to how france freed the prisoners of the inquisition but committed atrocities or how Sadam's Kuwait gave citizenship to the semi slave arab labour in Kuwait.
It doesnt justify anything and Tibet has every right to self determination. It was just a lose comment.
edited 18th Jan '13 11:36:44 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.![]()
Democracy seems to be the main contention from the others in this discussion so I thought I'd address it a bit. Even so, I stand by original position regarding the incentive to unite. My main argument is still contemplating why Taiwan needs to unite with China when China becomes democratic, rather than a different kind of relation. You seemed to be arguing that once China is "democratic enough" they must unite.
edited 19th Jan '13 1:06:37 AM by blueflame724
I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things@Cassie
Of course. Try this article
for starters. Also see this article
from Saturday Nation and various human rights reports by Amnesty International. Or why not check out the special section on Tibet and Xinjiang
by Human Rights Watch.
Also, from TOW
So, we have the taking over of another territory, which obviously happened, and the integration of that territory into the metropole, again, which clearly happened with Tibet's forced Anschluss with China. We also must examine three key points:
- Exploitation
Difficult to argue against. Economic development in rural Tibet is largely unchanged since the beginning. The vast majority of allocated resources are given to the Chinese. An official report even stated that ethnic Chinese "cannot be expected to live on the local fare. They need good housing, hospitals, cinemas and schools for their children." So ethnic discrimination in favor of the metropole is settled. Tibet's natural resources, such as hydroelectric power
, are sequestered for the benefit of Chinese. Extractive industries such as mining
recieve the most support. Similarly, the 2011 Human Rights and Democracy report by the UK foreign office noted that most investment opportunities were afforded to ethnic Chinese by the government of the TAR and the regional Communist secretary.
- Claim of sovereignty
Again, China patently claims sovereignty over Tibet, and has done so before international bodies on many occasions.
- Changing of governmental structure to suit the colonizer
The government of the TAR is functionally subservient, like all governmental structures in China, to the local Communist Party branch, which is run by a Han Chinese, as per usual.note China prevents the opening of consulates in Lhasa, passes laws restricting the cultural and political expression of Tibetans, and denounces any attempt to challenge the status quo as "separatism". Further, the state constitution forbids challenge to the inherently non-Tibetan CPC and any challenge to the claimed borders of China. The barbaric one-child policy
remains in force. Freedom of religion is restricted for political expediency
.
EDIT: This will also serve as a response to @breadloaf.
edited 19th Jan '13 4:29:08 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiTry using those descriptors on any country that isn't China, and we'll talk. I can agree that no one can be as white as a sheet, but your attempt at demonizing China in order to validate your stance of Taiwan's independance is just too much to be reasonable.
What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...^ I don't really have interest in this particular back and forth, but "countries that aren't China" aren't the subject of this discussion.
Lots of people learn to leave "yeah, well X does it too!" back on the grade school playground. Perhaps you should try it.
All your safe space are belong to Trump

Well what are the other provinces you think that would be more powerful then? There's Fujian, Guangdong etc. But most of what Taiwan wants is actually in China itself, not sure if that is ironic or not, but the rare earth minerals necessary for Taiwan's biggest industry are in China. Taiwan ranks pretty near the top in terms of GDP and power, though not exactly people.
The trade-off for Ontario/Quebec or say California, in the unions that they are in, are very clearly more beneficial for being in the union than not. We could say that Taiwan may not, so let's look at the various issues:
a) Group policy versus independent policy
The trade-off, as stated, was the ability to pursue a Taiwan-only trade/foreign policy by Taiwanese politicians versus Chinese ones. However, I think the primary issue here is that Taiwan/China pursue incredibly similar policies. But I think it's better to think of it in terms of opportunity cost. Mainland China pursuing policies of benefit to provinces on the mainland versus Taiwan will exist regardless of unification. What I am saying is that Taiwanese politicians can tone down that aspect by being a part of a Chinese union. Losing out on trade deals for Taiwan is a major issue in Africa where China will outright push Taiwan from the picture completely. Those are devastating blows to Taiwan's GDP (especially since so much of it depends on exports).
I do think the increased clout outweighs the independent policy issue.
So, what are the policies that China is currently engaging in that the Taiwanese would dislike? Perhaps blueflame could elaborate on it.
2) Military
A few decades to reduce military spending is pretty damn good in my opinion. That's a lot better than never. It's taking forever to resolve the problems in Korea, what's another 20-30 years to cut Taiwan's military spending by 30x? They can start with join navy patrols and move onto an eventual full unification of forces.
Trust issues over military is typically the first thing to thaw in any relationship building exercise. Promises to remove missiles from pointing at each other, promises to tell each other of all navy positions etc. Those are doable within the next 5 years and can save billions right there.
After that, you could do with a soldier/officer exchange program. I think that having Taiwanese officers in charge of mainland units would do a lot to build trust within the military command structure and for the people to see that if mainland China is willing, then the Taiwanese can too.
3) Immigration
With immigration I think that the situation here is of between provinces. Actually, most of the people that can move to Taiwan are going to relatively prosperous or more highly skilled mainlanders. That's the nature of the ability to move. The reality of people who can move is that only those with money can do it. I don't think Taiwan has much to worry about.
On a plus side, immigration policy is typically slow, so it's likely to be a 10-30 year phased-in plan. China loves them 50-year plans, so have one for this. And actually Quebec has special rights over its immigration, so push comes to shove, Taiwan could have the same deal there. I'm not sure what the restriction would be for Taiwan though, perhaps a point-system immigration ala Canada style?
4) Canada/USA joining versus China/Taiwan joining
If we were discussing PRC annexing Taiwan, I would say flat no. Similarly, Canada only had one chance to join the USA and that was during the Revolutionary War when the Americans asked Canada to join them in a rebellion. I think it should be understood that at the time, rebellion was not even a majority opinion in the United States and many of those people fled to Canada during the war. Thereafter, USA has only attempted to annex Canada. We never joined because there was no opportunity to do so except at that one point where we refused to rebel against the British Empire. We've bled a lot from American invasions, not American diplomats asking for a union. That's only happening today.
So, the analogy sorta breaks down there but the situation of a "large power" and a "small power" still exists. It's not balanced well. Taiwan may feel that they wish to pursue independence or just an independent policy, as do most people outside of the "central" province in most federal authority nation-states, but I just don't like the emotional aspect of it. There's no pragmatic logic to it and there's no physical gain. In fact, it's nearly the opposite. You are weaker to outside influences and external threats.
But, with the way China is changing alongside Taiwan, and even changes in Hong Kong, all of whom are shifting toward greater democracy, there's a real chance here that if you play the cards right, you have the largest democracy powerhouse in the world.
edited 21st Dec '12 10:06:55 PM by breadloaf