In an isolated system, the consequence of such advances in social structures should be that the newer higher cost of living is the price one pays for a higher standard of living. But countries aren't isolated, and thus democratic leaders try to exploit less democratic countries for their own benefits, be it via covert action, foreign aid or other forms of diplomatic pressure.
China, on the other hand, is one of the few (former, I should say) developing nations that have fought back, once they gained enough political power internationally. The Western world have become heavily reliant on China and its cheap production engine (to put it very simply), and China can thus force the same Western democracies to side with them on diplomatic issues closer to their home.
Ask an American or a Frenchman how important to their livelihood Hong Kong's freedom or Taiwan's independence is, and they would probably rate it low among their list of priorities. Their cheap electronics come first. Does it matter to a Canadian shopkeeper whether Muslim minorities in China are treated humanely? Probably not as much as access to Chinese manufactured equipment.
You may be quick to think our leaders are corrupted by the Chinese regime, but in reality, they are merely doing what their voters want them to do. Voters tend to be rather narrowly focused on what is in front of them, rather than wanting their government spent money and resources on someone else's freedom. Particularly if those regimes avoid directly attacking those democracies (see Pearl Harbor for an example of this mistake).
This is actually false. The reason Russia and China care so much about Ukraine and Taiwan, is because they worry having a functional democracy next door may destabilize their own regimes.
Correct, but none with a Slavic majority. Similar with China. Lots of democracies. None with mostly Han Chinese.
The threat to both comes from the disabling of their argument that democracy doesn’t work for “their” people. It’s difficult for Russia to define a set of people that encompasses its population but excludes Ukrainians. Same for Beijing with respect to Hong Kong and Taiwan.
China cared about Taiwan when it was a authoritarian dictatorship for most of its history. I don't think it's a matter of government but a matter of lost territory. Using your logic, the north was worried about the functional democracy of the confederacy.
Even if taiwan adopted communism, it wouldn't matter because it's a matter of territorial integrity. Meaning, it's just as lightly that we'd let south carolina secede than china would allow taiwan to leave.
As for russia, considering that it's a democratic republic, I don't think they are too worried about that. What they are worried about is the geopolitical issues with ukraine - especially foreign interference in ukraine.
But I would not say I am conflating the two. The simple equation is that democracy does not foster democracy by itself. Capitalism in those democracies hinters that.
they are merely doing what their lobbyists want them to do
FTFY.
I know this, because I am the same. I recognise that our systems are flawed, but I also recognise that I - as a voter - am partially to blame for this. And yet, I also feel comfortable enough to let and let live.
They may be the horses towing the cart, but they are not the driver. You are right that they won't want to revolt and potentially destroy the system because it's working "well enough" for them, but that's far from being the ones who decide the course of the nation.
When you have 2 parties that nominate oligarchs, your vote is already wasted.
The only influence that the average citizen has is to get involved at the city council level and help the right people climb into influence.
But when you have to choose between Trump and a Clinton, it's too late to make a difference.
At a minimum the PRC would break of diplomatic relations (it refuses to have relations with any country that also recognizes Taiwan). However it would be interesting (and dangerous) to see what the PRC would do if the US or an un-ignorable block of countries like the EU broke the status-quo and recognized Taiwan. The PRC is far less isolated and self-sufficient than it was when major powers last officially recognized Taiwan.
However, ROC law distinguishes its nationals into two classes – those with legal residence (household registration) in the area under ROC government control (the "Free Territory"), and those without. ROC nationals without legal residence in government-controlled territory lack residence and political rights in Taiwan. However, they can apply to ROC government Immigration Department to immigrate to Taiwan, and if approved, can then apply for full permanent residence and political rights after a period of temporary residence in Taiwan.
"Taiwanese politics is full of complex subtleties that not every news report can include. But if reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it is that accuracy matters. A simple change, describing Tsai and the DPP as “pro-status quo” instead of “pro-independence,” gives readers a more accurate and nuanced account of Taiwan’s reality."
https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/no-taiwans-president-isnt-pr...