Your view of Taiwan's government is somewhat outdated. The KMT party (which once ruled China, and for decades ruled Taiwan) has suffered a series of overwhelming electoral defeats, and the now-ruling DPP party has a platform of "Taiwan" as an independent nation, rather than the (exiled) "Republic of China."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Progressive_Party

Yet Taiwan still call itself Republic of China regardless of parties. There was never a country called Taiwan.

https://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=A00000...

That's because of (continental) China threatening invasion if Taiwan ever declares independence.

The statu quo is the only safe option for Taiwan, and that means keeping the historical claims. China prefers seeing Taiwan as a dissident government of China rather than as a successfully independentist territory.

So the Taiwanese governments have to make very gradual changes towards a fully independentist stance rather than straight up acknowledging that the island is independent.

I so think KMT prefers it to be named "China" than Taiwan. Though they are a bit down on electoral fortune, they may get into power in the future too.

Taiwan is like 30% mainlanders (support the KMT, families came over in 1947) and 70% native taiwanese (came from fujian before and during the Japanese occupation). The way the KMT took over the island in 1947 creates a lot of animosity between the two groups, coupled with the fact that the mainlanders control much more of the economy than the natives.

Even if the KMT wins elections in the future, they still have to cater to that 70% of the population that want very little to do with the mainland.

Aren’t the natives the indigenous people of Taiwan?

It depends on context. There are the original prior to Dutch trade natives (naruan, whatever) and the colonists from the mainland that came in waves over time who are now native in relation to post WWII immigrants from the mainland after Mao defeated the nationalists on the mainland.

It’s not too different from someone who is a German native but isn’t caucasian, for example.

The various Austronesian tribes in the Urheimat, yes.

Still, the distinction between Japan occupation-experiencing Han population and the evacuated Mainlander Han is an important one.

Isn’t that the problem? The Japanese treated Taiwan as a first class province, while Chiang Kai Shek was much more authoritarian with his take over of the island (killing off a lot of the island leaders and educated people to prevent dissent). This has led to a much closer relationship between Taiwan and Japan, and a harsher relationship with the mainland.

Technically ya, but in modern usage it refers to a previous wave of immigration to Taiwan from Fujian.

Taiwanese aborigines are firmly in the KMT/mainlander camp.

There is no such a thing called gradual independence.

You either have it by announcing it and other countries recoginize it or you do not have it.

What I see is politicians play the rent-seeking game between China and the U.S.

>There is no such a thing called gradual independence.

The statement was "gradual changes towards independence". Are you saying it is not possible for a territory to take any steps that might lead towards independence or make it more likely?

Blatantly taking statements out of context and intentionally misrepresenting them is not appreciated.

Please look at the Irish, or Canadian, or Montenegrin, or Philippines examples. There are all kinds of intermediate arrangements between independence and annexation, and places can slide fairly smoothly between them.

For all purposes that matter, Taiwan is already independent.

They don't have to declare it. They just are independent already.

They control their own borders. They tax their own people. They have their own military. That makes them independent in my book, regardless of whether or not they announce it to the world or not.

The "announcement" part of it just doesn't matter that much.

Of course Taiwan is in a independent country, it's called Republic of China, which also includes islands outside Taiwan.

You can go to a no-man island and declare your own independence and nobody will care about it.

However, a country that interact with other countries, their independence is recognized by both parties.

Further, as Taiwan is so close to mainland, whether geo-politically, or economically, made it detaching links to China infeasible.

> However, a country that interact with other countries, their independence is recognized by both parties.

Taiwan's independence is de facto recognized by the US and many (most?) other major powers, it's just not recognized de jure because of the PRC's diplomatic policy. For instance, the US basically has an embassy in Taiwan (they just don't call it one), which is staffed by State Department diplomats (who take a leave of absence to work there so they're not technically diplomats when there). It walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, but many have agreed to pretend it's not a duck for reasons.

This stuff isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.

This is actually a better argument for independent status than de jure in my mind, because countries essentially "opt-in" and go out of their way to make special rules for dealing with Taiwan. There's no default recognition by virtue of UN admission and having diplomatic relations or some other standard international measure.

I'd say that puts it above many countries that might have wide de jure recognition, but limited, ineffective, or largely chilled diplomatic relations, like North Korea.

> You can go to a no-man island and declare

Declaring isn't the thing that is important.

As I said before, the important part is controlling your own borders, taxing your own people, and having your own military.

That is what makes a country a country. Not things like "declaring" or "recognition".

Their passport stamp literally says "ROC (Taiwan)".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_stamp#Taiwan

Even that is changing slowly, the next Taiwanese passport will remove all mention of China

Avoiding mention it does not change ROC(Taiwan). Unless they announce independence, which is very unlikely.

The president did made a speech recently saying the island is already independent which is another big step. It's getting there slowly, step by step.

The HK events really destroyed the taiwainese public support which was left for reunification.

It is independent from mainland now, as an island of Republic of China. ROC also includes other islands outside Taiwan, like Jinmen.

There are not many young people support reunification all along regardless of what happened in HK.

> It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now.

I’m not aware of the UK kidnapping anyone to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction. On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble and in 1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom. Some exploitation.

Exploitation doesn't mean someone else can't gain anything, and you should know that the history of colonial Hong Kong started many, many, years earlier.

Maybe the exploit is about:

The nationality of HongKonger was the same as other UK citizen at the time called CUKC. For other UK ex-colony, they usually had a independent election to be an independent country or so, and these countries do not have the UK nationality anymore. But HKers never had such election taken place.

They were going to make it a democracy in the 60s until China said they’d invade if they did.

> China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong".[21] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Ho...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pus...

Check out the 1967 Hong Kong protests. The UK directed their appointed governor to suppress the protests.

Over 50 protestors were killed and hundreds more injured.

> Check out the 1967 Hong Kong protests. The UK directed their appointed governor to suppress the protests.

You mean these?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/opinion/ching-cheong-hong...:

> The May 6 riot was started by the local chapter of the Chinese Communist Party (C.C.P.), which hoped to bring the colonial government to its knees. The year before, its counterpart had done just that with the Portuguese authorities in Macau, becoming the de facto ruler there....

> The local C.C.P. created more terror by issuing a list of people targeted for assassination. These included a senior Chinese official in the British administration, a top business leader, a representative of the landed class and Louis Cha Leung-yung, the publisher of Ming Pao, a Hong Kong newspaper that had criticized the riot. Lam Bun, an outspoken radio broadcaster who had also condemned the disturbances, was burned to death, along with his cousin, on the way to work....

> Sino-British relations came to a standstill. According to a highly reputable source who spoke on the condition of anonymity, it appears that Zhou Enlai, the Chinese premier, asked Mao Zedong if he intended to claim Hong Kong back from Britain. Mao said that it wasn’t time and that he would honor the treaties China had signed allowing Britain to rule Hong Kong until 1997. Zhou then ordered an immediate halt to the riot in Hong Kong.

> I’m not aware of the UK kidnapping anyone to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction.

That's because the UK kidnapped the entirety of hong kong.

> On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble

Isn't that because that's where the colonizing brits were? You know the ones the japanese wanted to remove from asia?

> and in 1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom.

The rise of Hong Kong's GDP entirely tracks the opening of china. Meaning the UK had nothing to do with hong kong's rise.

Also, it's a joke to compare a city ( hong kong ) to a country ( UK ). I see it done too many times in traditional and social media. Hong kong's GDP per capita is lower than london's. Using your logic, does it make that an exploitation?

> The rise of Hong Kong's GDP entirely tracks the opening of china. Meaning the UK had nothing to do with hong kong's rise.

Hong Kong was richer than Spain in 1980. China didn’t open for trade until the 80s. When Nixon went to China international trade was so low the leadership had to raid the entire country’s foreign reserves to get enough dollars to travel to the US. Hong Kong’s prosperity was not based on the China trade between 1945 and 1980.

>Hong Kong was richer than Spain in 1980.

Spain was pretty poor in 1980.

> Hong Kong was richer than Spain in 1980.

People really can't help themselves: "Also, it's a joke to compare a city ( hong kong ) to a country ( UK ). I see it done too many times in traditional and social media."

Also is that supposed to be impressive? I've never associated economic strength or wealth with 20th century spain.

> China didn’t open for trade until the 80s.

Wrong. They opened up in the 60s. They tested trade with Japan first in the 60s before opening up relations with the US in the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Japan_relations#...

There is a reason why hong kong's standing improved in the 60s and continued to do so.

> Hong Kong’s prosperity was not based on the China trade between 1945 and 1980.

Yes it was. Hong kong's only value is as an entry point/port into china. There is nothing inherently noteworthy about hong kong. It has no resources and only a few million people.

We know it wasn't based on the UK since from 1842 til china's liberation and opening up, hong kong was a dirt poor colonial outpost where only the british and a few chinese lackey's were wealthy. We know it had nothing to do with hong kong for the reasons I noted. So the only remaining option is china's opening up.

Lets put it this way, if china was still the colonized china of pre-ww2 or if china was the china of 1945-1965ish, then hong kong would still be relatively poor.

> It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now.

This.. seems a bit strident. Or a reach, anyway. I don’t recall a similar situation in HK in the 90’s. I also recall the joint declaration’s intent was to maintain HK autonomy until about 2047, something the U.K. advocated for, not China. The liberties the people in HK are used to and fighting to retain are there specifically because of the what the U.K. set up.

The UK granted those liberties and some measure of self governance only in the last years of its rule. The Governor of Hong Kong was never elected. The elected portion of the legislative council was implemented rather near the end of the UK’s time in HK. For most of British HK history, the governor picked the members of the council. Basic Law which gave certain guarantees to HK didn’t even exist until 1990!

That said, British rule of HK, despite the UK having fairly authoritarian levels of power, was fairly restraint. I don’t recall many HK people feeling bitter towards the UK during that time I lived there — just prior to the handover.

> The UK granted those liberties and some measure of self governance only in the last years of its rule

Hong Kong was nearly[1] granted effectively autonomous status by Britain in the 1960s. China threatened a military intervention should that happen.

1. https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...

There is a mention in Paddy Ashdown's autobiography describing when he was in the SBS in the 1960s and they were sent undercover posing as tourists to beaches in Hong Kong to evaluate their suitability as evacuation points should China invade.

Britain proposed to turn HK into a self-governing dominion like (non-democratic) Singapore - aka grant HK dejure independence from China - which obviously China would reject since it would circumvent handover. Hence ZhouEnlai labeling it as a plot / conspiracy. Most of the Thatcher memo was about trying to maintain British "control"/administration post handover to help with investor confidence (and British influence).

This QZ article is repeating a fairly disingenuous interpretation of the documents to suggest some missed opportunity for democratic reforms. The original narrative was put forth by VJMedia which bias towards HK local-ism (pro-independence). There was never any effort in the 60s up until years before handover to grant subjects of HK liberties or self-governance within the context of Extension of Hong Kong Territory lease.

Self-rule is sometimes, as would appear in the case of Hong Kong, orthogonal to wildly successful.

I thing there were large scale protests in the 60s, may be 1962 against British rule in HK.

Also did Britain do enough to protect and to take back HK during WW2.

If I remember correctly, HK was only given back to Britain after the final surrender of Japan in WW2. Japan had taken HK following the attack on the same day as Pearl Harbour attack.

Also geographically the major portion of HK, the New Territories has gone back to China in 1997 because the British had lease of it only till that time. Only the HK Island and Kowloon areas are the territories British yeilded to China under agreement. So post 1997 Britain had a claim only to a small part of the geographical area of HK.

Basic Law article 23 also requires HK to pass a national security law similar to the one that currently is so debated. They have not done for for the last 23(?) years.

Well BL 23 says HK will enact (on its own) a law to prevent sedition, treason against PRC. The comprehensiveness of such measures is where the present debate lies, and has since before the handover.

Recall that this was attempted prior to the handover and the PRC thought it insufficient. Sufficiency is in the eye of the beholder, and relative to the norms of each society, no?

The US has laws to prevent sedition and treason, but they are nowhere near what the PRC finds appropriate for their own country. HK’s cultural expectations are somewhat closer to the occidental norms than the expectations of China proper, it would seem.

Frankly, I think the expectation was (and for some people still may be) that China would become a more socialized (pardon the pun) citizen of the globe by 2047, rather than the angry and aggressive economic rescue dog they’re turning out to be, and so the threat of HK takeover by a repressive, totalitarian regime would have been moot. Sadly it’s not looking like China will normalize in this sense prior to the JD expiring, and in fact, China has explicitly stated that they disregard the binding nature of the JD, calling it a mere “historic document”, despite its contemporaneous binding nature.

>Sufficiency is in the eye of the beholder, and relative to the norms of each society, no?

Maybe but no law at all is not sufficient to any objective observer.

Are you arguing that HK should adopt China’s security law and stop resisting?

Are you arguing China should have accepted HK’s proposal in the 90’s to fulfill BL 23?

Unclear what your point is. Oftentimes no law is preferable to bad law, given what’s at risk and a lack of compromise. Examples of this being “sufficient” are plentiful in any society where the people have a strong representation.

> The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997.

Yes, they should of but realistically they couldn't, life just isn't that simple. China had explicitly blocked that.

The hand over agreement to China was a very difficult and subtle balancing act.

Since the '60s China had apposed further moves towards democracy or extension of HK citizen rights with the threat of invasion.

However, as Thatcher pointed out in the 80s, China didn't even need to invade they could just cut the water supply off any time they felt like it.

Amusingly, the case of PRC's acceptance to UN was championed by India, which both lost to China badly in '62, and interestingly, was also the instrument by which China was destroyed in the Opium wars by Britain.

This view of India, it's fall from grace in Asia, and its transformation from a source of knowledge to the sword of imperialism was very notable in the pan-Asian movt. in Japan (whose roots are actually in the anti-Meiji rebellions). This history is unacknowledged not only in India, but in Japan too. It's not surprising that the turban-clad 'asan' view of Indians as imperial-lackeys is a distinct point in Chinese movies.

Sun-Yat Sen, the founder of the first Chinese republic wa himself supported by this clan in Japan; and very interestingly, Rash-Behari Bose who was key to the formation of the INA, and the subsequent independence of India (via the Sepoy Mutiny), was helped by Sun-Yat Sen during in his early years in Japan (when he was being hunted down by the pro-British Japanese govt.) It's also very likely that Subhash Bose fakes his death in Taiwan and escaped to Russia via then Manchuria, and was in contact with CCP heads.

All said, it's unsurprising that today, 'India', a country often sneered at by the Caucasians (I say this measuredly), is suddenly being termed 'America's best friend' in line with Obama's 'pivot to Asia' (aka, the New Opium War).

> I say this measuredly

I should hope so. That’s a stunning generalization if I get your intent, and to boot, wholly inaccurate as Indians are (and many can/do identify as) Caucasians.

Are you using The term as a proxy for the Occident as a whole? The United States specifically? Ignoring the technical inaccuracy, I think America remains a bit of an Indiaphiliac and has been that way for decades. It’s entirely compatible to hope the best for a nation, respect its intellectual achievements and regional challenges, value the alignment of interests while also remaining critical of its political and humanitarian shortcomings - as The US regards India and I’m sure the feeling is mutual.

At the same time, I think the US is wise to stay out of the growing conflict in Northern Kashmir. When it comes down to dust though, I’ve no doubt the US would help India defend against existential threats. China on the other hand isn’t worried about existential threats except maybe from Japan, and is in fact demonstrating and expansionist (if not imperial) foreign policy - which is to say, they would not conceivably need help from the US in the present conflict. I don’t see India attempting to seize territory from China any time soon.

Is there any reason whatsoever to believe the US would help India in a conflict with China?

I see absolutely no evidence of this being the case. The US has never in the history of India stepped in to help India.

In all likelihood, if IndanandnChina came to blows, the US would simply sit aside and not participate.

A) the two countries have signed a defense pact.

B) the two countries were conducting joint war games as late as last year. In fact, the US performs military exercises with India more than any other non-NATO partner.

C) since the sixties the US has provided billions in military equipment, economic aid and loans to India (US is heavily invested in their success and stability), to say nothing of remittances.

D) a strong ex-pat community in the US, one of the fastest growing, makes for political influence (did you see/watch the “Howdy Modi” rally in Texas?).

I could go on if those don’t make a compelling enough case, but I would like to address your prediction about China and India coming to blows.

I agree, until the conflict starts to threaten India existentially. I think current US policy is bending towards a preference for letting partners deal with their own regional issues to the extent they can. Witness the call for Europe to clean up its own backyard to their East and in Africa, the endorsement to Israel and Saudi Arabia for managing the Middle East, the slow unwinding if restrictions on Japan. I think this endorsement comes with a promise of air cover (literal and figurative) if things start to go sideways.

China’s “problem” is that if they directly attack any nation in Asia the others will see the writing on the wall and make an alliance that will include India and the US.

True. I would go further and say that but for the US/Russian hegemony post WW2, regional powers would have torn China to shreds over the last eighty years, to include an unbridled Japan, India, and perhaps some of its southern neighbors.

In point of fact, this process had already started in the lead-up to WW2. The war of Manchuria was in fact Russia and Japan fighting over a piece of China like two lions on the hide of a water buffalo that’s still walking upright.

Yes, China's treatment by every empire of note is the reason for the PRC's obsession with taking back every piece of land Qing China ever occupied.

> The war of Manchuria was in fact Russia and Japan fighting over a piece of China like two lions on the hide of a water buffalo that’s still walking upright.

In that metaphor, Japan was another water buffalo that was peacefully minding its own business, was told "you're next" by the lions, then shrugged and said "if you can't beat them, why not join them?"

Good points, and nobody (least of all Russia) thought Japan would be such a badass when they threw down.

> Sun-Yat Sen, the founder of the first Chinese republic wa himself supported by this clan in Japan; and very interestingly, Rash-Behari Bose who was key to the formation of the INA, and the subsequent independence of India (via the Sepoy Mutiny), was helped by Sun-Yat Sen during in his early years in Japan (when he was being hunted down by the pro-British Japanese govt.) It's also very likely that Subhash Bose fakes his death in Taiwan and escaped to Russia via then Manchuria, and was in contact with CCP heads.

Thank you for bringing up this often disregarded piece of history to light again.

It's a big irony that this alignment split has lasted to these days.

There is a bigger split in India's left than in between its left, and right side of the spectrum. One is pro-China, and one is militantly against.

A lot of people think Netaji was obsequious and ingratiating with the Japanese and they didn’t respect him as a result

I think you statements about Taiwan are not accurate anymore - definitely not since recent elections, but even before that.

> The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997.

They did.

"It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now."

If by 'exploited' you mean 'foisted Hong Kong to an immeasurably higher standard of living than the mainland, and protected them from the brutal oppression of the CCP, and enabled HK to be an example Asian country, one of the most sophisticated nations, with one of the highest GDP/capita in the region and world' ... then ok.

And of course 'The CCP now' will brutally oppress HK, bring them behind the curtain, throw away any legal process, watch their every move, subject them to any number of controls and censorship ...

So that's one funny way to look at it.

One of the two major parties in Taiwan wants to be recognized as independent, the other wants the world to recognize them as the one legitimate government of China (Which is, of course, farcical.)

"It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now."

nope: https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/07/01/hong-kong-proteste...

HK spent over 150 years under British colonial rule [0].

The vast majority of that time without any real democratic participation of HK citizens as those were considered British subjects and did not have full rights nor citizenship [1].

[0] https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2122508/hong-...

[1] https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/1613#tocto1n8

I think the key part was "as much"

> The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997. It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now.

Britain only started paying a bit of lip service to "freedom" and "democracy" when it became time to hand the territory back to China, and even now they aren't offering citizenship, they are simply saying they're considering allowing people to stay a few months longer in Britain.

> Both the ROC and PRC claim that Taiwan is part of China, but differ (obviously) as to which government is "legitimate".

We all know that if the "CCP" had lost the civil war and was reduced to ruling a tiny island off the coast, nobody would take the "PRC" any more seriously - as the true ruler of the whole country or as an independent state - than a "Confederate States of America" holed up on the Florida Keys.

> Britain only started paying a bit of lip service to "freedom" and "democracy" when it became time to hand the territory back to China

They were going to make it a democracy in the 60s until China said they’d invade if they did.

> China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong".[21] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Ho...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pus...

> We all know that if the "CCP" had lost the civil war and was reduced to ruling a tiny island off the coast, nobody would take the "PRC" any more seriously - as the true ruler of the whole country or as an independent state - than a "Confederate States of America" holed up on the Florida Keys.

Perhaps not for the first 10 years. But 60 years and two generations later, it doesn't make any sense at all to refuse to recognize the independence of a self-governing group of over 20 million people.

It makes perfect sense. No one of any importance wants to be the first to piss off mainland China.

> holed up on the Florida Keys.

Taiwan is made up of 70% of native Taiwanese people. It is disingenuous to say that the people living there, are made up of escaped refugees from the china mainline.

The fact that 70% of the population living their, has ancenstry dating back hundreds of years, is what make their claim valid.

Taiwan was under Ming and then Qing Dynasty rule during many of those years.

Taiwan also has indigenous people that were colonized.

And then after the Qing Dynasty, they achieved independence.

Thus, their country is now ruled by their own people.