The Taiwanese concept of "unification" is not what you're thinking of.

The Taiwanese faction supporting unification (usually the KMT) does not envision a world where Taiwan becomes a province of the PRC, they envision a world where the ROC governs all current PRC provinces, that is where they are in the seat of power in Beijing. I.e. this is a world where Taiwan invades China, not the other way around.

The opposing faction rejects these ambitions and wants Taiwan to go its own way.

That was Taiwanese politics in the 90’s. It doesn’t reflect current party policy.

As far as I'm aware this is still the official party line of the KMT.

It's just that now the DPP (their opposition) is in power.

My parents are from Taiwan with my moms side hardline KMT govt officials, and Dad is Green Party/DPP - grew up listening about Taiwanese politics my entire life around friends and family.

I’ve never heard of this stance. I’ve only heard of your stance on Reddit and Twitter within the past two years.

My wife is from Taiwan, so I’m kinda clued into this even if once removed. Doesn’t trump your inside source though. My understanding is that in the last few decades the KMT had been following (in practice at least) a more business-friendly economic and regulatory unification with the mainland. The deals negotiated by the KMT with the PRC that led to the sunflower movement and the rise of the DPP were very much pro-status quo, pro-stability rejection of the historical KMT policy.

The KMT has never officially given up the reconquest position, but it has been decades since that that was anymore than lip service to the one China idea. In practice KMT policies have been pro-unification in the EU or HK sense.

This stance is most recently and prominently known from the 1992 Consensus:

> 中共當局認為『一個中國』即為『中華人民共和國』...，我方則認為『一個中國』應指1912年成立迄今之中華民國

> The CCP authorities believe "One China" to be the "People's Republic of China"..., we believe "One China" should refer to the Republic of China, founded in 1912 and persisting to this day.

and its affirmation in 2012 by the then KMT administration:

> 兩岸確已達成「一中各表」的共識，這是客觀的事實，我們主張的「一中」當然是中華民國。

> The two coasts have already reached a mutual understanding on "One China, Said Differently," of course the "One China" we support is the Republic of China.

From the Taiwanese government MAC: https://www.mac.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=B383123AEADAEE52&...

It's very much the idea that the ROC should control everything.

Now as other comments point out, public perception among KMT detractors is that this is a sham, and even among KMT supporters there's not a clear message on how this situation would ever come about (and the main criticism in Taiwan against the KMT is that the only way that the KMT could ever hope to make this happen and indeed is/was doing in effect is by essentially capitulating to the PRC), but this is what the KMT puts out on official channels on what "reunification" means for the ROC.

The DPP came into power when the KMT tried to negotiate the first steps towards HK-like reunification though.

I've never heard this take, even while in Taiwan. They aren't deluded, they know they aren't retaking the mainland. The reason they don't declare themselves a country is because China won't support it and they're worried it would trigger an invasion. China prefers Taiwan be a rebellious province rather than an independent country because it strengthens China's claim to the island. The KMT used to be feeling out a HK like integration with China but I think that's even more dead than it used to be.

>> The Taiwanese faction supporting unification (usually the KMT) does not envision a world where Taiwan is/becomes a province of the PRC, they envision a world where the ROC governs all current PRC provinces, that is where they are in the seat of power in Beijing.

> I've never heard this take, even while in Taiwan. They aren't deluded, they know they aren't retaking the mainland.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's still the KMT's "official" position, and it's probably one they genuinely held for a long time after they retreated to Taiwan. The Taiwan issue is interesting, because China's power and sensitivity means literally none of the important players except China officially says what they really mean, and maintain these ridiculous diplomatic fictions to avoid crossing China's lines.

China absolutely does maintain its own diplomatic fictions.

For example, a Taiwanese person travelling to the PRC needs a "Mainland travel permit for residents of the island of Taiwan", which is most emphatically neither a visa nor a passport despite fulfilling exactly those two functions.

>China prefers Taiwan be a rebellious province rather than an independent country because it strengthens China's claim to the island.

I'm pretty sure that the Chinese government is actually scared shitless that Taiwan declaring independence would reinvigorate independence movements in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and probably half a dozen more.

A new civil war in China would make WWII look like a minor scuffle.

> I'm pretty sure that the Chinese government is actually scared shitless that Taiwan declaring independence would reinvigorate independence movements in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and probably half a dozen more.

Why would they be "scared shitless"? They've demonstrated the ability to crack down hard and defeat those movements. For instance: the Hong Kong protests ended almost immediately once China decided to take the gloves off.

A good long look at the history of Chinese civil wars should be enough to scare anyone.

Maybe they could control simultaneous large scale insurrections. But it would be wise not to be overconfident in that regard.

> Maybe they could control simultaneous large scale insurrections. But it would be wise not to be overconfident in that regard.

Why do you think they'd have to deal with any "large scale insurrections"? They easily delt with one HK, once they imposed a Mainland-style security law, because fear evaporated the protests. Those protests also didn't inspire much of a response in the Mainland. They also didn't have to deal with on in Xinjiang, where they implemented so much direct oppression that you'd think they'd have inspired a response if one were possible.

The PRC security apparatus is strong, well organized, and its actions aren't constrained by liberal sensibilities. The PRC population is thoroughly disarmed, disorganized, and dis-informed, so cannot resist it. I think you're indulging in wishful thinking and fantasy.

Your impressions are all true, but Taiwan hasn't given up formal claim to mainland China.

This is important because it allows the "policy of deliberate ambiguity":

> There is deliberate ambiguity regarding the government of the country of 'China' (as well as what land this country constitutes). Currently, two governments claim legitimate rule and sovereignty over all of China, which they claim includes Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, as well as some other islands.

> those from Taiwan who attend the Olympic Games and other various international organizations and events participate under the deliberately ambiguous name of "Chinese Taipei"

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

> they envision a world where the ROC governs all current PRC provinces

Is this really true? Sure, recapturing the mainland was the ideology of the KMT at the end of the Chinese Civil War, but KMT politicians would have to be extremely delusional to believe it's possible now. My understanding is that the modern KMT believes in increased economic integration with China and the maintenance of Chinese cultural idenity, while leaving the door open to future reunification under favorable political circumstances. The KMT is definitely considered the "pro-Beijing" major Taiwanese party in the 21st century.

> My understanding is that the modern KMT believes in increased economic integration with China and the maintenance of Chinese cultural idenity, while leaving the door open to future reunification under favorable political circumstances. The KMT is definitely considered the "pro-Beijing" major Taiwanese party in the 21st century.

It's quite difficult to separate out what the KMT really believes from what its detractors say it believes, real differences among its individual members, what it puts out in official statements, and what can be inferred from its actions.

What you're saying is valid, especially the part about not believing it's possible (one thing I didn't emphasize in my original reply is that no one in Taiwan believes that reunification was ever going to happen any time soon, and focused more on just what "reunification" means) but "favorable political circumstances" is doing a lot of work there. That can span the gamut from "the PRC turns into a clone of the ROC and is immediately replaced" to "the ROC disappears altogether."

There are also a lot of people who do view the KMT as toadies of the CCP.

But the official party line unless they've come out with something more recent that I'm missing is that reunification means the ROC controls everything.

My original point was that Taiwanese rhetoric on "reunification" has always been very very different than what reunification has meant for Hong Kong.

My wife is from Taiwan, and what you wrote is a warped understanding of how things were 40 years ago.

The official position of all Taiwanese parties is that Taiwan and China are one nation divided by temporary difficulties, because China has threatened war if they say anything else.

The inofficial position of the DPP (current government party) is that of fucking course Taiwan is de facto a separate sovereign country, and we like it that way, so let's not do anything to risk it.

The inofficial position of the KMT is that they are in the pocket of the CCP, and a big fan of every possible concession that won't scare their voters too much.

Anyone who thinks China's CCP will allow an autonomous Taiwan is living in a fantasy land.

> All they need to do is look at what happened in Hong Kong.

Maybe I am diving too much into the weeds here, but my understanding with HK is when the UK left and setup autonomous region with China in 1984, China/UK agree to leave the gov unchanged for 50 years after 1997 [0]. This interim government that was setup is controlled by CCP members.

My understanding is the Taiwan gov has always been completely separate from HK's.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration

Taiwan govt ruled China and lost to the Communists in the civil war. Both countries see Taiwan as part of a greater China

It's a governmental net-split!

Taiwan has no relationship to HK.

My understanding as an outsider:

Taiwan's is governed by the Republic of China (ROC), which regained control of Taiwan in 1945 after the Japanese pulled out. ROC was overthrown my Mao's Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during the Chinese Civil War and lost control of the Chinese mainland allowing the CCP to form the People's Republic of China (PRC). The ROC retained control of Taiwan. Taiwan has always been independent from the PRC and CCP.

This completely ignores the actual native Taiwanese people who may or may not consider themselves Chinese. That is a topic I can't even begin to comment on.

The takeaway from HK in the context of Taiwan is that the People's Republic of China did not hold up their end of the bargain with the UK in HK so there is no reason to trust them in any agreement of "reunification" in Taiwan if the terms are anything other than complete submission to PRC rule.

> (...) the People's Republic of China did not hold up their end of the bargain with the UK in HK so there is no reason to trust them in any agreement of "reunification" in Taiwan if the terms are anything other than complete submission to PRC rule.

This. PRC's talk of "reunification" reads like a trojan horse played with a long hand which was what happened in HK.

What happened in Hong Kong? I thought the violent riots were long gone.

The CCP abandoned their promises of a democratic system and controlled the legislature, then more recently cracked down on speech, protest, and anything different from mainland practice.

HK had had no democracy under the British, but unclassified documents have since shown that that was at the demand of the Chinese government who threatened to invade if HK was allowed to vote.

Yup. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...

> But documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing.

> The documents, part of a batch of typewritten diplomatic dispatches requested by reporters from two Hong Kong newspapers, reveal that Chinese leaders were so opposed to the prospect of a democratic Hong Kong that they threatened to invade should London attempt to change the status quo.

> Another document recounts a meeting two years earlier, during which Premier Zhou Enlai told a British military officer that any effort to introduce even a modicum of self-governance to Hong Kong would be viewed as “a very unfriendly act” and a “conspiracy,” one he suggested would be seen as a move to set the colony on a path to independence.

> The threats had the desired effect. Britain made little effort to introduce electoral democracy in Hong Kong in the decades that followed.

When Hong Kong was ceded back to China, they were promised a certain level of autonomy for a certain amount of years. After a few years, China realized they didn't have to keep their word and have been rapidly taking more direct control of the area than initially promised.

Perhaps China should start funding a secession movement in Texas and proclaim it an independent country.

If any state is being propagandized into secession it's Florida right now.

They, however, find themselves in a race with mother nature to see who will remove them from the continental US first.

The point here is that this is the equivalent of what US is doing, and something US would never tolerate itself. Just imagine for a second if China set up equivalent of NED and USAID, started funding political campaigns in Texas or Florida, and so on. This is what US is currently doing.

US is blatantly interfering in Chinese internal politics and violating Chinese sovereignty while acting as if US has some god given right to meddle in other countries. It's absolutely surreal.

It’s only surreal if you subscribe to the notion of might makes right. US prevents the change of status quo to be done by force. A diplomatic solution is in everyone’s interest.

Might makes right has literally been the policy US has pursued throughout its history. What US is doing is creating a tension half way across the world from itself by funding and arming a separatist movement in a Chinese province. This is something US would never tolerate being done on its own territory.

A "separatist movement" that encompasses the majority of the population of a "province" that was never fully under Chinese control.

You are spreading Chinese propaganda lies.

No, I'm stating basic facts of the situation. Educate yourself on the subject.

No, you spreading Chinese propaganda lies. I am much better educated on the subject than you.

If the people of Taiwan want to be independent, then it seems a bit paternalistic to assume that it's only because of US propaganda.

No, we can assume that because of long and well documented history of US interfering in Taiwan and pouring billions of dollars into creating a secessionist movement there.

No, we can assume that Taiwan is an independant sovereign country in its own right according to the will of its people.

The one pouring billions into creating a secessionist movement there is China.

Just like we can assume that Texas or Florida are independant sovereign countries in their own right according to the will of their people. Once DeSantis gets his private army going, I'll remember to cheer for Flordia's freedom and independence https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/02/politics/florida-state-guard-...

Except Florida and Texas have actually been part of the USA for centuries, while Taiwan has never been part of the PRC and has existed as a de facto sovereign country as long as the PRC has.

Plus only a clear minority of the people of Texas or Florida actually wants to secede, whereas a large majority of Taiwanese wants to remain an independent country.

Hawaii also has a massive secessionist movement since the original inhabitants never elected to join the US.

I think you and GP should be aware of Calexit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_California

Texas and Taiwan share very little in common in terms of history as political states and entities in the world economic system. It's a strange analogy you're asking us to make with negligible equivalencies.

What Texas and Taiwan share is that they're both territories of sovereign nations. US has no business interfering in the internal politics of other countries. It's that simple.

US State Department acknowledges that Taiwan is par of China in black and white:

    The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations.
    The United States has a longstanding one China policy**, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act,
    the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances.  We oppose any unilateral changes
    to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait
    differences to be resolved by peaceful means.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/

You keep quoting this, seemingly without reading it:

From the "Six Assurances" mentioned right there:

> The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

Additionally, the "Taiwan Relations Act" (again mentioned right there) says:

> The act authorizes de facto diplomatic relations with the governing authorities by giving special powers to the AIT to the level that it is the de facto embassy, and states that any international agreements made between the ROC and U.S. before 1979 are still valid unless otherwise terminated.

(noting the that Postdam treaty you mention elsewhere was made with the ROC government because it was in 1945)

> The TRA provides for Taiwan to be treated under U.S. laws the same as "foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities", thus treating Taiwan as a sub-sovereign foreign state equivalent. The act provides that for most practical purposes of the U.S. government, the absence of diplomatic relations and recognition will have no effect.

See:

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

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

None of this has an actual meaning under international law. The legal standing of Taiwan is that it's part of China. Plain and simple.

> None of this has an actual meaning under international law. The legal standing of Taiwan is that it's part of China. Plain and simple.

While I understand you disagree with what I'm saying, trying to claim that the Taiwan situation is "Plain and simple" just seems an untenable claim.

The Taiwanese themselves have a different government to mainland China, with a pretty capable defense force.

There is a Taiwanese team in the Olympics.

How is any of that "plain and simple"?

It's enormously funny how you say that a document that you yourself just cited to support your argument has no actual meaning.

Try harder, little propaganda bot.

Maybe they should. They didn't even seem bothered to vote against the Crimea annexation, so there's some history there.

I never got this argument and I now where this point devolves into - I see this take a lot from Chinese on Weibo, locally here in Asia, and by Chinese people in the States. I’m Taiwanese-American for background.

If China were to interfere domestically into U.S affairs covertly and somehow convince Texas into secession - I would find it difficult to believe the United States would go to war with Texas. If it was democratically voted, most Americans would be fine with it. It would be extremely unpopular to go to war over this. Just reverse it, if California were to leave the Union, most conservative states would say good riddance. Now bomb SF? Not even the most deranged Americans would want that.

>Taiwan may be headed to some kind on unification

TW sunflower movement killed peaceful unifcation long before HK drama. Generation rift inevitable. Reality going forward is Taiwan is going to have to look at HK or UKR and decide if they want to be just another Chinese city or glassed island that will never recover.

> Reality going forward is Taiwan is going to have to look at HK or UKR and decide if they want to be just another Chinese city or glassed island that will never recover.

Ukraine is holding out extremely well and poised to achieve an unconditional victory. It's victory comes at a price, but one that any free and independent nation prides itself of paying.

>unconditional victory

Doubt. UKR doing ok on battlefield but strategically it will be a dead country for generations. Vast unrecoverable levels of human capita loss, most of whom will never go back. UKR is going to be demographic deadend for the foreseeable future even if they manage to rebuild, which is far from certain as RU can drag conflict out for long time. That's going to be increasingly obvious as war continues.

TW won't be that lucky, reality is it's too small and close to PRC backyard to rebuild. PRC can ensure TW stays a subsistence society post war forever. And that's going to be the lesson / choice TW politicians will draw, they can look at integrated HK or free UKR (really, Yemen/Palestine) and decide.

I'm not going to go off on a tangent on a discussion on Taiwan, but I don't believe none of your assertions is grounded on reality. Ukraine is doing magnificently on the battlefield, specially given Russia planned their invasion to be a 3-day event with frontline soldiers packing parade uniforms and riot gear and Russian generals booking restaurants in Kiev in advance.

To attest to Ukraine's prowess, Russia's ruling regime is now afraid their defeat spells the collapse of Russia and consequently it's fragmentation.

In the meantime, the west already lined up a massive plan to rebuild Ukraine, not to mention it's already in the process of joining the EU. There are countries who had a far less favourable postwar setting which rebounded quite well.

If Taiwan has any lesson to take from Ukraine, that lesson is that fighting for its independence pays off.

> In the meantime, the west already lined up a massive plan to rebuild Ukraine

Could you share any links on this?

> not to mention it's already in the process of joining the EU.

It seems Ukraine is likely decades away from qualifying to join the EU.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-long-will-it-take-u...

You're asserting feel good propaganda fantasy talking points, but no credible analysts see path to unconditional UKR victory and if history any judge, some sort of settlement where UKR likely end up as broken buffer state carved with balamced RU geopolitical interests in mind, i.e. territorial loss with some parts of west UKR having chance of EU integration. So far UKR maybe overperforming operationally (battle layer) but doesnt mean it's winning strategically. RU can afford to keep UKR as a prolonged frozen conflict, preventing UKR reconstruction and keeping her as broken buffer state which is still net strategic win for RU position, granted a pyrrhic one. UKR demographic loss alone makes future incredibly bleak, country HDI was shit before war for region while UKR refugees had unusual priveledge of settling in developing countries - most already said they have no plan to return. UKR will be stuck in demographic/conflict limbo for generations and there likely won't be any peaceful settlement conditions where it can rebuild without RU cooperation. TW lesson will be she can fight to prevent occupation but exist as a greatly reduced society i.e. not high income semi producers but low income pine apple farmers. And they may well still choose the latter.

Hong Kong was seized by a colonial interloper. Why would China take orders from someone who took their land?

> Hong Kong was seized by a colonial interloper. Why would China take orders from someone who took their land?

The British Empire precedes and was multiple times longer than PRC's rule of mainland China. If you're wanting to play the legitimacy game, by your own measuring stick the UK still has more legitimacy over the rule of HK than the PRC.

It wasn't about "taking orders", and it had nothing to do with the British. The CCP broke promises they'd made to the people of Hong Kong.

The opposite, HK broke the promise it made to PRC by dragging out implementation of NSL that was always in PRC legal perview to unilaterally implement. The reality is PRC demonstrated stupid patience by letting the HK, the spyhub of Asian operate for 20 years under state of national security exception that any other sovereign would not tolerate. HKers literally had the carte blanche to commit treason (and did), so reasonab for PRC to close that legal loophole after putting up with it for 20 years.

E over post limit

>You can't commit treason to a country no never agreed to join.

As if they have a say in the matter. British Crown handed them over to PRC and turned them into Chinese citizens. Ergo they can commit treason the second they formally draw breath on Chinese soil. Law finally catching up so said treason can be prosecuted, like any sensible national security framework.

>HKers literally had the carte blanche to commit treason

You can't commit treason to a country no never agreed to join.

Promises made to appease the British as a condition for the handover.

> Promises made to appease the British as a condition for the handover.

Care to explain what point you believe you are making?

Maybe because they've signed an agreement?

Hong Kong was leased to Britain till 1997. Very different case.

As for Taiwan, if they declared independence it will be an act of war.

Don't forget that US protects Taiwan on the basis it does not declare itself a sovereign country.

Also, don't forget this is the official map of the Republic of China (Taiwan):

https://i.redd.it/jbyegko5mkc21.jpg

Only the New Territories were leased.

>The colony faced an uncertain future as the end of the New Territories lease approached, and Governor Murray MacLehose raised the question of Hong Kong's status with Deng Xiaoping in 1979.[84] Diplomatic negotiations with China resulted in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which the United Kingdom agreed to transfer the colony in 1997 and China would guarantee Hong Kong's economic and political systems for 50 years after the transfer.

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

So what are you debating?

> Hong Kong was leased to Britain till 1997.

This is not accurate. The Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula were ceded to Britain in perpetuity, not leased.

Oh I didn't know that, I did remember that it was not feasible for Britain to keep HKI and KP after the lease of the NT ended, but I wasn't aware it was ceded in perpetuity.

While these facts are important, they sound like Taiwan is unequivocally part of the PRC. But that's probably not what people in Taiwan or many western nations would say.

- Taiwan clearly has the outward appearance of a full-fledged nation

- There are (few) countries that have recognized it as a sovereign nation

- Taiwan maintains some form of diplomatic relations, and Nancy Pelosi's recent visit was a very public sign of that

- Taiwan and the PRC have been at war in the past

Some might take this to say that the official status is contested.

> they sound like Taiwan is unequivocally part of the PRC

No, they sound like Taiwan is part of China, something the entire world and Taiwan itself officially recognizes.

It's like the US had a civil war and the losing side flees to Hawaii and in 2090 we still arguing whether it is part of not of US or should it declare independence.

> No, they sound like Taiwan is part of China, something the entire world and Taiwan itself officially recognizes.

That presumes the "official" position is the genuine position, which is often not the case.

With regards to Taiwan, "official" positions are often lies tied in knots to appease Mainland China's sensibilities.

There's an endless number of internal and international reasons beyond appeasing the PRC.

Such as?

It is the basis of US-Taiwan relations as a starter.

> It is the basis of US-Taiwan relations as a starter.

Only in the context of the PRC. The reality of US-Taiwan relations would be much clearer if it was not PRC policy to sever diplomatic relationship with any country that recognizes Taiwan.

On the topic of Taiwan, it's a mistake to reason about de facto relationships from de jure "official positions." Basically, the "official positions" are lies, and the actual positions are not directly stated.

> It's like the US had a civil war and the losing side flees to Hawaii and in 2090 we still arguing whether it is part of not of US or should it declare independence.

That actually sounds like a very plausible counterfactual to someone outside the US.

It was, but China also agreed to leave them along for a long time afterward and let them be relatively separate, and we all saw how that went. The CCP is not to be believed unless you have nuclear weapons aimed at them.

> I would announce it is now a independent Country.

I am disappointed to see HN devolve into armchair general territory. In this specific case, the constitution ruling over Taiwan is the Constitution of Republic of China adopted in 1946 in Nanjing, before the PRC was a thing.

In general most of Taiwan does not believe it needs to do anything to "proclaim" their independence, only a tiny minority want to change the constitution (not just an amendment, the name of the constitution itself), which would be rather difficult on almost all levels..

That reminds me when Ma Ying-jeou was President in Taiwan and was asked about independence, and he replied "Independence from what? The ROC has been independent since 1912".

If Ukraine is anything to go by, US publications starting to "prompt" us this way now, means something has just changed in the political chessboard, and we're likely only a couple of months away before China is poised to announce its own "special operation".

> This issue lies directly on China and no one else. If I had a say in Taiwan, I would announce it is now a independent Country.

Then you have war, and China attacks Taiwan and probably conquers it. What did your announcement gain?

I believe pretty much every recent US wargame about Taiwan has ended in a US loss, and the US military has only recently started to reconfigure itself to fight great-power wars again and it is far from done. Also, the US has already emptied its existing stockpiles to help Ukraine, and the logistics to get war material to Taiwan are much more challenging. China also gets to learn from Russia's mistakes, and it would also be foolish to assume China will be as incompetent as Russia proved to be.

Basically, such an announcement would be a "Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200," move on Taiwan's part.

Considering how the mainland and Taiwan split there is never going to be a peaceful reunification as long as the communists are in power on the mainland. That's why Beijing did not care, and does not care, about the signals they send in HK.

If there is one thing that the CCP cannot stand is the idea that democracy exists somewhere under their umbrella. It will be destroyed and there is no room for it under their totalitarian philosophy that common people are children to be controlled by The Party

So you have no qualification to say in Taiwan.