Except this was already going to happen and everybody has known for years.

Xi made a new years address just a few days ago essentially saying China would reunite Taiwan.

> reunite

This is the incorrect word to use since the PRC has never held territory here. If the PLA sets foot on Taiwan, that's an imperialist invasion, nothing less, unless the people of Taiwan have democratically chosen to abdicate their government for CPC rule, in which case the word should be "unify" or "merge."

Reunite is not incorrect in the broader sense.

We use the term "reunification" for Germany but the Federal Republic never "held territory" in the Democratic Republic. However, of course both states were the result of a split of "Germany". This is the same with the ROC and PRC so bringing both sides together, whatever the mean, is a reunification in that sense.

The narrative of rejecting the term can be said to be broadly propaganda but plays on a peculiarity that both sides don't recognise each others.

> However, of course both states were the result of a split of "Germany".

> This is the same with the ROC and PRC

It really isn't.

Note that West Germany did not have to invade East Germany to re-unify and that East Germany was on a per-capita basis much poorer than West Germany.

Unlike Taiwan, which is doing more than twice as good. So this would be more in line with Russia invading Ukraine. And that's precisely the rhetoric they are using: 'unification'.

This is all totally inacurrate and beside the point.

China has factually split, like Germany before. Whether any "reunification" happens peacefully or not is irrelevant to the use of term and so is which side is the richer.

Russia and Ukraine is obviously not the same at all, and "unification" is obviously not the same as "reunification".

> China has factually split

I think it is time for you to nail your colors to the mast.

Not cool to start nasty attacks for stating, and repeating, history... you don't have to like history but it is what it is.

So, no transparency then?

> China has factually split

Define "China." 中國? 中華人民共和國? 中華民國? 大清? 大明? 大元? The English term is far overloaded, kinda like the word "dumpling." Having this conversation in English is really hard for that reason.

The key word is 中國, typically translated literally as "middle country," though if you put it in google translate it'll just say "China." Really though, the word means "empire." Empire of what? China? No, just, The Empire. E.g. 一個中國原則 "one China principle," all things that we could call 中國 ruled by the same government.

That's the issue I have. The CPC claims a mandate of heaven for a "Chinese" meta-dynasty, claiming to have domain over everything any government in the region has ever touched (even the Mongols!). I reject this, a mandate to rule should be earned basically every day, and self determination matters far more than maintaining a dynasty of a culture.

Like many empires, the PRC is even creating an ethnostatic justification, calling everyone Han 漢族人 or Hua 華人 and claiming a mandate to rule everyone that could feasibly be called that, using race science to expand their domain. Like "white," under scrutiny, these terms are meaningless. We could translate either, in the context of their usage by the CPC, as "people the CPC thinks it should be allowed to govern." That includes people in Xinjiang, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, America, hell even Okinawa lately.

That kind of ethnostatic imperialist expansionism should be roundly rejected by anybody that values self determination. And, that's why "reunify" isn't the correct word, because there is no country on earth called "China" and there never has been, there's just a government ruling a territory that wants some more territory. The PRC isn't some magical inheritor of every racial, cultural, linguistic, and historical aspect of that region. "China" has not split with the fleeing of the KMT to Taiwan in the 50s, nor was "China" overthrown when the Taiwanese deposed the KMT military dictatorship in the 90s, or when the Qing dynasty was overthrown by the KMT.

You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact.

You are trying too hard and doing so does you a disservice because it makes you write nonsense that any sources can disprove.

So... why? Why do people get so attached to a narrative? Is it like religion, cult? Need to believe in sonething?

Past history is what it is. It does not mean that the people of Taiwan have to be forced into re-joining the mainland but let's keep the facts otherwise we are really leaving in 1984. If you want to say that the people of Taiwan have a moral right to remain independent if they wish to then just say so.

You're unbelievable.

Have you considered the possibility that you are just wrong? Your 'uncontroversial and rather obvious historical fact' is neither uncontroversial nor is it obvious.

That's why we have a 32 page article on the subject on Wikipedia:

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

And it is one of the most heavily brigaded pages there. With edit wars going back as long as the page exists.

As well as articles like this:

https://www.justsecurity.org/87486/deterrence-lawfare-to-sav...

There is only one country where your 'historical fact' is seen as true, and it isn't Taiwan. And that is why China is threatening to invade, and why you yourself use Taiwan without further qualification right after 'South Korea':

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46478045

The 'one China' term itself is overloaded, depending on who you ask (Chinese, Taiwanese) you get different answers.

Taiwan is an independent country, if not de jure then de facto. That China is a much larger and much more dangerous country is the only reason everybody tiptoes around this.

What is actually unbelievable is that you keep arguing against me by quoting sources that only say exactly what I have been writing all along. So I don't really understand what is this about and perhaps you don't, either...

This is bizarre at this point.

Perhaps you wrongly assume that by "China split" I meant "the PRC split" although it is abundantly clear that I didn't.

Those source do not say what you have been writing all along. Those sources make it plain that this is a controversial and complicated subject that you wish to flatten into a much simpler worldview. But that worldview is at odds with the facts, both the facts on the ground and the view of the parties involved.

You can continue to stick to your worldview, or you can admit that maybe the matter is more complex than you thought it was. The point is that there are multiple viewpoints on this and yours is not necessarily the only one and given that you claim not to have a horse in the race it is strange that you would end up carrying water for one of the parties.

Agreeing to disagree is a thing too, you're perfectly entitled to your own take on this no matter how wrong I think it is. But you are not entitled to your own facts and if you really believe this to be an uncontroversial thing then I don't think I can help you with that.

None of what I wrote is a worldview and I avoided any controversies by sticking to facts: China has split and this is explained in the first link in your previous comment, and "reunification" can therefore be an accurate term.

How is that at odds with "facts"? What "facts"? What do you think I claimed? How is it controversial? I am not sure you know at this point as you are being evasive and shifting to ad hominems.

Claiming that the Earth is round is "controversial" to flat-Earthers. Does this make it a controversial topic?

I changed my mind, I actually don't know what China is at all.

Can you please tell me what China is?

> You obviously understand what I wrote by "China split" because it is uncontroversial and rather obvious as a historical fact.

I also know, generally, what people mean when they say "goblin," but that doesn't mean goblins are real, and it's also true that two people might be thinking of very different things when a goblin is mentioned. Such is the same for the word "China."

> any sources can disprove.

Well then, should be pretty easy for you to disprove me with some sources then!

> So... why? Why do people get so attached to a narrative? Is it like religion, cult? Need to believe in sonething?

Please explain to us how you aren't also attached to a narrative. Are you a omnipotent entity, immune to human narratives, and the one true knower of Universal Truth? I think it's unintentional, but you come off that way, and that's why you're getting such a strong response here.

> Past history is what it is.

This sentence is genuinely meaningless.

The problem is, you've made some unsubstantiated claims (you can't even define "China"), presumed to be right, and then acted aghast when a bunch of people said "hm no, that's not quite right, here's why," and then you doubled down without providing any further substance to your argument other than just repeating in different ways, "I'm right and you're all wrong."

What's the point of talking with someone like that? I'm happy to have the conversation but I don't see the purpose when people behave like that.

Ad hominem attacks and character assassiination are the tactics of the CPC, not of democratic Taiwan...

I agree that "China" may mean several things but in the context of this discussion and previous comments it is rather clearer.

You can have a look at the Wikipedia link about the political status of Taiwan that @jacquesm posted. You can also have a look at related article about the history of China or Taiwan.

Quick summary (to mostly repeat myself as you point out but it does seem hard to get you guys to even read the links you provide yourselves, or don't want to accept them) is that China asserted control over Taiwan since the 17th century (as a reaction to European imperialism) with Taiwan acquiring province status towards the end of the 19th century. It was then ceded by China to Japan after the First Sino-Japanase war, and "reunited" in 1945. Following the Chinese civil war the communists took over the mainland and the government kept, and retreated to, Taiwan, which led to a split with de facto two states and official policies to "reunite".

That's all there in the links mentioned. So, again, I don't understand the drama.

I never denied that Taiwan was de facto a state independent of the mainland, or that the majority of the people of Taiwan do not want to be absorbed by the PRC, or even that a portion of the people of Taiwan would like no affiliation with "China" and be simply the Republic of Taiwan. And, yes, Taiwan was never controled by the PRC (like East Germany was never controled by West Germany prior to German "reunification", and there is still no country called "Germany" or "Korea"...). But that said I do have a problem with rewriting history and fallacious arguments to further a political aim.

You are arguing with someone from Taiwan, are you presuming to educate them on their own country?

Someone who lives in Taiwan. Anyway, that's obviously a fallacious argument (argument from authority?) and I note that you keep avoiding engaging with the point and historical evidence and references provided (included by you!) so I don't even know what you agree or disagree with and why at this point.

Yes, just like you are a French guy living in the UK, I would take your statements about the UK or about France as more relevant and better informed than those from some random person on the other side of the globe.

The one common thing about discussions between you and others on HN about any subject that goes on for more than a few comments is that it always ends in you feigning indignation and claiming the other party is unfair towards you. Maybe get off your high horse instead and learn to see things are more nuanced than as black-and-white and simplified as you make them out to be?

Your 'historical evidence' is not nearly as simple and as clear cut as you make it out to be, it is just what you chose to extract from the body of information about the subject because it confirms your worldview or some pre-conceived idea of how things are or should be. Not necessarily how they actually are and that is a massive difference.

> China asserted control over Taiwan since the 17th

This is a great example of why your usage of this word is an expression of your agreement with the idea of an ethnostatist meta-dynasty that a government like the CPC can claim a mandate to rule, rather than a universal fact.

It seems you don't believe Khagan-emperor Kublai was Chinese, since you pin the first "Chinese" assertion of control in the 1600s, even though the Yuan dynasty claimed Penghu.

You also give away your political agenda a bit when you accurately refer to Western actions on the island as "imperialism" but simply refer to Chinese empire activity as "asserted control," rather than what it clearly was, which is also imperialism. In fact it's especially interesting you did this considering that the entire reason the dutch colonists were expelled from the island was because of a battle between two entities that wanted to be called "China": the Qing dynasty, and Zheng Chenggong's remnant Ming dynasty. So here's another question: Manchus, Chinese, or no? Qing dynasty, Chinese, or no? Both yes? Well then both the Kingdom of Tungning and the Qing dynastic territories were China, despite being engaged in a deeply ethnostatist battle defined clearly on Han vs Manchu racial identity. And now the Manchus are 華人 just like everyone else, which demonstrates my point that the words "China" and 中國 are just a political propaganda tool to claim a mandate to rule an empire. The same fight has been fought before, except this time Taiwanese people have no desire to claim the mantle of The Empire.

You believe you're stating facts when actually you're just stating support of the CPC's claim to dynastic inheritance. Thus it's not "never clearer" what's meant by "China" in a time when all people who could be labeled "Chinese" (including PRC citizens) are reckoning with what that identity means in regards to governance and nationality.

> Ad hominem attacks and character assassiination are the tactics of the CPC, not of democratic Taiwan...

You clearly have never watched even 5 minutes of Taiwanese tv or politics lol.

China would invade Taiwan.

You're subconsciously echoing Chinese propaganda.

Duh, yes obviously that means invasion.

I was just quoting the actual speech. The point is, for anyone claiming the US attempting regime change in Venezuela is going to factor into China's long standing plans to invade Taiwan is delusional.

The US has been involved in regime change operations spanning like 40+ different countries, and almost continuously for a century. This is not a unique event in even recent US history, even though folks with orange-man syndrome would like you to believe otherwise.

As if Xi is thinking "gee, I'd really like to invade Taiwan, but people might get upset! If only Trump would conduct the US's 5th regime change operation this decade...then people would...not care anymore about Taiwan or something?? Wait, this fantasy may have logical flaws..."

The bending over backwards that Americans do to convince themselves the US is responsible for everything that happens is always amusing.

Invade Taiwan to reunite China.

This is a factual statement, not propaganda. The propaganda (or political theatre in mainland China) is that the ROC does not exist and Taiwan is part of the PRC.

Reunite is propaganda because it gives credibility to the lie that these two countries are and/or were one like for instance Germany after world war II.

Taiwanese do not see themselves as Chinese, just like Ukrainians do not see themselves as Russian even if they speak the language. By playing along you are effectively carrying water for the Chinese. That may be your goal, but then you should be clear about that. If that is not your goal you should refrain from adopting the language of the party that is clearly the aggressor here. The 'ROC' moniker stems from a bunch of Chinese that fled there in 1949 after they lost their struggle with the communists inside China. They ruled Taiwan and they named it 'Republic of China', a name that has caused a lot of confusion with those unfamiliar with where it came from.

This is the reason the Chinese now lay claim to Taiwan, and it is about as misguided as it gets. They got Hong Kong by being patient, they may take Taiwan by force.

If you are playing into their hands by parroting their terminology you are fractionally helping to normalize their behavior towards Taiwan. If it should come to pass that China will take Taiwan by force that will have grave consequences, for the Taiwanese, the Chinese and the rest of the world as well due to the central spot that Taiwan occupies in the global supply chain.

Taiwan has never declared independence from China. Popular opinions aside, the ROC govt still officially adheres to the One-China Policy which considers it to be a single country together with the mainland.

The main reason for that is because they know that if they did declare that formally (rather than just acting like it is already a fact) that China would most likely immediately respond with force. So this is not because they want it to be like that but because they are playing a longer game.

With the US unreliable and distracted all bets are off on how this will unfold, the chances China attempting to take over Taiwan have substantially increased.

It's unclear how China would have responded because they were not, and probably still aren't, in a position to mount a successful attack on Taiwan.

I think what's missing is that opinion in Taiwan in actually split. The KMT, certainly up to the last president in 2016 is simply opposed to declaring "independence" because they share the position that Taiwan is China, just obviously not the PRC.

> The KMT, certainly up to the last president in 2016 is simply opposed to declaring "independence" because they share the position that Taiwan is China, just obviously not the PRC.

That is only because of the history of the KMT, which is only a fraction of the story of Taiwan. By the same token the Dutch could invade Taiwan tomorrow morning and claim re-unification.

Mainland China and Taiwan were one country. It is bizarre to try to deny it.

Taiwan was part of China and ceded to Japan by treaty after the first Sino-Japanese war of 1895. It was then "reunited" to China following WWII... that's really the root of the current situation since that's why the Chinese government (ROC) retreated there in 1949. Taiwan held the Chinese seat at the UN until the 1970s!

Hongkong was also seized by the UK through naked imperialistic aggression and it is testament to the power of propaganda that China be painted as "the bad guys".

Your comment is not factually correct irrespective of rights and wrongs or wishes of the people in Taiwan.

Why should people always have an ulterior motive beyond stating things as they are?...

> Your comment is not factually correct irrespective of rights and wrongs or wishes of the people in Taiwan.

Unless you are one of those I don't think you get to speak for them.

When did I speak for them or anyone?

No need to discuss further if that's going to turn into this. People really need to take a step back and a deep breath when discussing world issues.

I am not even Chinese or Asian if that is your suggestion (a little in the gutter, by the way). I don't have skin in the game and am just looking at history in the most factual way I can.

> No need to discuss further if that's going to turn into this.

Into what? A discussion where one party berates another for not appreciating the 'wishes of the people in Taiwan'?

You can't credibly make that claim without being transparent about your own nationality.

He said he was looking at history and present reality in the most factual way. Perhaps for you, your identity shapes your viewpoint more than the facts do. Why don't you provide your arguments instead of questioning his nationality?

A properly aged account that suddenly springs to life without ever before having commented on anything or submitted a single link. What a joyful occasion.

I usually prefer reading perspectives over expressing my own, but your bias and ill intentions have compelled me to speak up.

Sure...

Taiwan has been Chinese territory for centuries—just like California has been part of the US. Calling China's reunification 'invasion' is like saying the US is 'invading' Texas if some rebels tried to break away. The real propaganda isn't about history—it's about pretending Taiwan is some separate country when it's been part of China longer than most modern nations even exist.

I’m skeptical any of this is true.

How does Maduro being ousted change the physical realities of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan? You think international law is what has been preventing Xi from invading?

Trump does only respect power, as do all other serious leaders. Power is all that matters in the end.

How do you think the system of international law came into existence? It was imposed by the US at the end of WWII because of their overwhelming military strength and the fact that no other nation had nuclear weapons at the time.

The armchair analysis from some folks on this topic is really lacking. You guys are just wrong, and the hubris you bring with your “analysis” is really off putting.

> How does Maduro being ousted change the physical realities of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan?

Taking the beaches here would require spilling the blood of tens of thousands of PLA troops, but as demonstrate two days ago, the only real barrier to blockading us was the threat of the USA showing up.

Xi's hunger for Taiwan shouldn't be underestimated. It's utterly irrational but it is his obsession. It's becoming clear he intends to die in office, and he's seeing his legacy as a mirror of that of the entire communist revolution - he wants to be the next Mao, with a permanent framed photo on the wall of every school and many houses in the PRC. Mao was happy to waste millions of PLA in every conflict the PRC engaged in as an outright military strategy, he called it something like "drowning the enemy in a sea of bodies," Xi will be the same.

I don’t dispute Xi wants Taiwan. My question still stands: how did today’s events change any of the hurdles he would face during an invasion?

Oh, yes I agree for the most part none other than perhaps the USA military is about to be distracted by South America.

Xi himself probably already had war gamed what it would look like to kidnap the president here in Taiwan from the presidential palace or whatever. The main difference is, now we're all talking about it - if it was that easy to snatch a president, will the PRC try it against us? Will the KMT throw Lai under the bus so the PLA can do a targeted kidnapping or assassination, perhaps alongside his US-friendly VP?

The assumed difference in Venezuela is that Maduro and his policies are not popular enough for a similar leader to easily slip into his place and cohesively unite the country against the US while maintaining Maduro’s policies and keeping his factions and constituents from which his power was derived happy.

Big assumption to be sure, and time will only tell if it’s a correct one.

In a place like Taiwan or the US that assumption is almost certainly false. Imagine Xi kidnaps the US president. Does anyone honestly believe the entire government and its people just roll over and say, “I guess China owns us now”?

Taiwan could easily become China's Ukraine.

>How does Maduro being ousted change the physical realities of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan? You think international law is what has been preventing Xi from invading?

It doesn't change the physical realities of that much at all besides maybe slightly further cementing that the US will not come to Taiwan's aid.

No, the main change is that now Xi can more reliably expect a weaker, less unified response from the west due to political divisions inside America as well as between western nations. He can expect less diplomatic pushback, fewer sanctions, etc.

Also, no all serious leaders do not only respect power. Serious leaders who are also morally and ethically good also take into account right and wrong when they make decisions.

The right thing to do would be for America to try to preserve and enforce a rules based order, regardless if other countries do. America has significant agency in the world and should consider how the world should be and try to get there. Not only consider how the world is.

Even from a realpolitik standpoint, there is benefit on showing consistent adherence to an ethical code. It encourages other actors to follow that same code as well. When we violate our own morals and values, we can't expect others to respect them.

How does one nation following an ethical code encourage others to follow it as well?

Following an ethical code in international affairs constrains the nation following it. It provides an asymmetric advantage to others who choose not to follow that code.

This is partly why China has become so powerful over the past three decades. They chose to ignore western ethical codes around intellectual property rights, fair trade, environmental protections, and human rights. They are powerful today in no small part to their willingness to disregard these things.

This is difficult for people to understand because in interpersonal relationships following an ethical code is 100% the path to healthy and meaningful relationships, and most modern history education attempts to anthropomorphize past interactions between nations. But the cold fact is that international politics is nothing like interpersonal relationships.

A nation can encourage other nations to follow their ethical code by threatening to use force if they don't. They can create incentives to encourage nations to change their behavior through trade or treaty. But I can't think of a single time in history when a nation was such a shining star of morality that they inspired other nations to change their ways and adopt their ethics.

You can't expect other nations to respect your nation's moral and ethical values when they don't care about them in the first place and in fact hope that you choose to follow them to the fullest extent so that you're easier to compete against.

> maybe slightly further cementing that the US will not come to Taiwan's aid

Isn't that the opposite? The US just demonstrated that it can still conduct military operations, and the presence of Chinese envoys in the country does not deter it in any way. As of now, China has one fewer source of oil it can rely on in case of an invasion.

Maybe you're right, but I view it more as: China can now be confident that the US doesn't care much at all about the sovereignty of weaker nations or coming to the aid of allies. "Might makes right", and if China asserts itself with strength (as in a full blockade/invasion instead of a few envoys present) Trump will most likely back off.

How does the US invading one country imply they won’t defend another country?

I get that military resources devoted to one theatre can’t be used in another and for that reason the US might be less able to defend Taiwan, but that may not make them less willing.

A more reasonable read is that the aircraft carriers and other naval assets in the Gulf of Mexico are more effective there than they could be in the Pacific. Venezuela doesn’t have hypersonic anti-ship missiles. China does.

> Power is all that matters in the end.

This can mean different things to different people, such as:

(A) Power dynamics determine outcomes i.e. a claim about how the world works

(B) Might makes right i.e. rejecting ethical notions of right and wrong

I'm pretty sure you mean (A). Fair? Are there other meanings you want to endorse? Some form of nihilism perhaps?

> The armchair analysis from some folks on this topic is really lacking. You guys are just wrong, and the hubris you bring with your “analysis” is really off putting.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

I have put in good faith efforts to convert with MisterMower, for example, in [1]. Shortly after that, they insulted me. [2] This is also against the HN Guidelines, and that kind of behavior is not welcome here. Here are additional examples of hostility and insults they've made:

> Old farts like yourself [3]

> In case you don't understand how analogies work [4]

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46488285

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46495327

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46491155

[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45001357

Apologies for the snark. In all seriousness, you need to refine your writing. No one enjoys reading rambling streams of consciousness, nor do they have time to parse it to try and figure out what you're saying.

I would also point out that you have engaged in bad faith argumentation of your own, but I'm not so petty as to go through your comment history to point out each instance and appeal to the moderators that you shouldn't be welcome here.

I apologize if my comments came across as offensive. That was not my intent, and I think a charitable interpretation of them reveals no malice. I hope you can find more people in your life that will speak directly and honestly to you so it won't be so jarring in the future.

This is exactly why a lot of people support Trump and his actions. He's at least direct and honest. It's about oil. Yeah, we had the power to do it so we did. It's in our interests. Everybody else can go pound sand. You may not like the reasons, and I'm not sure I do either, but at least he isn't a coward who lies and claims he's doing something altruistic instead, like you are with your model building and deference to unnamed experts.

I know that frightens people like yourself who go through life exerting influence on the people around you not by direct communication and action, but by appealing to fake authorities like the moderators in this situation, or international law in the case of what we're discussing.

Americans increasingly reject the kinds of arguments you're making and the fake systems of power that keep impotent, second rate thinkers in power and grant them an outsized level of respect in public commentary.

I encourage you to engage in some introspection. Your priors are clearly wrong: international law obviously didn't matter in this case and probably won't matter in the future. Why is that? What changed? Was international law ever relevant? If it was, why was it?

Please don't comment like this here. HN is a text-only discussion forum where people come together to discuss topics that gratify intellectual curiosity. This place can only work if people respect and follow the guidelines, and it's fine for users to politely point out to each other how they can be doing better – precisely so they don't have to get the moderators involved.

This comment comes across as mean-spirited. It's not cool to open with an apology then proceed to put out up to 7 paragraphs of eloquently-worded personal attack.

HN is only a place where people want to participate because this kind of thing is not accepted here. Please show you respect the guidelines and care about the health of the community if you want to participate here.

An invasion of Taiwan is incredibly risky for China and will be guaranteed to be very expensive.

Just guessing but a long term strategy from Xi could be to wait and show that he is different and gain simpathy.