Everybody knows about the backstory, there was a civil war, KMT fled to Taiwan creating two Chinas sort of, maybe, neither recognises the other, whole thing. ROC (Taiwan) ended up transitioning from military rule to a multi-party democracy, while the PRC (mainland China) didn’t do that (they did reform economically, “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and all that, but still a one-party state, not a multi-party democracy). The status quo right now is that Taiwan is in the grey area of statehood where they function pretty much independently but aren’t properly recognised, and both sides of the strait are feeling pretty tense right now.
Taiwan’s stance on the issue is that they would like to remain politically and economically independent of mainland China, retaining their multi-party democracy, political connections to its allies, economic trade connections, etc. Also, a majority of the people in Taiwan do not support reunification with China.
China’s stance on the issue is that Taiwan should be reunified with the mainland at all costs, ideally peacefully, but war is not ruled out. They argue that Taiwan was unfairly separated from the mainland by imperial powers in their “century of humiliation”. Strategically, taking Taiwan would be beneficial to China as they would have better control of the sea.
Is it even possible for both sides to agree to a peaceful solution? Personally, I can only see two ways this could go about that has the consent of both parties. One, a reformist leader takes power in the mainland and gives up on Taiwan, and the two exist as separate independent nations. Or two, the mainland gets a super-reformist leader that transitions the mainland to a multi-party democracy, and maybe then reunification could be on the table, with Taiwan keeping an autonomous status given the large cultural difference (similar to Hong Kong or Macau’s current status). Both options are, unfortunately, very unlikely to occur in the near future.
A third option (?) would be a pseudo-unification, where Taiwan becomes a recognised country, but there can be free movement of people between the mainland and Taiwan, free trade, that sort of stuff (sort of like the EU? Maybe?). Not sure if the PRC would accept that.
What are your thoughts on a peaceful solution to the crisis that both sides could agree on?
edit: Damn there are crazies in both ends of the arguments. I really don’t think giving Taiwan nukes would help solve the problem.
I think the current best solution, looking at the more reasonable and realistic comments, seems to be to maintain the status quo, at least until both sides of the strait are able to come into some sort of agreement (which seems to be worlds away right now given their current very opposing stances on the issue)
I’m talking about now. Taiwan has been a democratic state now since the 1990s. US investing in them is bad now? So you’re basically complaining here that the USA (the west) invested and modernised Taiwan, and if they hadn’t done that and just left them to their own devices - they’d have been poor and impoverished and wanted to join China? I’m not sure how this looks good to you.
Seems to me that it doesn’t really matter how a culture or identity of a people emerges. If the majority of Taiwanese now feel different to mainlanders due to very different divergences since after the civil war, then that’s simply the reality of the situation.
You could also just say this about any country, really. The only reason that any country acquires a consensus of a set of values is due to investment, or government propaganda, or whatever and then use that as a means to just handwave away their self-determination.
I’m not making a value judgement about democracy or development. I’m just describing the history.
The modern political entity of Taiwan exists because the US blocked the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War, militarily protected the KMT regime, and then spent decades turning the island into an anti-communist forward base much like West Germany and South Korea.
After that came massive US capital, security guarantees, and direct political influence (including backing parties like the DPP) which actively promote a separate Taiwanese national identity while marginalizing pro-reunification perspectives. This “identity” was cultivated over generations under Cold War conditions.
Taiwan is not really that culturally distinctnfrom a Chinese perspective. In fact, Taiwan–Fujian cultural distance is far smaller than Fujian to Kunming, or Kunming to Harbin. China has always been regionally diverse. Taiwan isn’t really am outlier.
So yes, many people in Taiwan feel separate today. But that feeling developed under decades of US protection, anti-mainland education, media shaping, and political engineering. Calling that “pure self-determination” while ignoring the external power that made it possible is ahistorical.
I’m not saying this is good or bad. I’m saying the current situation is the product of US intervention. Without that, this holdout simply wouldn’t exist.
Taiwan wasn’t allowed to resolve its civil war trajectory. It was frozen in place and rebuilt as a strategic asset. Everything that followed flows from that.
Whether you view any of this as good or bad is simply down to ideology. Do you support people or money.
Okay? So?
So what? As I said, I don’t really think this matters. Do you think mainland culture didn’t change after decades of the PRC existing in any sense?
People. The people don’t seem to want to join the PRC so that’s who I support.
So yes: Taiwan is culturally Chinese, and the modern political “distinction” was created and maintained by the US to preserve an anti-communist holdout against the PRC. That’s the historical through-line. I haven’t made any moral claims about whether this is good or bad, I’ve just laid out how the situation came to exist. You’re the one reframing this into values and feelings. The fact remains: US military intervention froze the civil war, and decades of protection, capital, and political shaping produced today’s outcome. Everything else you’re pointing to is downstream of that.
I don’t really care about the history of it. I only care what Taiwanese people think now. They don’t want to join the PRC. I think that should be respected.
You said
and if you look at the history the answer is yes(as I explain it’s slightly more complicated but largely yes). I was answering your question. Why are you so hostile?
It’s not true now though. And the USA only used hard power in the sense of stopping China from invading, and then used soft power/influence to tend to the development of Taiwan. The USA would be pretty powerless to stop them now if they changed their position now.
I’m not hostile, I’m just explaining how my position is pretty simple.
You asked a historical question and the historical answer is simple: the United States intervened militarily, froze the Chinese Civil War, protected the KMT, and then spent decades reshaping the island economically, politically, and informationally against the PRC. That’s hard power first, soft power afterward. Saying “I only care what people think now” is just dodging how those opinions were produced. Public sentiment formed under 70+ years of US security guarantees, arms sales, education policy, media alignment, and political engineering does not arise in a vacuum.
And you can already see this changing. As US power declines relative to China, its grip on Taiwan weakens too. That’s reflected in the growing instability around the DPP, impeachment attempts, falling credibility, and public backlash when they tried to restrict platforms like 小红书. Most people on the island aren’t rabid separatists, polling consistently shows ambivalence and a preference for the status quo mainly because it feels stable, not because they possess some timeless anti-China essence.
You don’t get to erase decades of foreign military protection and geopolitical shaping, then sanctify the result as “pure self-determination.” You asked whether the US is why Taiwan didn’t reunify. The answer is yes. Everything you’re pointing to now, identity, politics, current preferences, flows downstream from that original intervention. You can ignore history if you want, but that just makes you arrogant and uneducated.
So what? The opinion of people on the mainland is also due to how the ruling party of the PRC has shaped public opinion since they took power too. Does that somehow devalue opinion polls coming from there?
So the opinion of the Taiwanese now should be ignored because of how their opinion emerged and they should be taken by force?
They don’t have to be “rapid separatists” in order to not want to join the PRC. More people clearly support eventual independence as compared to unification by current polling, and the current setup is de-facto independence already. Moreover, most people in Taiwan by the same polls self-identify as Taiwanese. China also very much implies, if not threatens a war if they try to go independent officially - that’s likely to temper many responses.
What do you want people on Taiwan, born and raised and educated there to do about that? They can only speak for how they feel now, and if most of them don’t want to join the PRC - what is your point here? I can be aware of the history, but that doesn’t mean that what the people of Taiwan think now should be thrown away.
Previously, the dictatorship stopped the people of Taiwan rejoining if they so chose to. Now it’s the own people there. The USA couldn’t really do much if the population truly desired to join China.
I’m really curious how you defend a statement like this. What do you think defines present reality for people?
Many things. I don’t get why this is a complicated concept. Do you think what Taiwanese people want now should be respected, yes or no?