This framing is incorrect. The official position of the PRC since its inception has been that Taiwan and the mainland are the same country. Reunification was always the plan of the CCP. Reuinification remains popular in the mainland. While few Taiwanese desire full reuinfication, a similarly small percent want to formally declare independence, indicating that both sides still see themselves as part of an abstract Chinese cultural nation.
> While few Taiwanese desire full reuinfication, a similarly small percent want to formally declare independence
That relatively small number is only due to China's promise of automatic and immediate invasion if they were to declare independence. Remove the threat to their life and their families, the vast majority of them would want to be Taiwan rather than be governed by a dictatorship.
You're right in the large. Realistically, though my question still applies because of a one considerations.
Timeframe. Realistically china has only about 10-15 years to do this before demographics and horrifying rates of infertility stemming from their massive pollution and urbanization catch up to them. The idea of reunification could just be an abstract concept in perpetuity (and will be if PRC makes no moves). What takes it to being real is a question of when and that has everything to do with what's in it for the current leader in the here and now.
As an aside. If PRC were really big brained and had this as the #1 agenda they would realize that the taiwanese drive for independence is really contingent. If PRC were chill and democratic free, and not scary, Taiwan would come running back. Probably also china would actually contend to be #1 country in the world. The CPC only shoots itself in the foot.
If I were him, I'd prefer the status quo. Invading Taiwan is not a 100% success guarantee and surely Xi doesn't want to end up like Putin in Ukraine. Even a (military) success would threaten his rule, simply by the economical consequences. That's a lot of risks for very little rewards. But who knows ... we can just hope for the sake of all of us, that the Chinese have better intelligence and better risk assessment than the Russians had.
The Chinese government does, at present, strongly favor the status quo.
However, it's becoming increasingly clear that the US is shifting away from the One China policy. That shift is deeply alarming the Chinese government. There doesn't seem to be anyone in American politics who is capable of pressing the breaks, slowing down the drive towards confrontation, and reengaging in real diplomacy with China.
In the end, the belief in the US that there will be a show-down over Taiwan is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Chinese government does, at present, strongly favor the status quo.
There is only one external event - an event that takes place outside of China - that can seriously disrupt the CCP's rule over China and that is Taiwan successfully declaring independence and international recognition.
It would be a humiliating loss of face for the CCP and would probably be followed by a desperate reshuffling within the party and perhaps even a civil war. The CCP is strong and rigid, but like ceramic, not like steel. Their only mandate rests on China's continued economic and diplomatic success. Taiwanese independence would be the nucleating particle for an explosion of domestic unrest and chaos.
> Taiwanese independence would be the nucleating particle for an explosion of domestic unrest and chaos
Honest question: does it have to be? Couldn't they sneer it off and keep doing what they're doing: claim it's a rebellious province they're too busy to deal with?
Every dictatorship is seething with discontent among the elites. Dictators are rarely overthrown by revolutionaries - it's more common that they're deposed by their own generals. A public failure like Taiwanese independence isn't a problem for everyone in the Chinese government - for some, it could be an opportunity. If you're at the very top, you don't want that.
If the US deliberately takes steps intended to back China into a corner, with the only options being humiliation or war, then yes, it will be the US' fault.
The US has to come to grips with the fact that its power is limited, and that it must seek accommodation with other powers. If it doesn't come to this realization, we're all in for a very bad time.
> Hitting someone else to avoid humiliation is behaviour that belongs on the elementary school playground.
John F. Kennedy didn't think so: "Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy--or of a collective death-wish for the world."[0]
> Making "accommodations" over territory is what started World War 2.
First, not everything is Munich 1938, and it is very dangerous to think that it is, because it prevents rational diplomacy. It's the sort of thinking that was used to justify the American military intervention in Vietnam. It's the sort of thinking that might cause a war over Taiwan.
Second, Taiwan was legally a part of China, and it has never officially ceased to be so. The PRC is recognized as the legitimate government of China. The large majority of people in Taiwan no longer want to be part of China, but people on the mainland believe very strongly in the territorial integrity of China and are not willing to see a part of China permanently, officially severed from the country. This is an extremely delicate issue, and simply telling the Chinese to go stuff it would be very ill-advised.
While I don’t think America would be to blame for a war started by China, as an outsider, I think it has to be noted that America under Biden has been diplomatically rather aggressive and variably trustworthy. It’s fairly obvious than the whole alliance of democracies against authoritarianism is a paper thin cover for "countries which serve the US interests" and both include countries which don’t promote liberal values and exclude countries which do.
This is stupid. NATO was falling apart until last year. Suddenly it's resurgent. Do you think the US was behind this? No. Europe is scared shitless by its neighbor to the east and it's pulling American interest to it. Honestly after all of its stupid adventures in the middle east the US has lost its appetite for this shit, and "the alliance of democracies against authoritarianism" for once is not drawn by american interests (it was never really an alliance against authoritarianism, jugoslavia and Angola were on our side of during the cold war).
> However, it's becoming increasingly clear that the US is shifting away from the One China policy. That shift is deeply alarming the Chinese government. There doesn't seem to be anyone in American politics who is capable of pressing the breaks, slowing down the drive towards confrontation, and reengaging in real diplomacy with China.
Funny, from this side it looks like the opposite: the US is shifting towards greater recognition of Taiwan because China amped up its rhetoric about reunification.
The timeline of how tensions have risen is very clear. The Trump administration began taking steps to undermine the One China policy, such as Trump holding an official call with the Taiwanese president, and calling for Taiwan to be included in international organizations that normally only accept sovereign states. Pelosi's trip was another major milestone, because it breaks the US' promise not to maintain official diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Biden's repeated statements that the US definitely will defend Taiwan are another milestone, because they jettison a decades-long American policy of strategic ambiguity. Things appear to be accelerating, with the Taiwanese president's visit to the US and meeting with Kevin McCarthy, and with increasing talk in the US about potentially backing formal Taiwanese independence.
China's reaction to this has been to reiterate its long-standing position, that it favors peaceful reunification but does not rule out military force as a last resort, and to increase military drills near Taiwan. China has been reactive here. For example, it held large military drills after Pelosi visited.
A lot of these developments are driven by American domestic politics, with the two parties competing to brandish their anti-China credentials. That drives then towards increasingly provocative actions, with little thought about the larger consequences of heading down this path.
The other element driving the shift in American policy is the fact that the naval balance of power in China's immediate periphery is shifting. The US Navy is still much stronger overall, but it may no longer be able to defeat China 100 km off of China's coast. In a decade, the balance will be even less advantageous for the US. This is a major motive for jettisoning strategic ambiguity, to force a change in Taiwan's status before the balance of power tilts further.
> The timeline of how tensions have risen is very clear. The Trump administration began...
Disagree, tensions were already rising well before that. In particular Xi Jinping made a big call for reunification in 2014, which likely lead to a more vigorously pro-independence party being elected in Taiwan in 2016. Closer cooperation with the US followed from that.
