I have Taiwanese contacts. They say that roughly 30% of Taiwanese hate China, 30% would be happy to reunite, and 40% could go either way. It seems like suicide to risk WW3 to appease 30% of "never China" hardliners. And the US is doing its damnedest to convert that 40% so-so group into "never China" hardliners.
The breakdown in representative surveys https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 is more like 8.4% for unification now or later (mostly later), 25.3% for independence now or later (mostly later), 61.1% for not moving in either direction for now or forever.
The big surge in pro-independence sentiment 2019 was due to the Hong Kong National Security Law. Nothing the US does is likely to move the needle nearly as much.
Seems to me that invasion of foreign countries is pretty provocative.
Except that The Peoples' Republic of China and the Republic of China are recognised by 95% (or thereabouts) of the world, including the US, as 'One China'.
An 'invasion' of China by China makes as much sense as the US 'invading' the US island of Manhattan. Why would China , or the US for that matter, invade themselves and damage valuable infrastructure, commercial property and manufacturing capacity?
The only reason for China to take military action against one of their islands is if that island declares Independence. You know, like the Southern Confederate States did in 1861. I remember the North didn't bother to take any military action then.
"The breakdown in representative surveys https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 is more like 8.4% for unification now or later (mostly later), 25.3% for independence now or later (mostly later), 61.1% for not moving in either direction for now or forever"
These numbers will change considerably if China invades against China. The 61.1% are people who merely hope nothing changes ... they're in a bit of denial in other words.
Hong Kong is not particularly happy with what the Chinese did ... there's no second system there.
People confuse coercion with voluntary statements. The reason liberal democracies pay lip service to this insane notion that 20 million people must live under an autocracy is because we are fucking scared of WW3. That's it. We do not believe in this disgusting nationalist project that desires to subjugate the will of millions of people in the name of restoring the homeland or some other sociopathic blood and soil fantasy.
But the wide agreement on “One China” is like a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell situation, no? Parties like the US agree to a de jure “One China” in order to not rock the boat on the de facto “Two China” status quo.
If you really want to simplify this down to whoever shoots first is the provocateur (no precipitating cause), you still can have multiple parties who “risk WW3”:
- PRC: risks WW3 if they invade Taiwan
- Taiwan: in turn risks WW3 if they fight back
- USA: in turns risks WW3 if they help Taiwan fight back…
Having visited Israel, I'd put the numbers who "just want to get along and get on with their lives" on both sides even higher. Watching a group Ultra-Orthodox Jews having a sign along in the street lead by a Arab guitarist busker is a sight I won't forget. The smiles on all sides were radiant. Ditto for the citizens in Russia and Ukraine.
The hell in both places wasn't created by "ordinary people". And if China and Taiwan go to war, I'd be stunned if the citizens on both sides would support if they knew what comes next. The leaders on the one making the first move will of course go to great lengths to ensure they don't, until it becomes "us or them".
China and Taiwan, mutually, have hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in one another. War makes that all go up in smoke. With China's track record of zero wars in decades, I doubt this is much more than American fearmongering about Chinese nationalist posturing.
What you say makes some sense, but I can think of some situations that would invalidate it, and there are probably others, but this is what I can think of right now:
(1) What if China were to believe the war was "winnable" eg, they could take over so quickly due to overwhelming military power or due to being welcomed by some of the population or something, as to avoid huge damage. Then it wouldn't matter. BTW, this is what is meant by "deterrence", and in US domestic policy, the china-related fearmongering is clearly aimed at increasing deterrence.... which could only possibly decrease the chance of conflict even more, so what's the problem?
(2) What if China's leadership were to believe a distraction is necessary from domestic politics? Then, also, these mutual investments wouldn't matter.
China was in no shape to challenge US hegemony a few decades ago, now they are. China wasn't as militant and nationalistic under Deng, now they are.
Japan in 1940 was a very different beast to Japan in 1950, and it would be misguided to think Japan would launch another war in the 1950s just because "they" recently did that. "They" (values, democratic governance, free press, etc) change over time. You should go straight to an analysis of the values and system of the current people that live there, instead of whatever their ancestors did.
If a country starts talking like Japan did in the 1930s, even if they have no history of war, then I will assign a high probability that they will start behaving like Japan of the 1940s. They are humans just like the Japanese were humans and will produce the same behavior given the same bad ideas and circumstances.
Modern China is a revisionist power (much like Russia) with the capability to challenge the US. For these reasons, them launching an invasion of Taiwan is plausible. It is against their economic self-interest, but that doesn't completely deter nations from launching wars. National security concerns and national pride can trump economic concerns.
18 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 51.4 ms ] threadThe big surge in pro-independence sentiment 2019 was due to the Hong Kong National Security Law. Nothing the US does is likely to move the needle nearly as much.
Seems to me that invasion of foreign countries is pretty provocative.
Except that The Peoples' Republic of China and the Republic of China are recognised by 95% (or thereabouts) of the world, including the US, as 'One China'.
An 'invasion' of China by China makes as much sense as the US 'invading' the US island of Manhattan. Why would China , or the US for that matter, invade themselves and damage valuable infrastructure, commercial property and manufacturing capacity?
The only reason for China to take military action against one of their islands is if that island declares Independence. You know, like the Southern Confederate States did in 1861. I remember the North didn't bother to take any military action then.
"The breakdown in representative surveys https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 is more like 8.4% for unification now or later (mostly later), 25.3% for independence now or later (mostly later), 61.1% for not moving in either direction for now or forever"
These numbers will change considerably if China invades against China. The 61.1% are people who merely hope nothing changes ... they're in a bit of denial in other words.
Hong Kong is not particularly happy with what the Chinese did ... there's no second system there.
- PRC: risks WW3 if they invade Taiwan
- Taiwan: in turn risks WW3 if they fight back
- USA: in turns risks WW3 if they help Taiwan fight back…
The hell in both places wasn't created by "ordinary people". And if China and Taiwan go to war, I'd be stunned if the citizens on both sides would support if they knew what comes next. The leaders on the one making the first move will of course go to great lengths to ensure they don't, until it becomes "us or them".
(1) What if China were to believe the war was "winnable" eg, they could take over so quickly due to overwhelming military power or due to being welcomed by some of the population or something, as to avoid huge damage. Then it wouldn't matter. BTW, this is what is meant by "deterrence", and in US domestic policy, the china-related fearmongering is clearly aimed at increasing deterrence.... which could only possibly decrease the chance of conflict even more, so what's the problem?
(2) What if China's leadership were to believe a distraction is necessary from domestic politics? Then, also, these mutual investments wouldn't matter.
Japan in 1940 was a very different beast to Japan in 1950, and it would be misguided to think Japan would launch another war in the 1950s just because "they" recently did that. "They" (values, democratic governance, free press, etc) change over time. You should go straight to an analysis of the values and system of the current people that live there, instead of whatever their ancestors did.
If a country starts talking like Japan did in the 1930s, even if they have no history of war, then I will assign a high probability that they will start behaving like Japan of the 1940s. They are humans just like the Japanese were humans and will produce the same behavior given the same bad ideas and circumstances.
Modern China is a revisionist power (much like Russia) with the capability to challenge the US. For these reasons, them launching an invasion of Taiwan is plausible. It is against their economic self-interest, but that doesn't completely deter nations from launching wars. National security concerns and national pride can trump economic concerns.