You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
0 points

Look at when China-Taiwan relations deteriorated. Relations were improving at record pace under the KMT in the 2008-2016 period. The CPC had basically recognized the de facto independence of Taiwan, even having Xi Jinping meet the KMT Chairman in 2015.

That rapidly deteriorated with the election of the DPP in 2016, who immediately took an extremely hawkish view on China, invited the USN to cross through the Taiwan Strait in a FONOPS (which, prior to this, had been established as territorial waters under the status quo), started paying US politicians hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak in Taiwan, coincidentally started seeing more aid from the US, forced TSMC to expand their US footprint (with many complaints from TSMC), and followed the US in placing export controls to China. Years of progress under the KMT unraveled.

You have to understand the context here: under the KMT, it’s agreed that the two parties will disagree on who “rules” the territories of China. It’s also implicitly established that neither party will seek to relinquish their claim on the other’s territories. For both the CPC and the KMT, this is a matter of ideology and policy. Knowing that this ideological block isn’t going anywhere, CPC-KMT discussions led to the conclusion that, fine, we won’t agree, but we also won’t do anything about it. Neither military intruded over the status quo median line, neither military provoked the other with missiles or fighters or whatnot, and it was established that the issue was one of minimal importance compared to economic development and peaceful codevelopment. China knows that taking Taiwan is basically impossible, and Taiwan has no aspirations to retake China.

In comes the DPP, arms swinging, with support from the US, and says that the KMT is clearly siding with the CPC on this issue and is clearly going to seek reunification with the CPC. Reunification is against KMT policy for obvious ideological reasons, but alas. So, the DPP comes in, saying they want de jure independence and to align with the US, fuck China, Taiwanese people aren’t Chinese, etc. etc. Obviously, China isn’t too happy about this, but things proceed as usual.

Taiwan then declares that the Taiwan Strait is international waters (since, per DPP policy, Taiwan is not China and thus the Taiwan Strait doesn’t classify as territorial waters), that they want more weapons from the US, and that they don’t want to trade with China. China is unhappy about this, but it exposes a key vulnerability in the concept of international waters: there’s nothing stopping China from flying in international waters. So, with the justification of the US FONOPS (i.e. sailing an armed US warship) through the Strait, China starts flying sorties past the median line (which, as established, is now international airspace). China also starts shooting missiles from international airspace crossing international airspace into international airspace, using US FONOPS as justification for this being perfectly reasonable. That’s how we ended up here. I’m strongly opposed to the DPP, not strongly opposed to Taiwan. I see the DPP as being intentionally provocative and throwing away a massive economic boon (trade with China) in exchange for the DPP’s own ideological goals. It’s coming at the cost of opportunities in Taiwan, it’s destabilizing the region, and it’s pushing Taiwan into the same unstable flip-flopping political situation as the US.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Right, CCP recognised Taiwan as defacto independent by ratifying the anti secession law in 2005. What are you smoking, mate? I don’t know about the chip situation but I haven’t seen anything substantive from you and it seems to me like you have a somewhat distorted view of the situation as a whole but again, if you have anything source wise that talks about it I’d be interested to read it.

Accidentally posted this in the main comments but this is where I meant to put it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

2008-2016.

Guess who was in power in 2005? That’s right, the DPP.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

And? Taiwanese voted for their government so… China had no choice? I don’t buy the helpless China argument for a second. They did it because they wanted to, because they say they own Taiwan. They chose it, as they chose to fire missiles around Taiwan in a childish outburst and as they choose to claim they will use force to take Taiwan if necessary. Nobody is making them do these things. They are wrong and they are completely the choice of the CCP. I really don’t see where this argument can possibly lead except to permit all countries to commit all atrocities they feel they have the right to.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 276K

    Comments