It's a good summary of much of the specifics of the situation but his conclusions aren't quite right. Ignoring Taiwan in relation to the overall strategic conflict with China's regional dominance ambitions is either disingenuous or ignorant to reality. Letting China do to Taiwan what it has done with Hong Kong, or more likely, Xinjiang is not the end but rather the beginning.
I think OP is suggesting expansion won't stop at Taiwan
Assimilation didn't stop with Hong Kong either, still a very different situation than Xinjiang.
Are you suggesting that they would have an interest in the Philippines? Which I don't think has any historical precedent?
China has historically not been imperialist in the Western sense, they have been perfectly fine with other non-Chinese countries existing which is why there is still a Korea or Vietnam.
I was referring to not being a historical precedent with the Philipines. I am not an expert in south-asian studies either, but my understanding of Chinese Imperialism & their relation with Korea & Vietnam etc, was that they have been quasi independent vassal states which is quite different than traditional western imperialism or having a direct claim on the land.
They dont have enough of a military to stop China at this point. They would need assistance. Deterence to avoid a conflict better still.
They do have enough military and citizens, however, who would survive the invasion but not go along quietly to justify a severe crack down as has happend dozens of times in Chinas recent (and distant) history.
Maybe they don't have enough military and maybe they do. Hopefully China will see the value in peace so we'll never need to know. And yes I agree deterrence is definitely key to avoiding conflict.
Uh Hong Kong wasn't invaded? The British returned control of it to China when the '100 year lease' expired. Somewhat similar situation with a foreign power supporting a democratic government, except support for Taiwan is much more popular domestically in the US.
I didn’t say that Hong Kong was invaded. It is Taiwan that would require an invasion. Hence there isn’t really any comparing Hong Kong to Taiwan. So thanks for making my point.
Maybe at this date & time, but I'd bet in the next 100 years there will be a non military unification. To me it seems like there hasn't been much of a fundamental change in Geo-Politics around Taiwan in a long time... and that the main reason an invasion of Taiwan is being brought up in US media is ironically because of how poorly NeoLiberalism FP went in Afghanistan.
Actually only New Territories were later leased, the main part of Kowlung and Hong Kong Island were ceded to the British in perpetuity under the Convention of Peking.
The British ceded the main parts of Hong Kong back along with the return of New Territories under the understanding that there would be one country and two systems.
In the 70s and 80s the British government did everything Beijing asked with things like not making Hong Kongers full British citizens.
Those compromises were supposed to gain something for the people of Hong Kong after reunification with PRC.
It’s Xi that’s renegaded on that promise and refused to allow a free press or opposition politicians to stand in Hong Kong.
You’d be mad to think that this time “peaceful” unification would be anything more than “do what we say, say what we say and we won’t shoot you family”.
The majority of the land mass of what we call China is culturally and ethnically different than the dominant cultural and ethnic group. "China" is a remnant of the empire's sovereignty and the one China policy is the continuation of Han imperialism over the inner regions of east Asia.
The comment you're responding to is more about PRC actions in those regions. The PRC will commit genocide in Taiwan if they need to do it to stamp out any lingering sentiment of independence, like they are doing in Xinjiang.
You are assuming that its purely a racism thing, rather than an internal security thing. The Chinese have killed way more of their own ethnic kind in the last six decades than they have Uyghurs. All in the name of internal security and cultural leaps forward and such.
Comments
It's a good summary of much of the specifics of the situation but his conclusions aren't quite right. Ignoring Taiwan in relation to the overall strategic conflict with China's regional dominance ambitions is either disingenuous or ignorant to reality. Letting China do to Taiwan what it has done with Hong Kong, or more likely, Xinjiang is not the end but rather the beginning.
Xinjiang is ethnically and culturally (Muslim) different than the rest of China. It would be more like Hong Kong.
I think OP is suggesting expansion won't stop at Taiwan. What will happen to Filipinos who find themselves living in a new Chinese province?
Assimilation didn't stop with Hong Kong either, still a very different situation than Xinjiang.
Are you suggesting that they would have an interest in the Philippines? Which I don't think has any historical precedent? China has historically not been imperialist in the Western sense, they have been perfectly fine with other non-Chinese countries existing which is why there is still a Korea or Vietnam.
I don't have a PhD in south-east asian history and it's not well taught but this doesn't comport with my understanding at all
Isn't fighting China off a core part of their culture/history?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_under_Chinese_rule
I was referring to not being a historical precedent with the Philipines. I am not an expert in south-asian studies either, but my understanding of Chinese Imperialism & their relation with Korea & Vietnam etc, was that they have been quasi independent vassal states which is quite different than traditional western imperialism or having a direct claim on the land.
It wouldn’t be much like Hong Kong actually. Taiwan has a military and is much more capable of defending itself against a Chinese invasion.
They dont have enough of a military to stop China at this point. They would need assistance. Deterence to avoid a conflict better still.
They do have enough military and citizens, however, who would survive the invasion but not go along quietly to justify a severe crack down as has happend dozens of times in Chinas recent (and distant) history.
Maybe they don't have enough military and maybe they do. Hopefully China will see the value in peace so we'll never need to know. And yes I agree deterrence is definitely key to avoiding conflict.
Uh Hong Kong wasn't invaded? The British returned control of it to China when the '100 year lease' expired. Somewhat similar situation with a foreign power supporting a democratic government, except support for Taiwan is much more popular domestically in the US.
I didn’t say that Hong Kong was invaded. It is Taiwan that would require an invasion. Hence there isn’t really any comparing Hong Kong to Taiwan. So thanks for making my point.
Maybe at this date & time, but I'd bet in the next 100 years there will be a non military unification. To me it seems like there hasn't been much of a fundamental change in Geo-Politics around Taiwan in a long time... and that the main reason an invasion of Taiwan is being brought up in US media is ironically because of how poorly NeoLiberalism FP went in Afghanistan.
Actually only New Territories were later leased, the main part of Kowlung and Hong Kong Island were ceded to the British in perpetuity under the Convention of Peking.
The British ceded the main parts of Hong Kong back along with the return of New Territories under the understanding that there would be one country and two systems.
In the 70s and 80s the British government did everything Beijing asked with things like not making Hong Kongers full British citizens.
Those compromises were supposed to gain something for the people of Hong Kong after reunification with PRC.
It’s Xi that’s renegaded on that promise and refused to allow a free press or opposition politicians to stand in Hong Kong.
You’d be mad to think that this time “peaceful” unification would be anything more than “do what we say, say what we say and we won’t shoot you family”.
The majority of the land mass of what we call China is culturally and ethnically different than the dominant cultural and ethnic group. "China" is a remnant of the empire's sovereignty and the one China policy is the continuation of Han imperialism over the inner regions of east Asia.
The comment you're responding to is more about PRC actions in those regions. The PRC will commit genocide in Taiwan if they need to do it to stamp out any lingering sentiment of independence, like they are doing in Xinjiang.
To further back this up. See what the ROC did in Taiwan to stamp out any lingering sentiment of independence when they arrived.[0]
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)
The land mass maybe... but the population of China is 90%+ Han
Agreed, but I still think that is significantly less likely to occur in Hong Kong or Taiwan because of shared race and culture.
You are assuming that its purely a racism thing, rather than an internal security thing. The Chinese have killed way more of their own ethnic kind in the last six decades than they have Uyghurs. All in the name of internal security and cultural leaps forward and such.