The article raises a very pertinent question vis-a-vis American commitment and the lengths to which the US is willing to go to stop or reverse a Chinese invasion. The last war where Americans went to great lengths willingly was World War 2. I think that was because most Americans were of European descent, and many were relative newcomers with connections to the old countries, and felt a kinship or personal stake in what happened in Europe. Also, there was a large population of men who were willing to sign up to the military effort voluntarily (the draft was imposed later).
With a whimper.<p>As long as Taiwan doesn't declare its independence, China won't be in a hurry to integrate Taiwan. Why would it attack Taiwan and destroy its own assets? That would be like the US attacking Hawaii and bombing Honolulu.<p>On the other hand, if Hawaii declared its independence, the US would not hesitate to attack it and bring it 'back to the fold', as happened with the Confederacy only a hundred and sixty years ago. As the US goes, so then China.
This article misses in its analysis that China has just tipped over the precipice of a devastating, all-encompassing economic collapse. 10s of trillions of RMB in real estate value are evaporating right now, never to be recovered. This will have at least some effect on the will and ability to fight.
> It has become very hard to see a path to its peaceful resolution. But anything else would be a tragedy with incalculable collateral damage...<p>Why? The article references "Outer Mongolia" too, nobody seems to be clamoring for reunification. State sovereignty splits over geographic areas and populations all the time. Why is reunification a necessity?<p>> U.S. support for Taiwan’s continuing separation from the rest of China is a perpetuation of foreign imperialist efforts to carve their country into spheres of influence, disrespect the right of Chinese to determine their own destiny...<p>Oh I see now.<p>Define "Chinese"?" Do Malay and Singaporean Chinese count? Isn't the author refusing to cede the fact that Taiwanese and mainland Han are diverging cultures an act of denying them self determination? <i>Why must the two groups remain together in perpetuity?</i><p>> Beijing has repeatedly emphasized its strong preference for accomplishing national reunification peacefully rather than with a use of force. It has offered to accept what amounts to a symbolic rather than substantive form of reunification to Taiwan. But to “win without fighting,” Beijing must show that, even if the U.S. backs Taiwan, its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would surely win if the two sides were to return to combat, and that Taipei therefore has no realistic alternative to the negotiation of some form of reconciliation with Chinese across the Strait.<p>Voluntarily come under our sovereignty or else. See, we are peaceful!<p>> The PLA’s current shows of force are aimed at bringing Taipei back to the negotiating table, which the island abandoned when it elected leaders committed themselves to seek an identity separate from China. So far, Beijing’s shows of force have not changed Taipei’s refusal to talk about “peaceful reunification.” No talks mean no path to peace.<p>Again, they've democratically opted for self determination and sovereignty over themselves. Why can't the PRC do the same? Where's the imperialism here?<p>And that comes to the real truth of this matter. The PRC <i>is imperialist.</i> The majority of what we consider to be "China" is under occupation, and has been even under ROC and the Emperor before that. Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, do I need to keep going? These are not regions within China, these are nations under Han imperialist rule, and they have been to different degrees for centuries. Arguing that these nations don't deserve self determination, and then <i>invoking anti-imperialism</i>, the complete lack of self awareness in this article is quite telling.
It's a very interesting article, but some of the word choices leave a very bad taste in my mouth.<p><i>> As Vietnam did, China cares deeply about national unity and immunity from foreign intervention. We fought bravely in Vietnam but lost because Hanoi, despite its military inferiority, cared far more about the outcome than we did. Hanoi was prepared to sacrifice everything to reunite its country. We were not willing to do as much to keep it divided.</i><p><i>> What sacrifices in lives and treasure are Americans prepared to make to assure unilateral self-determination for Taiwan?</i><p>The article makes it sound like Taiwan is unreasonable for "unilaterally" not wanting be invaded by a country with overwhelming military superiority and a totalitarian regime. Maybe Taiwan should defer to China's opinion on whether China should invade Taiwan?<p>I mean, if your opinion is "China can and will invade any smaller neighbors it deems to occupy, there's nothing the US can do to stop them, and we shouldn't waste our lives trying", fine, go ahead and say so.<p>But stop using language like "divising" and "reuniting" to pretend this is anything other than a totalitarian regime planning its next military conquest to appease the masses.
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.
Taiwan is one element in the relationship between China and the USA. The author goes out of his way to ignore any of the aggressive actions being taken by China which might be causing the USA to strengthen its grip on Taiwan.<p>I would ask the author: “has China been engaging in…say economic warfare…which might make the USA think handing them Taiwan is not a good idea?”<p>The argument “but you have been inconsistent” is a non argument. The argument “but we deserve to have Taiwan” being portrayed here is a non argument.<p>The entire argument by the author is very suspicious and I suspect he is probably well compensated for producing these deceptive pieces.
> In 1775, we Americans were only able to achieve self-determination from our British motherland through six years of bitter warfare and two years of tough negotiations.<p>Erm no, Americans were only able to achieve independence because France intervened. They would have been completely crushed otherwise, and this is not even an hyperbole.
The video to it with the slides by Lyle Goldstein:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRs5501GExc&list=PLBrPYoChOfODJ5GJYD9y0m2L-mpa6muyx&index=2" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRs5501GExc&list=PLBrPYoChOf...</a>