if 99% of Taiwanese votes for independence in a legit referendum, can China justify an invasion?
To whom would China be justifying such an invasion?
There’s a massive difference between voting for independence and actually declaring it.
Go ahead invade your neighbor, go ahead and bomb your friend
Do it in the name of revolution, you can justify it in the end.
China can justify anything.
“5,000 years of culture” and all that jazz.
To answer your question, yes, China can say the exact same thing that Hitler said when he invaded Austria. We are unifying and bringing our ethnic brethren into the fold of the mother country.
China probably has more standing to do that then Germany did back in the day because of its wonderful Anti-secession Law, which requires the military to prevent a breakup of China’s sacred territory by force.
The US will express concern. Japan will come out with nationalist rhetoric. Many countries will shake their heads and issue condemnations. And nothing will be done because basically every country in the world agrees that this is an “internal problem” and their recognition of Beijing as the sole legitimate government of China means they accept that Taiwan is a province of the PRC.
Maybe the Taiwanese should think outside the box. Declare an independent country called “Chinese Taipei” (which currently has observer status at the WHO with China’s blessing).
We’ve already got the flag, approved by Beijing:
The Politburo also approved the new national anthem.
If the Taiwanese do this, it will confuse the Hell out of the doddering old commie tyrants running the PRC.
Yes. China would mobilize their military.
I would assume, though, that Taiwan would only vote for something like this because they are ready for the war.
That means fighting, which is hard and requires making lots of decisions and confronting problems. War also makes you poor and involves things that are dangerous.
Don’t count on it anytime soon!
T
[quote=“rowland”]Go ahead invade your neighbor, go ahead and bomb your friend
Do it in the name of revolution, you can justify it in the end.[/quote]
萬甲踏四鄰，飛雷焚至親，
bān-kah ta̍p sù-lîn, hui-luî hûn tsì-tshin,
揭竿號起義，諸行皆為仁。
kiat-kan hō khí-gī, tsu-hīng kai uî jîn.
dunno why, felt like making that up… (it rhymes in Taiwanese holo and hakka)
[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]Maybe the Taiwanese should think outside the box. Declare an independent country called “Chinese Taipei” (which currently has observer status at the WHO with China’s blessing).
[/quote]
unfortunately Beijing considers maintaining the status quo an act of Taiwanese independence.
Was the Union justified in attacking the Confederacy? Depends on who you ask, the majority would say yes, but there are people in the Southern United States who still believe it was unjustified. However, the winners write the history books and that’s the only fact of life that matters.
勝者為王 敗者為寇
China already thinks they have justification anytime they want.
[quote=“Dirt”]Was the Union justified in attacking the Confederacy? Depends on who you ask, the majority would say yes, but there are people in the Southern United States who still believe it was unjustified. However, the winners write the history books and that’s the only fact of life that matters.
勝者為王 敗者為寇[/quote]
I agree that the winner writes history (see my other post on CKS), but this situation is really not at all the same as the US Civil War. Prior to the split, the Union and the states that would make up the Confederacy were unarguably part of the same country until one side unilaterally declared secession. Taiwan and China are unarguably part of two de facto different countries: the ROC and the PRC. A split now would be in-name-only, since the PRC has never exercised control over Taiwan. There would be no withdrawal of Taiwanese Congressmen from the legislature in Beijing; there would be no disavowal of the PRC constitution by Taiwan; there would be no talk of a “second revolution.” The situations are, simply, very different.
Again, I liken this to South Korea. Is South Korea independent from North Korea? Yes. Does that mean they’re traitorous secessionists? No.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]
Again, I liken this to South Korea. Is South Korea independent from North Korea? Yes. Does that mean they’re traitorous secessionists? No.[/quote]
not in the eyes of any sane person, but in the eyes of Kim Jun-* definitely. but I guess that’s probably your point.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”][quote=“Dirt”]Was the Union justified in attacking the Confederacy? Depends on who you ask, the majority would say yes, but there are people in the Southern United States who still believe it was unjustified. However, the winners write the history books and that’s the only fact of life that matters.
勝者為王 敗者為寇[/quote]
I agree that the winner writes history (see my other post on CKS), but this situation is really not at all the same as the US Civil War. Prior to the split, the Union and the states that would make up the Confederacy were unarguably part of the same country until one side unilaterally declared secession. Taiwan and China are unarguably part of two de facto different countries: the ROC and the PRC. A split now would be in-name-only, since the PRC has never exercised control over Taiwan. There would be no withdrawal of Taiwanese Congressmen from the legislature in Beijing; there would be no disavowal of the PRC constitution by Taiwan; there would be no talk of a “second revolution.” The situations are, simply, very different.
Again, I liken this to South Korea. Is South Korea independent from North Korea? Yes. Does that mean they’re traitorous secessionists? No.[/quote]
勝者為王 敗者為寇
It doesn’t matter what the situation is, justified, unjustified, it will be up to the winner. Nobody questions the USA’s sovereignty over the North American land that it occupies because the USA fought and won. Sewell bought Alaska from Russia, did either the USA or Russia own Alaska?
Again, I’m not arguing with that fact. I just don’t see where the connection with the ROC/PRC and CSA/USA is other than they split amid civil war. One was reabsorbed back into its parent country and the other wasn’t, making their situations rather incomparable.
[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]Maybe the Taiwanese should think outside the box. Declare an independent country called “Chinese Taipei” (which currently has observer status at the WHO with China’s blessing).
[/quote]
unfortunately Beijing considers maintaining the status quo an act of Taiwanese independence.[/quote]
doesn’t maintaining the status quo mean that Taiwan is the sailing ship on the windless day slowly drifting to the cannibals on shore?
China has patience, they just have to wait.
Yeah but the wind can change direction too. Taiwan’s best bet overall is to stall things, unless something else changes.
The status quo means awaiting unification. A vote for the status quo is a vote for China. It’s that simple. Read the constitution.
Well it’s a lot more complicated than that. A majority vote for independence could put Taiwan on a war footing. A majority vote to unite with China at this time is not a goer. Both of those are not popular choices for obvious reasons. So the status quo it shall be no matter if China’s influence grow stronger now.
:roflmao:
Constitution?
Oh, please!