I would like to see China become divided into 20 or 30 independent countries–not only splitting off the obvious candidates like Tibet, East Turkestan, and Taiwan but dividing the Chinese heartland itself.
“China” and “Chinese culture” are inherently evil concepts, whether democracy is a part of this mix or not. “China” represents a certain political mindset whereby certain coastal and riparion regions of East Asia tend to politically unite (there being few geographic barriers), forming a mass capable of dominating and overwhelming surrounding countries. This mindset should be banned, for the same reasons that Nazism is banned in Europe.
It is hardly a coincidence that the people of every single surrounding country hate the Chinese with a passion. But they don’t hate Tibet, or Taiwan, or the other regions. Remember too that the “Chinese” population is increasing geometrically. Unless something is done, one day Western countries will be in the position of Tibet, having to react to this demographic threat. Perhaps we will be more like Southeast Asia, where Chinese merchants control the bulk of the economy thanks in part to links with one another based on their perceived “Chinese” identity.
Since Chinese regions often have their own distinct languages and economic systems, similar to the states of Southeast Asia, that they should have been united into “China” rather than divided into independent countries (each one promoting its own regional identity) was a rather arbitrary development. “Chinese” really only developed an ethnic identity as such out of opposition to the Manchus–without ever, you’ll notice, actually dividing “China” from Manchuria as nationalism would suggest. (They simply replaced the Manchus as the lords of a multinational empire.)
Similarly, Taiwan could have just as easily come to resemble the Philippines (if the Portuguese had stayed) or Okinawa (if it remained Japanese). Tibet could have been linked with India rather than China, much as Outer Mongolia fell into the Russian orbit.
Democratic nations can be just as obnoxious as autocratic ones. Given the opportunity to freely vote on the matter, the Chinese people would cheerfully allow their own nationalism to outweigh any feelings Tibetans, Taiwanese, etc. might have about matters. Similarly, the United States would never allow a truly sovereign Indian nation or its equivalent (for Hawaii and Alaska) to arise within its borders, for reasons of patriotism as well as economic exploitation. We don’t care about other people’s feelings, and neither would the Chinese, unless they’re made to.
In order to prevent voluntary unification, outside countries ought to be given mandates over Chinese territory. Given the attractiveness of economic links between the mainland and the Pacific island chain, the most stable solution would probably involve placing smaller-population outer peoples (like the Manchus during the Ching dynasty, or the Japanese during the early 20th century) in control of vast swathes of the continent. Shandong and Manchuria could go back to Japan, for example. The aim would be a “continental sword” strategy.