> China’s “reunification” with Taiwan is inevitable, President Xi Jinping said in his New Year’s address on Sunday, striking a stronger tone than he did last year with less than two weeks to go before the Chinese-claimed island elects a new leader.
"striking a stronger tone" is simply factually incorrect. He said reunification is a "historical inevitablity" (历史必然), which is word-for-word the exact same language he's been using since as far back as 2014. [1]
Ya, this is more of the same bluster. Chinese politicians talk a lot, but you can only judge them by their actual actions. I’m not even sure why these speeches are reported on anymore, they don’t provide any new information, they just go through a bunch of ceremony.
"Their actions" are an increased amount of military resources in the straits, including bases. They spout rhetoric like any other government, but they do follow through with actions.
I mean, yes, they are taking over the SCS, but that isn’t much concern for Taiwan. Actually, this works out better for them, since one of the reasons China wants Taiwan is that they don’t have open access to the ocean (control of the SCS would be an alt to that goal). American bases in the ryukyus ensure that China isn’t going to do much action on Taiwan at least in the next few years.
Not to mention that in the case of Germany and Korea both parts are similar in size. And the conditions for the worst off-people improves (or improved in the case of Germany) considerably.
In the case of Taiwan their population's freedom will be reduced and for the people in China there will be no change. It's not reunification, it's forced subordination.
And reunification isn't always a good thing. For example look at Ukraine, they have no interest in 'reunification' with Russia. Another big example where those quotes would be justified. Because they'd be transformed from a proud independent country to a crumple zone for Russia.
Or Yugoslavia. Bringing all those different populations together in one country again is a guarantee for another war.
Not at all... this is all irrelevant or unrelated.
Nobody argued that German reunification was indeed a reunification.
With China there is a narrative that tries to convey that thie situation is different and that this is not really a reunification... which is obviously not the reality.
But it is different for the reasons I mentioned. It's a very unbalanced 'reunification' due to the size difference in both parties which will pretty much bring Taiwan under CCP control without any shared input. That's not a unification where both parties benefit. Hong Kong shows this very well.
Also, it's not really a "re" unification either because Taiwan has never been under CCP control. Before that Chinese rule goes back to the 1890s but it always had its own indigenous people and customs.
Relative sizes are irrelevant to whether an amalgamation of territories constitutes a reunification.
> it's not really a "re" unification either because Taiwan has never been under CCP control
This is the usual argument, which is obviously bogus.
The Democratic Republic of Germany was never under the control of the Federal Republic of Germany before the reunification, this is irrelevant.
> Before that Chinese rule goes back to the 1890s but it always had its own indigenous people and customs.
Chinese rule dates further back (Taiwan was formally annexed in 1684). Local people and customs are also irrelevant here as indeed Taiwan had been absorbed into the Chinese Empire and then the Republic of China (which, formally it still is).
Hence my point that all of this is manipulation of Western public opinion because, no matter what (including the mainland becoming a democracy), the interest of the US is to keep Taiwan split from mainland China.
It's not really irrelevant that only China wants this. The people of Taiwan don't want their freedoms taken away. I've been there and the fear is pretty strong. Especially after seeing what came of Hong Kong's promises of "One Country, Two Systems". I think that it goes against the wishes of the population is a big point against calling it a reunification.
The only reason they don't want to declare independence is that they're afraid it will provoke the CCP into a military response. This is where the wishy-washy stance comes from. Not from uncertainty of what they want.
But if it happens it will be against the wishes of the Taiwanese people. If the mainland would become a democracy I could see this happen, though trust would have to be built up over decades.
> The Democratic Republic of Germany was never under the control of the Federal Republic of Germany before the reunification, this is irrelevant.
No but because of this the west had no legitimate claim to the east. The people of the east wanted to be included. This is why it happened, as it should. There was a clear mutual benefit and wish to do it. In the case of Taiwan it's just about the CCP wishing to take its ancient enemy out of the game, even though it no longer poses any threat at all.
Reunification does not imply peacefulness or willingness... So, again, this is all irrelevant. Really, ther term has a simple definition and meaning and it's interesting to see the mental gymnastic people would go to try to justify otherwise ;)
> The only reason they don't want to declare independence is that they're afraid it will provoke the CCP into a military response.
That's not true. A lot of people there, especially those whose family fled the communists, do agree that Taiwan is indeed part of China (just not the PRC).
"Historical inevitability" is also hilarious when used by a representative of a formerly communist nation. Given how often they claimed communism was the inevitable end state.
There's a difference between advantageous and 'advantageous'.
With the Germanies the East went from a one-party dictatorship to democracy. With Taiwan it's going to be the opposite (Hong Kong has shown clearly how true that is)
The only 'advantage' for them will be that China doesn't destroy them.
This is the same thing that has been said umpteen times before. It's code for "Just wait, foolish Westerners. If either Ukraine loses support because COTUS lunatics can't grok geopolitics or stromgman-loving, Kremlin-owned Trump becomes POTUS because of Ruth Bader Biden, we're going full Wolf Warrior and will take Taiwan by force. What do you think those 3 islands were for in the South China Sea? [Evil laugh here]"
"striking a stronger tone" is simply factually incorrect. He said reunification is a "historical inevitablity" (历史必然), which is word-for-word the exact same language he's been using since as far back as 2014. [1]
[1] http://politics.people.com.cn/n/2014/0927/c70731-25745785.ht...