Everybody knows about the backstory, there was a civil war, KMT fled to Taiwan creating two Chinas sort of, maybe, neither recognises the other, whole thing. ROC (Taiwan) ended up transitioning from military rule to a multi-party democracy, while the PRC (mainland China) didn't do that (they did reform economically, "socialism with Chinese characteristics" and all that, but still a one-party state, not a multi-party democracy). The status quo right now is that Taiwan is in the grey area of statehood where they function pretty much independently but aren't properly recognised, and both sides of the strait are feeling pretty tense right now.
Taiwan's stance on the issue is that they would like to remain politically and economically independent of mainland China, retaining their multi-party democracy, political connections to its allies, economic trade connections, etc. Also, a majority of the people in Taiwan do not support reunification with China.
China's stance on the issue is that Taiwan should be reunified with the mainland at all costs, ideally peacefully, but war is not ruled out. They argue that Taiwan was unfairly separated from the mainland by imperial powers in their "century of humiliation". Strategically, taking Taiwan would be beneficial to China as they would have better control of the sea.
Is it even possible for both sides to agree to a peaceful solution? Personally, I can only see two ways this could go about that has the consent of both parties. One, a reformist leader takes power in the mainland and gives up on Taiwan, and the two exist as separate independent nations. Or two, the mainland gets a super-reformist leader that transitions the mainland to a multi-party democracy, and maybe then reunification could be on the table, with Taiwan keeping an autonomous status given the large cultural difference (similar to Hong Kong or Macau's current status). Both options are, unfortunately, very unlikely to occur in the near future.
A third option (?) would be a pseudo-unification, where Taiwan becomes a recognised country, but there can be free movement of people between the mainland and Taiwan, free trade, that sort of stuff (sort of like the EU? Maybe?). Not sure if the PRC would accept that.
What are your thoughts on a peaceful solution to the crisis that both sides could agree on?
edit: Damn there are crazies in both ends of the arguments. I really don't think giving Taiwan nukes would help solve the problem.
I think the current best solution, looking at the more reasonable and realistic comments, seems to be to maintain the status quo, at least until both sides of the strait are able to come into some sort of agreement (which seems to be worlds away right now given their current very opposing stances on the issue)
It's not true now though. And the USA only used hard power in the sense of stopping China from invading, and then used soft power/influence to tend to the development of Taiwan. The USA would be pretty powerless to stop them now if they changed their position now.
I'm not hostile, I'm just explaining how my position is pretty simple.
You asked a historical question and the historical answer is simple: the United States intervened militarily, froze the Chinese Civil War, protected the KMT, and then spent decades reshaping the island economically, politically, and informationally against the PRC. That’s hard power first, soft power afterward. Saying “I only care what people think now” is just dodging how those opinions were produced. Public sentiment formed under 70+ years of US security guarantees, arms sales, education policy, media alignment, and political engineering does not arise in a vacuum.
And you can already see this changing. As US power declines relative to China, its grip on Taiwan weakens too. That’s reflected in the growing instability around the DPP, impeachment attempts, falling credibility, and public backlash when they tried to restrict platforms like 小红书. Most people on the island aren’t rabid separatists, polling consistently shows ambivalence and a preference for the status quo mainly because it feels stable, not because they possess some timeless anti-China essence.
You don’t get to erase decades of foreign military protection and geopolitical shaping, then sanctify the result as “pure self-determination.” You asked whether the US is why Taiwan didn’t reunify. The answer is yes. Everything you’re pointing to now, identity, politics, current preferences, flows downstream from that original intervention. You can ignore history if you want, but that just makes you arrogant and uneducated.
So what? The opinion of people on the mainland is also due to how the ruling party of the PRC has shaped public opinion since they took power too. Does that somehow devalue opinion polls coming from there?
So the opinion of the Taiwanese now should be ignored because of how their opinion emerged and they should be taken by force?
They don't have to be "rapid separatists" in order to not want to join the PRC. More people clearly support eventual independence as compared to unification by current polling, and the current setup is de-facto independence already. Moreover, most people in Taiwan by the same polls self-identify as Taiwanese. China also very much implies, if not threatens a war if they try to go independent officially - that’s likely to temper many responses.
What do you want people on Taiwan, born and raised and educated there to do about that? They can only speak for how they feel now, and if most of them don't want to join the PRC - what is your point here? I can be aware of the history, but that doesn't mean that what the people of Taiwan think now should be thrown away.
Previously, the dictatorship stopped the people of Taiwan rejoining if they so chose to. Now it's the own people there. The USA couldn't really do much if the population truly desired to join China.
Ok, listen you’re arguing about a bunch of irrelevant bullshit. You asked a question about why Taiwan exists in its current form. The answer is yes: the United States is why. They froze the civil war, protected the KMT, and spent decades shaping the island against the PRC. Feelings, polls, and identities don’t change that causal reality. I don’t personally care whether Taiwan reunifies or not(outside of political interest and it would be nice seeing the US lose it's unsinkable carrier) it has zero impact on my daily life. I was answering your question about history. If you don’t like the answer and want to pivot to vibes and hypotheticals, that’s on you.
But the reality now is what matters to me. I personally support Taiwanese self-determination because it's what the people who live there now seem to want via continuation of the status quo, or official independence.
But that wasn't the question and the reality now is a direct result of history. Please stop this trolling bullshit circular argument and actually read what you asked and what I said. I'm not arguing Taiwan being independent is good or bad or that they should reunify or any of this bullshit you're pretending I am. I answered your question about US influence the fact you took it as an attack on Taiwan is completely in your own head.
The original post of mine that you replied to was where I said this to someone else:
"So you think the only reason that Taiwan has not merged into the PRC is because the USA forbids it?"
You replied that US propping up the dictatorship was the reason they haven't merged at a time in the past is technically true, but not really relevant as it was still the dictatorship calling the shots there, and at any point could've surrendered - but chose not to. It was more the USA as a powerful global force offering support to the regime to protect them against the PRC, and then further supporting them economically to maintain attitudes to continued separation and independence. And certainly now, certainly in this time period - if Taiwan were to just fold and ask to be annexed into the PRC, there really is nothing the USA could do about it.
Please read my replies you clearly don't understand them.
Already did.
Clearly not
Yes, I did. I disagree with your historical framing in some ways - but that's besides the point because the Taiwanese people do not want to join China now.
No it is the point. The history is why things are how they are.
And it's also true that if the Taiwanese now all, or enough of them, decided to join the PRC - the USA could not stop them.
That's irrelevant. The conditions that led people on the island to hate the mainland are largely manufactured by the US. The reason why the status quo exists is the US. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
I disagree. It was the root of my point on this. The USA now is not able to stop and thus can't be said to be actively preventing Taiwan from joining the PRC. I also dispute that 'the conditions' could be simplified down to "The USA forcing Taiwan to do things" given the Taiwanese government initially actively sought out US support in the first place.
USA providing support over many years that help improve their infrastructure and boost their economy etc is "manufactured"? Does that mean that any uptake in opinions towards China over many of their foreign initiatives could be equally said to be "manufactured"?
This is true in so much that the USA helped defend the island initially, but they didn't force Taiwan to do anything in relation to that.
This motherfucker just spent 40 comments telling me that the reality now is irrelevant because hypothetically, if the geopolitical realities were completely different, the Taiwanese people would support independence.
I think many of them do support it now, that's the point. They accept status quo given the existing pressures, but if that changed, they would likely move for official independence.
So then, they don't support changing it now, but would if the geopolitical realities were completely different.
Jesus christ in heaven! Do words mean anything to you?
They don't support pushing for it now because of the risk of inciting a war with China, but a clear majority do not wish to enjoin with the PRC - and many more people in those same polls express support for moving towards independence as compared to pro-unification, and I suspect strongly that the fear of antagonising China suppresses many more would-be pro-independence supporters from expressing their true position on this.
I don't know that the argument that effectively represents China as an aggressor here as the reason many Taiwanese don't officially support moving to independence is particularly impressive one, personally.
Cool! So they don't support it now. So is the "the reality now" what matters to you or not?
I don't give a shit about whatever you just said.
I know I, and anyone with an ounce of sanity, including the vast majority of the Taiwanese people (whose opinions you completely disregard), think it would be completely insane to start WWIII just based on some point of pride, instead of enjoying the continued peace that the status quo has provided for decades.
What if the geopolitical realities were completely different, and there was no risk of WWIII? What if the geopolitical realities were different, and the US hadn't intervened in the situation in the ways they did historically?
In response to the latter you claim that "the reality now is what I care about," but then you go on and on and on about how important it is to imagine what people would want in the former hypothetical, instead of looking at what they actually do want in the reality now.
Because of Chinese intimidation and threats. Many more who voted for a flat 'status quo' option absolutely would wish for China to back off so they could officially become independent and a recognised nation. That is my contention.
A good thing that I didn't say that they should then. As unreasonable as China is being here, I've never once said that the Taiwanese should declare independence because of the actual risk of the Chinese reaction.
There's good reason to believe, as I've indicated to you in many other replies that many Taiwanese right now, as it is now, would like to push for independence but don't feel it viable so the polling reflects that. I think that, if true (and to be clear - I think it is) is reason to believe that it ultimately commands a majority.
Why are we supposed to consider hypotheticals where China's actions are different, but not hypotheticals where the US's actions were different? It makes no sense!
I don't get the point of comparison here. I haven't really said anything about the USA. I supposed if the history of USA-Taiwan was different, Taiwan may never have got to the point it is now and been annexed many times over at many different points in many different timelines. But I'm not really talking about Taiwan as it was in the 1950s, 60s, 70s or 80s.
Enough - you are a completely ridiculous, obstinate, unreasonable chauvinist.
I just could not believe you'd have the audacity to say "the reality now is what I care about" after I spent 40 comments trying to convince you that the reality now is what matters. You are just impossible.
The reality of what people in Taiwan now think, not alternative history scenarios regarding a different USA reaction to Taiwan at specific points of divergence. I think a majority of the would-be pro-independence bloc across Taiwan likely do wish to move towards independence, but feel it unrealistic and dangerous to do so because of the potential reaction from China, and so answer "status quo" or "status quo, decide later" on polls out of that specific resignation.
Just alternate present scenarios, gotcha.
Right, and I think a majority of the would-be pro-unification bloc across Taiwan feel currently feel that unification is not necessary because there isn't a looming alien invasion.
You're acting as though "pro-independence" or "pro-unification" are just these abstract things that can be understood in a vacuum, utterly unconnected to geopolitical realities, except, for some reason, when the geopolitical realities pertaining to China are involved. But these positions will always be dependent on what they actually mean for the people Taiwan, in existing reality. US investment breaks this vacuum, this "Platonic form" of pro-independence just as security concerns from the PRC do.
You cannot, fundamentally, talk about what they would support "in a vacuum" or "if security concerns did not exist" because they will never be in a vacuum and security concerns will always exist. This gets back to something I asked previously:
One specific one, I suppose.
You think an alien invasion is on the same level of likelihood of a Chinese change of policy here?
China could hypothetically change in a number of ways that would change pro-independence attitude itself, but assuming nothing else changed within China but their willingness to accept an independent Taiwan - I think Taiwan would move pretty fast on this. I suppose the USA could also change and behave in such a way that alienates Taiwan from their position and drive them to the mainland, but I maintain strongly that the only reason that 'status quo/status quo-choose later' currently lead the polling on this issue in Taiwan is due to the well-understood threat from China to Taiwanese people if the Taiwanese decide to formally explore pathways to official independence. 'Status quo' itself is a halfway house that no-one in Taiwan or China is especially happy with, but works well enough for both sides to last at least as of now - a long time (which is why I am not calling for any independence moves for Taiwan).
What we also do know is contained within the site that you linked me are also polls on Taiwanese identity, and that the population has broadly moved towards seeing themselves as and identifying as prominently Taiwanese over Chinese. This tells me that a sense of national identity is taking hold within Taiwan, and combined with the actual pro-independence outlook being about 4 times more popular than unification according to polls, I think I'm making fairly reasonable observations.
Never said anything that would remotely imply that, no.
Exactly! You get a 1000 political philosophers around a table, and not one of them would invent such a scenario or describe it as ideal or logical. But that doesn't matter. It is a "vulgar" compromise that doesn't allow for abstract principles to be satisfied. But it is an effective compromise that has worked and has maintained the peace.
In what universe are we supposed to judge political solutions to conflicts based on how much they satisfy abstract principles, how "neat" they are in the abstract, instead of the actual results they produce in reality??? And in what way is someone "pro-independence" if they support that position purely as an abstract ideal, if what they actually support in practice, and when asked, is the status quo? To be in favor of the status quo is to support in in practice, as pretty much no one supports it in the abstract.
The thing I find completely baffling is that you seem to think that the abstract world is in some way more real or more relevant than material reality. That the only way we could know what the Taiwanese people "actually" support is by placing them in a vacuum. This is nonsense. What they "actually" support is what they do support, in the actual, real world as it currently exists. But, despite insisting that "the world as it is now is what I care about," you try to say that what actual matters, what actually reveals their true preferences, is this hypothetical reality where you arbitrarily remove China as a factor, and the opinions of your mental model of Taiwanese people in that hypothetical somehow "overrules" what they say they want in material reality.
You made the comparison.
Sure. And I haven't said it should suddenly stop, so no idea why you keep saying this.
I think there's a fundamental difference between not supporting your regions independence because you think it economically non-viable and not supporting your regions independence because another nation threatens to invade you if that happens. Especially as Taiwan is already de facto independent in the first place. You aren't even disputing my analysis here that the wider population can be reasonably observed to be far more pro-independence than pro-unification, you're just saying that I can't point out that they only don't push for it further because of Chinese intimidation and threats because it makes their ideal outcome rooted in hypothetical circumstances.
I don't at all see how you've concluded that at all from anything I've said.
I'd also add that status quo is already de facto independence, so in that sense, a supermajority for status quo is effectively a majority for independence as best they can within the circumstances that exist.
What they (a majority) want, I suspect, is independence officially already - but will continue on settling for 'status quo' and relay this on polls on grounds of not wanting to antagonise China and inciting them to bomb them (The Taiwanese rather like not being bombed or blockaded more than directly pursuing independence in this way). You don't even seem to dispute this. You just complain about it being a hypothetical that could only be realised if China backed off.
Dammit! I get it from everything you say! Like:
How can you claim that they "want independence officially already" and then immediately say that they would rather maintain the status quo than pursue independence?? You're contradicting yourself. The only possible way to make sense of that is if you consider what they want in the abstract to be somehow "more real" than what they actually do want in reality.
Or:
Why do you keep trying to reduce it to this false dichotomy? These are not the only options, the status quo is what the majority of Taiwanese people support. Why do you not consider the status quo to be a "real" answer? The only explanation I can see, is that you think the abstract world is somehow "more real" than material reality.
I don't see the difference. In both cases, your position is that independence is not likely to result in desirable outcomes.
As I said in a follow-up, "status quo" is de-facto independence which a supermajority support via polling. Not many people support the "status quo but move towards unification" option, yet they could. Why is this?
I know they are not the only two options. I'm saying that if you omit that for the purposes of comparison and directly compare the pro-independence and pro-unification sentiment then the pro-independence sentiment is 3-4 times stronger. I am also arguing that if the world in some ways changed in such a way that it was no longer felt necessary for security reasons to maintain status quo, then it is more likely that the Taiwanese people would move towards independence than unification.
Of course you don't. A regions economy not being strong enough, or viewed as strong enough to support itself is fundamentally an internal issue within the regions own borders. A regions people feeling too intimidated to push for independence (even though they already are effectively independent) because of threats from a nearby global power just seem to me to be such self-evidently different phenonemons when observing a regions attitude to self-determination.
Why do you keep acting like I'm arguing in favor of unification? When have I ever said anything to make you think that? I support, just like nearly everyone in Taiwan does, the status quo. Which you can't seem to concieve of as an option, because you think the realm of the abstract is somehow "more real" then reality.
Why? Why would you omit them? There's no basis for it! Why are the only two positions you'll consider "independence" and "unification" when those collectively represent only 5%, and are both clearly bad options a fact you obviously agree with as evidenced by the fact that you don't actually support breaking the status quo in practice. The only way I can understand this is if you think the abstract world is somehow "more real" than material reality.
Only if the region we're talking about is North Korea. Every country is connected to and influenced by the global economy, in no way can a region's economy be considered a purely internal issue. No man is an island.
After the American Revolution, there was a question of whether the states would unify into a single, cohesive entity, or be loosely aligned, or completely independent. The threat posed by European powers was a major reason why the states joined together in a union.
Do we need to go back in time and nuke Europe so that the states can truly and freely decide whether they want to be together or not? It's nonsense. Security concerns always exist and always factor in to such decisions, and have since the very formation of states. Again, you are trying to let people decide these things in a vacuum, but there are no vacuums anywhere and never have been.
I didn't say you were. I was just asking you why very few people in Taiwan seem to go for supporting "status quo, but move towards unification" when it doesn't confer the same risks as "status quo, but move towards independence" in antagonising China if enough people polled that way.
As I've said multiple times now, status quo is in itself a soft-form of independence and that I regard continued supermajority support for it in itself to be pro-independence in itself, but the next step (formalisation) is still broadly desired, but considered unrealistic currently on grounds of not antagonising China (which is a terrible situation they should not be placed in).
Right, okay, but still aspects within its own economy in relation to the rest of the world would be considered to make it non-viable. Not only is Taiwan already effectively independent anyway, formalising it and becoming officially independent would make no change to anything here.
No? What a strange comparison. There are many points of observation we can use to determine whether or not the states within the USA continue to consent to being in the union even if their original fusion was indeed unification on grounds of intimidation from others. A national identity did form from that, as indeed a national identity seems to now exist within Taiwan.
You know you're simply not going to change my position on this issue. I do believe that pro-independence as an option on Taiwan is far more popular than pro-unification, and that status quo in itself is already a form of soft-independence in itself.
That's not what "pro-independence" means in this context at all. "Pro-de-facto-independence" is know as "maintaining the status quo." "Pro-independence" means breaking with the status quo and not just accepting de facto independence. Don't go around redefining the terms.
I don't see anything strange about it. Has there ever been any state that formed without security concerns influencing their decisions?
But there are still rival states that could pose a threat if the US balkanized. How can we know if people are only consenting to being in the union because of those security concerns? Oh no!
It's so ridiculous. How, I mean, this just doesn't make any sense. Is collective defense not the primary purpose of states? How can you possibly evaluate anything if you have to completely sanitize the world of security concerns first??
I swear, this Idealist nonsense breaks my brain completely. Makes absolutely zero sense on any level.
I've seen many Taiwanese regard their current situation as independence in itself, and so regard continued support for the status-quo as broad support for that. As I asked: Why do very few people in Taiwan seem to go for supporting “status quo, but move towards unification” when it doesn’t confer the same risks as “status quo, but move towards independence” in antagonising China if enough people polled that way.
Possibly. I don't know. I don't know what the point is here. For one, Taiwan isn't even in a union with China - so this logic doesn't even make sense. It's more a gentleman's agreement to not say certain words and is backed up by most nations playing along. It's all a farce, where as US constituent states do actually come under federal law.
I really don't get your point here at all. Taiwan is not actually a part of the PRC. It's more akin to a gentleman's agreement recognised by both sides over terminology and the rest of the world plays along. It's all a farce. US constituent states in comparison are actually under federal law, and elect representatives to congress and the senate and vote in Presidential elections.
Not sure when I did that. I just pointed out that a people not opting to vote (or in this case hold an official independence referendum) for certifying their official independence because of threats from another country is quite a distinct for why people in Quebec or Scotland, for instance, might reject independence.
You are not changing my position on this. I believe that if the Taiwanese had the opportunity to vote for independence without the looming threat of being invaded by their neighbour, they would do so, and do so pretty quickly. You can reply 100 times. I will reply back every single time with the same stock response. This will just go on and on and on.
Why do you keep thinking that I'm arguing for unification or arguing that people support unification? You keep asking this irrelevant shit.
WHAT? When? How? In what universe could that possibly happen? How, what, how do you think the world works???
It's not supposed to be a direct comparison. It's supposed to demonstrate the absolute absurdity of treating the existence of security concerns as somehow invalidating people's perspectives on geopolitics.
I don't see what's confusing about it. You're saying that the Taiwanese people's perspective on independence is influenced by security concerns and therefore invalid, and we should look at what they would be if there were no such concerns. I'm saying that, idk, Texans perspective on independence is also potentially influenced by security concerns, so if we applied the same logic, then we could not possibly say that we know for sure they "genuinely" want to be part of the US. It could be that they're worried that seeking independence would cause them to be invaded.
The same logic could just as easily be applied to any polity in the world, since security concerns are a universal thing. So this whole framework of analysis is completely incomprehensible, as soon as you apply it consistently.
I haven't disputed that. And if you apply some other random conditions, like an alien invasion you could get them to support unification. But the thing that they actually support, as things actually are, is the status quo. And that matters more than some abstract principle and more than what they might support in this or that hypothetical.
I didn't. I just asked. I'd like an answer.
And why independence as compared to unification is so much popular as an option. And why most Taiwanese appear to identify as Taiwanese rather than Chinese. These are all markers that support my position.
I haven't studied the emergence of every single country.
I don't think so. Texas would be quite easily able to be independent. I would argue strongly that if it seemed like most Texans actually did want independence and we had active pro-Texan independence movements and campaigns but the federal government was repressing them and threatening them for exploring this route that - it would still be true that most Texans want independence regardless of how the USA's activity in relation to that suppresses enthusiasm for it. The same would also be true of Taiwan here, for comparison.
If you haven't disputed that, then we don't really disagree. And the alien invasion is not remotely as realistic (even if its also unrealistic) as China changing or relaxing their policy here. Do you actually think you're going to convince me to change my position? I won't stop replying.
Why? Again, establish relevance.
You don't have to to know that every country exists in a world with security concerns.
OK, but what if the vast majority of Texans polled said that they wanted to remain a part of the US, but there was an implicit threat that if they declared independence, the US might decide to attack? Should we assume that all the Texans are lying and only saying that under duress and that they clearly want to leave?
I am just trying to get you to ground yourself in reality because you are so far out there it's utterly delusional. Maybe I should stop but your brainworms are just so weird and bizarre that I can't help myself.
Curious on what your answers will be. These things to me are part of why I hold the position I do on Taiwan here.
It would depend on the scale of the vote, presence of local parties and organisations, other polls too (Texas identity polling, opinion polling of other countries) etc and other local metrics. It's true that if the USA was much more domestically restrictive on independentism campaigning we couldn't necessarily get a clear view on how people within states actually feel so at a certain point or state control and oppression, it would be somewhat shrouded.
Although the USA is an interesting example here because, yes, there's no real meaningful legal path for states to secede from the Union - but campaigning on and running for parties or as a candidate that has that as an aspiration is in itself perfectly legal, and people can feel free to answer opinion polls regarding separatism without consequences from Washington. So I think if Texas did want to leave, it would show.
Bringing this to Taiwan specifically - I don't think someone who wants independence (officially) in an ideal world is "lying" or "under duress" as such - that makes no sense. Just that they are being realistic and don't want to poke China by contributing to a poll that if everyone else did would possibly upset Beijing, moreover, even if the poll itself (or collection of polls didn't) - they might think that actual official independence is non-viable just on the grounds that any official exploration would upset Beijing. But that still would not change that those people still would ideally support independence.
As I said, you're not going to convince me otherwise of my position that most Taiwanese people would like Taiwan to become an independent country officially, but just not enough that they'd risk being bombed over it. It's not that deep.
I don't see anything to explain. The overwhelmingly popular answers are all about maintaining the status quo, not disrupting it for the sake of pride. Therefore, we should conclude that the status quo is what the Taiwanese people want.
Even the number of people who want to maintain the status quo while moving towards unification is still higher than the number of people who want independence. Because of how popular my position, that of maintaining the status quo is.
WHAT??? Then on what basis are you dismissing their perspectives?
Is that not the whole reason why you're advocating this insane nonsense about security concerns somehow invalidating people's geopolitical perspectives? That if you're only supporting something because you're worried about security threats if the thing is not done, that it's coerced and doesn't represent your "real" preference?
I'm not trying to convince you out of that position. I'm trying to convince you out of the position that "wanting Taiwan to be an independent country, purely as an abstract ideal that you recognize as impractical and are not willing to actually support" somehow makes a person "pro-independence" as opposed to "pro-status quo."
That's not the questions you were asked here. I've also given many explanations as to why the generic 'status quo' is the majority answer here.
Now compare the number of people who want to maintain the status quo while moving towards independence to that.
I'm not. At all. I just explained in the paragraph below the bit here that you chopped out.
They're both.
The number of people who want to maintain the status quo while moving towards independence is higher than the number who want to maintain the status quo while moving towards unification, but lower than those who want to maintain it indefinitely or to a later date, without moving in either direction. All of these perspectives are in line with my position of supporting the status quo, and only fringe numbers, adding up to 5%, support anything else.
They're not "both" those are distinct categories which mean distinct things in this context. You can't simultaneously support mutually exclusive positions.
Is this whole thing because you insist on redefining terms and using confusing, nonstandard definitions?
Sure.
I've never called for Taiwan to stop supporting the status quo either.
I'm telling you that someone who answers 'status quo' to that poll but also wishes Taiwan to be independent officially (as I suspect many do) would be fairly described as supportive of both. And I think a lot of people in Taiwan come under that category.
I've told you. Reply to me, I'll reply back. This will never end.