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)
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.