322

Most Taiwanese would defend island against China, poll finds (www.dw.com)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

More than two-thirds of Taiwanese people would be willing to fight off a Chinese invasion of their island, a new survey found. Just over half of respondents believe that the United States would send its military to help.

Most Taiwanese people would be willing to defend their island against a Chinese attack, according to a poll published Wednesday. Most also believe that such an attack is highly unlikely in the next five years.

The poll, commissioned by the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, was released a day before Taiwan's National Day.

Should Beijing attack, 67.8% of the 1,214 people surveyed said they would be "very willing or somewhat willing" to fight in defense of Taiwan; 23.6% said they would not be.

Almost 64% said China's "territorial ambition" in Taiwan represents "a serious threat." At the same time, 61% said it was not likely China would invade soon.

Some 52% of respondents said that they believed key ally the United States would come to their aid in the invent of a Chinese invasion. Yet, only 40% believed that the US would send its navy to "break" a potential blockade.

top 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 50 points 2 months ago

I think generally most people are willing to defend their home against foreign invaders if it is at all realistic/possible. I have heard people say about refugees "Why dont they defend their homes, then they wouldnt have to flee". But this obviously only makes sense if there is a chance of winning. When your enemies are overwhelmingly more powerful and you have no allies, then what is the point in dying for nothing.

With Taiwan they know that they have a decent military and worldwide support. So this makes sense to me.

[-] ours@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

And many flee civil wars which are more complicated than kicking out a foreign invaders.

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 months ago

Yeah good point. When things arent easily sorted into "good" and "bad" then getting people to put together an organized resistance is much much harder.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago

That's when a dehumanized other comes in handy.

[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

A Syrian friend in Turkey once explained to me that Turks (who love playing tough but haven't fought a conventional war since WWI) tell Syrian refugees that they should have stayed and fought... and he'd tell them that no matter how brave you are - and Syrians are in my opinion uniquely brave - "you cannot defeat tanks and aircraft with Kashinkovs. Look at Ukraine, where they have a modern military that is weaker. Look how many left. But Syrians are supposed to fight Russian bombers and Assad's tanks with their hands?"

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 6 points 2 months ago

Of Ukraine is anything to go off of, initial success in repelling the invasion will lead to a nationalistic wave of support, but as the war devolves into grinding attrition with China unable to get a foothold on Taiwan and the Taiwanese unable to do anything about Chinese firepower raining down on critical infrastructure, the population will want to find some sort of peace deal.

[-] btaf45@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

The only 'peace deal' would be surrender. They would be returning the attacks on mainland China. They could easily reach any coastal areas: Shanghai, Canton, Hong Kong etc.

[-] fritobugger2017@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Xiamen, a city with a population of more than 4 million people, is directly across the Strait from Taiwan.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

The US will sink the entire island before China is allowed to occupy it.

[-] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago

I’m willing to defend my home if the people ruling it are worth defending.

[-] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You'd think so, but Europe has some pathetically low numbers for this question, with many countries below 50% and a few in the 30s.

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 months ago

Eh i wouldnt worry about it too much. That number would change very quickly if it came to an actual situation.

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago

Because from 1990-2022, "fight for your country" meant help the US invade some country in the Middle East. No shit no one in Germany or France wants to do that.

[-] bamfic@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago

Err... Taiwan is refugees, who fled China when Mao won the civil war

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 months ago

And how does that have anything to do with the current political siuation mr troll? People declaring independence is a thing that has been happening everywhere since forever. You think the US should be taken back by the British?

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Mainland China has a long history of nearby small islands kicking their ass.

[-] jaschen@lemm.ee 15 points 2 months ago

Today is our National Day, which is the day China(modern day Taiwan) defeated the last emperor (Qing dynasty).

Basically it's our Independence Day.

Most of us are willing to give our lives for our Independence.

[+] AmidFuror@fedia.io -56 points 2 months ago

Typical US hegemony.

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 34 points 2 months ago

Yea sure fella, us hegemony is why China is acting like an imperial douchebag.

That's definitely it..

[-] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 months ago

Taiwan literally exists because the US intervened in the Chinese civil war to protect the retreating KMT.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

That shouldn’t preclude the Taiwanese from the right to self-determination

[+] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml -6 points 2 months ago

Even so, it’s important to understand that the PRC views continued US support of Taiwan as part of a long standing policy to interfere with China’s right to self determination. Remember, the PRC came into existence after China was dominated by foreign powers for the better part of a century. If there is to be a peaceful resolution, as all parties proclaim to want, this perspective can’t be casually dismissed.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

I’d argue that position would hold more water if politicians didn’t need to be approved before running for office in Hong Kong. I think that’s emblematic of how seriously the CCP takes self-determination.

[+] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml -6 points 2 months ago

Hong Kong is actually a perfect example for what I’m talking about. It was a concession China made to the British after losing the first Opium war. As such, it was always going to be a sore spot for the PRC. On top of that, the British only introduced a pretty limited form of democracy to Hong Kong shortly before it was supposed to relinquish control over the territory. The PRC saw this as an attempt by the British to continue interfering with the right for Chinese self determination. They believed the British were intentionally making it more difficult for the PRC to integrate Hong Kong into its existing political structures. After the handover, the PRC took extreme offense at pro democracy protestors using the old colonial flag for Hong Kong. That was because they perceived it as a call for further foreign interference in Chinese affairs.

[-] btaf45@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

On top of that, the British only introduced a pretty limited form of democracy to Hong Kong shortly before it was supposed to relinquish control over the territory

On top of that, the Chinese dictator crushed democracy with military and police force in violation of the unification agreement -- proving 100% it absolutely can not be trusted.

The PRC saw this as an attempt by the British to continue interfering with the right for Chinese self determination.

The Chinese have no rights whatsoever in the PRC regime because the Chinese cannot chose their own leaders and determine their own country's destiny. By "right for Chinese self determination" you actually mean the DICTATOR's right (one single individual!!) to prevent one billion Chinese citizens from running their own country as they see fit.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

I mean yeah the British sucked, but those democracy concessions were hard fought by the people of Hong Kong. I don’t want the big power politics of the crown versus the PRC to distract from the fact that it took people out on the streets to gain it from the British just for them to be snuffed out by Beijing

[-] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 months ago

My point is that Beijing’s policies follow a logic that has been shaped by struggles against foreign powers. Therefore, while you may sympathize with Taiwan and Hong Kong protestors, you shouldn’t assume the PRC is acting in a belligerent or hypocritical manner.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

I don’t think they’re hypocrites, I just don’t think their struggle against their colonial past gives them the right to shut down a democracy. I take the same issue with the Bolshevik takeover of the Soviet councils and the crushing of Kronstadt. Taiwan is a country run by people elected domestically, not a foreign power. They could vote to re-join China if they so chose.

[-] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

Okay but the original comment I was replying to in this thread was pretending as if China’s actions had nothing to do with the US. My point here is to illustrate how that was incorrect. The belief that the PRC is responding to perceived threats from the US when setting policies concerning Taiwan is perfectly reconcilable with the belief that the PRC is a threat to Taiwanese democracy.

[-] btaf45@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Even so, it’s important to understand

That's not the slightest bit important. The Republic of China views the PRC as interfering with China's self determination. The Republic of China gets to choose its own leaders but the PRC is a dictatorship not chosen by the people. That means that the ROC speaks for millions more Chinese than the PRC does.

If there is to be a peaceful resolution,

The only possible terms of reunification would be the end of the Communist dictatorship. In such an event Taipei would likely be the initial temporary capital of a unified China because that's where the experience of democracy is.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

Seems like there's truth to that:

Following the eruption of the Korean War, US President Harry S. Truman dispatched the United States Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent hostilities between the ROC and the PRC. The United States also passed the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty and the Formosa Resolution of 1955, granting substantial foreign aid to the KMT regime between 1951 and 1965. The US foreign aid stabilized prices in Taiwan by 1952. The KMT government instituted many laws and land reforms that it had never effectively enacted on mainland China. Economic development was encouraged by American aid and programs such as the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, which turned the agricultural sector into the basis for later growth. Under the combined stimulus of the land reform and the agricultural development programs, agricultural production increased at an average annual rate of 4 percent from 1952 to 1959. The government also implemented a policy of import substitution industrialization, attempting to produce imported goods domestically. The policy promoted the development of textile, food, and other labor-intensive industries.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan?wprov=sfla1

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago

Explain

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago

You are asking way too much from someone blowing smoke just for the sake of stirring controversy. My guess is the user is both parroting a talking point and doesn't know what hegemony means.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago

Oh, I know. I’m just handing them a shovel to make it easier for them to dig their own hole.

this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024

322 points (96.3% liked)

World News

39347 readers

2234 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world