Is Taiwan Next?

August 13, 2021 10:15 PM

"Nancy had given up her career to help Hong Kongers in exile. She wanted to protect Taiwan’s own nascent democracy, but she wasn’t sure where that had really gotten her. Still, she was happy she had." In Taipei, young people watched as the Hong Kong protests were brutally extinguished. Now they wonder what’s in their future. [NYT]
posted by blue shadows (19 comments total)

Here is archive.org's save of this article.
posted by taz at 12:22 AM on August 14, 2021 [2 favorites]

Thank you for posting this - it was very moving to read as someone living in Hong Kong, to see that we aren't always just another headline or news segment to some of our neighbours. Taiwan is a greener, freer, more relaxed version of what we have achieved here, even though like any society it's not perfect. The sense of Hong Kong being slowly suffocated is very real, and it is prompting an exodus. If you'd like to know more, check these out:

- This episode of Hong Kong Connection from March 2021 (Cantonese/English/Mandarin, English subtitles, 23:07) called "Not One Less" (a reference to a protest slogan) shows one family making the decision to migrate to Taiwan.

- This brief piece (English, ~15 minutes; transcript here) from episode 740 of This American Life features Karen Cheung, a local writer, talking about the struggles Hong Kongers are going through in deciding when, or even whether, to stay or go.

- During her reelection campaign in early 2020, as the article in the post mentions, there was an ad by the eventual winner, Tsai Ing-wen's Democratic People's Party, using real images from the Hong Kong protests. (YouTube, Mandarin with English closed-captions, 3:10; article about the ad in English here; some disturbing depictions of violence). This was released six months before the imposition of the National Security Law in Hong Kong.
posted by mdonley at 12:58 AM on August 14, 2021 [12 favorites]

The problem with Hong Kong is its proximity to China...

Taiwan, at least, is across the Taiwan strait.

The problem basically consists of almost diametrically opposed views of KMT vs DPP

KMT: We know China is big and can crush us in a flash before US can intervene. We are trying not to provoke the dragon and continue to status quo, despite our history as the "foreigners" arriving in Taiwan and took over the whole place and supposedly holding on to the label Republic of China.

DPP: We don't care about any of that. Taiwan belongs to Taiwanese! We used to be suppressed by KMT but no longer. Democracy rules!

The problem with "Taiwan for Taiwanese" is China has NEVER abandoned its claim on Taiwan, and has always called it a "rogue province". That means China can NEVER accept what DPP proposed. And I think some people in DPP recognizes that, but can't really say it out loud lest they be labeled as traitors. If DPP hardliners took over and actually tried to pass the resolution to declare independence, that may actually trigger the invasion by China.

The pressure by China also sort of forced KMT into the odd position of agreeing with China and try to keep the status quo as long as possible.

I don't know what will happen in a few years. I expect the status quo to continue, as neither side wanted things to change. DPP knew their position is untenable so it's mostly rhetoric, while KMT try not to look TOO sympathetic and kowtowing to China. It's a very delicate balance. Will Taiwan really go the way of Hong Kong, having its freedom crushed? Not for a few years at least. Sure, there are probably plenty of Chinese agents in Taiwan, but not like an "army" of plain-clothed public security agents that can disappear people off streets of Hong Kong, and do it all "legally".
posted by kschang at 5:23 AM on August 14, 2021 [3 favorites]

Well worth the read.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:51 AM on August 14, 2021

In high school and college, I had several friends who were kids of Taiwanese folks in quasi-exile after having been vehemently pro-Taiwanese vs the KMT, and after various forms of harassment decided to leave to the States, so in the interests of transparency, I'm strongly on the DPP side, at least philosophically.

My read on the situation right now is that Xi's crackdown of Hong Kong was precisely the kind of strategic error that happens when a person secures "President for Life" status -- it paradoxically makes them less able to make effective strategic decisions about the long term because the combination of the burgeoning cult of personality around Xi and the tendency toward cooking the books to get in Xi's good graces meant that the Big Symbolic Win ruled the day in HK rather than the party biding its time and using Hong Kong as the lure for Taiwanese annexation.

Had the party stuck to its commitment of One Party Two systems longer and could demonstrate that they really meant that they wouldn't interfere (much) before 2047 and played up a grand vision of "One Country, Three Systems" to bring Taiwan into the fold, the politics of Taiwan would have made reunification very, very likely, after which point, of course, I'm confident the screws would've been turned anyway.

Rather than allowing a hands-off approach to HK (even through pro-Democracy activism) demonstrating to Taiwan that Beijing could be trusted (for now), with peaceful unification not just on the table but increasingly likely, the impatience of a personality-cult driven dictatorship secure in political terms but insecure in "management culture" terms now means that the most likely outcome now is blockade and invasion rather than voluntary unification.
posted by tclark at 7:38 AM on August 14, 2021 [8 favorites]

Is there any way to use the "listen to this article" feature without a subscription?
posted by aniola at 9:10 AM on August 14, 2021

My read on the situation right now is that Xi's crackdown of Hong Kong was precisely the kind of strategic error that happens when a person secures "President for Life" status -- it paradoxically makes them less able to make effective strategic decisions about the long term because the combination of the burgeoning cult of personality around Xi and the tendency toward cooking the books to get in Xi's good graces meant that the Big Symbolic Win ruled the day in HK rather than the party biding its time and using Hong Kong as the lure for Taiwanese annexation.

That's assuming there's an option that was having the cake of pretending Hong Kong is a democracy while eating it too by having the citizens of Shenzhen, Dongguan, and Guangzhou not starting to wonder why the people across the bay get to choose their leaders.

The thing about enlightenment principles is that they spread when people realize how they can improve things. People get ideas. Two systems is great until the people stuck with the shittier system figure it out. With the hand back of Hong Kong and the border becoming more and more porous to both people and information, more people are starting to think that edicts from on high might not be the best way to run things. For the CCP that means strangling democracy in the crib asap which is why I think they're going so desperately hard on HK.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:36 AM on August 14, 2021 [1 favorite]

That's assuming there's an option that was having the cake of pretending Hong Kong is a democracy while eating it too by having the citizens of Shenzhen, Dongguan, and Guangzhou not starting to wonder why the people across the bay get to choose their leaders.

It worked for 23 years so far, and I believe it was a function of material prosperity in the regions around HK. I think the evidence shows that the polity doesn't care all that much about democracy if prosperity is maintained. A light hand on HK politics would not have been a major change in the status quo, and in all honesty, I think an annexation of Taiwan would not have taken until 2047 in any case. "Strangling democracy in the crib" to me doesn't wash with 23+ years of a relatively light touch. The activist movement in HK has, as far as I'm aware, grown in lockstep with increasing meddling from Beijing, not of its own accord, and dissatisfaction in the Guangzhou greater region was a function of local material standard of living.

I really think that had Xi and his cronies kept their eye on the ball for a while longer (I would guess less than a decade), Taiwan might well have formally reunified, and then they really could do what they will.
posted by tclark at 10:14 AM on August 14, 2021 [1 favorite]

That's assuming there's an option that was having the cake of pretending Hong Kong is a democracy while eating it too by having the citizens of Shenzhen, Dongguan, and Guangzhou not starting to wonder why the people across the bay get to choose their leaders.

Anecdotal, but I know a lot of mainlanders and I think the CCP could have kept this up for decades. There are mainland Chinese expats living in democratic countries everywhere and the vast majority are not revolution-minded. And most HKers themselves, while skeptical of Beijing, are not interested in exporting democracy to the mainland. Actually, every mass movement in HK since the handover (2003, 2014, 2019) has been a reaction to perceived encroachment by Beijing.

The smart thing for Beijing to have done with the last round of HK protests would have been to walk back the extradition bill immediately and say, oh, we're not abandoning it but we're going to rethink it, go through rounds and rounds of unexciting revision, then let it quietly pass in obscurity. Instead, they dug in their heels and caused an explosion.

I mean, if I were the boss of the CCP, my strategy would be to neuter political unrest with the power of sheer boredom. You want change, OK, you have to go through approvals with 10 million subcommittees. Transform activists from sexy revolutionaries facing off riot police to pedantic paper pushers, or even better, overly earnest weirdos. Trust in the soft power of China to make the mainland an attractive place to live. Like, you guys won! You rule all of China! The people tolerate you! Chill.
posted by airmail at 10:45 AM on August 14, 2021 [4 favorites]

China has never taken any province or country that has real weapons.
posted by rmmcclay at 6:19 PM on August 14, 2021

FWIW, there's a news story about a dissident's wife was picked up by Chinese security agents in Dubai (UAE) with consent from local law and dumped into a black site. She was apparently interrogated for two days and forced to sign confessions against her mate. She's now fleeing to Europe
posted by kschang at 5:32 AM on August 17, 2021

Dear Author,

I am a Taiwanese. Politics is one of my focus, and so Probably I could offer some of my perspectives.

Firstly, I did watch the protest as it is going aggressive, and most of the young people were discussing "Whether Taiwan will be next?"

However, This question has the assumption that " Taiwan is part of China." The truth is that Taiwan is never part of China!!

Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997, but remain autonomy to a certain degree. However, the sovereignty of Taiwan is still not clear and Taiwan has never been governed by China government (Communist) ever never.

So definitely, the China government will not treat the Taiwan issue as did Hong Kong. They have legitimacy to take back Hong Kong, but not Taiwan. According to the reality they could only take away Taiwan by military force., which unlikely to happen due to many political reasons.

The above is my humble opinion.
posted by David Brian at 2:00 AM on August 26, 2021 [1 favorite]

If Taiwan was never a part of China, how did the Qing Dynasty cede it to Japan by treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895?
posted by kschang at 12:21 PM on August 26, 2021

For this question, there is a need to clarify what is "China"?

Indeed Qing Dynasty cedes Taiwan to Japan. However, after World world 2.

Japan return Taiwan to the "Republic of China," which is the current nationality of Taiwan.

Taiwan is never a country name, but the Republic of China is. I think this information is usually missing and sometimes confuse foreigners due to the nature of complexity.

Please note that China's current government is "The People's republic of China," led by the communist.

Taiwan is a democratic institution instead.

So, "the current China government" has never owned Taiwan. Not to mention the first country who colonized the Taiwan is Spanish not the the han people.

Hope my humble opinion can help.
posted by David Brian at 6:57 PM on August 26, 2021

Actually...

>Japan return Taiwan to the "Republic of China"

Is actually a myth.

Taiwan was mentioned as a part of Cairo Declaration (1943), but it wasn't a treaty and was never signed or ratified.

Japan did cede Taiwan and other territories to the Allies as a part of instrument of surrender signing. The territory was put under control of ROC government by UN. But sovereignty was not mentioned.

Taiwan was mentioned again in San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951) and Treaty of Taipei (1952) where Japan formally renounced territorial sovereignty fo Taiwan. However, SFPT was not attended by EITHER ROC or PROC. So a year later Japan signed Treaty of Taipei with ROC where Japan renounced all claim regarding Taiwan and various islands.

There was no explicit transfer of sovereignty. EVER.

Later, Japanese high court concluded in 1980 that since Japan has a "Japan_China Joint Communique" with PROC in 1972, the Treaty of Taipei should "lose its significance" as per Wikipedia.
posted by kschang at 8:32 PM on August 26, 2021

Dear,

Your discourse is interesting. I couldn't deny it that the transfer of sovereignty is unclear.

I read an article regarding this idea before, and It is known as " Taiwan's issue is Sovereignty inconclusive.

But I would like to focus on the nature of International relations theory, the concept of de facto. At the time, the ROC's army indeed took back Taiwan from the Japanese and was in charge of Taiwan's society in every aspect. PROC was never a government in 1945. It is until 1949 when they won the civil war and control mainland China. They had started their country. Please notes that at that moment, ROC is still in the United Nations. Not many countries recognized PROC! If say so, why PROC owns Taiwan? So, if the treaty and law can not provide a solid foundation. We should focus more on the history and the de facto concept.

This is my opinion. But welcome more discussion.
posted by David Brian at 11:53 PM on August 26, 2021

>ROC's army indeed took back Taiwan from the Japanese

Nope. 170K Japanese troops were in Formosa by end of WW2. First Allied personnel (of USArmy and members of Generalissimo's "investigators" (read: Secret Police)) arrived in Formosa by 1-Sep 1945, followed by personnel from the US OSS, then with the grave registration bureau's people looking to repatriate allied POWs and the deceased. No Nationalist Army units actually invaded Formosa in WW2 as a public battle. In fact, ROC forces did not arrive until 15-OCT-1945, two full divisions, and indeed, had to be threatened by US commanders to disembark (allegedly due to cowardice)

There is no easy answer to Taiwan's sovereignty, except for ROC having "de facto" control over Taiwan. Though the idea that because PROC was founded after WW2 and therefore is "not China" is frankly a pretty ludicrous idea.
posted by kschang at 6:12 AM on August 27, 2021

I don't think so.

Since the United Start war against the Japanese in 1942, the Chiang Kai-shek in ROC was formally regarded as the formal representative of the Asia Area. And When Japan gave up, they were ordered by MacArthur on Sep 2 in 1945, to surrender to ROC, the troop of Chiang Kai-shek. It doesn't matter who comes first. It's about who is the Japanese surrender to. Indeed, the Japanese didn't say the exact word " surrender to ROC because of the fact they don't want to admit they lose to China. It is still undeniable true.

If insist on the treaty and law, Taiwan is probably still part of Japan or the United States. The reason why we told Taiwan is never part of China. There is a concept that ROC is different form PROC. Again, PROC has never owned Taiwan before, and If we go to the broader idea of China, in the constitutional law of ROC, Taiwan is part of China indeed because we are the master of China. ROC is the authentic China instead of PROC. On this basis, we would agree that we are part of "China." Unfortunately, few people would cite international law to defend themselves because history and treaty law are difficult to explain Taiwan Issue. What de facto is a matter in understanding Taiwan's issue.

Taiwan used to be governed by Dutch, Spanish, and Qing Dynasty, and Japanese. If you say Taiwan was ever part of China, I would say Yes. But one thing is for sure, Taiwan has never been part of the People's republic of China, EVER.
posted by David Brian at 7:04 AM on August 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

Your argument basically can be summarized as "PROC is not China as it existed at the end of WW2, therefore it could have ZERO claim on Taiwan/Formosa for eternity".

Nations come and go. Its territories can gain or shrink by treaty or election or force. The idea you need to be present at a certain time to be eligible is frankly a strange concept in geopolitics.

But we have been drifting away from the original topic for a while.
posted by kschang at 11:42 AM on August 27, 2021 [1 favorite]