You can say it’s wrong all you want. But the two governments have both spent several decades in agreement that all of China, both the mainland and Taiwan, is a single country. So it would be the ROC not the PRC that would be announcing a new set of rules.
The issue of how the United States handled the secession crisis in 1860 is really off-topic here and has been discussed in other threads, so let’s leave that aside.
As for China, I suppose it’s a mixture of reasons. Virtually all countries don’t like seeing pieces of themselves break away. China has always had a high sense of national pride and has responded very poorly to diplomatic setbacks. And, as Koxinga noted, there are other regions under direct Chinese control that have secessionist movements. If Beijing quietly allows one region to break away, that could feed these other movements.
I realize that some of this seems silly; Taiwan has obviously been a defacto seperate nation for over fifty years. But sometimes international diplomacy moves nations to pursue unrealistic goals in the face of reality for a long time. The United States didn’t recognize the existence of the People’s Republic of China for thirty years after it took power. We refused to recognize Soviet control of the Baltic republics for over fifty years. We didn’t recognize the Socialist Republic of Vietnam until 1995. We’ve been embargoing Cuba since 1962.
This map shows all the territory claimed by the ROC (except the Spratly and Paracel Islands- another interesting dispute) but administered by the PRC, Mongolia, Russia, India, Bhutan, Myanmar, Japan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, plus the part of the PRC that India insists on.
I said that it is utterly wrong to compare the secession of South Carolina et al with Taiwan’s situation. Regardless of the merits of Beijing’s position vs. Taipei’s, the US Civil War was a completely different situation and people who try to use it as a muddleheaded analogy are fostering ignorance, not combating it.
Koxinga, while the native Taiwanese never had a direct say in the matter, that’s not particularly relevant when viewed through the lens of precedent. [Very few ethnic groups/countries until significantly into the post-WW2 era have had a direct say]. In the modern international framework that has evolved in post WW2, a cornerstone of international law is that territory gained by force can not be legitimized. Again, there are probably more exceptions to this ‘international law’ than there are successful examples.
‘international law’ in quotes because there is in reality no such thing. International law is what the biggest powers/coalition/UN will enforce.
Taiwan, including the DPP still claim the Spratley’s. Chen Shuibian has a planned trip. So, not sure one can make blanket statements about what Taiwan really wants. And of course since a national referendum practically speaking can’t be held, then observers have to infer from the Taiwanese elections.
FWIW, my Taiwanese ‘mother’ that I have kept in contact with for 25+ years is rabidly vocal about kicking out the DPP. This is someone who is a chongli native Taiwanese, personally witnessed her elementary school teachers shot during the 2-28 Incident, fevered supporter and funder of the ‘tangwai’ [name for the DPP in early 1980’s when it was an illegal movement under military law when a strong-arm dictator ran Taiwan.]. I never thought I’d see the day when she would switch. Whether that’s a common sentiment you’re in a better position to comment.
For many of the comments about how this all seems silly. Well, it’s historical real politik with roots in another age colliding with common sense as viewed from the new millenium. China will never ever renounce these intentions. Why would they, when keeping the claims at least in the press is a form of insurance should the opportunity arise to take advantage of them when situations change. That’s just prudent negotiating tactics.
I’ve offered an explanation of why they can be seen as similar. Your position would be more credible if you offered some counter-evidence to support it.
OK, this actually makes a bit of sense to me. They continue to insist that Taiwan is part of the PRC. Should it ever come to pass that there is an opportunity to make it so–without military action, we all hope–then it’s simply action to correct what has been out-of-whack for 60 years. If there had been acknowledgement of reality (Taiwan as a separate political entity) then merging the government of Taiwan back into the PRC would be an act of aggression, even if done peacefully.
I was about to link to the same map from the Strange Maps blog, the same one we got the Nazi Manhattan map from in MPSIMS.