With what NYT describes as an historic meeting, looking to understand what each side has to fear from the other, and what they can agree on.
What is the question?
He wants to know what each side has to fear from the other, and what they can agree on. I’m sure someone can provide a one or two sentence comprehensive answer to that.
Given that this covers more than six decades of history and many complex issues, let’s move this to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Fears from each other or just fears in general (the paraphrase The Replacements, fear of spiders on the field, coach??)? From each other, I’d say Taiwan fears the mainland taking it over either by proxy or in a military coup and bringing it back into the fold. The mainland (a.k.a. the CCP) fears Taiwan declaring itself independently and thus has put pressure on Taiwan and many other countries to mitigate against this happening.
They can both agree that they are natural trade partners and that having open (or quasi-open) travel between them is generally a good thing (the CCP uses this against Taiwan sometimes, but it’s still probably a net positive). If the main land could get over the whole rebel province thing and stop building military bases with replicas of key Taiwanese installation, stop periodically threatening them with destruction and maybe move some of it’s massed military assets obviously pointed at Taiwan I think that it would be in both nations (or whatever Taiwan is) best interest to get along and trade, have unrestricted travel and tourism and such.
China big. Taiwan small.
From the mainland side, too, it’s a matter of pride.
The history of China is one of ups and downs. When the center is strong, it rules the empire. When the center falls apart and gets weak, the peripheral provinces and protectorates split off on their own, until a new strong central government reasserts control (re-conquers) them.
So the people running things in Beijing are hyper-sensitive to the idea that pieces of traditional China (their definition) should be allowed to split off. It is an insult, suggesting they are a weak central government in decline. (Same dynamic at play in the case of Tibet) This is even more the case following a century and a half of conflict with Europe and Japan where China got the short end of the stick generally, invaded, occupied, forced to concede Hong Kong, Macao, and areas of downtown Shanghai.
Even granting some autonomy to the remote provinces would be a sign of weakness. Presumably, Taiwan is worried they will be taken over by a Beijing attempting to prove its political virility.
Beijing for its part is unwilling to even admit the status quo, preferring to state unequivocally that Taiwan is simply a breakaway province that will be returned to the fold, not a separate country that they must negotiate with as an equal. Heck, even simple books or maps that appear to show Taiwan as a distinct entity will be confiscated in China.
Does the US, or any other significant western power, have an agreement with Taiwan to defend it if it is ever attacked by mainland China? I’m not talking about a gentlemen’s agreement, but a formal defense treaty.
China’s concern is that Taiwan, a renegade province, makes military and trade deals with foreign powers (specifically the US) and provides America with an excuse to maintain a presence off their coast. Also, China has other regions (Xinjiang, Tibet, and the rowdier parts of Hong Kong and Macau) that see Taiwan as a precedent for breaking away from the PRC successfully
Taiwan’s concern is that hardliners in Beijing will use military force to seize lands and monies earned and defended with Taiwanese sweat and blood.
For all the Cold War trappings, there is a lot of business traffic between Taiwan and the mainland.
Last time I was in Taiwan (about 7 years ago) there were no direct flights between Taiwan and China, at China’s opposition. You had to fly through Hong Kong (which is completely out of the way if you want to go from Taipei to Shanghai). There was some discussions to permit direct flights for freer trade between businesses in the two areas. Any changes to this policy from the China standpoint?
ETA: looks like this happened in 2009, with now direct flights happening.
There was this Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of China - Wikipedia from the 1950s through 1979. It was a formal defense treaty.
It was replaced (sorta) with this Taiwan Relations Act - Wikipedia in 1979. Which sets out US attitudes to Taiwan and along the way, the Taiwan vs. PRC controversy. It is more nuanced than a straight “If you are attacked we will defend you to the limits of our abilities” treaty. But it’s still leaning heavily against the PRC’s desire to annex Taiwan by any means necessary, including by force.
Last July, I took a plane from Jinan to Taipei. Actually I was flying to Seattle and had a 24-hour layover in Taipei, but there are indeed direct flights these days. From the Beijing POV, more travel between Taiwan and the mainland supports their view that there is one China.
I don’t think any significant western power even officially recognizes the government of Taiwan.
Sort of. The US has the Taiwan Relations Act which states "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities”. Signing an actual treaty is tricky because officially no one wants to piss off China too much.
In most practical ways Taiwan is treated as a state, theres just a bit of bullshit to keep the prc jerks happy.
Here’s a list. It kind of trails off after the UK and Canada, but little countries make a point of recognizing each other.
That is a link of embassies but still points out that Britain has a consulate and in the “details” points out that the U.K. does not recognize Taiwan as a state. Neither does Canada afaik.
So why China so scared?
No.
Internal unrest and anger if Taiwan should “get away.” Although I still think it would only amount to large-scale protests and dissent.