[Fasces]

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international ... 946_4.html

It was a stinging defeat for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), and the president of Taiwan took note of it: After the announcement of the results on the evening of Saturday, November 26, Tsai Ing-wen resigned from the presidency of the party, although she remains at the head of the country. The DPP, which has governed the island for six years and has a comfortable majority in Parliament, appears to be losing power. The president's strategy, based on linking this local election to national and international issues, has failed: Tsai Ing-wen had described the election as a test to demonstrate "Taiwan's resilience and determination to defend freedom and democracy" in the face of threats from Beijing. Voters were also asked to vote in a referendum on lowering the legal voting age from 20 to 18, a proposal that did not receive enough votes to pass.

The DPP won only five of the cities and counties in the archipelago of 23 million people, its worst performance since its founding in 1986. For its part, the Kuomintang (KMT) won 13 seats, including those in the capital, Taipei, and Taoyuan, another major city in the north of the country. "The election results are not what we expected. [...] I take full responsibility for it and I immediately resign as chair of the Democratic Progressive Party," Tsai Ing-wen told reporters on Saturday.

Domestic politics will consume much of the national agenda in Taiwan in 2023. In January 2024, the island democracy will hold its presidential and legislative elections, which will determine which leader and political party will steer the course of the country’s politics and foreign relations for the next four years. The leader—as well as the party—that wins these consequential races will shape the nation’s policy and play a major role in guiding cross-Strait relations, which in turn could have profound regional and global implications. What are the factors that will influence the outcomes in 2024? Moreover, what are the underlying political attitudes that will determine which leader and party will prevail in 2024?

Although these polls should be viewed as having only marginal predictive value in terms of who will ultimately win the presidential race in 2024, what they do show is that there is no clear front runner among the possible candidates at this time. Moreover, they demonstrate that if the presidential election were to be held tomorrow, the candidate that the KMT chooses could make a significant difference in the party’s chances. For instance, according to these polling figures alone, the party’s decision between Eric Chu and Hou You-yi could potentially make the difference of the party winning or losing in 2024.

KMT performing well in pre-election polls. KMT advocates for peaceful coexistence with China.

China welcomes former Taiwan president’s plan to visit
Ma Ying-jeou will become the first former or current leader of Taiwan to visit China since 1949.

Beijing has welcomed a plan by former Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou of the self-ruled island’s main opposition Kuomintang (KMT) party to visit China.

A Chinese government spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office said officials will provide Ma with any assistance he needs, the state-run Global Times reported on Tuesday. Ma, who led the self-ruled island from 2008 to 2016, plans to visit China from March 27 until April 7, becoming the first former Taiwan leader to visit China since the nationalist government moved to Taipei at the end of the civil war in 1949.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/2 ... n-to-visit

Former Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou visited China late last month, where he met with Song Tao, the director of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In Nanjing, Ma said that Sun Yat-sen’s ideals have been realized in China and Taiwan, while in Wuhan, he proclaimed that Wuhan’s COVID-19 measures have contributed to humanity.

https://thediplomat.com/2023/04/cross-s ... -to-china/

Shanghai, Feb. 13 (CNA) Opposition Kuomintang Vice Chairman Andrew Hsia (夏立言), who is leading a delegation on a visit to China, said Monday in Shanghai that the delegation had achieved the three main goals of its trip and expected more such exchanges in the future.

The three main purposes of the trip were to look after the needs of Taiwanese based in China, convey the problems Chinese regulations have caused SMEs in Taiwan to relevant authorities, and get to know the new Chinese officials in charge of Taiwan affairs, the KMT has said.

https://focustaiwan.tw/cross-strait/202302130012

This was Andrew Hsia's second trip to China in the last year. Approximately half of all Taiwanese foreign workers work and live in China.

The KMT is offering voters a return to the detente of the early 21st century; many Taiwanese are expressing frustration at being used as toy by the American security apparatus, and see themselves as sacrificial lambs in the dispute. Taiwan recently refused an American proposal to destroy fab centers in the event of a conflict with China, with the Taiwanese Foreign Minister vowing that Taiwan would defend itself from the US.

On Monday, Taiwan’s Minister for National Defense, Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正), made a statement about the nation’s territorial integrity. According to the Taiwan News, the Taiwanese minister said that the island’s armed forces would not tolerate any U.S. attempts to destroy TSMC in the event of a war with China. Normally the war of words is heated where Taiwan and China are concerned, but Taiwan and the U.S. are besties, so what is going on?

On the topic of U.S. chip policy and China, Moulton recently told political conference-goers that "the U.S. should make it very clear to the Chinese that if you invade Taiwan, we're going to blow up TSMC.” Openly talking about these policies seems to be frowned upon in Taiwan, as made clear by the Defense Minister Chiu’s statement in response to Taiwan media questioning on Monday.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/taiwa ... -china-war

I am optimistic that a KMT-TPP victory in 2024 would lead to better cross-strait communication and a de-escalation in cross-strait tensions, something that would be welcomed by both Taiwanese and Chinese, as well as the wider Asian region, even as its criticized in some American circles.

[Godstud]

Of course the USA detests any attempt at a detente or cooperation between China and Taiwan. USA foments trouble around the world as a matter of its long-standing foreign policy. China is USA's largest competitor in the world, and its propaganda and manipulations against China are well known.

[senor boogie woogie]

I have lived in China for over twenty years and know a lot about the culture and know that Chinese are very prideful people. Here, having a province sized island of the same people broken away to do their thing is an anathema to China. I honestly think of Mainland China was a Jeffersonian Democracy they would still want Taiwan back.

I think China should just leave it alone. China won, almost every nation on Earth recognizes the PRC and not the ROC. Chinese people also love money and instead of invading the island and having 22 million people hate China with venom, just trade with the island and have cooperation with it. Let Taiwan do its thing. Really in most ways in everyday life, the Mainland and the Island are not that much different. There are very very few Mainlanders who go “Taiwan is free, I want to go there!” This isn’t North and South Korea. I mean, if a Mainlander wants to live in Taiwan, all they need is a price of a ticket and the Taiwanese government allowing them to stay. There are cases if the Mainlander becomes involved in the military or a high echelon in the government there might be a problem, but a Mainlander going there to sell clothes or own a few KFC outlets or whatever, no issue. Hell, there are flights from Mainland to Taiwan every single day.

Sort of feel sorry for Taiwan. They should be allowed to be their own country. Like Canada to the USA, same people, different border. But again, it goes back to Mainland pride, not to mention, Mainland China ran by Communists which makes them sociopaths to a point.

[Godstud]

Correction @senor boogie woogie, Canada and USA are not the same people, despite cultural similarities(there are many differences as well, once you look past the surface). We both have very different histories.

I agree with what you said about China. The problem these days, is most people get their information about China from Western MSM, which is paid to make China look as terrible as possible. I know many people who live and work in China. They do not have horror stories. They have mostly good things to say.

[Rugoz]

KMT performing well in pre-election polls. KMT advocates for peaceful coexistence with China.

The DPP doesn't?

Nobody is threatening violence except China against Taiwan.

Public opinion on the matter hasn't really changed.

I am optimistic that a KMT-TPP victory in 2024 would lead to better cross-strait communication and a de-escalation in cross-strait tensions, something that would be welcomed by both Taiwanese and Chinese, as well as the wider Asian region, even as its criticized in some American circles.

You know what else would de-escalate cross-strait tensions? China stopping its military exercises encircling Taiwan which couldn't signal more openly: We want to fucking invade you.

Correction @senor boogie woogie, Canada and USA are not the same people, despite cultural similarities(there are many differences as well, once you look past the surface). We both have very different histories.

Oh look, Godstud, Canadian and self-declared expert on Taiwan, telling us that Canada deserves to be its own country because Americans and Canadians are "not the same people", while Taiwanse and Chinese are. I mean who else should be the judge in this matter but him?

The problem these days, is most people get their information about China from Western MSM, which is paid to make China look as terrible as possible.

Paid? Really? By whom? Tell us.

I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that China is a hellhole for any journalist with a tiny bit of integrity.

I know many people who live and work in China. They do not have horror stories. They have mostly good things to say.

People had good things to say about Nazi Germany in the 30s as well. After all, most people weren't Jews and could enjoy the Autobahn.

[Rich]

People had good things to say about Nazi Germany in the 30s as well. After all, most people weren't Jews and could enjoy the Autobahn.

if Hitler had planned a future for Germany based on peaceful trade then the Autobahns might have been a good idea But given his militarism, plans for war, the dependence of the German military on the railways, which desperately needed investment and Germany's lack of secure oil supplies, the Autobahn policy was total cretinism.

[Godstud]

Oh look, Godstud, Canadian and self-declared expert on Taiwan, telling us that Canada deserves to be its own country because Americans and Canadians are "not the same people", while Taiwanse and Chinese are. I mean who else should be the judge in this matter but him?

I was not talking about China/Taiwan, so you can check your fake outrage.

Paid? Really? By whom? Tell us.

You're kidding, right?

A 500-million-dollar business! America's state-sponsored anti-China propaganda
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/china-news ... ganda.html

China less of a threat to democracy than the mainstream media
The mainstream press is unashamedly beating the drums of war while deliberately turning away from what is actually happening, economically and politically in the region, writes Dr William Briggs.
https://independentaustralia.net/busine ... edia,17306

I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that China is a hellhole for any journalist with a tiny bit of integrity.

Find me a modern journalist with integrity, first. I haven't seen one that isn't a shill for someone else, in a long time, and the ones who are honest, are labeled as to remove their validity.

People had good things to say about Nazi Germany in the 30s as well. After all, most people weren't Jews and could enjoy the Autobahn.

Irrelevant and stupid comparison. Godwin's Law comes into play.

[Rugoz]

I was not talking about China/Taiwan, so you can check your fake outrage.

Your response implied what I wrote.

You're kidding, right?

A 500-million-dollar business! America's state-sponsored anti-China propaganda
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/china-news ... ganda.html

China less of a threat to democracy than the mainstream media
The mainstream press is unashamedly beating the drums of war while deliberately turning away from what is actually happening, economically and politically in the region, writes Dr William Briggs.
https://independentaustralia.net/busine ... edia,17306

Are YOU kidding? Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe (RFE), and Radio Free Asia (RFA) are US state-run media services. None of them qualify as "mainstream". Luckily the West is not like China, because in that case that's basically all there would be.

The second article says nothing about funding.

Find me a modern journalist with integrity, first. I haven't seen one that isn't a shill for someone else, in a long time, and the ones who are honest, are labeled as to remove their validity.

I know 2 journalists who work at major national newspapers (in my country). They take their work seriously. Maybe you confuse journalists with certain TV personalities.

Irrelevant and stupid comparison. Godwin's Law comes into play.

Not at all irrelevant. I'm simply showing how inane your argument is.

[Fasces]

But again, it goes back to Mainland pride, not to mention, Mainland China ran by Communists which makes them sociopaths to a point.

If the roles were reversed (KMT on the mainland, CPC on Taiwan) the desire for reunification would still be there.

The DPP doesn't?

The DPP supports independence, closer military ties with the USA, imports of weapons systems and other equipment, if not outright stationing of troops.

The KMT supports the One China Policy, cross-strait trade, bilateral discussions with China, closer military ties with the USA, imports of weapons systems and other equipment.

One of these approaches is more conciliatory than the other.

Your own poll shows a majority still support the status-quo. The DPP's rhetoric and close ties with a US in which one major political party actively disregards local interests and calls for a unilateral American recognition of independence is one reason why the KMT and TPP are becoming more popular with Taiwanese voters - they don't want voters in bumblefuck Kansas starting a war.

[Puffer Fish]

Taiwan and Singapore are the only two ethnically Chinese nations outside of China.
Hong Kong used to be a third, until China absorbed it (officially in 1997, and then ramping up in 2019 ).

[skinster]

Hong Kong and Taiwan are in China.

[Deutschmania]

On the subject of the political situation in the Republic of China ( Taiwan) , and how it relates to the matter of Chinese reunification, the Kuomintang does seem to desire one China, only under its own auspices.

The Kuomintang (KMT), or Chinese Nationalist Party, despite being the main opposition party in Taiwan and receiving around 38 percent of the popular vote in the 2020 presidential election, is widely regarded as “pro-China.” In an era in which authoritarian regimes are getting more aggressive, the China-friendly label has caused damage to the KMT’s reputation both at home and abroad.

KMT leaders are well aware of this issue. Yet, no matter who is the party’s chairperson or presidential candidate, they have failed to get rid of this pro-China stigma. This dynamic has confused observers of East Asian politics, and it requires explanation for a better understanding of cross-strait relations.

As with every other political party in the world, a wide spectrum of national identities exist within KMT, and all of them receive different levels of support from party members.

Generally, there are three categories. The first group, led by chairperson Eric Chu, argues that engaging with the United States while maintaining a good relationship with China will make Taiwan safe. The difference between this KMT faction and President Tsai Ing-wen’s cross-strait policy is that Chu and believe sticking to the “1992 Consensus” is the “key” to communicating with Beijing – regardless of the fact that Chinese leader Xi Jinping has declared that the 1992 Consensus means “both sides of the Taiwan Straits belong to one China and will work together toward national reunification.”.... The second group in the KMT has a more pro-mainland stance, asserting that the KMT should keep its distance from the United States in order to not frustrate the Chinese Communist Party. They believe that diplomacy, rather than deterrence, is the way to keep the Taiwan Strait safe. To achieve that goal, proponents like former President Ma Ying-jeou insist the Taiwanese government should explicitly state that it agrees with the 1992 Consensus as the foundation for further communications and cooperation.

This community within the KMT has more popularity than all the others, as it claims to offer another way to achieve peace, while proclaiming that it can perform better than the DPP in terms of economic welfare since they are capable of establishing better economic ties with China.

The last group within the KMT mainly consists of veterans and their descendants and is the least popular subgroup within the party. After having retreated from the mainland in 1949, this group of KMT members are die-hard supporters of reunification with China, as they still regard China as their home. https://thediplomat.com/2023/01/why-taiwans-main-opposition-party-cant-shake-its-pro-china-stance/

The whole of the 1992 Consensus is contentious in Taiwan, from its questionable origins to its fundamental contradictions. The 1992 Consensus was first officially advanced by that name under the KMT’s Ma Ying-jeou, Taiwan’s president from 2008 to 2016, with Ma continuously crediting his recognition of the 1992 Consensus for bringing about the period of cross-strait rapprochement during his presidency. The consensus was supposedly born of a 1992 Hong Kong meeting between the KMT and CCP through semi-official channels, during which time the two sides reportedly struggled to determine a mutually acceptable foundation off which cross-strait negotiations and agreements would be based. In the aftermath, the two sides only reached an oral agreement to state their respective, divergent views. The actual term, “1992 Consensus,” was not coined until April 2000, though the Ma administration insisted that the “content” of the 1992 Consensus—in each side holding its own interpretation—has endured since the meeting, even if the formal appellation came only afterward.

In essence, the 1992 Consensus endured during the Ma years as a tacit agreement between the KMT and the CCP, grounded in the understanding that there is one China and Taiwan is a part of that China. For China, it stops there—in line with the tenets of its “One China” principle. For the KMT, the “1992 Consensus” is caveated with the phrase “One China, respective interpretations,” holding that when Beijing says “China” it means the CCP-led People’s Republic of China and when Taipei says “China” it means the Republic of China government that fled to the island of Taiwan during the Chinese Civil War.

Until recently, Beijing has been careful in not only avoiding explicit acknowledgement of “respective interpretations” but also not refuting it. This approach allowed the two sides to operate in a gray zone of sorts between 2008 and 2016, while keeping a window open for plausible deniability on the part of Beijing, as well as latitude to redefine the 1992 Consensus if needed. That time may have now come. Signs out of China have suggested that Beijing may be moving to shift the acceptable parameters of the 1992 Consensus to be more in line with its own views and may no longer tolerate the “respective interpretations” the KMT espouses. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/11/taiwan-opposition-kuomintang-kmt-pro-china-1992-consensus/

From the standpoint of the Communist Party of China however, Taiwan must be reclaimed , and then afforded the same sort of status that autonomous regions such as Hong Kong currently exist under.

Peaceful reunification and “one country, two systems” will remain the Chinese government’s basic principles for resolving the Taiwan question.

The basic propositions of one country, two systems are as follows. First, there is only one China in the world. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. One Country is the precondition and basis for two systems; Two systems is subordinate to and derived from one country; The two are inseparable under the one-China principle.

Second, after peaceful reunification, Taiwan may continue its current social system and enjoy a high degree of autonomy in accordance with the law. The two social systems will coexist and develop side by side for a long time to come.

Third, provided that China's sovereignty, security and development interests are safeguarded, Taiwan after reunification will enjoy a high degree of autonomy as a special administrative region. Taiwan's social system and its way of life will be fully respected, and the private property, religious beliefs, and lawful rights and interests of the people on Taiwan will be fully protected.

Foreign countries can continue to develop economic and cultural relations with Taiwan. With the approval of the central government of China, they may set up consulates or other official and quasi-official institutions in Taiwan, international organizations and agencies may establish offices on Taiwan.

In the 1920s, a well-known Chinese scholar wrote a series of seven poems, likening China to a mother and the seven cities or islands that were lost to foreign aggressors to her seven sons. In each of the poems, a son would express his sufferings due to forced separation from his beloved mother. All the poems ended with the same line, “O Mother, I must come back to you.” 

By now six of the seven sons have long been reunited with their mother. Taiwan as the seventh wanderer will come back, too, one day, hopefully in the not too distant future. http://bs.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/sgxw/202209/t20220928_10773672.htm

And furthermore the KMT has officially removed from its party platform the plank calling for eventual reunification with the mainland.

Taiwan’s opposition Kuomintang has pulled a pro-unification plank from the party’s platform, a move analysts say is certain to rile Beijing.
In a vote reportedly orchestrated by new KMT leader Wu Den-yih on Sunday, the party’s national congress approved removal of calls for a peace treaty with the mainland before eventual reunification, an idea introduced by Wu’s predecessor Hung Hsiu-chu.
The congress also reinstated a long-standing definition of the “1992 consensus” which acknowledges that there is only one China, but either side can have its own interpretation of what that China stands for.
The revised KMT platform also calls for opposition to Taiwanese independence and maintains the status of “no unification and no use of force”. The consensus is an understanding made by KMT and mainland negotiators in 1992 to head off political differences in order to return to talks.
Former Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou of the KMT used this “one China, two interpretations” model to engage Beijing, leading to eight years of warming cross-strait relations during his two terms as president from 2008.
But the KMT’s failure at the polls in 2016 convinced Beijing that the approach was not sustainable, analysts say.
After she became party leader last year, Hung shifted focus away from the “two interpretations” part of the strategy and concentrated on the “one China” element. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2107662/kmt-pulls-pro-unification-plank-party-platform

P.S. On the historical analogy between America and China made by @senor boogie woogie and contested by @Godstud , I actually agree more so with @senor boogie woogie on this issue. In the past, throughout our shared history there had been periods of contention between the United States of America, and British North America (Canada). This had been the case ever since the American Revolutionary War , which going by how Canadian school children are taught about it, it would seem that the so called Patriot side were comparable in character to the Viet Cong . Such bad blood had contributed to mutual distrust between the two Americas . And indeed, although it is not widely known, even in the 20th Century , there had been respective plans by each military for an invasion of the other nation state. Along the lines of what @senor boogie woogie mentioned, it was only after our economies ended up becoming more integrated that hostility has seemingly been resolved. This is how I believe that the strife between the PRC and the ROC could also be resolved, longstanding political differences aside. “When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.”
― Frederic Bastiat

[Deutschmania]

Your response implied what I wrote.



Are YOU kidding? Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe (RFE), and Radio Free Asia (RFA) are US state-run media services. None of them qualify as "mainstream". Luckily the West is not like China, because in that case that's basically all there would be.

The second article says nothing about funding.



I know 2 journalists who work at major national newspapers (in my country). They take their work seriously. Maybe you confuse journalists with certain TV personalities.



Not at all irrelevant. I'm simply showing how inane your argument is.

The United States Central Intelligence Agency has had extensive involvement in colluding with ostensibly independent news media, since Operation Mockingbird , until the present time. Press freedom in the United States is largely illusionary. https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-national-security-state-manipulates-news-media , https://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-stone-10-20-1977 , https://mronline.org/2021/04/28/the-cia-used-to-infiltrate-the-media-now-the-cia-is-the-media/

[Fasces]

Along the lines of what @senor boogie woogie mentioned, it was only after our economies ended up becoming more integrated that hostility has seemingly been resolved. This is how I believe that the strife between the PRC and the ROC could also be resolved, longstanding political differences aside. “When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.”

Which is exactly the perspective of both the CPC and the KMT on regards on the Taiwan question - they both are optimistic that a peaceful reunification is possible; whether the CPC absorbing Taiwan after sufficient economic interdependence; or the KMT believing that enough economic development on the mainland will lead to the same conditions that led to the democratization of Taiwan.

When the DPP bans its own engineers from accepting jobs in China at the behest of the US, or when the US forces Taiwan to import American goods instead of cheaper and safer Taiwanese alternatives in exchange for weapons, it is trying to prevent that economic interdependence from occurring and driving a further schism between the mainland and the island, to the detriment of both.

[Rugoz]

The United States Central Intelligence Agency has had extensive involvement in colluding with ostensibly independent news media, since Operation Mockingbird , until the present time. Press freedom in the United States is largely illusionary. https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-national-security-state-manipulates-news-media , https://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-stone-10-20-1977 , https://mronline.org/2021/04/28/the-cia-used-to-infiltrate-the-media-now-the-cia-is-the-media/

Conspiracy crap.

Which is exactly the perspective of both the CPC and the KMT on regards on the Taiwan question - they both are optimistic that a peaceful reunification is possible; whether the CPC absorbing Taiwan after sufficient economic interdependence; or the KMT believing that enough economic development on the mainland will lead to the same conditions that led to the democratization of Taiwan.

If the KMT is optimistic about the democratization of China, it's delusional.

When the DPP bans its own engineers from accepting jobs in China at the behest of the US, or when the US forces Taiwan to import American goods instead of cheaper and safer Taiwanese alternatives in exchange for weapons, it is trying to prevent that economic interdependence from occurring and driving a further schism between the mainland and the island, to the detriment of both.

You mean the DPP wants Taiwan to be economically less dependent on the country that plans to invade Taiwan? Insane, right? It must clearly be at the behest of the US.

[Fasces]

If the KMT is optimistic about the democratization of China, it's delusional.

Then don't vote for them.

In any case, the Taiwanese should make the decision for themselves, not forced into a war by a bunch of neocon voters across the world.

the country that plans to invade Taiwan?

China does not want to invade Taiwan, at this time. China may feel forced into invading Taiwan, but if the KMT wins the upcoming elections, a return to early millennium détente is entirely realistic.

The DPP is pushing a conflict more likely by risking confrontation on two red lines that will start a war that China does not want - the hosting of US troops/a US military base; or a declaration of independence.

Absent these two, neither I, nor China, nor Taiwan, nor the US see an invasion or blockade as a likely outcome. Read their white papers. The biggest risk of war breaking out is some accident in the Taiwan Strait caused by US and Chinese ships, not an invasion.

Now, while the presence of DPP radicals are a problem, the current leading DPP candidates are rejecting policies that would push toward those red lines, and even rethinking aspects of their strategic relationship with the US as the US seeks to decimate Taiwan's semi-conducter security. They're walking back toward the island consensus of maintaining the status quo, and not escalating the issue. The real issue in this election is less the China policy, as a result, than the DPP's failing domestic program. But the real possibility of a KMT-TPP victory will lead to a significant shift in Taiwanese foreign policy regardless, because of the absence of the anti-Chinese radicals within the party, and can lead to a reduction of tensions in the strait.

[Fasces]

he DPP wants Taiwan to be economically less dependent on the country that plans to invade Taiwan? Insane, right? It must clearly be at the behest of the US.

I mentioned two specific policies that were at the behest of the US.

1) The ban on persons working in engineering or semi-conductor related industries from accepting jobs for Chinese companies or in China, regardless of pay.

2) Demanding that Taiwan switch from importing food from China and other Asian countries to buying American food exports to replace US trade lost in the Trump's tariff war.

Both of these were done entirely at the behest of the US.

[Neo]

@Fasces

Chinese leaders are manipulating Chinese nationalist sentiment to launch China into a disastrous and costly war in a quest to invade Taiwan and nobody is going to win. As I have already stated, this is all about controlling those waterways in the South China Sea and projecting power into the Pacific. Those waterways in the South China Sea are about money where trillions of dollars in trade and fishing are at stake. Don't be naive and think it's not about money and trade because it is. No government, including the Chinese government, will just come out and admit that to their own people. No siree, they are going to manipulate their people by appealing to nationalist sentiment to con them into the stupidity of war.

[Fasces]

Chinese leaders are manipulating Chinese nationalist sentiment to launch China into a disastrous and costly war in a quest to invade Taiwan and nobody is going to win.

Hawaii is a strategic and economic asset to the US in a similar way as Taiwan is to China, but it is insane to suggest that if it were occupied by a foreign power or some secessionist movement that the overriding concern on the minds of most Americans and American leaders would be maintaining a strategic asset and not more abstract ideals about "America" and "union". Do you believe otherwise, in the case of Hawaii?

It could even be an empty and worthless atoll in the Aleutians - ask yourself: would the US let it go?

[Neo]

@Fasces

This is not the same thing. Hawaii has been governed directly by the U.S. government for a long time and is represented in Congress and has a vote and a say in how they are governed from Washington. Taiwan has never been governed by the Chinese government. Nor do the Taiwanese have any desire to come under the control of an authoritarian Chinese government where they would have no say in the Chinese government. Just look at Hong Kong.

People in Hong Kong are not happy and are not represented in Beijing nor do they have any say in how they are governed. If China were to get rid of its authoritarian government, then it might be willing to reunify with China. But those in power in Bejing do not wish to give up their authoritarian rule and allow free and fair elections in their own borders.

Taiwan and the Chinese government both know that the authoritarian rulers of China have no desire to give up absolute power and have no desire to allow Taiwan to have a real say in the Chinese government or how they are governed. So, the Chinese government has opted to use force to force their authoritarian government upon Taiwan against its will. And force them to accept authoritarian rule where they have no real freedom or real right to vote or say so in any hypothetical Chinese government against their will.

Just accept being chained up or will pulverize you is what the Chinese government is telling Taiwan, that way we can use you to take control of trillion-dollar South China Sea trade routes and project power out to the Pacific.