China launched its most extensive war games around Taiwan on Monday to showcase Beijing’s ability to cut off the island from outside support in a conflict, testing Taipei’s resolve to defend itself and its arsenal of U.S.-made weapons.
The Eastern Theatre Command said it had deployed troops, warships, fighter jets and artillery for its “Justice Mission 2025” exercises to encircle the democratically governed island, conduct live fire and simulated strikes on land and sea targets, and drills to blockade Taiwan’s main ports.
The live-firing exercises will continue on Tuesday across a record seven zones designated by China’s Maritime Safety Administration, making the drills the largest to date by total coverage and in areas closer to Taiwan than previous exercises. The military had initially said artillery firing would be confined to five zones.
You missed my point. Regarding the HRE, the point wasn’t that it’s sole histotical original location was the Holy See but rather that it is one of the few remaining city-states in the world. Regarding the Ottoman empire, the people were Turks but they were organized into various tribes, many of whom were nomadic or being displaced by conflict with e.g. the Mongols. A specific tribe which had settled down for about a century was not the entire Turkic nation, and no one would call their 150-year settlement a nation-state. They became the Ottoman Empire around the time they took Constantinople, and did not establish a Westphalian nation-state, so the idea that the modern nation-state of Turkey would be the same state as The Ottoman Empire doesn’t make sense. I agree that saying the Ottoman empire is equivalent with the a city-state located in Instanbul is not correct. My point was that your questions have answers that can be distilled from analyzing history. Should the nature of society collapse back to city-states, along with all the conquest-driven empire building, I think a city-state in Instanbul could claim inheritance to the Ottoman Empire, given a bunch of other conditions, and I think other city-states and their empires would likely recognize them.
Regarding China - you are correct, it is not a nation-state in the narrowest definition of the word as used by the Westphalian system as it was originally articulated. But by the same standard the US is not nation-state, nor is Canada, nor is any country in the Western hemisphere except maybe Haiti. So while you are technically correct about a very specific narrow definition of China’s status as a nation-state, you are fundamentally incorrect that it does not participate in the social construction of nation-statehood. It is a nation-state in the same way the the US, Russia, and India are nation states, despite them not actually meeting the exact criteria of a nation-state in the strictest sense of the word. This is important because international “law” and relations does not see a mechnical difference between a nation-state and a civilization-state, nor between a nation-state and a settler colonial state, nor between a nation-state and a plurinational-state. Maybe one day the world will operate differently regarding these things, and if it does I would assume the claims of China as a civilization state would carry significantly more international weight than the claims of the settler colonies in the US, Canada, Australia, etc.
Hmm. This is a tangled mess of a sentence. Nation-states are quite socialist. Lenin’s work on the national question is very socialist. The idea of national self-determination, that is the self-determination of a nation of people not of a nation-state, is quite foundational to socialist politics. Nation-states are a clear mechanism for national self-determination in the current global order.
The CPC has been keen to avoid the narrative of being a nation-state, that’s true, because they are working on a narrative that is older than most of the systems that invented the nation-state system. But Europeans conquered the globe and this is the system China finds itself in. It has very few claims if it is not recognized as a nation-state (however inaccurate) by the majority of the world’s governments. From the lens of the European governments and the UN, China is a nation, and it is a nation-state, and they deal with it on those terms. The Han on the island of Taiwan are not a distinct nation from China and the government of the island of Taiwan claims to be the same nation-state that the government of the mainland claims to be. There is only one nation-state, from the perspective of the North Atlantic world order, that is being claimed by both parties. There are not claims of the existence of 2 distinct nation-states (again, of the form understood by the current North Atlantic world order) except by Western chauvinistic citizens with no power except to rage at the immorality of others to avoid the immorality they are a part of.
If nation-state talks sounds nationalistic and imperialist, it’s because it comes from the European nationalistic imperialism that has been subjugating the world for the last 600 years and subjugated 80% of the world’s population at its height. We’re still coming down from that. Decolonizing, as it were. Part of that is refusing to play into the hands of the imperialist North Atlantic on the topic of Taiwan. And not for nothing, it seems clear that both the leaders in Beijing and the leaders in Taipei understand this which is why they are using the language they are and why they are making the claims they are and why they are NOT doing many of the things Westerners think they are doing or should be doing.
Nation-states are nationalist/imperialist in nature because they often violate the concept of self-determination. It is by definition the amalgamation of various similar cultures and peoples by enforcing a shared identity (and making those who don’t conform to it do so anyway). The Taiwanese population does not want to be ruled by the PRC for example, yet the PRC claims legitimate governance over the island anyway based on these nationalist claims. Similarly, the Spanish suppress the Catalan identity, the French assimilated the Bretons and the Alsatians, etc… It is this enforced unification of people that is not a very socialist viewpoint, people should want to unify on their own accord.
Yes, and it is this enforced unification that Lenin specifically addressed in the socialist context. The Catalan are a nation. The Bretons and Alsatians are nations.
The Han Chinese of Taiwan are not a nation unto themselves. The concept of Taiwanese identity was manufactured around the same time the Hong Konger identity was manufactured. Both were manufactured around the time the Brits and Americans realized that they couldn’t keep running the world with direct subjugation. Hong Kong and Taiwan got democracy within a year of each other. Would seem like an interesting connection until you realize they’re both under the deep influence of the UK and US. Taiwanese is not a nationality nor is it an ethnicity. There is a nation on the island of Taiwan. They are indigenous to the island. There is no conversation about that nation claiming sovereignty over the island.
Regardless of whether you think they are nations, they do apparently consider themselves one. And the right to self-determination does suggest the CPC should stay out. You can argue all about how it came to be this way, but ultimately it’s irrelevant; it’s there to now, so acting militarily against these people is an injustice.
Sorry, “who” considers themselves a nation? The Han Chinese living on the island of Taiwan. No. I don’t think you’ll find that opinion to be very popular nor very defensible. You wouldn’t say New Yorkers consider themselves a nation just because they have developed an identity called “New Yorker”. The Hong Konger identity is not a national one. Nor is the Taiwanese identity.
The right to self-determination suggests that the CPC should give nations the right to secede through a popular voting mechanism. That would be the nation of Tibet and the nation of Xinjiang. Taiwan, not being a nation, does not have a special status that would allow it to secede. Further, as a protectorate of the US and Britain, it would not be independent and self-determined much like Iran was not independent self-determined after the US overthrew their democratically elected government.
How it came about is precisely as relevant as the discussion of Israel’s claim to the land, why Palestine isn’t considered a nation-state today, why the US prison system incarcerated black people at higher rates than white people, why wealth is distributed the way it is, etc.
I know Americans like to argue that history doesn’t matter, but let me tell you about how that came about - America was founded by genocidaires who literally prayed thanksgivings to their God after slaughtering entire villages of the native inhabitants of the land, then built the entire country through mass slave labor, which was not merely kidnapping but also forced breeding programs. As late as 1980 they were forcibly removing the culture from indigenous children in brutal boarding schools. As late as 1970 they were forcibly sterilizing black and brown women by removing their uteruses. They are so misogynistic that a doctor invented a way to lobotomize women with an ice pick through their eye socket which “didn’t mar their pretty faces” so they would stop resisting their husbands.
I know you want to say history doesn’t matter, but it does. You can keep saying it, but it won’t make it true. And you don’t live like it’s true either. Your claims to what you own, the lands you walk on, the freedom of movement you have and where you have, those are all historical in nature. You don’t imagine that you have to reassert your claims to the public park system in your city every few years, do you?
Also, an increasingly large group of people there consider themselves Taiwanese first, Chinese second (or not even Chinese at all). Support for unification is very, very low. It is in fact a popular opinion to favour independence or to believe they are already independent (Huadu).
Strawman argument, I never claimed anything of the sort. History matters up to a point. The right to self-determination also matters however.
The actions of the US regarding black people are abhorrent. They also matter, because their effects are felt by people alive today. But those events are in a wildly different category than matters regarding territorial claims.
For example, I think the zionist claim towards Israel is imo basically bunk; maybe some ancestors have lived in that area 2000 years ago, but in my opinion that does not trump the rights of people who live there today, and whose parents and grandparents lived there. Basically, if you’re forcing someone to move somewhere else, or are forcibly assimilating them into your country without any form of proper democratic input, I think it’s wrong. I think that the rights of people who live in Taiwan trump some claim based on territorial borders from over a century ago. Unless the people there vote to become a part of the PRC, the PRC has no right to annex them. Similarly, the old ROC claim to mainland China is equally bunk. I don’t give a hoot about what people 100 years ago wanted to be a part of, I care about what people want today.
And just to clear this up in case you were wondering: I am not an American.
Supporting independence does not inherently make a nationality. There are clear economic reasons for independence. There are also clear violent reasons for independence (remember the KMT tortured and killed thousands of people who supported reunification, which obviously had a psychological and social effect on the island’s population)
Again Taiwanese isn’t a nationality. Believing it is doesn’t make it so. Just like white people thinking they’re indigenous or mixed race Mexicans inventing Chicanismo. These things are historically constructed, not merely cynical fiat declarations.
The right to self-determination is not a blanket “right”. The self-determination as an individual is a thing. The right to self-determination as a group is sort of a thing. But the right to self-determination as a nation is a very particular thing with very difficult to reason about limits. It’s not just something you can apply based on feelings. And this is because the definition of a nation is very difficult to establish and it’s different than the definition of a state. The right to self determination as a nation is not the same as the right to self determination as a state.
Taiwan is not a nation, it does not qualify for the right to self-determination as a nation.
There is no right to self-determination for a state or a government. The Taiwanese government does not have a right to self determination any more than the government of NYC or Paris or Yorkshire County or the province of Alberta.
And again, as usual, rights are tricky in themselves, because they have to be balanced against competing rights. Does any nation’s right to self-determination include invading and subjugating another? No. Similarly, I would argue that ina MAD world, no one has the right to undermine MAD. Taiwan is militarily strategic asset to the US. It is very difficult to disentangle independence of Taiwan with vassalage to the USA. Were Taiwan to become “independent” and then sign a “defense pact” with the US that saw the US station nuclear capabilities on the island, this would not be self determination but submission to the empire for the purpose of subjugating others. No, that is not included in the right to self-determination as a nation. And again, Taiwan is not a nation.
The history of slavery in America actually gives rise to a legitimate claim of a new nation being formed, that of black African diaspora in America. Despite having come from various nations historically, the manner by which they came to their current culture fully severed them from their national identity by stripping them of their culture, their language, their religion, and their connection with everything in their past.
The history of Taiwan does not give rise to a legitimate claim of nationhood but instead reinforces the idea that Han living on Taiwan are part of the Chinese nation and always have been.
Words mean things. You have to stop starting from your assumptions and then arriving at your assumptions as though they are conclusions. You can’t say history matters here but not there and conveniently keep carving our rhetorical space through special pleading for your preferred conclusion.
Look, I didn’t understand any of this before I started researching it. It thought Taiwan was an independent nation and country. I thought Chicano was a real national identity. Hell, I thought the US was a nation. I have had to give up all my assumptions and follow the research, the literature, and the history.
Your example of Israel is great. It’s a settler colony. It doesn’t have a right to exist. There is no nation of Israelites. The majority of Israelis come from Europe. There were Jews living in Palestine long before the Balfour declaration.
Taiwan is a settler colony too. The Han Chinese displaced and assimilated the indigenous inhabitants of the island. But those settlers are the people who you are claiming make up their own nation. Your disdain for the Zionist claim is incongruous with your support of the claim of independence for Taiwan. You are making exceptions for your preselect conclusion. You are begging the question.
The CPC agrees with you, which is why they have been committed to peaceful reunification for 50 years and why they want nothing more than for the US to stop militarizing the island so that the Chinese people can engage in dialog without the constant presence of US military and military intelligence making everything so much more complicated and dangerous. The CPC is convinced that the people on Taiwan will, over time, come to regard reunification as a positive force for good. They have no desire to force assimilation. Again, unlike every other country you are comparing China to, China is the only country with a concept of One Country Two Systems that currently functions incredibly well in giving literal nations self-determination within that multi-national state of China.
I am so sick if you ignoring the imperialist interventionism that created this situation. The people on the island have been living under the protection of the US and UK because the imperialists desired to create exactly this conflict. This is not a pure example of self-determination, it is an ongoing cold military conflict between China and the US and Taiwan is being used by the US as a proxy. The US could take one very simple action of stationing nuclear missile defense on the island and hundreds of thousands of people on the island would die while American soldiers remained safe. It is definitionally a proxy. Stop acting like you can just pull the island into a completely abstract rhetorical space devoid of all context, all history, all international norms, all international laws, all relationships, etc. Yes, you are totally right about your position if we ignore literally everything except the simplistic moral framing that assumes words don’t have meaning and that China has zero legitimate claim to anything ever. But that’s not how these things work. You can’t live in your head and expect to reach reasonable conclusions about complex topics like this.
Again, I implore you to engage with reality.
Like this thing you said:
Even if the people there vote to become part of the PRC, the PRC would have no right to annex them. Words have meaning. Reunification would happen when the people on Taiwan vote to recognize that the island of Taiwan is already part of China and therefore they agree to place their local government into a One Country Two Systems arrangement with the PRC. No annexation. No colonization. No invasion. No assimilation. No subjugation.
I know, I looked up up. You’re some kind of European. Europe’s track record isn’t much better than the USA’s, considering Europe created the global white supremacist settler colonial system. The guilt and projection accusations will remain.
You are again strawmanning. As much as I dismiss the zionist claim to the Israeli lands, I do not consider Israel to have zero claim to the lands they possess. I am firmly against their expansionist tactics, but I acknowledge that Israel has existed for decades now, and that many people were born there and have lived there all their lives. Hence, I don’t support the full elimination of the Israeli state, merely its containment, and I support Palestinian statehood. This is not an incongruent position.
You also claim that Taiwan is not a nation. But there is definitely an emerging Taiwanese national identity, surrounding the island territory, their modern democratic principles and history of opposition to the PRC. So this claim of yours is based on an assumption, one shared by the PRC, but one which polls increasingly show is outdated.
Created it? The ROC fled to Taiwan without US/UK help. In fact, the PRC did make one attempt at an amphibious assault, which went so poorly due to the ROC having a fairly large navy and airforce still, which the PRC sorely lacked. It was in fact Truman’s policy to essentially “let China fall”, meaning they wouldn’t intervene.
This however changed when China hopped on to the imperialism bandwagon and started supporting their proxy in North-Korea. This solidified the PRC as a belligerent nation towards the US. The rampant McCarthyism at the time forced Truman’s hand; he now had to defend other non-communist nations against the “communist threat” in China. This only started happening because the PRC moved against the US and UN in Korea. Had they not done this, the US would likely not have defended Taiwan and followed Truman’s earlier policy.
I’m not sure why you’re mentioning the UK by the way, as far as I’m aware they’ve not threatened to militarily intervene if the PRC were to invade. The US has postured with the seventh fleet threatening to do so, but I can’t find anything on the UK doing something similar. The US has also consistently opposed the ROC attempting to return to the mainland, to the point of almost sabotaging those efforts. So thanks to those US threats, there has been very little to no fighting at all between the two sides since the flight to Taiwan.
You seem to have fallen into the trap of seeing abritrary definitions of arbitrary concepts as being legitimate reasons to inflict severe suffering and death on people, ignoring the reality on the ground. You’re free to do so, but I’m simply going to remain fundamentally opposed to this imperialist reading of history, and I don’t think furthering this discussion has any merit.
Oh Lord. Supporting North Korea made China an imperialist?! Look, I don’t have the stomach for you anymore. You have NO fucking clue what you’re talking about and you clearly don’t give a shit. The US was the imperialist force on the Korean Peninsula, having taken over the imperialist occupation from Japan. The fucking US military leadership was trying to find a way to nuke China to end the communist scourge.
And let’s just fucking clear, becoming communist is a choice that nations make as part of their self-determination. The idea that the US had any fucking grounds to be in Korea deciding how they should govern themselves is total fucking apologia.
Chinese involvement in helping it’s neighbor against a brutal genocidal invade from the other side of the planet is not grounds for the US to intervene in Taiwan. And you think I have an imperialist reading of history?!
You think Israel has a right to exist as a settler state because it managed to survive long enough to have a couple kids? You think the USA and Canada are legitimate too and have legitimate claim to the lands because they bred there?! And I’m the fucking imperialist?!
Get fucked.