More than two-thirds of Taiwanese people would be willing to fight off a Chinese invasion of their island, a new survey found. Just over half of respondents believe that the United States would send its military to help.
Most Taiwanese people would be willing to defend their island against a Chinese attack, according to a poll published Wednesday. Most also believe that such an attack is highly unlikely in the next five years.
The poll, commissioned by the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, was released a day before Taiwan’s National Day.
Should Beijing attack, 67.8% of the 1,214 people surveyed said they would be “very willing or somewhat willing” to fight in defense of Taiwan; 23.6% said they would not be.
Almost 64% said China’s “territorial ambition” in Taiwan represents “a serious threat.” At the same time, 61% said it was not likely China would invade soon.
Some 52% of respondents said that they believed key ally the United States would come to their aid in the invent of a Chinese invasion. Yet, only 40% believed that the US would send its navy to “break” a potential blockade.
Even so, it’s important to understand that the PRC views continued US support of Taiwan as part of a long standing policy to interfere with China’s right to self determination. Remember, the PRC came into existence after China was dominated by foreign powers for the better part of a century. If there is to be a peaceful resolution, as all parties proclaim to want, this perspective can’t be casually dismissed.
I’d argue that position would hold more water if politicians didn’t need to be approved before running for office in Hong Kong. I think that’s emblematic of how seriously the CCP takes self-determination.
Hong Kong is actually a perfect example for what I’m talking about. It was a concession China made to the British after losing the first Opium war. As such, it was always going to be a sore spot for the PRC. On top of that, the British only introduced a pretty limited form of democracy to Hong Kong shortly before it was supposed to relinquish control over the territory. The PRC saw this as an attempt by the British to continue interfering with the right for Chinese self determination. They believed the British were intentionally making it more difficult for the PRC to integrate Hong Kong into its existing political structures. After the handover, the PRC took extreme offense at pro democracy protestors using the old colonial flag for Hong Kong. That was because they perceived it as a call for further foreign interference in Chinese affairs.
On top of that, the Chinese dictator crushed democracy with military and police force in violation of the unification agreement – proving 100% it absolutely can not be trusted.
The Chinese have no rights whatsoever in the PRC regime because the Chinese cannot chose their own leaders and determine their own country’s destiny. By “right for Chinese self determination” you actually mean the DICTATOR’s right (one single individual!!) to prevent one billion Chinese citizens from running their own country as they see fit.
I think you frankly have no idea how China’s political system works.
How it works on paper is very different from how it actually works. There is no democracy in China. Even dictatorships have elections. That does not mean that the dictator has the consent of the governed.
Okay but China doesn’t pretend to be a liberal democracy. On paper it’s pretty clear the communist party maintains hegemonic control over their political system. Xi is an important leader within the party but he’s hardly the sole decision maker. The comment I was responding to claimed that he was which betrays their ignorance. It’s one thing to criticize Chinas political system and it’s another thing entirely to make up nonsense about how it functions.
I mean yeah the British sucked, but those democracy concessions were hard fought by the people of Hong Kong. I don’t want the big power politics of the crown versus the PRC to distract from the fact that it took people out on the streets to gain it from the British just for them to be snuffed out by Beijing
My point is that Beijing’s policies follow a logic that has been shaped by struggles against foreign powers. Therefore, while you may sympathize with Taiwan and Hong Kong protestors, you shouldn’t assume the PRC is acting in a belligerent or hypocritical manner.
I don’t think they’re hypocrites, I just don’t think their struggle against their colonial past gives them the right to shut down a democracy. I take the same issue with the Bolshevik takeover of the Soviet councils and the crushing of Kronstadt. Taiwan is a country run by people elected domestically, not a foreign power. They could vote to re-join China if they so chose.
Okay but the original comment I was replying to in this thread was pretending as if China’s actions had nothing to do with the US. My point here is to illustrate how that was incorrect. The belief that the PRC is responding to perceived threats from the US when setting policies concerning Taiwan is perfectly reconcilable with the belief that the PRC is a threat to Taiwanese democracy.
That’s not the slightest bit important. The Republic of China views the PRC as interfering with China’s self determination. The Republic of China gets to choose its own leaders but the PRC is a dictatorship not chosen by the people. That means that the ROC speaks for millions more Chinese than the PRC does.
The only possible terms of reunification would be the end of the Communist dictatorship. In such an event Taipei would likely be the initial temporary capital of a unified China because that’s where the experience of democracy is.
You’re advocating for belligerence on behalf of a people who generally do not agree with that approach. Taiwanese people would much rather their leaders attempt to resolve tensions with the mainland through diplomatic means. Escalating the conflict to the point of war or pushing for regime change in the PRC is just delusional.