The problem with Taiwan, I think, is the general old problem of "when is a claim for sovereignty" actually valid?
You'll notice a trend throughout history, where a claim of sovereignty is actually acknowledged depending on a number of things. One of these is to what level the fledgling state can stand up to the dominant state, a topic that Menno treated well. It doesn't end there, though, two equally big factors lie in how much the dominant state is willing to let go of the newfound nation and how much international pressure there is to do so.
A large number of European states were only born because the dominant state chose to let them go. This was true of the odd-dozen Eastern European nations after the Russian revolution (after the Tsar abdicated, the Soviets and Doema roughly agreed on the fact that these claims of independancy were valid. The Bolshewiks were at that point in no positions to argue), which were later reclaimed in the Russian civil war. This was true again of these same nations after the collapse of the SU. Another example is Belgium segregating from the Netherlands, or Portugal from Catalan.
It's about drawing a line in the sand, basically. The new-democratic state of Russia decided to let a vast number of countries go free, but they choose to hold on the Tsjezna and now they have to continue to do so. If they let it go, more people will rebel and claim their own lands (the areas disputed between Japan and Russia and China and Russia for one, but Tsjezna's neighbour too).
China's stuck in the same position. China's holding a lot of land that is essentially "not theirs". The disputed borders of India are an example of this (Kashmir, in particular), Kazakhstan may start to sputter again after their previous border-treaty, same goes for Kyrgyzstan, the Paracel islands are an obvious problem, and the aformentioned disputed islands (between Russia and China).
If they let go of Taiwan, what's next? Holland didn't have this problem when Belgium rebelled, because it wasn't holding any non-Dutch lands (apart from arguably Friesland).
China has enough political and economic motives to hang on to Taiwan for dear life, and I don't think Taiwan has enough motives to object heavily enough. If we're lucky, it'll end peacefully, it certainly seems to be the path Taiwan is pursuing, but sadly, revolutions of roses are rare (yay Georgia!)
As for the international community. Heh. Little hope there. If they're gonna allow Russia to do what they're doing to Tzejna, or Israel to do what they're doing to Palestine, do you really think they're gonna try and stop China?
No, hope on that one, if there is any hope, lies in support from the US, but I don't think that's very forthcoming for a number of obvious reasons. Not only is the US currently stretched very, VERY thin, but as Menno mentioned, it's not about to oppose China too much (And the Korean problem isn't the only reason for this either. The US is currently China's biggest export partner (22%?), but only has 10% of China's import, this is not a favourable position)
No, Taiwan's independance is not forthcoming. They're facing one of the world's most powerful countries with no real backing from the other great powers in sight. As far as I know, there's no historical precedent of someone pulling this off (the US revolution had the backing of the French (which, in turn caused the French revolution), 'member?) and I don't see Taiwan doing it.
iohkus wrote:Pakistan vs. India?
Nuklear terrrouble!
India vs Pakistan is an accident just begging to happen, a powderkeg waiting to go off. And when it does, it won't be pretty. Methinks the international community is not giving enough attention to these problems.
