> Once China solves the Taiwan problem they're going to turn their sights on Korea and Japan.<p>China will not annex Japan or South Korea. As a Chinese person, I can assure you that this is not how our mindset works at all. Most of the Western media hype about this is deliberately designed to muddy the waters around the Taiwan issue. Taiwan is different: the vast majority of people there are ethnically Chinese, so reunification is seen as an absolute necessity.
But historically, China has never been good at ruling non-Han peoples. Every non-Chinese group has always been viewed as a net burden. Take Myanmar as an example: even if China occupied it and gained a warm-water port, the price would be having to assimilate tens of millions of Burmese people. That cost is simply too high; no one in China wants to pay it. The Chinese way of thinking is that only after a group has been fully Sinicized (language, culture, identity) can they be considered “one of us.”
So with South Korea and Japan, the real goal is to surpass them industrially and economically, to leave them in the dust on the factory floor and in the lab. When it comes to Japan in particular, the deepest desire in many Chinese hearts is for Japan to start a war first—so China can finally settle the historical score once and for all. But even in that scenario, turning Japan into “part of China” is not on the table. No one wants 125 million thoroughly non-Sinicized Japanese inside the country; that would be seen as an endless headache, not a prize.
> Taiwan is different: the vast majority of people there are ethnically Chinese, so reunification is seen as an absolute necessity.<p>Your illegitimate authoritarian government is free to surrender at any time and hand the keys back to the legitimate democratic ROC government then.
> That cost is simply too high; no one in China wants to pay it<p>China was happy to invade Tibet and assimilate it's population.<p>Hard to believe that a government who claims all of South China sea, large parts of India (Arunachal Pradesh) does not want to expand.<p>Or do you think people of Arunachal Pradesh are also Chinese?
Tibet is not (and was not) defended by a nuclear superpower. South Korea and Japan both have United States military bases and troops stationed there.<p>I am willing to bet all of the money I will ever make in my lifetime that China will not invade either one as long as they remain under the US nuclear umbrella.
Arunachal Pradesh is a historic part of Tibet and was part of the Qing Empire before the Chinese revolution of 1912.<p>When Tibet then broke away from China the Brits got what is now Arunachal Pradesh from Tibet.<p>Hence the ongoing Chinese claim but the days of any military actions are long gone.
If historical claims are valid, then Mongols would be very happy to claim large swaths of land. Or if more recent claims are to be taken, then the Brits have claims over quite a large amount of countries.<p>Historical claims are meaningless and are just an excuse for expansion.
I did not comment on the "validity" of the claim, just explained its rationale and history.<p>Chinese territorial claims in general are not "an excuse for expansion", they are rooted in territorial losses at the end of the 19th century and during the revolution of 1912 with the formal aim of recovering them. They also predate the PRC as you'll find that the ROC/Taiwan has the same claims for the same reason. This does not mean that China is going to go to war over them, certainly it won't go to war with India.<p>No need for drama or hysteria over those claims.
> This does not mean that China is going to go to war over them, certainly it won't go to war with India.<p>Then why make a claim? Claims are made to prepare the domestic audience so that when war comes there is home support for the action. It is not made lightly.<p>The Chinese are definitely taking action in the South China Sea. It is not just words.
if its not valid maybe we should return Califonia to mexico?
For those unfamiliar with the history, Taiwan’s (ROC) own constitution says it is part of China. Its dispute is with the CCP, not China itself.<p>Conflating the PRC vs ROC conflict with a China vs Japan conflict is just ignorant.
That is, the constitution written by the KMT dictatorship that was awarded the island as spoils of war after the Japanese surrendered to the Allies in WW2.<p>In the present day, neither the Taiwanese government nor Taiwanese people are in some kind of dispute with the CCP over who owns Gansu province or whatever, they just would like recognition of their already-existing sovereignty.
The ROC claims it <i>is</i> China, not a part of China.<p>But sibling comment is correct that today the PRC and ROC are functionally two separate nations, and neither wants unification by submitting completely to the other. So the only way it's happening is with force.
“We have no choice but to cut off that dirty neck that has lunged at us, without a moment’s hesitation. Are you ready?”<p>- Chinese Consul-General in Osaka, Xue Jian, addressing Japan
> But historically, China has never been good at ruling non-Han peoples.<p>"Good" is not a very objective term, but China does have 55 official minorities, coming from a long period of imperial expansion, so arguably it can be done.<p>> The Chinese way of thinking is that only after a group has been fully Sinicized (language, culture, identity) can they be considered “one of us.”<p>Firstly, this is a troubling statement, again given that China has 55 official minorities, who are evidently failures of assimilation more than anything.<p>Secondly, there are other ways of imperial sovereignty: Vietnam was a Chinese dominion for a longest time, and Korea was effectively ruled from China as well.<p>In other words, China has a long and not very remote history of territorial expansion and old-school dependent-state imperialism. The fact that the Han have a very strong cultural identity and do not find it easy to coexist with other peoples doesn't help either: just look at the history of the relations between Britain and Ireland.
> "Good" is not a very objective term, but China does have 55 official minorities, coming from a long period of imperial expansion, so arguably it can be done.<p>Don’t forget the history of Northern Wei, Yuan Dynasty, and Qing Dynasty – none of them were products of “Han Chinese imperialism.”
Qing Dynasty annexed Xinjiang, Taiwan, Tibet, Mongolia, as well as large chunks of Central Asia, and fought with Sikhs over Kashmir. Looks like a good case of imperial expansion to me.
The person you replied to wrote: <i>none of them were products of “Han Chinese imperialism.”</i><p>This is correct, since the Qing Dynasty was led by the Manchus (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty</a>), not by the Han Chinese.
It was not the Manchus who reconquered Tibet in the 1950s, after it had been an independent country for several decades.<p>And the general argument is not about whether there is something inherently imperialistc in the Han -- it is about whether the Han are so isolationist that this should somehow prevent China as a political entity from expanding. Well it has not prevented this before (cf. also the Tang period expansion, if we want to talk about more distant history), so I see no reason why it should prevent it now. Unless, say, the CCP cedes control to an openly Han-nationalist party, but then the last one was imperialist alright (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)</a>).
They also annexed China. That's your idea of "Chinese expansionism"?
basiclly every big country...
I read Chinese news from China in Chinese sometimes to get a bit of language practice. It's not western media reporting that China says Okinawa isn't legitimate Japanese territory. It's Chinese state media saying Okinawa needs to be "liberated" from Japan.<p>Fears that China one day tries a Russian approach by saying "no way bro. We'd never try to take Georgia. Nah bro. We'd never try to take Crimea. Nah dude. We'd never try to take eastern Ukraine. Nope. We definitely aren't interested in taking Poland." aren't exactly baseless. And just like with Russia, they justify their prodding of a sovereign country as "well it's our territory" (it isn't). China already has fighter jets and ships going around the Senkaku Islands periodically. It's clear they'll take them and push further and further if they think they can get away with it.
And they will never become part of China again, ever.
They once were, and after World War II they were supposed to be handed over to the Republic of China (Nationalist government), but the Nationalists stupidly refused. Then the United States gave them to Japan as a reward.
This completely violated the post-WWII United Nations agreements. So if the UN still wants to claim any legitimacy or relevance, these places should not belong to Japan, but they will never belong to China either.
> Taiwan is different: the vast majority of people there are ethnically Chinese, so reunification is seen as an absolute necessity.<p>How does that make it a "necessity"? It's not for China to decide? This is the reasoning Russia uses when invading neighboring countries. To "protect" russian people and claim that <insert part of country> are russians anyway and want to get annexed (still wouldn't make it right). If someone wants to join Russia, they should move to Russia.<p>(Or maybe it could happen through some longer and slower political process. And the country as a whole should agree, with a lot more than 50% agreeing, to a unification.)<p>> The Chinese way of thinking is that only after a group has been fully Sinicized (language, culture, identity) can they be considered “one of us.”<p>Like above, I hope you're not implying that a culturally similar people in another country #2 somehow gives country #1 power over it's sovereignity.
> It's not for China to decide?<p>do your homework, taiwan also claims its china. maybe you mean its not for them to decide?
> How does that make it a "necessity"? It's not for China to decide? This is the reasoning Russia uses when invading neighboring countries. To "protect" russian people and claim that <insert part of country> are russians anyway and want to get annexed (still wouldn't make it right). If someone wants to join Russia, they should move to Russia.<p>The difference is that Taiwan only exists because the losers of the Chinese Civil war ran away to it, and the winners (CCP) were not allowed by the US to finish the job. So for the CCP, Taiwan has <i>always</i> been a problem still left to resolve, an American thorn in their side. It was along the main reasons for them joining the Korean war, because the monumentally dumb McArthur publicly praised and supported Chiang (the leader of the losers of the civil war, the KMT), which led to CCP fears the US will use the Korean peninsula as a sprinboard to attack them and install Chiang back to power.<p>So while self-determination trumps those concerns for my personal view, I can totally see where China (CCP) is coming from. Especially with a very aggressive American stance against them, why would they want to keep a very friendly to the US runaway province out there?<p>For Americans, imagine the Confederates ran away to Puerto Rico, force assimilated the locals, and became very friendly with Russia. For the French, that a Bonaparte was ruling Corsica while being friendly with the big bad wolf (depending on the age, Brits or Russians maybe). And on and on.
Thanks for the context. I don't really know the Taiwan situation well.<p>My main gripe was mostly around the perceived reasoning that ethnicity or culture of some people would make it more okay to try to annex, or invade, anything.<p>> When it comes to Japan in particular, the deepest desire in many Chinese hearts is for Japan to start a war first—so China can finally settle the historical score once and for all. But even in that scenario, turning Japan into “part of China” is not on the table.<p>From GP. That is also a bit worrying to me. Who decides what's the fair "historical score"? But mostly, people shouldn't desire for war or use past wars as a reason for new wars. This is more complicated than ethnicity or culture, but it's dangerous and people should just learn to let go or it never stops.<p>False flag attacks are a thing and have been used many times as a pretext for an attack. Russia has done it. Russia also often uses history as an excuse for new wars. I'm sure it's always possible to dig out some rationalization. The result is mostly more suffering of innocent (who might not have even been born during the cited conflict).
The majority of the people of Taiwan are ethnically Chinese, but this is a relatively recent status. Taiwan is not an ancient part of China.<p>Taiwan has become ethnically Chinese in 2 stages, first an immigration from the neighboring Chinese province that is a few centuries old, then the invasion of the island by Kuomintang at the end of WWII, which took the political power from the native Chinese.<p>So Taiwan has become a Chinese-populated territory only during the last few centuries, and the desire to unite it with mainland China is not something that can reassure China's neighbors that this is where its desire of expansion will stop.
> not something that can reassure China's neighbors that this is where its desire of expansion will stop<p>May I ask if you actually live in one of these neighbouring countries? I do -- in fact I have lived in more than one -- and I can assure you that many/most people living in these areas outside of the Western media bubble absolutely do not share your view.<p>From the CCP's (and many Chinese people's) perspective:<p>1) the U.S. repeatedly interfered in the CCP's/KMT's attempts to resolve the civil war -- see e.g. the First and Second Taiwan Strait Crises (during which the PRC shelled Taiwan), Project National Glory (the ROC's plan to reconquer the mainland) -- preventing the mainland and Taiwan from reunification;<p>2) the Taiwanese government has lost the civil war, and the loser doesn't get to set the terms.<p>Pretending that the PRC's interest in Taiwan isn't special is to ignore extremely crucial historical circumstances that are core to understanding the situation today. Regardless of what you think of the PRC's stance on reunification, their desire to reunify doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it takes ahistorical leaps of reasoning to suggest that the PRC might want to annex South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. next.<p>> only during the last few centuries<p>This is way more than enough time to drastically transform the culture of a society. Taiwan today is culturally <i>much</i> more similar to the PRC than it is to the West. In some aspects it is also similar to Japan, despite the fact that Japan colonised it for "only" 50 years.
>Taiwan today is culturally much more similar to the PRC than it is to the West<p>The cultural distance between Taiwan and Japan, Korea and Hong Kong is less than the distance from mainland China. Aka Asian liberal democracies (or at least with strong political plurality and civil society). You're mistaking a regional difference with a commonality with the PRC, when in reality the PRC's epistemic worldview is highly distorted in comparison to virtually every other actor in the region. They don't speak for the region.
Exactly.<p>Taiwan has spent the approx 120 years on a very different political, economic, cultural track from the mainland. Taiwan diverged from the other subject of the Qing dynasty before Han nationalists began their century long project to forge a united Chinese nation. In particular, Taiwan did not go through decades of communist terror, but did experience the fruit of democracy.
During the American Civil War, the majority of the population in the Deep South states were actually Black slaves
> No one wants 125 million thoroughly non-Sinicized Japanese inside the country; that would be seen as an endless headache, not a prize.<p>I don't think what you claim the people want matters (if even true). Look at Tibet and Xinjiang
> Take Myanmar as an example: even if China occupied it […]<p>Historically, however, the record is rather unflattering for China in its engagements with Myanmar (formerly Burma) – China has waged four wars[0] with Myanmar and suffered a defeat to Myanmar in each instance.<p>[0] Or one war with four invasions – depending on the point of view.
Invasion is one thing, unfavorable trade deals, deindustrialization, and political coercion is more realistic outcome yet all the more undesirable. Imperialism after all often didn't spread spread by outright conquest.
While I'd like to believe this, I also know that CCP have as of late tapped in to a dangerous remedy for the dissatisfaction of their rule(economic slowdown): Nationalistic fervor.<p>From my Chinese friends (and Hong Kong friends) it seems to be clear that the "century of humiliation" rhetoric is getting more prominent. Which includes rationalization such as "Japan and West (and Russia) humiliated us so it's our right to revenge. Whatever they're complaining about right now is just historical rebalancing". My British friend in HK seems to be getting tired of this rhetoric thrown at her every time she meets a Chinese person.<p>And CCP might be drinking that nationalism koolaid and get hooked to it just as US/West and recently Japan is. It's a very useful tool for the elite to dissipate discontent and I'd belive it will only accelerate.<p>And it's a strong rationalization rhetoric. Whatever "historical" you claim will probably be moot. Give us a decade or two and you'd probably be here posting something along the line, with multiple citations that have accumulated during the time
Sure, nationalism definitely serves that purpose. But please consider: in the most recent conflicts/flare-ups, the initiator has actually been Japan, not China.
Their new female prime minister is an extreme-right-wing politician who is not only provoking China, but also picking fights with South Korea and Russia at the same time, while pushing aggressively anti-immigrant and exclusionary policies.
Her approval ratings are also unusually high.
It feels pretty strange that Japan gets zero criticism for this while all the focus stays on China.
Not strange at all. China is powerful, thus scary.
Ummm no… This is total fantasy.<p>Takaichi is a slightly right of centre nationalist. Pushing a mild tightening of some immigration rules to maintain the social contract around immigration, and fend off the right wing populists. Her policies amount to things like tightening foreign land ownership rules and refusing visa renewals for people not paying their health insurance or pension (which is mandatory by law for all residents).<p>She’s had friendly relations with SK so far and recently met with the SK President and bowed in respect to the Korean flag.<p>Her “provocation” of China was to state, when asked in parliament, that an armed invasion of Taiwan by China would be a case of a potential existential threat to Japan.<p>Which frankly is utterly obvious to anyone, including of course China. Japan hosts American military bases. If China attacked Taiwan, triggering an American repose then there would at the least be Chinese missiles aiming for Tokyo (Yokosuka) and Okinawa.
> Take Myanmar as an example: even if China occupied it and gained a warm-water port<p>What, does the Pearl River freeze over in winter?
The CCP has demonstrated that it’s not above killing tens of millions of its own citizens to achieve its political aims. I doubt they’d see ‘pacifying’ an occupied population as much of an issue.