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.
I’m not ignorant, I just understand it differently than you. You think that a national government changing which people are in charge is somehow the creation of a new state, despite there being zero other historical precedent for that. We understand that Prussia no longer exists. We understand that Iran is not Persia. But we also understand that the coup in Iran did not make a new state, it merely changed who was in charge. The same is true in China.
Yes, they do. Good call out. I see that as clarifying the understanding of China, which the KMT also had, not a point of contention between the PRC and the KMT. They both claimed, before and after the civil war, that there was one China and that China included Taiwan.
So this helps to illuminate my point. In order for the coup to have “parts of the country” something called “the country” must exist. The country exists regardless of which government is in charge. In this story that you’ve told, you are correct that military coups state which parts of the country are under their control and which will be under their control. This is a concept of control, not of integrity. The country itself remains integral. The coup has military control over parts of the country and unless the coup is stopped, it will become the government of the country. This is how coups work. Likewise, in the Chinese civil war, the country of China has a definition and the parties within the country fought to decide how the country would be governed. The KMT lost and the PLA had not yet gained military control over Taiwan, a part of the country, and then imperialists intervened to prevent the PLA from gaining military control over Taiwan, a part of the country.
I’m not. De facto has to do with the facts of the matter regardless what the law states. In a case of possession for example, while the law de jure may say it belongs to party A, it may de facto be in possession of party B. The issue we have here is not that I don’t understand the meaning of “de facto” but that it don’t believe it applies to entire legal fictions. Nation-states are not real in any sense of the word EXCEPT de jure. Nation-states are not a natural phenomenon like possession or presence, they are completely socially constructed legal fictions. There is no “what it’s like to be a nation-state” except “officially recognized by the international community”. Without a system of official recognition, there would be no such concept as a nation-state and we wouldn’t find them naturally occurring. They only exist de jure.
A, you’ve introduced a new concept called “the true China” and B, in fact it’s the key thing that matters when we’re discussing whether the United States military should be allowed to patrol the seas around the island of Taiwan under the auspices of defending what is de facto its protectorate (literally a land with people being protected militarily by another land of different people). The question of sovereignty is in fact the crucial matter at hand. The idea that somehow this does not matter is preposterous.
The province on Taiwan has always had its own territory and its own government, that’s how federal/federated system works. So clearly it’s not a question of separateness of territories nor a question of the existence of multiple governments. It is, de facto, entirely based on claims. Bureaucratic governments are deeply abstract things, and the fundamental aspect of bureaucratic governments are the claims they make. The claim is the reality vis-a-vis sovereignty. At the level below abstraction, islands are always separate and subdivisions of contiguous lands (like North Dakota and South Dakota) don’t exist at all.
What? No. Please re-read what I wrote. I was saying that the Quebecois, who were the losers in the battle for control over Canada, could become a protectorate of the US, just like the KMT, who were the losers in the battle for control over China, became a protectorate of the US.
I don’t know if there’s anything other than dogma defining a Westphalian nation-state. It’s literally just orthodoxy. I love that you want to be flexible by making an exception case for Taiwan because you fundamentally believe in the absolute immorality of the CPC and therefore all rules and history must be pushed aside to make way for the correct moral position, but forgive me if I think you’re just engaging in special pleading.
Anyway, happy to keep going. I don’t think you have the right end of the stick here. I see you trying to make exceptions to rules for the Chinese question and I see you trying to conflate concepts in order to do it. I don’t think my position is even counter to the position held by the KMT 40 years, maybe even 50 years. But, if it helps to keep trying to find the little points of contention that could unravel my position, let’s do it.
I read what you wrote. The Quebecois as a faction currently do not govern Canada at all, the Canadian government does. Similar to how the CPC did not govern China, the KMT did. Hence in this parallel, the CPC = the Quebecois, and the KMT = the Canadian government (to remain accurate regarding the order of events). The Japanese/US then invade, causing the Quebecois/CPC to try and wrestle control over Canada. But in your parallel, the Quebecois “lost” and were left with only a small portion, whereas in our timeline obviously the CPC conquered the majority of China/Canada. This is where your parallel diverges, making it a poor metaphor. To make your story more accurate, the Quebecois would have to conquer most of Canada, just not all of it.
The CPC, as mentioned, understands it differently from you, as they by their own words founded a new state.
Coups are different than civil wars, as with a coup a faction seizes control of an existing governmental structure. A civil war is a more fundamental break. And there’s plenty of precedent in this. Take the American Civil War; the CSA can’t really be considered the same state as the United States. Had the civil war ended in a stalemate, they likely would have remained that way. But if the CSA had won and annexed the US, there’s a decent chance they’d consider themselves the legitimate continuation of the US (despite having declared a new constitution, like the CPC did).
Regardless, the problem is that civil wars are messy. Take the Vietnam war. Technically French Indochina was split into two Vietnamese states, yet the Vietnam war is considered a civil war and ended with the “reunification” of the two states. You can endlessly debate definitions, but none will see definitively fit all of history.
Even in China the lines are blurred. Since 1991 the ROC does not actually regard the PRC as a rebellious group, and abandoned its claim to be the sole representative of China. But the PRC has not responded in kind, not acknowledging the ROC as legitimate. De facto the war has ended, yet there’s no one party now in control of both the mainland and Taiwan. It’s solely diplomatic pressure from the PRC that is preventing countries from acknowledging this (even though they do have embassies and such in Taiwan, so it’s de facto accepted).
Civil wars that don’t de facto end in a reunification are typically considered to have spawned separate states (e.g. North and South Korea for example, or North and South Sudan). But even if they do the lines are blurred; is Turkey the same state as the Ottoman Empire? Or is it a successor state?
That’s not the point. I guess you could argue that’s the point, but the point of the counterfactual was to demonstrate how, if partitioning states with puppet governments could produce new states then the US would be doing it to contiguous land masses. Taiwan feels different because it’s an island, but it’s not really that different from doing it on contiguous land.
Sigh. I’m so tired of explaining category errors to you. The Canadian government is a role. The role is currently played by the parties involved in governing Canada. There is a Quebecois faction in those parties. So because of your category error, you are wrong. The Quebecois, by participating in the government of Canada DO in fact govern Canada. But that’s not as relevant to my point as you make it out to be.
Again, not relevant to my point. Because for whatever reason, you think that it’s relevant to discuss whether the CPC had a claim to the seat of the government for this discussion. It’s not. New parties form all the time. Just because they didn’t exist before doesn’t mean they cannot become the government after. I swear it’s like playing Calvinball with you (and not just you, everyone who wriggles about on this topic does the same thing). The reason the CPC did not govern is because they were violently purged by the KMT, which is what caused the civil war in the first place. Again, would you say that Democratic Socialists of America cannot govern the US if they take power (either by election or otherwise) simply because socialists were purged from the US (twice)? I wouldn’t say so.
Revolution is a valid form of seizing power within a state.
Yeah. Unfortunately we’re just going to have to disagree on this. The CPC didn’t even have the power to do such a thing. What they founded was a new republic. That’s different than a new state. Again, there is not precedent for a revolutionary struggle creating a net new state without secession, except in the case of the USSR, but it did not eliminate the prior state of Russia. Russia remained a state and joined a net new state called the USSR.
You really can just read the literature. “China became communist”. “China became a one-party state”. Etc, etc. All of the literature establishes that there is this state called China and it transformed through various transitions while still maintaining its existence as the state of China. It did not dissolve. It did not splinter. It did not seceded. It did not divest. It did not merge. It remained the state of China. You’re doing to have to bring a lot more than “this English translation of the words of the CPC prove that its a new state”.
They aren’t as different as you think. China certainly follows the model of a coup far more than it follows the model of the American Civil War. I’ll reiterate, the CSA seceded from the Union. No such thing happened in China. Instead, the CPC fought the KMT for the existing governmental structure.
Because it seceded, formally.
Because it seceded, formally.
They wouldn’t have because they seceded, formally. They had no interest in annexing the Union. But again, new constitutions happen within states, not between two states. That’s how revolutionary change works. There are dozens of examples of countries adopting new constitutions but not becoming net new states. Surely you understand this.
I mean, it’s pretty clear exactly what’s going on there, right? European Imperialists arbitrarily divided a nation-state, and despite that division, the mechanisms for defining a nation-state supersede the imperialist intervention. There was in fact one Vietnamese nation-state that the French arbitrarily split apart creating two net new nation-states that the international consensus recognized (because imperialism) but when the war broke it all of the analysis agrees that it was actually a civil war within a single nation-state ending when the integrity of that nation-state was restored. You can see it for Vietnam, but you can’t see if for China. You’re arguing my points, but you just can’t give up the moral position that you don’t believe the CPC is good and because you don’t believe it’s good you can’t possibly see any argument that would promote the position it has.
Obviously
Yup, because it realized that it can’t maintain the international consensus. It was a conciliatory move towards the PRC.
And this is problematic because why? Because the ROC deserves to be considered legitimate despite losing a civil war and then prosecuting the White Terror for 40 years while under imperialist protection? The PRC has not responded in kind because it has no need to. It is in the right.
That’s a correct use of “de facto” for sure! Yes, the war has ended, de facto, but it has not ended de jure. And of course, what is the end of a war in the de jure sense? Mutual agreement. Terms of surrender. In essence - law. That has not happened yet, so the war is de facto over but not de jure over.
That’s also correct. Because, again, the war has not ended de jure because de facto Taiwan is a protectorate of the imperialists who seek to continue to exploit and subjugate China.
Yes, the PRC, the current government of the nation-state of China, of which Taiwan is a part, is refusing to acknowledge that there is a separate nation-state and Taiwan is not demanding that it do so. The only people demanding that it do so are internet quarterbacks. No government has asked China to recognize Taiwan as independent. There are no claims of independence for China to recognize. And, I’ll argue your side, China has stated that if Taiwan should announce secession, it will invade. It does not recognize the right of the people on the island of Taiwan to secede from China, much like the US does not recognize the right of any portion of its country to secede. The only nation-state that I am aware of that has ever established a right to secede is the USSR. As for the embassies, they are the form of diplomacy. I don’t know that it makes sense to read into it. Embassies exist for non-nation-states all over the world.
Yeah, I just don’t think that’s true. Korea was partitioned by, you guessed it, American imperialists (yes the USSR agreed to it because appeasement was their best option). It wasn’t a civil war that caused a partition and didn’t end in reunification. North Korea still considered South Korea to be an occupied territory, which generally speaking is pretty true. The Japanese occupied the peninsula, the Americans occupied it. The Americans drew a line in the sand like Yosemite Sam and dareds the Koreans to cross it and then they bombed the entire northern part of the country to rubble. South Korea was occupied, then the Americans established a fascist vassal there, and is now a vassal state of the US. If reunification happens, what will result is the ORIGINAL nation-state of Korea, out from pages of history. North Korea and South Korea as states will cease to exist, but the original nation-state that the imperial Japanese, and subsequently the imperial US, stomped on will return. Just like in your Vietnam example. You understand this for the examples you’re OK with. You have cognitive dissonance for China, and I assume for the DPRK, because of your moral framing.
No, because the Ottoman Empire, like the Roman Empire, was formed during the time of city-states. The Ottoman Empire would be contiguous with Istanbul, like the Roman empire would be contiguous with Rome and the Holy Roman Empire would be contiguous with the Vatican. In fact, the interesting question would be whether the Holy See is in fact contiguous with the Holy Roman Empire. I think it might be. But that’s the only interesting question along these lines you’ve raise. Every example you raise fits quite well into the framework of Westphalian nation states (which Rome and Istanbul were not).
🤦
The Ottomans existed well before they conquered Constantinople. The Vatican (or Papal States at the time) was explicitly not part of the HRE. They were in many ways opposites; the seats of spiritual power vs temporal power. This tells me you have very little sense of general history.
You also keep mentioning “the framework of Westphalian nation states”, which is also a tell since you’re confusing two different concepts; the Westphalian system and the concept of the nation-state. These are associated with one another, but distinct concepts.
Importantly, China is not a nation-state. China is a civilisation-state, which is a grander concept as the nation-state is far too European an idea to make sense for China. Both the ROC and the PRC claim to be nation-states, but these claims are somewhat doubtful definition-wise. Regardless, this places the earliest possible concept of a Chinese nation-state in 1912, when the Qing Empire fell (an empire, mind, so by definition not a nation-state).
This also means that Taiwan, which was conquered from the Qing in the 1890s, was not a part of a Chinese nation-state until 1945 when it was ceded to the ROC.
The problem with characterizing China as a nation-state is that it doesn’t consist of one nation and one state, it has far too many peoples, cultures and languages inside it for it to be considered that. You’d be doing its diversity a disservice, really. Hence it is a civilisation-state.
Characterizing it as a nation-state reeks of nationalism and imperialism, which is typical for nation-states. Claimed lands are assimilated, either through coercion or force (or ethnic cleansing). A heroic epic is created to turn the birth of the nation-state into something mythical. Wars are fought to establish borders, usually along natural, defensible lines. Interestingly it’s a perspective the CPC is keen to avoid (since it’s not very “socialist” after all).
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.