when, how, and what impact?

in my opinion, china should take back or incorporate the following regions:

priority:

1) taiwan

2) diaoyu tai islands

3) spratly islands

secondary:

1) russian far east (greater manchuria)

2) outer mongolia

3) singapore

but china would be better with them. that's all i care.

Intro:

Long divided will unite; long united will divide.

Conclusion:

Long united will divide; long divided will unite.

it would be much more difficult a nation to be divided or reunited now,  the current international political environment is very different from the ancient time.

"singapore is dominated by ethnic chinese, but korea and vietnam are not."

So why don't you take all the China towns?

None of the China towns are a country by itself.

"""but china would be better with them. that's all i care."""

Yes, China would be better if the entire world becomes a part of it as well. I doubt China is more important(or less important) than any other country. Your statement puts China in a very negative light.

yeah, as nagative as the us invasion of a dozen other countries and european colonialism.

why not?

yeah, it doesn't justify china doing the same. but we don't want anything to be justified. and we don't care about injustices because that's what the world has been all about for the past few centuries of western domination.

i wouldn't prefer a china that was loved by countries around the world but as weak as hell like (pre 1949).

i would prefer a china that was feared by the rest of the world but strong and imperialistic like the han and tang dynasties. plus, what u prefer or anyone prefer doesn't really matter to us.

much simpler than I thought. however, I may not say this is exactly as same as the original. clear enough. Thx

different indeed, but in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Luo guanzhong just told a absolute truth. In our eyes, Taiwan has not been ruled by the contral government of China for 57 yrs (since 1949), or for for 111 yrs (since 1895), but even 111 yrs is just a short period. Even Three Kingdoms periord is longer than 111 yrs.

If I dont make mistake, the history of China or east of mainland Asia as a whole country or separate countries is half-and-half. history, today and the future are same. Higher developed technology does not make anything defferent.

The possibility of Korea, Mongolia, Japan, mainland China and Taiwan etx. unite together could be remote, but still possible. Why not? The Japanese had the same thought, altough the Japanese used the wrong method.  I am willing to see mainland and Taiwan unite, by in civilised way eg: for both of us sakes. Otherwise, I will defend the invasion. No matter the invader is Chinese or other force.

lol, what period what are talking about? the ancient China or modern China?  Who did we from a small hord become a mighty civilisation? Dont tell me because we were so superior and peacefully persuaded others joined us. Winner  survive; loser die. all civilisations are same. We winners wrote history. The losers were described as barbarian, drink blood, eat man etc. Fortunately, we are survivers. Yes, we are peaceloving people indeed. why not? does death people agree with us? They said NO once, then because we a so peaceloving, compared with us, they felt shame and kill them self. lol. who cares?

Chinese did fight a lot. sometimes, we want to fight; sometimes, we have to. These wars raised Chinese. Not only Chinese, but also other civilisation. There is no civilisation survives because of peaceloving.

because the thread isn't about chinese imperialism but reunification.

i am willing to hear and discuss but i am also letting you know that what u prefer wouldn't matter to us.

you have a misconception. i listen and respect ur view, but whether i care is completely up to me. that's how freedom of speech works as well. everyone has the right to express and the right to ACCEPT or DENY any information.

Since when has China any claim on Singapore? Singapore was not a colony nor settlement founded by China.

A country cannot reclaim or reunify territories it had never owned nor ruled in history.

China has not. It's just my personal thought. A country should not reclaim or reunify territories it has never owned nor ruled in history, but it definitely CAN!

Britain never owned India before it claimed it. America never owned California and Texas before it claimed it. The French never owned nor ruled Vietnam before it claimed it. The list goes on and on.

 this is sooo retro

Sino "Defender", I think what we need now is more friends less enemies. Protecting and refining Chinese "culture" is more important than some territorial ambitions.

I against Taiwan independence largely because of pro-independists' consistant attacks/hummiliation on the Chinese culture and Chinese peoples. But any further expansion I believe will bring more harms than good.

reclaiming daioyu tai islands, spratley islands, russian far east, and outer mongolia is an expansion.

maybe i will let singapore go as an independent state. but it's not like i want china to militarily occupy them. singapore can join china in the future if under the right circumstances peacefully.

Korea & Nam have been vassals states & colonies for many a former decade.

Neither is Tibet, Mongolia or Xinjiang.  Most people in Yunnan are not ethnic Chinese either, yet they are all part of modern China.

Korea & Nam have been vassal states/colonies for many a former decade.  Why not?

Oh and let's take all thse Central Asian states as well.

i say we take Japan as well, since they actually USE Chinese characters in their national language.  Of course we can "claim" those islands.

*ROLL EYES*

Sino Defender?  How old are you?  Dream ON, dreamer.

i am 22. expressing my personal thought isn't a crime. it is far from reality but here is no reality.

Because of all the places you mentioned were under the recent Chinese dynasty or regime dominion , which the modern China territory is based on.

Being young (but 22 isn't really THAT young) and idealistic is a good thing. But I'd rather see someone using one's youthful idealism and energy to to achieve social justice rather than dreaming to conquer foreign lands. You know in a way Poirot was right in saying that your thought is a little "retro". In this day and age, real prosperity does not depend on how much land a country holds. The world's richest countries are among the world's smallest. Those countries also rank the highest when it comes to egalitarianism, social conscience, international justice, and neutrality. A truly strong China should not be so narrowly defined by geography. It should depend on other qualities such as allowing its citizens to prosper, treating its citizens right, and treating other nations with respect. THAT is a country that demands respect from others.   

Before a country a reclaim something, it must lose it.

Before it can lose it, it must own it.

China can try to claim Singapore, but until it has owned and lost Singapore, it cannot reclaim or reunify with Singapore.

The only countries in the world today that can reclaim or reunify Singapore (if they so chooses to) would be

(1) Federation of Malaysia - Singapore was originally part of the Sultanate of Johor, which is today part of the Malaysian Federation.

(2) United Kingdom of the Great Britain - Singapore was a Crown Colony.

(3) Japan - which conquered and occupied Singapore from 1942-1945.

(4) Republic of Indonesia - based on some ancient maritime kingdom of long ago which claimed the entire Riau archipelago and southern parts of peninsular Malaysia.

What you think as your personal thought is entirely up to you, but the words reclaim and reunify have definite meanings which personal thoughts cannot change.

It's not as if you have a say in real life, it's just your fantasy.

Why on earth would Singapore want to join China?

There are more Singaporeans today who'd prefer to join the United States rather than China.

Just because Singaporean has ethnic Chinese as a majority of the population has nothing to do with China.

Being Chinese is an ethnicity in Singapore. Their nationality in Singaporean.

Being Chinese is a nationality in China. Their ethnicity could be Han, or Uighur, or Mongolian, or Bai, or one of the scores of official ethnic minorities.

The ethnic Chinese of Singaporeans call themselves Hua-Ren, NOT Zhong-Guo-Ren or Han-Ren.

Many maintain ties to relatives in the mainland, but so do many Italian-Americans maintain ties with Italy and Irish Americans maintain ties with Ireland. and Korean-Americans maintain ties with Korea. That's all there is to it.

 China maybe have some rights to "invade" taiwan but how you dare to claim greater manchuria , outer mongolia & singapore ! this is nonsense.

china have no rights to be there , the same goes to these occupied lands : Tibet , Eastern Turkistan "Uyghuristan" , Inner Mongolia , Gansu , Qinghai & Heilongjiang. 

if your people "hidden Army" are much more than the native people in singapore then that doesnt give you the rights to claim it ! and even if your country occupied it before.

using your logic today the so called china must goes back under the rule of the mongols.

and my answer to your silly poll is that china will be back to its normal border which is your so called great wall , just remember why your "brave" people built it , what a courage.

To Forgotten:

Regardless how improper SinoDefender's personal opinion, I still can't understand why you use the Great Wall to denounce Chinese's courage? Does building a defense line make people less brave or less determined to protect their own land?

While I think you may have points about Outer Mongolia and Singapore, I think you overstretch your argument, and fail to deliver anything other than an emotional outcry.

Gansu?  The last time I checked Gansu is predominately Han Chinese and had been since the early Han Empire.

how many times do i have to repeat? this wall was just used to prevent nomadic guerrilla. coz we had that long common border with nomads, their skirmishers often got into chinese territory to rob civiliances. it was always too late when our troops rushed to there, the nomads had escaped too fast. the same is that israel is building defence wall to deal with terrorists today, but this doesn't mean they are afraid of palestine.

Mongolians are not ethnic Chinese why do think it should be part of China.

How about China stops occupying East Turkistan, Tibet Inner Mongolia. You have NO right over them, yet your greed makes you want more

Your excuse for taking lands such as Singapore is that they are ethnic Han, if that was the case let the majority of China free from han occupation

You can make your point without resorting to sarcastic/inflammatory remarks.

i think Snowbeagle gave an excellent definition:

Being Chinese is an ethnicity in Singapore.  Chinese is among many ethnicities - which also include British, Malay, Indonesian, etc -  being represented in Singapore, who are all Singaporean nationals.

Being Chinese is a nationality in China, not an ethnicity.  Various ethnicities, including Han, Mongol, Tibetan, Uyghur, Hui, Zhuang, etc, are all part of the Chinese nationality.

China has little excuse for claiming Singapore, but to say that Mongolians are not ethnic Chinese would not only be confusing, but also may offend ethnic Mongolians who are proud Chinese citizens.

but when it comes to economic and political influence, those small countries are all off the league.

if you read carefully, the words "reunify" and "reclaim" weren't used on singapore.

i agree that your logic could be right to a certain extent. but before you force it on me, i would have to require you to force it on yourself first. based upon your rightfulness and morality, the united states should not even exist, and the land should be returned to the native americans. neither should australia, new zealand and  a dozen countries and regions.

Personally I'd rather live in a country that takes good care of its citizens, that treats its citizens fair and right, and that offers to HELP other countries in need than one that tries to "exert" influence in the economic and political scenes and that has aggressive expansionist policies, but can't even feed its citizens and has huge income and regional disparities within its border.

Even though countries like Norway, Sweden, Iceland, the Netherlands, etc. are small, the respect they've earned from the international community is no less than that of any so-called "powers". These countries are countries that set the records for the whole world in human rights, in egalitarianism, and in social progressivism.

I would  like to see a Chinese person being proud of his or her nationality because of China being a benevolent rather than a belligerent country.  

To Flyingzone:

I agreeed with your last part, once the issue across the strait settled, it will be time for the way of "king" (¤ý) rather than the way of "conqueror" (ÅQ).

i doubt you would have the same personal preference when you know all these countries you mentioned have an income tax rate of 50 percent.

plus, netherland isn't one of the countries that fall into your standard of benevolence. it also practiced imperialism. indonesia was part of the dutch oversea empire. the only developed countries that are not part of or have never practiced imperialism are switzerland and sweden. and that's about it. 50 percent tax rate, no super rich but mostly middle class.

Perhaps you seldom read my other posts and do not know my stand on social policies. I am all for income redistribution and generous social programmes.

It seems you have a preference for a skewed income distribution with a small % of super-rich controlling the bulk of a country's wealth. That's fine. It's your preference. Cannot dispute with someone's preference. In any case, it seems this is the direction that China is heading anyway, so this will probably make you happy.

Countries that are socially progressive today do not necessarily have the most glorious past. (FYI, Sweden WAS an imperial power too, but its expansionist ambition was somewhat confined to Northern Europe e.g. Finland). When I talk about benevolence and social progressivism, I always refer to issues such as gender equality, minority rights, environmental awareness, socfal justice, things that may not be of too much of importance to you given your fixation on territorial expansion, political and economic dominance, and military might.

The Nordic countries and the Low countries consistently spend a much larger proportion of their GDP on foreign aid than most other countries. And ever since the end of the era of Imperialism, these countries have essentially been engaging in extremely peaceful foreign policies.

In exalting the Nordic and the Low countries as "exemplary countries", I am not trying to (1) assert that these countries are "perfect" - no country is and (2) I am also not tryting to give any excuse for their imperialist past, but again, which country does not have a skeleton hidden in its historical closet? But I think, if I may say, a difference between you and I is that I have very little inclination to engage in national or cultural chauvinism of any kind whereas your world view is almost entirely dominated by your sinocentricism. I have no qualms about criticizing Canada and pointing out its shameful past, e.g. its treatment of the Native People, its past racist immigration policies, etc.

Sino Defender, it is one thing to love your country, it is another to do it the way you do. One of the most destructive forces in human history is the adherence to any kind of extreme "ism". Remember why you harbour so much hatred towards the Japanese nation? It's because of their brutal and shameful invasion of China. And how did that happen? It all probably started with someone with extreme nationalist and militaristic views, not unlike yours, ascended to power and had their personal agenda turned into the national agenda. What a horror that it had created!!!! Do you really want history to repeat itself, only this time it's China being the creator of those horrors?

perhaps, you don't know much about economics. big governments usually result in worse economic performance. an ideal society is a free economy with a very low tax rate. just let the people do whatever, and the economy will prosper. having a high tax rate to try to take care of people usually makes the economy worse off. a truly rich society is a society with a number of big rich and a great number of middle class. not a boring economy with all middle class and no real entrepreneur spirit.

I actually find your assumption of me being ignorant about such basic economics and basic historical facts kind of cute  .  When I was 22, I also assumed I knew a lot, or at least more than everyone around me.

Take back has the same meaning as reclaim.

In any case, you have not shown what has Singapore got to do China?

If flimsy grounds are good enough, why not go for California or the United States?

After all, there's some proposal that the Chinese "discovered" American way before the Columbus.

the word "take back" wasn't used on singapore. "incorporated" was the word used on singapore, and i didn't mean militarily incorporated.

well, taiwan must be with china even if it means , east turkistan, tibet and mongolia are to be gone. taiwan is a chinese province, not a country.

"well, taiwan must be with china even if it means , east turkistan, tibet and mongolia are to be gone. taiwan is a chinese province, not a country."

Agreed

Then specify what you mean. Why pick on Singapore?

Why not the Ryukus or Japan? Historically, these territories (or some parts of these territories) acknowledged China as overlord and themselves in the status of vassals.

But not Singapore.

Why not Korea or Vietnam?

If Alberto Fujimori had been a Chinese descent instead of Japanese, would Peru be included?

Sino Defender

Have you ever met any Singaporeans? all my 4 tenants are  Chinese-Singaporean,  and trust me, you'd spend alot of time to "re-educate" them, if you are serious about your plan. i wouldnt be willing to help.

Can you explain to avoid potential misinterpretations of your statement? I hope you mean the Singaporeans have such a strong Singaporean  national identity that it is naive to think that they would identify with the PRC as their "mother country".  

Originally posted by Leonidas Ive always liked tawain but ill trade it in for tibet, nei mongol and east turkistan any day

the issue of taiwan is emotionally, culturally, and politically attached with every chinese of chinese blood. it's not like tibet, east turkistan, and mongolia. the province of taiwan is part of the han culture.

taiwan's population is not the majority of the chinese population. i am saying the majority of the chinese population of 1.3 billions.

that's why i've always expected a war between both sides. america also fought a war to gain its independence. if taiwan wanted to be independent, it also would have to fight a war.

that's not realistic.

i have a question

why china wants to expand more? i mean ok there are many chines living outside china but china itself is huge, and the population is huge. why adding more people to govern??

what Taiwan will add to china ?

or its just economy matters?

taiwan has always been part of china under the repubic of china's government that once ruled all china. china is not trying to expand more, but to reunify. it's like the east and west germany issue, but only the mainland is much larger than the province of taiwan.

it is nothing about the economy. mainland china's gdp as a whole is much larger than that of taiwan. a war between mainland china and taiwan will probably result in a loss of gdp much greater than any gains in economic sense that china might need a few decades to recover.

it is about national and cultural unity. the chinese have been fighting for the unification of china for thousands of years.

taiwan is a very core part of the han culture. you might argue about tibet, inner mongolia, and east turkistan where the han culture isn't native. i am not denying anything, and i admit that tibet, inner mongolia, and east turkistan are part of china because of our military might.

but for taiwan, it's part of the han culture that china will risk everything holding on to it.

history has taught us that china can only be strong when it's unified. whenever china was divided, the country sufferred foreign inhuminations. a strong china is not what japan and the us want to see, and they are trying to delay the reunification of china

Historically, Taiwan had already been ceded to Japan in 1895 after the First Sino-Japanese War, and thus was not part of the Republic of China that was founded in 1911.

The ROC only took control of Taiwan in 1945 after Japan was defeated.

Perhaps Taiwan is part of the Han culture, perhaps it is not.

But there is no rule nor logic that says those of the same culture must be part of the same nation.

Sukarno tried the same argument in claiming Malaysia and Singapore to be part of Indonesia.

Hitler did the same in claiming union of Germany with Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. He was even welcomed in parts of the invaded territories with strong presence of "ethnic Germans".

Let's not forget what happened in former Yugoslavia when some Serbs tried to assert the ideology of "Greater Serbia".

Though I don't agree with most of Sino Sword's statements, Taiwan issue was far more complicated than what most of westerner thought.

First, reunification of Taiwan was not driven by expansionism nor imperialsim. It had far more nationalistic, ethnic and emotional attachment. Taiwan was ceded because of Sino-Japanese War of 1945, it was first Han-dominated province ever surrenderd to the foreign power under Q'ing. The involment of national pride/shame on this issue was too great, especially most of pro-independists were also pro-Japanese.

The de-sinification movement in Taiwan was more a political movement rather than a genuine culture revolution. Let's put this way, many de-sinification tactics involved in protraying mainlanders or Chinese civilization in general as pure evil. Some of the pro-independist or de-sinification advoctors went as far as denying the existence of Nanking Massacre or refering all Chinese as pigs.

As a "mainlander" growing up in Taipei, I personally experienced the political fanatism going on the island right now. The island is now devided by two camps that swear to destroy each other (though the statement is abit exagerate) -  Conflicts within the political arena and among the general population raised as days gone by. The blinded political, ethnic frenzy was similar to pre-civil war American or even pre-Nazi germany.

The facts is (not exaggerated): if the pro-independent faction dare to declare independence, the pro-unification faction will immediately join with PRC and began a civil war. Both sides were willing to turn gun to their neighbours...

PS: If there are more Han Chinese residents in Tibet than Tibetans, and they want to remain unify with China dispite their Tibetan's will (only assumption)... how do you justify the idependence and what will you do with all the Han Chinese residents?

hong kong was ceded to britain in 1842, and is still part of china. china didn't control hong kong until 1997. foreign invasion doesn't make the splitting of chinese territories legitimate.

taiwan is part of the han culture, and even more so than mainland china itself after the cultural revolution. the traditional chinese culture, values, customs, and artifests survived because of taiwan. there is no question about it.

taiwan is part of china not because only of its culture, but all kinds of reasons. if it wanted to declare independence, there would be no alternative other than fighting a war against china. that's reality. face it.

for dream: yes, the immigration of han chinese into tibet and xinjiang has made it almost impossible for any future independent movements to succeed as the han chinese have become, more or less, the majority of these regions. that's a smart way of keeping this land for china forever.

I think many of us feel that the Chinese are very pragmatic and reasonable people.  However, I also understand that the Chinese consider all Chinese, wherever they are, and whenever they were born, to be Chinese.  There is a certain sense that the Chinese diaspora is a "part of China."

There are large Chinese populations in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, not to mention Taiwan.  It is possible that, in future, China may look on those ethnic Chinese as the Germans did the Germans of Poland and Czechoslovakia - ethnic kin to be "protected."  It could be an emotional attachment, but it could also be only a pretext for controlling strategic areas and economic resources necessary for the PRC (or whatever follows that).

I do not claim expert knowledge, but there seems to be a return to the concept that the "Middle Kingdom" is the center of all; that everything radiates from there and that other cultures are "barbarian" and that there is a rightness to the expansion of superior Chinese-Confucian civilization.

Just an observation.

the issue of taiwan is completely different. it is not expansion but reunification. national unity is very important to the chinese, and thousands of wars and battles were fought for just that one reason in history.

Originally posted by Leonidas Ive always liked tawain but ill trade it in for tibet, nei mongol and east turkistan any day

Part of the reason why the PRC is pressing on the Taiwan reunification issue is Tibet and Xinjiang.  If Taiwan breaks away officially, what precedent will it set for Tibet and Xinjiang?

From a strategic point of view, if I were the president of the People's Republic of China, and I had to choose between Tibet and Taiwan, I would pick Tibet.  Of course, Taiwan has its geopolicial advantages, but losing Tibet or Xinjiang officially is ten times worse strategically than seeing Taiwan break away.

Originally posted by poirot Originally posted by Leonidas Ive always liked tawain but ill trade it in for tibet, nei mongol and east turkistan any day Part of the reason why the PRC is pressing on the Taiwan reunification issue is Tibet and Xinjiang.  If Taiwan breaks away officially, what precedent will it set for Tibet and Xinjiang? From a strategic point of view, if I were the president of the People's Republic of China, and I had to choose between Tibet and Taiwan, I would pick Tibet.  Of course, Taiwan has its geopolicial advantages, but losing Tibet or Xinjiang officially is ten times worse strategically than seeing Taiwan break away.

that's because prc does not control taiwan now and enjoys no strategic advantage from taiwan. taiwan can actually provide prc with the best strategic location to access the resources in the pacific to which tibet and xinjiang cannot compare. tibet serves as a barrier for india, but with modern technology, missiles can easily fly over. so such an advantage is gone. xinjiang is mainly known for its resources and ideal position to export influence to central asia. however, the potential gain from having access to the pacific as well as south china sea is far more than what is attributing to prc by tibet and xinjiang not to mention about the total gdp of taiwan being much larger than tibet and xinjiang combined.

if i had to choose between tibet+xinjiang and taiwan, also known as the unsinkable aircraft carrier by some, i would choose taiwan.

Poirot:

I don't think Taiwan has any specific strategic value to China.  The issue seems to be more about building reputation by demonstrations of influence and power where there are no longer strategic interests on the part of former adversaries (Hong Kong - Britain; Taiwan - U.S.) or where the former adversary cannot resist (Influence in Korea - Japan).

Tough talk over Taiwan when the U.S. is not willing to go to war over it, or increasing influence in the two Koreas where Japan can no longer do anything about it and the U.S. is close to leaving, are substantial extensions of Chinese influence "on the cheap."  The reacquisition of Hong Kong was treated almost as a conquest.  Moves into Indochina, Malaya or Indonesia, and meddling in Latin America could have more serious consequences.  Those would affect vital interests of India and the U.S.

Chinese activities in Venezuela might very well provoke opposition from Brazil which is a long way from China.  The new kids are feeling their way, but they need to be careful.

Is this the "diaspora" imperative?

Today Taiwan; tomorrow Singapore, then.....what?

The resumption of Chinese control over HK & Macao were negotiated by the Chinese government with the governments of UK & Portugal respectively.

Can China negotiate with Japan for the return of Taiwan?

First, my point was to refute the your statement that Taiwan had always been under the ROC, I pointed out ROC which was established in 1911 only took control of Taiwan in 1945.

Second, HK & Macao were not in the position as Taiwan today. The decision of being returned to Chinese control were made by the governments of UK & Portugal respectively, the HK people and Macao people had nary a choice.

So we're talking realpolitiks now?

Then all the claims about historical claims and Han culture etc were just excuses and superficial.

The real truth is, it is a matter of "might makes right", isn't it?

And therefore, the reason for dropping Korea and Vietnam and parts of Japan which historically accepted Chinese suzerainity was because "a bully never picks on somebody his own size".

why should we negotiate with japan for the return of taiwan? taiwan is no longer a japanese colony. taiwan is already part of china, known as the republic of china, a chinese government established in 1912.

both mainland china and taiwan are part of china. neither makes up entire china. they both belong to one china with the mainland under the rule of the prc and the province of taiwan and part of the fujian province under the rule of roc.

china negotiated with britain only for the terms of returning hong kong. the return of hong kong to chinese sovereighty was definite. they were only negotiating in what way hong kong was to be returned, not whether it would be.

The Taiwan Strait has strategic importance.  The strategic importance of Taiwan to China is similiar to Cuba to the United States - an eyesore.  I apologize for the term, but for the PRC, the Taiwan Strait is like the Gulf of Mexico or the Caribbean.

Originally posted by Sino Defender Originally posted by poirot Originally posted by Leonidas Ive always liked tawain but ill trade it in for tibet, nei mongol and east turkistan any day Part of the reason why the PRC is pressing on the Taiwan reunification issue is Tibet and Xinjiang.  If Taiwan breaks away officially, what precedent will it set for Tibet and Xinjiang? From a strategic point of view, if I were the president of the People's Republic of China, and I had to choose between Tibet and Taiwan, I would pick Tibet.  Of course, Taiwan has its geopolicial advantages, but losing Tibet or Xinjiang officially is ten times worse strategically than seeing Taiwan break away. that's because prc does not control taiwan now and enjoys no strategic advantage from taiwan. taiwan can actually provide prc with the best strategic location to access the resources in the pacific to which tibet and xinjiang cannot compare. tibet serves as a barrier for india, but with modern technology, missiles can easily fly over. so such an advantage is gone. xinjiang is mainly known for its resources and ideal position to export influence to central asia. however, the potential gain from having access to the pacific as well as south china sea is far more than what is attributing to prc by tibet and xinjiang not to mention about the total gdp of taiwan being much larger than tibet and xinjiang combined. if i had to choose between tibet+xinjiang and taiwan, also known as the unsinkable aircraft carrier by some, i would choose taiwan.

Just to illustrate the importance of Tibet to the PRC, the source of both the Yellow River and the Yangtze River are in Tibet/Qinghai. 

As to the importance of Xinjiang, cities like Shanghai cannot survive witouth natural gas pumped from there.

Population lived in Taiwan really don't think this is about stratgeic issue anymore...

Also, issue of Taiwan's reunification is a "totally" different issue than Chinese expansion. As I said before, the reunification right now is not about profit or strategy (or maybe only too lesser extend), it is about something more emotional and nationalistic

So why did you bring up HK in the first place?

In what way does HK reinforce any of your argument about Taiwan?

Reality is, historical associations is not the determining factor in whether a territory belong to a particular country.

The birthplace of the Russian identity / culture was in Kiev. Kiev today is part of Ukraine, not Russia.

It is de facto.

Whether Taiwan is part of China will not be determined by rhetorical assertions or appeal to historical precedents.

It will be determined by whether the people of Taiwan wants to consider themselves part of China, and whether they can prevail against those who oppose it.

It will be a contest of willpower, military and everything.

Everything else is just an excuse.

Very well said. I always insist that, even for something that is as apparently "real" as nationhood, it is nothing more than an "imagined community" constructed by historians, politicians, etc. to, paradoxically, justify their existence.

Yesterday it was a nation, today it is not, but tomorrow it may be again.  

i brought up hong kong because it was wrong of you using the colonial period of taiwan to support your argument. so i brought up hong kong as a similar example to illustrate how wrong it would be to apply your concept. i am glad that you've realized it yourself now.

the reality is whoever is strong has the call. under no circumstances can taiwan compete with mainland china in terms of economics, military, political influence, potential, growth, and almost everything.

On the contary, it was you who made the mistake - you first claimed that Taiwan was under ROC rule all the while - but that is historically inaccurate.

When that was pointed out to you, you tried to use the example of HK being ceded from China half a century before Taiwan and now is reunified with China today.

But you forgot - HK was returned to China by the UK.

On the other hand, China cannot ask Japan to return Taiwan since  Japan had already relinquished control over Taiwan in 1945.

Taiwan today is a free agent, HK never was. There is relevancy between the case of HK & the case of Taiwan.

You already made a mistake in claiming Taiwan was always under the ROC, and instead of admitting it, you are now just coming up with more and more irrelevancies..

That is just an empty boast.

Even if all the advantages you cited mainland China holds is true (a BIG PRESUMPTION), Taiwan need not yield if it did not want to.

Those advantages count only if mainland China actually declares war, and that is an unlikely event under the present circumstances.

Unless the people of mainland China can become so cold-blooded to attack and kill their supposed fellow citizens, war is just an empty threat.

And as long as the USA continues its commitment to defend Taiwan against invasion, there is little chance of victory by the PRC.

And because mainland Chinese leaders recognise that the use of force is counter-productive and mutually devastating, war is not even a viable option - any victory would be Phyrric and leave the CCP government weak, precipitating a break up of China which the central government would be powerless to stop.

Might and economics make right.  In the real world, strength determines outcome.

Of course, it is right to respect the wishes of inhabitants of Taiwan.  It is the right thing to do.  But reality may be different.

In terms of Hong Kong, I always harbored a theory about it: The PRC actually did not want Hong Kong back earlier than 1997.  The reason?  Hong Kong served as a middleman between the PRC and Europe/Southeast Asia. 

The PRC could have easily taken control of Hong Kong circa 1949, but it decided not to.  Opponents of my theory would argue that the British fleet yadda yadda, but the truth is, the British were nonfactors in the Chinese Civil War and would not be able to resist a communist invasion of Hong Kong.  In an age when the reckless PRC crossed the Yalu to confront Americans in Korea, the British were an afterthought.

Then why didn't the PRC take Hong Kong between 1949 and the start of the Korean War?  Well, because the PRC needed Hong Kong as a window to the West.  Hong Kong's importance emerged later when the U.S. blockaded the PRC.  Important supplies exchanged hands with Hong Kong businessmen serving as valued middlemen.  In a sense, Hong Kong merchants were true Chinese patriots.

An added benefit of the PRC intentionally keeping Hong Kong outside of direct PRC control: Britain was the first major allied power to recognize the PRC's legitmacy, in 1954.

From 1949 to the late 1970s, Hong Kong's independent status from the PRC reaped benefits for the PRC.

Never has patriotism been so lucrative!

i said taiwan was under the rule of china. i didn't say it was the roc! the ming general, zheng, formed a chinese kingdom of dengling to resist the manchu until his grandson surrendered in the late 17th century. why dun we place a beg on this. 1000000000000 usd. if you would please copy me the text where i said taiwan was under roc control, then i will give you 100000000 usd.

one thing is for sure: if taiwan were to declare independence, china would attack. it's not a matter of anyone being cold-blooded. it's about national unity. i would prefer china destroyed along with taiwan to an independent taiwan.

taiwan is no longer part of japan. it is part of china, known as the republic of china. taiwan is currently part of china under a different government from the mainland. it's not a seperate entity trying to aviod invasion. it is a chinese region trying to break up with china.

do not assume mainland to be china and taiwan to be taiwan. none of these make entire china. mainland china is also part of china to which taiwan belongs to. rpc and roc are only chinese regimes governing different parts of china.

yes, no one wanna solve this by force. but that's only taiwan remains part of china. if taiwan declared independence, there would be no choice but to solve it by miliatary means. letting it independent is not an option. be it the devastation of the entire country's economy. we would have no choice if that's the case.

very well said. that's completely true. china didn't take hk back in 1949 not because it could not as indicated by snowy. it could legally and realistically. but hk could provide china with a channel to the west.