This is a hypothetical situation, but not an impossible one. I'm curious how the world (or at least Languish) should respond to it.
Let's say that on one fine day the PRC collapses. Protests in Beijing occur over corruption or some similar, and the police are incapable of stopping them. The protestors grow wider and more ambitious, they call for end of communist rule and the government calls in the army. The army is unable or unwilling to move against the protests. Communist rule dissolves with little or no blood shed. A new government is formed and with help from the ROC writes a Constitution and has fair elections. Within a few years the ROC and the mainland China reunite and the new Chinese state is a western leaning, functional, and prosperous democracy. This is probably the best case situation, but not impossible. Similar situations occurred with some Eastern European states.
Here is the tricky part, both the ROC and PRC make some rather outrageous territorial claims. Any new government will likely inherent those claims. The claims include all those little islands that folks were talking about last month, along chunks of other countries (and the entire country of Mongolia!). How does the US and the rest of thew world deal with a friendly regime with such an interest in aggressive territorial expansion?
Given that the US has an interest in stability in East Asia, and has long-standing allies there, how is a regime interested in aggressive territorial expansion friendly?
The ROC has no interest in any of its claims. It has even pretty much reached an agreement with Japan where it mostly recognises Japanese ownership of the Senkakus in exchange for fishing rights.
The ROC has to keep all of its claims however as it is part of the ROC claiming to be China and not Taiwan. If the ROC dropped its claims then that would be a huge step towards declaring an independent Taiwan which would create a bit of an incident with the PRC.
I can't see this new China demanding Mongolia back. It definitely won't allow Tibet and Xinjiang to break off, though it may allow more autonomy and be less ruthless in maintaining order. No sane Chinese leader will back off in territorial disputes involving Japan under any and all circumstances. If anything, a democratic China that is responsive to popular demands will take a much more hardline stance against Japan, with trade wars and embargoes being more than likely. South China sea, the waters surrounding the Phillipines, the dispute with India etc are another matter entirely. I think a democratic China will be much more ready to negotiate or accept international arbitration. As long as Japan is not involved.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaAhKVLm.png&hash=fd50f99302419d39c3b771c6856573c774813e6e)
There are some fairly aggressive claims here.
I think China reached an agreement with Russia on splitting the disputed territories in the North-east a few years ago. Pretty sure only the ROC claims Mongolia, and it is just a paper claim that nobody takes seriously, including the ROC. Beijing and most of the population have no problem whatsoever with Mongolia. The same with the claims involving the central asian stans. Nobody really cares.
The ones that Beijing really pursues are the Diaoyu islands, South China sea, and the Indian border. Actually, the dispute with Japan involves a lot more than the islands. The entire East China sea is at stake, though the general population focuses on the islands only.
My point is that we can all safely oppose the claims of China because they are an evil communist state. That may not be the situation in the future. Chinese claims are not based on them being evil communists but because of nationalist irredentism. There is no particular reason to believe that this would go away even with a democratic China. There are plenty of powers that have been allied to the US and have outstanding territorial disputes which have been occasionally pressed violently The UK and Argentina and Turkey and Greece over Cyprus have both put the US in a peculiar situation. India is a current one, India has claims all over the place some with powers at least nominally friendly with the US. The Mideast is a mindfield of such problems.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 31, 2013, 01:13:47 AM
My point is that we can all safely oppose the claims of China because they are an evil communist state. That may not be the situation in the future. Chinese claims are not based on them being evil communists but because of nationalist irredentism. There is no particular reason to believe that this would go away even with a democratic China. There are plenty of powers that have been allied to the US and have outstanding territorial disputes which have been occasionally pressed violently The UK and Argentina and Turkey and Greece over Cyprus have both put the US in a peculiar situation. India is a current one, India has claims all over the place some with powers at least nominally friendly with the US. The Mideast is a mindfield of such problems.
I agree with you. The territorial disputes won't go away easily even if the communists are gone. I think some people don't realise that the communists have shown considerable restraint by containing the nationalist feelings of the Chinese population. These disputes have the potential to esculate even if there is a democratically elected Chinese government.
I don't think a friendly democratic China will be a problem. An unfriendly democratic China could be, but that's not the scenario.
I'd say a pre-condition for China to be considered "friendly" - democratic or not - involves it not pushing territorial claims to the point that it could lead to actual fighting. If China maintains its various claims in such a way that regular international relations can continue - say the way Denmark and Canada dealt with Hans Island - then no problem. If there are regular unscripted (or even scripted) military face-offs with Japan, Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines, then China is not "friendly".
I think you're right that many people in the West react to China's territorial claims based on them being perceived as "the enemy", so you may be right that a shift to a friendlier China may change some people's perception of the claims.
That said, I expect that a mainland Chinese democracy would end up fairly putin-esque so I'm not sure democracy is a sufficient condition for the most Westerners to consider China friendly. I doubt it would convince CdM, for example.
I agree with Jacob. I'd add that I think much the same goes for Iran if there were a democratic revolution.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 31, 2013, 12:37:25 PM
I agree with Jacob. I'd add that I think much the same goes for Iran if there were a democratic revolution.
Does Iran have many territorial claims?
No, but they've got a strong historical influence on the Dari speakers in Afghanistan (supported by India to create problems for Pakistan). But I really mean they won't give up trying to enhance their regional power and I'm not sure they'd even not make nukes if they were a democratic state.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 31, 2013, 12:45:33 PM
No, but they've got a strong historical influence on the Dari speakers in Afghanistan (supported by India to create problems for Pakistan). But I really mean they won't give up trying to enhance their regional power and I'm not sure they'd even not make nukes if they were a democratic state.
Ah OK. I didn't think they did, but I wasn't 100% sure.
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2013, 10:41:59 PM
The ROC has no interest in any of its claims. It has even pretty much reached an agreement with Japan where it mostly recognises Japanese ownership of the Senkakus in exchange for fishing rights.
The ROC has to keep all of its claims however as it is part of the ROC claiming to be China and not Taiwan. If the ROC dropped its claims then that would be a huge step towards declaring an independent Taiwan which would create a bit of an incident with the PRC.
And anyway, I hate those events where you lose your cores.
Quote from: sbr on December 31, 2013, 12:41:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 31, 2013, 12:37:25 PM
I agree with Jacob. I'd add that I think much the same goes for Iran if there were a democratic revolution.
Does Iran have many territorial claims?
Against Bahrain, United Arab emirates, and Oman.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F0%2F03%2FGreater_Iran.gif&hash=3537892b29308251b9cda82091f7d9aaa145644c)
Lolz
They should go back to calling it the Kingdom of the Parthians.
I can't help but notice Bahrain, the UAE and Oman are missing there :lol:
Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2013, 08:51:09 PM
I can't help but notice Bahrain, the UAE and Oman are missing there :lol:
:unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2013, 09:08:38 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2013, 08:51:09 PM
I can't help but notice Bahrain, the UAE and Oman are missing there :lol:
:unsure:
You expect Siege to read the maps he posts?
He posted a (correct) fact about modern Iran having territorial disputes with Gulf states (over islands and the associated seafloor rights). He then posted an entirely unrelated map overlaying one of the old Persian empires on modern borders, on which said islands would be too small to appear.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 01, 2014, 04:54:27 AM
He posted a (correct) fact about modern Iran having territorial disputes with Gulf states (over islands and the associated seafloor rights). He then posted an entirely unrelated map overlaying one of the old Persian empires on modern borders, on which said islands would be too small to appear.
But Baharain, UAE and Qatar are on the map Siege posted.
Iran's territorial disputes aren't over those countries' mainlands, only islands in the Gulf.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 02, 2014, 02:22:42 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 01, 2014, 04:54:27 AM
He posted a (correct) fact about modern Iran having territorial disputes with Gulf states (over islands and the associated seafloor rights). He then posted an entirely unrelated map overlaying one of the old Persian empires on modern borders, on which said islands would be too small to appear.
But Baharain, UAE and Qatar are on the map Siege posted.
But the map does not illustrate any alleged territorial conflicts between Iran and those countries, thus failing to support his claim.
Quote from: Jacob on January 02, 2014, 02:29:31 PM
But the map does not illustrate any alleged territorial conflicts between Iran and those countries, thus failing to support his claim.
Ah, okay, I misunderstood Josq's post.
Anyway, I'm not sure if pushing territorial claims precludes the US from being friendly, after all the ROC has pushed some of those claims and is a US ally. India has pushed some it's claims and today enjoys a warm relationship with the US. The US has a tendency toward trying to maintain good relationship with as many powers as possible, often for the sake of having good relations.
Weakk attentpmt to bring the thread back on tropic, Raz.