> Taiwan does not consider Taiwan and mainland China to be separate countries.
This is false. Both the government of Taiwan, and the people here, obviously consider the two countries separate, and neither have made any overtures challenging the sovereignty of the CPC in nearly fifty years. Not to mention the fact that the last government to do so has been overthrown in the 90s (the overthrow of the KMT settler colonial dictatorship).
You will now vaguely refer to the ROC constitution, but I'll preempt that by saying the constitution makes no claims to PRC territory, full stop. And the constitutional reforms in the 90s explicitly recognize PRC sovereignty over its territory - because Taiwanese people aren't the KMT and want nothing to do with the KMT's now 8 decade old fight.
> I'm not sure what the invasion would be, a country invading itself?
I know exactly what it would be: tens of thousands of PLA dead at the order of Xi in service of his old man's ego, and economic disaster for both countries, followed up by the most riotously uncontrolled occupied territory in the PRC. Taiwanese people in living memory bled to overthrow a military dictatorship, you think they won't fight to do so again?
PRC invasion of Taiwan would be imperialism.
There's a distinction between countries and governments. Both sides officially consider themselves to be China, the country, but under different, competing governments. They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all.
The current ruling party of Taiwan would like to change that, but they haven't done so for the obvious reason that the PRC would not accept it (and most Taiwanese people prefer to just leave things as they are).
> Both sides officially consider themselves to be China
There is no "China, the country." "China" just means, essentially, "Empire." It's like a country claiming to be Europe, or maybe better, The Roman Empire. Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true.
> They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all.
Only one side of that conflict still exists. The other was overthrown by the people of Taiwan in the 90s. Descendants of those overthrown maintain government positions under that party name, but it's essentially a different government, given that it's a multi party democracy now, not a single party military dictatorship.
> The current ruling party of Taiwan would like to change that, but they haven't done so for the obvious reason that the PRC would not accept it (and most Taiwanese people prefer to just leave things as they are).
This is mostly true, with caveats: Most people in Taiwan prefer independence, but don't want to declare it to trigger a war, so therefore they only prefer status quo because it involves independence without war. If they could get it, most Taiwanese would prefer declared independence with no threat of war, but pragmatism rules out.
I'm also not sure I agree the DPP is necessarily pro-overt independence, just the current president tends to use more aggressive language than normal.
"China" is analogous to "France," not "Europe."
There was a civil war inside China, with the rulers of both competing sides claiming the entire country as their own for decades after the shooting ended. Inside Taiwanese politics, there has been a shift relatively recently (in the last 20 years), but it would be a major shift if that were actually implemented as official policy.
> Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true.
We live in a post-WWII world of national sovereignty and inviolable borders (or at least we did until very recently). That's what China rests on for its claims, legally speaking.
"France" is a great example, as is "Italy." What we perceive of when we hear those words is a territory and government that are perfectly overlain. In reality, what one might consider France or Italy in reality contains other sovereign states! San Marino, The Vatican, Monaco, Andorra.
Personally I think it's important for modern people to reject this feudal era idea that a government can claim a mandate to rule over certain territories just because of the territory of previous governments, or because of the distributions of certain ethnicities, religions, or languages. I think it's important for people to maintain an identity separate from any given government, to defang the ability of governments to leverage racialized nationalism to protect the state's continuity at all costs, even to the detriment to the people living in its territory.
By the way, it remains false that Taiwan makes any claims to PRC territory. Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try.
> Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try.
Okay, since you asked for it. Article 4 of the constitution of the Republic of China:
"The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly."
This was passed in 1947, when the Republic of China very explicitly claimed all of China (plus Mongolia). The constitution sets that claim in stone, and says that it can only be changed by an act of the legislature. There's never been such an act.
Taiwan formally recognizes mainland China as the "Mainland Area," and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area." It's a legal mess that arises out of formally claiming a territory that they don't control (and now no longer want to regain control over).
I didn't realize it was the same person I had made this comment to twice, so I will copy and paste my answer here:
> > The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.
Nope, they were never formally defined, not even in legislation.
This flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the constitutional reforms, when a clear delineation was made between "territory the ROC controls, and mainland territory (which the ROC does not claim)". The constitutional court also addressed the question directly: https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=3105... TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."
Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory. Lacking any other Taiwanese claim to the territory (legislation, etc), it's therefore a fact that Taiwan makes no claims whatsoever to PRC territory.
> and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area."
There is no evidence to back this claim.
> It's a legal mess that arises out of formally claiming a territory that they don't control
There is no evidence that Taiwan makes a formal claim to territory it doesn't have sovereignty over (aka, PRC territory).
They were formally defined by the term "existing boundaries," which was clear in 1947. It most definitely did not mean the island of Taiwan, a tiny part of the Republic of China at the time.
> TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."
That's not the TLDR of the ruling, and nothing like that appears in the ruling. The TLDR of the ruling is that the court does not have the authority to rule on what the territory of the ROC is.
> Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory.
The constitution clearly defines the existing territory as the borders of the ROC at the time of the passage of the constitution, in 1947. That was explicitly maintained by the ROC government for decades after it lost the civil war. The current ruling party doesn't agree with it, but hasn't changed the constitution or passed any act that eliminates the claim.
>> and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area."
> There is no evidence to back this claim
You're disputing that the ROC formally defines a "Mainland Area," as opposed to recognizing the mainland as belonging to a separate country? This is not even something you can reasonably dispute. They do use that legal fiction.