taiwan missile defense and mainland missile

PanAsian said:

I can see how the US may frame a peaceful China-Taiwan re-unification in a patronizing manner but I don't think Taiwan is the US' or anyone else's to negotiate away to or from China.

Hong Kong was only a city and a colony ceded by China to Britain at that, at no time was it ever an independent entity by definition or by fact. Taiwan is one side of the Chinese civil war, the losing side even if the loss was not total, and has always been an independent entity by fact and by definition, as its government once had and still claims to represent all of China.

Any negotiations about the future of Taiwan will be among the people and rulers of Taiwan first, then the rulers of the rest of China second.

Click to expand...

The British voluntarily re-negotiated the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) despite having absolutely no obligation to do so because HK was ceded by China to Britain in perpetuity (ie. forever) and thus is non-negotiate and unrelated to New Territories 99 year lease renewal.

In a similar light, I predict the Americans will voluntarily re-negotiate (criteria for intervention) in Taiwan Relations Act (1979) despite having no obligation to do so because Taiwan is a separate entity from the PRC both by definition and fact.

Why? In both situations, both nations had to compromise with China's sheer geographic proximity, economic, and military preeminence of China in the region, yet desired to save-face for their democracy ideals by instituting 50 years of capitalist semi-autonomy after unification with a Communist power.

Great power abrogate treaties and laws all the time, so there is a precedence for non-negotiate items like Taiwan Relations Act or Treaty of Nanjing to be abrogated or reviewed in light of NEW CIRCUMSTANCES (ie. a more powerful China in a new strategic security paradigm) that existed in the past.

TLDR: Things change, there is a precedence for Great Powers reneging on previous treaties, obligations, and proposals.