The ROC has declared not just independence, but sovereignty over all of China. This... does not meaningfully reflect reality.
Hong Kong is extremely unlikely to be able to emulate the political success Taiwan has had (which is, baring some diplomatic hiccups, total - it is, contrary to PRC, USA, and occasionally ROC statements, a totally normal country similar to China in language and, to a lesser extent, culture, but not otherwise related). Mainland China knows this and has been ignoring statements of sovereign control by the Republic of China for some time. But they do control the island of Taiwan, as well as several others.
> The ROC has declared not just independence, but sovereignty over all of China. This... does not meaningfully reflect reality.
To be fair, the PRC claims over the territory controlled by the ROC are just as ridiculous as the corresponding claims made by the ROC over lands controlled by the PRC. (Arguably the PRC claims are crazier, since they have _never_ controlled Taiwan, Kinmen, etc.)
The ROC is as much a legitimate government over its territory as the PRC is of its territory. To believe otherwise requires some seriously twisted historical revisionism.
> The ROC is as much a legitimate government over its territory as the PRC is of its territory. To believe otherwise requires some seriously twisted historical revisionism.
De jure, yes. I'm sure Chiang wanted to re-conquer China from the PRC as well. I think if ROC is reestablished on the mainland at some point it will NOT be a direct successor state to ROC (Taiwan).
A real world example is Russia, it is a successor state to the USSR with little (no?) direct connection to the Russian Empire even though it restored the flags and symbols of that state.
Neither has the PRC. I'm not sure why that's relevant here.
> De jure, yes.
_And_ de facto. The PRC has _never_ exercised control over Taiwan, Kinmen, etc. The PRC claims to the lands controlled by the ROC are as ridiculous as the ROC claims to lands controlled by the PRC _both_ de jure and de facto. By any reasonable measure, there have been two independent countries sitting next to each other for almost 70 years now.
> The ROC has declared not just independence, but sovereignty over all of China.
> Neither has the PRC. I'm not sure why that's relevant here.
(de jure) ROC is the same Republic of China that was established in 1912. PRC was declared in 1949.
> there have been two independent countries sitting next to each other for almost 70 years now.
Yes, but the PRC (and KMT until it became clear that retaking the mainland was impossible) is openly hostile to that viewpoint, which is what I originally posted.
Are you kidding? how could ROC is the legitimate government of China? KMT has lost the civil war in 1949, which means they already lost the legitimate ownership for China. They can still keep ROC in Taiwan just as PLA didn't conquer Taiwan at that time, and they got support from US.
It's actually more because the Communist Party has invested a great deal of political capital in the idea of Taiwan being a rogue province that must be brought back into the fold. It is a source of national shame not just for the government, but for the public, due to years of propaganda.
