More than two-thirds of Taiwanese people would be willing to fight off a Chinese invasion of their island, a new survey found. Just over half of respondents believe that the United States would send its military to help.

Most Taiwanese people would be willing to defend their island against a Chinese attack, according to a poll published Wednesday. Most also believe that such an attack is highly unlikely in the next five years.

The poll, commissioned by the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, was released a day before Taiwan’s National Day.

Should Beijing attack, 67.8% of the 1,214 people surveyed said they would be “very willing or somewhat willing” to fight in defense of Taiwan; 23.6% said they would not be.

Almost 64% said China’s “territorial ambition” in Taiwan represents “a serious threat.” At the same time, 61% said it was not likely China would invade soon.

Some 52% of respondents said that they believed key ally the United States would come to their aid in the invent of a Chinese invasion. Yet, only 40% believed that the US would send its navy to “break” a potential blockade.

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 个月前

    I’d argue that position would hold more water if politicians didn’t need to be approved before running for office in Hong Kong. I think that’s emblematic of how seriously the CCP takes self-determination.

    • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 个月前

      Hong Kong is actually a perfect example for what I’m talking about. It was a concession China made to the British after losing the first Opium war. As such, it was always going to be a sore spot for the PRC. On top of that, the British only introduced a pretty limited form of democracy to Hong Kong shortly before it was supposed to relinquish control over the territory. The PRC saw this as an attempt by the British to continue interfering with the right for Chinese self determination. They believed the British were intentionally making it more difficult for the PRC to integrate Hong Kong into its existing political structures. After the handover, the PRC took extreme offense at pro democracy protestors using the old colonial flag for Hong Kong. That was because they perceived it as a call for further foreign interference in Chinese affairs.

      • btaf45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 个月前

        On top of that, the British only introduced a pretty limited form of democracy to Hong Kong shortly before it was supposed to relinquish control over the territory

        On top of that, the Chinese dictator crushed democracy with military and police force in violation of the unification agreement – proving 100% it absolutely can not be trusted.

        The PRC saw this as an attempt by the British to continue interfering with the right for Chinese self determination.

        The Chinese have no rights whatsoever in the PRC regime because the Chinese cannot chose their own leaders and determine their own country’s destiny. By “right for Chinese self determination” you actually mean the DICTATOR’s right (one single individual!!) to prevent one billion Chinese citizens from running their own country as they see fit.

          • rammer@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 个月前

            How it works on paper is very different from how it actually works. There is no democracy in China. Even dictatorships have elections. That does not mean that the dictator has the consent of the governed.

            • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 个月前

              Okay but China doesn’t pretend to be a liberal democracy. On paper it’s pretty clear the communist party maintains hegemonic control over their political system. Xi is an important leader within the party but he’s hardly the sole decision maker. The comment I was responding to claimed that he was which betrays their ignorance. It’s one thing to criticize Chinas political system and it’s another thing entirely to make up nonsense about how it functions.

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 个月前

        I mean yeah the British sucked, but those democracy concessions were hard fought by the people of Hong Kong. I don’t want the big power politics of the crown versus the PRC to distract from the fact that it took people out on the streets to gain it from the British just for them to be snuffed out by Beijing

        • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 个月前

          My point is that Beijing’s policies follow a logic that has been shaped by struggles against foreign powers. Therefore, while you may sympathize with Taiwan and Hong Kong protestors, you shouldn’t assume the PRC is acting in a belligerent or hypocritical manner.

          • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 个月前

            I don’t think they’re hypocrites, I just don’t think their struggle against their colonial past gives them the right to shut down a democracy. I take the same issue with the Bolshevik takeover of the Soviet councils and the crushing of Kronstadt. Taiwan is a country run by people elected domestically, not a foreign power. They could vote to re-join China if they so chose.

            • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 个月前

              Okay but the original comment I was replying to in this thread was pretending as if China’s actions had nothing to do with the US. My point here is to illustrate how that was incorrect. The belief that the PRC is responding to perceived threats from the US when setting policies concerning Taiwan is perfectly reconcilable with the belief that the PRC is a threat to Taiwanese democracy.