Those who claim that Taiwan has a moral right to separate development simply reveal that they are monumentally ignorant of history.
Before the United States was the United States, it was the disunited states, and fought a war to restore the Union after several states decided to secede (separate). Secession was preferred by these states, as it allowed them to avoid having to abide by laws that were progressively overturning slavery.
Unless you are one of the few people in the world who thinks that these states had a moral premise for both slavery and sesession, you will acknowledge that the states united created arguably the most powerful and wealthy country in history. The disunited states (or, as they were originally, a jumble of British colonies) was incredibly vulnerable to incursion from Spain, then Mexico, not to mention the ambitions of France and Britain to hold territory in the `New World`. Had secession been allowed to succeed, almost certainly, North America would host about 5 middle-size countries - Texas (which was 4 different countries inside a decade), California, the United States, the Confederate States of America and Canada.
The Civil War did not resolve all issues. A strong Confederate identity exists even today. The divide between `Red` and `Blue` states is as deep as it ever was.
Had secession been allowed to succeed, almost certainly, North America would host about 5 middle-size countries - Texas (which was 4 different countries inside a decade), California, the United States, the Confederate States of America and Canada.
Suppose Britain, France or Mexico were to decide to fund, arm and support an `independence` movement in the South, for whatever gain. Suppose Mexico saw the annexation of Texas and California (the world`s 6th largest economy) as a road to prosperity and called on China`s rising military power to support its ambitions.
Naturally, such a scenario is unthinkable - and rightly so. But this is precisely what those who advocate for an independent Taiwan are suggesting.
Much is made of the `democratic` status of Taiwan (only recently achieved). The narrative goes like this. "Shouldn`t the Taiwanese get to choose, democratically, whether they are part of China?" What seems reasonable can sometimes have a sting in its tail. Should the CSA have been allowed to democratically elect to depart, leaving millions of African Americans as slaves? The moral issue here is not about democratic choice but the outcome of such a move. A separate Taiwan almost certainly becomes a strategic enemy of China, hosting US military forces and bringing the world to war.
Suppose Mexico saw the annexation of Texas and California (the world`s 6th largest economy) as a road to prosperity and called on China`s rising military power to support its ambitions.
There is nothing to gain and everything to lose, especially for the Taiwanese, in promoting independence or arming Taiwan for an extension of the Civil War that did not really end.
Few people realise that more American troops died in the Civil War than US soldier in all subsequent US wars and military operations since, combined. Some claim that the Civil War holds the record for the fastest death rate for any battle in war - Pickett`s charge (nearly 7,000 men - a quarter of all Confederate casualties suffered at Gettysburg - were injured or killed during Pickett’s Charge) at Gettysburg.
A peaceful reunion of Taiwan with China is in everybody`s interests and would, as history would teach us, prevent bloodshed on a massive scale.