> Clearly if China was not being coercive/threatening they would declare themselves as an independent country.
You argued about "good faith" but your entire argument is based on one side being bad actor while ignoring the contemporary issue inside Taiwan itself. Taiwan already repeatedly stated that they don't need to "declare independence" since PRC is the rogue one. Unlike Tibet, it never got conquered. Unlike Hong Kong, it never handed over by previous custodian (Japan "acknowledge" whoever control Taiwan as its government, but establish diplomatic relationship with PRC later).
What matters is how they identify themselves as sovereign state. Separation of identity only started to formally considered after DPP won their first presidency in 2000. Meaning that majority of the adult population was raised with pan-China identity rather than separate Taiwanese identity. Which shows in 2004 referendum, where it failed due to low turnout. Since then, their strategy is to gradually push for identity shift while empowering indigenous population as counterbalance against KMT's popularity.
Subsequent position by KMT politician also soften the stance to acknowledge a stalemate (that PRC is not a rebel but de facto ruler of Mainland China) but refused to cede the position of de jure claimant.
> There is no invocation of the idea of what is morally right. There is no contemplation of what the Taiwanese people see as best for themselves.
Who are we to be a moral arbiter and decide what's best for others using warships? To call it a settled issue while Taiwanese still in the process of identity transition is, quite frankly, authoritarian decision.
Which is the point of my argument: they're currently sorting it out. And so far PRC is unwilling to use force to settle the dispute, which is a good sign. Any provocation by third party only put the Taiwanese in difficult position, since they are only treated as a proxy to pressure and "contain" China.
> Do you not see the slightest problem with the situation of holding a gun to someones head and then shouting "ARE YOU INDEPENDENT?!"
I don't, because that's not what happened. Taiwan is not the one China point the gun at, the rest of the world is. Don't you think its funny that for all the noise the West make, none of them formally acknowledge Taiwan sovereignty and dare to establish diplomatic relationship?
Compare the situation with state breakups in Caucasus and Balkan region, and you'll see that as long as PRC is "useful" and not as powerful, they'll be happy playing two legged approach.
> "Look, they said they're not independent, this is obviously an internal issue."
It's not due to lack of independence claim (see above), but because its pertained to the national identity, regardless of what current politician in power said. You don't "label" people as Taiwanese, Han, Hakka, Hokkien, etc. They have all the right to think, decide, and act upon their identity on their own volition. Whether pan-China identity or Taiwanese identity prevails is up to the Taiwanese citizen, hence it's an internal issue.
The problem with externally-triggered aggressiveness is that they also provide opportunity for pro-unification side within Taiwan to push their narrative and hold back the transition to "maintain the peace" by pushing pan-China identity.
> That scenario makes no sense
But that's exactly what happened with Taiwan-China situation. One is the exiled successor government, while the others is communist rebel that maintain control of the territory.