Full Version: Why does China want Taiwan so Bad?
A tongue in cheek remark by Ptarmigan started me wondering something:
Why is China willing to irritate the US over Taiwan, and butt heads with other nations over it, too?
Is this some kind of pride issue, or a deliberate attempt to annoy and worry other nations, or does China really care about one sliver of a manufacturing island, considering the mainland's thriving industrial base?
Is Taiwan a security threat to China?
Why is China willing to irritate the US over Taiwan, and butt heads with other nations over it, too?
Is this some kind of pride issue, or a deliberate attempt to annoy and worry other nations, or does China really care about one sliver of a manufacturing island, considering the mainland's thriving industrial base?
Is Taiwan a security threat to China?
QUOTE(ralou @ May 14 2005, 07:42 AM)
Is Taiwan a security threat to China?
In anyd of itself no, but you have to remember the history here. Taiwan was part of mainland China, until the surviving Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek withdrew there following the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1949. Prior to the the status of Taiwan (Or Chinese Taipei, or Formosa, depending on who you ask) was unclear, the Japanese had occupation troops there and claimed it for years even after the war, as did the Communist Chinese, and now the Nationalists installed themselves there.
The San Francisco peace treaty in 1951, which formally ended the Pacific was forced japan to give up claim over Taiwan, but left its future unclear, concluding only that "the future status of Taiwan will be decided in accord with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
Over the next few years most nations aknowledged the legitimacy of the Peking government, and dropped recognition of Taiwan. It may surprise you that, for all its military support of the Island, the US officially does not recognise the sovereignty of Taiwan, nor does Canada or many other western nations. The 1972 Shainghai Communique, negotiatied by Kissinger, stated the official US foreign policy that there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of mainland China.
You can understand the mixed signals the US has been sending, by repeatedly stating they do not aknowledge the independence of Taiwan and refusing to recognise it, yet stationing forces there to 'protect' it.
China has always claimed that Taiwan is a part of the Mainland, and they see its independence as the last remnant of colonial opression. They also cannot understand the completely mixed signals sent over Taiwan by the West and the US in particular. To China regaining Taiwan is a matter of pride and resporation of territorial integrity. They also do not like the fact that the US can park military forces right on their coastline.
Before you argue how silly this old grudge is, and ask why the Chinese cannot just let it go, I remind you that their justification is a LOT better then the US justification for keeping up its old grudge against Cuba for example...
QUOTE(Vermillion @ May 14 2005, 05:01 AM)
You can understand the mixed signals the US has been sending, by repeatedly stating they do not aknowledge the independence of Taiwan and refusing to recognise it, yet stationing forces there to 'protect' it.
To my knowledge, we don't have any troops stationed in Taiwan. We might have at one time....my father spent two years in Asia training Taiwanese fighter pilots, but that was in the 50s I think. We sell them arms, but have no treaties requiring that we defend them militarily. Our military obligation to them is indirect.
QUOTE
China has always claimed that Taiwan is a part of the Mainland, and they see its independence as the last remnant of colonial opression. They also cannot understand the completely mixed signals sent over Taiwan by the West and the US in particular. To China regaining Taiwan is a matter of pride and resporation of territorial integrity. They also do not like the fact that the US can park military forces right on their coastline.
I think they understand it very well. Though just a two-word piece of diplomatic rhetoric ("one-China"), it is rhetoric that could trigger huge military action. China launched several missiles off Taiwan's coasts on the eve of their first democratic presidential elections in 1996. Now, they've signed the Anti-succession law, which might as well be entitled the 'Reunification law', since it threatens the use of military force if reunification efforts fail.
I think the Chinese interest in Taiwan has a bit to do with strategic interest, in addition to national pride.
QUOTE
Taiwan National Security Council Member Antonio Chiang, in a Taipei Times editorial:
"China has a formidable land-based military force, but in order to become a regional superpower, it must also possess sea power. As China becomes more dependent on oil imports, naval strength is required to maintain its energy and maritime security. But China's navy cannot move beyond the boundaries of the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea, and is locked in by a chain of islands which keeps it from exerting influence in the Pacific. Therefore, control over Taiwan is of strategic military importance to China, in its goal of projecting power in the region.
If Beijing does gain control over Taiwan, its submarines will be given a berth in Ilan County in Eastern Taiwan, making the Taiwan Strait domestic Chinese waters and instantly making it a dominant Pacific nation, placing the South China Sea within range of China's military."
"China has a formidable land-based military force, but in order to become a regional superpower, it must also possess sea power. As China becomes more dependent on oil imports, naval strength is required to maintain its energy and maritime security. But China's navy cannot move beyond the boundaries of the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea, and is locked in by a chain of islands which keeps it from exerting influence in the Pacific. Therefore, control over Taiwan is of strategic military importance to China, in its goal of projecting power in the region.
If Beijing does gain control over Taiwan, its submarines will be given a berth in Ilan County in Eastern Taiwan, making the Taiwan Strait domestic Chinese waters and instantly making it a dominant Pacific nation, placing the South China Sea within range of China's military."
Why is China willing to irritate the US over Taiwan, and butt heads with other nations over it, too?
Perhaps an anecdote can help reveal what's really going on here. Many years ago, Henry Kissinger had a long discussion with Chou En-Lai over political and diplomatic history. Dr. Kissinger asked Chou En-Lai what he thought of the significance of the French Revolution. Chou paused for a moment in thought, then said, "It's too early to tell."
The Chinese are master geopoliticians, always thinking decades ahead (in sharp contrast, I will add, to the Americans). Taiwan itself is of little direct value to China; indeed, an invasion of Taiwan would inflict heavy economic costs on China. Nor does China have any real interest in outright annexation of Taiwan, despite their public statements to the contrary. China's goal is the same that it has been for the last 2,000 years: East Asian hegemony. They are far too smart to want to annex anybody else -- that gets them into too much trouble with the locals. Their goal is to insure that all the other governments in East Asia kowtow to China. They want those countries to be formally independent but functionally subservient to China.
This leads to a geopolitical strategy of deliberately picking fights that demonstrate for all to see the impotence of those who defy them. They don't want to attack Taiwan just yet because the fight would be too uncertain. They want to keep that pot bubbling to insure that everybody sees the inevitable. As US power in East Asia declines, Taiwan will be forced to bow to Chinese demands.
This hypothesis provides us with a simple explanation for the impasse we face over North Korea. The Chinese could bring the North Koreans to heel with a snap of their fingers. But they want the world to see that America is utterly impotent here. They especially want Japan and South Korea to see that America can give them no protection against North Korea. They are stringing this situation along, deliberately letting the Americans fail and fail and fail. They can play this game indefinitely; so long as it continues, Asian faith in America delines. In the meantime, China wants to look the good guy by mouthing meaningless sanctimonies and expressing its great reluctance to pressure poor little North Korea against those big bully Americans. Every now and then it will demonstrate its true control of the situation by forcing some tiny concession from the North Koreans. My guess is that they'll deliver North Korea in return for South Korea and Japan renouncing their treaty arrangements with America. The logic will be impeccable: China can protect you; America cannot. Why not sign up with China instead of America?
Perhaps an anecdote can help reveal what's really going on here. Many years ago, Henry Kissinger had a long discussion with Chou En-Lai over political and diplomatic history. Dr. Kissinger asked Chou En-Lai what he thought of the significance of the French Revolution. Chou paused for a moment in thought, then said, "It's too early to tell."
The Chinese are master geopoliticians, always thinking decades ahead (in sharp contrast, I will add, to the Americans). Taiwan itself is of little direct value to China; indeed, an invasion of Taiwan would inflict heavy economic costs on China. Nor does China have any real interest in outright annexation of Taiwan, despite their public statements to the contrary. China's goal is the same that it has been for the last 2,000 years: East Asian hegemony. They are far too smart to want to annex anybody else -- that gets them into too much trouble with the locals. Their goal is to insure that all the other governments in East Asia kowtow to China. They want those countries to be formally independent but functionally subservient to China.
This leads to a geopolitical strategy of deliberately picking fights that demonstrate for all to see the impotence of those who defy them. They don't want to attack Taiwan just yet because the fight would be too uncertain. They want to keep that pot bubbling to insure that everybody sees the inevitable. As US power in East Asia declines, Taiwan will be forced to bow to Chinese demands.
This hypothesis provides us with a simple explanation for the impasse we face over North Korea. The Chinese could bring the North Koreans to heel with a snap of their fingers. But they want the world to see that America is utterly impotent here. They especially want Japan and South Korea to see that America can give them no protection against North Korea. They are stringing this situation along, deliberately letting the Americans fail and fail and fail. They can play this game indefinitely; so long as it continues, Asian faith in America delines. In the meantime, China wants to look the good guy by mouthing meaningless sanctimonies and expressing its great reluctance to pressure poor little North Korea against those big bully Americans. Every now and then it will demonstrate its true control of the situation by forcing some tiny concession from the North Koreans. My guess is that they'll deliver North Korea in return for South Korea and Japan renouncing their treaty arrangements with America. The logic will be impeccable: China can protect you; America cannot. Why not sign up with China instead of America?
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ May 14 2005, 09:14 AM)
Why is China willing to irritate the US over Taiwan, and butt heads with other nations over it, too?
Perhaps an anecdote can help reveal what's really going on here. Many years ago, Henry Kissinger had a long discussion with Chou En-Lai over political and diplomatic history. Dr. Kissinger asked Chou En-Lai what he thought of the significance of the French Revolution. Chou paused for a moment in thought, then said, "It's too early to tell."
The Chinese are master geopoliticians, always thinking decades ahead (in sharp contrast, I will add, to the Americans). Taiwan itself is of little direct value to China; indeed, an invasion of Taiwan would inflict heavy economic costs on China. Nor does China have any real interest in outright annexation of Taiwan, despite their public statements to the contrary. China's goal is the same that it has been for the last 2,000 years: East Asian hegemony. They are far too smart to want to annex anybody else -- that gets them into too much trouble with the locals. Their goal is to insure that all the other governments in East Asia kowtow to China. They want those countries to be formally independent but functionally subservient to China.
This leads to a geopolitical strategy of deliberately picking fights that demonstrate for all to see the impotence of those who defy them. They don't want to attack Taiwan just yet because the fight would be too uncertain. They want to keep that pot bubbling to insure that everybody sees the inevitable. As US power in East Asia declines, Taiwan will be forced to bow to Chinese demands.
This hypothesis provides us with a simple explanation for the impasse we face over North Korea. The Chinese could bring the North Koreans to heel with a snap of their fingers. But they want the world to see that America is utterly impotent here. They especially want Japan and South Korea to see that America can give them no protection against North Korea. They are stringing this situation along, deliberately letting the Americans fail and fail and fail. They can play this game indefinitely; so long as it continues, Asian faith in America delines. In the meantime, China wants to look the good guy by mouthing meaningless sanctimonies and expressing its great reluctance to pressure poor little North Korea against those big bully Americans. Every now and then it will demonstrate its true control of the situation by forcing some tiny concession from the North Koreans. My guess is that they'll deliver North Korea in return for South Korea and Japan renouncing their treaty arrangements with America. The logic will be impeccable: China can protect you; America cannot. Why not sign up with China instead of America?
Perhaps an anecdote can help reveal what's really going on here. Many years ago, Henry Kissinger had a long discussion with Chou En-Lai over political and diplomatic history. Dr. Kissinger asked Chou En-Lai what he thought of the significance of the French Revolution. Chou paused for a moment in thought, then said, "It's too early to tell."
The Chinese are master geopoliticians, always thinking decades ahead (in sharp contrast, I will add, to the Americans). Taiwan itself is of little direct value to China; indeed, an invasion of Taiwan would inflict heavy economic costs on China. Nor does China have any real interest in outright annexation of Taiwan, despite their public statements to the contrary. China's goal is the same that it has been for the last 2,000 years: East Asian hegemony. They are far too smart to want to annex anybody else -- that gets them into too much trouble with the locals. Their goal is to insure that all the other governments in East Asia kowtow to China. They want those countries to be formally independent but functionally subservient to China.
This leads to a geopolitical strategy of deliberately picking fights that demonstrate for all to see the impotence of those who defy them. They don't want to attack Taiwan just yet because the fight would be too uncertain. They want to keep that pot bubbling to insure that everybody sees the inevitable. As US power in East Asia declines, Taiwan will be forced to bow to Chinese demands.
This hypothesis provides us with a simple explanation for the impasse we face over North Korea. The Chinese could bring the North Koreans to heel with a snap of their fingers. But they want the world to see that America is utterly impotent here. They especially want Japan and South Korea to see that America can give them no protection against North Korea. They are stringing this situation along, deliberately letting the Americans fail and fail and fail. They can play this game indefinitely; so long as it continues, Asian faith in America delines. In the meantime, China wants to look the good guy by mouthing meaningless sanctimonies and expressing its great reluctance to pressure poor little North Korea against those big bully Americans. Every now and then it will demonstrate its true control of the situation by forcing some tiny concession from the North Koreans. My guess is that they'll deliver North Korea in return for South Korea and Japan renouncing their treaty arrangements with America. The logic will be impeccable: China can protect you; America cannot. Why not sign up with China instead of America?
Interesting hypothesis and one that has quite a lot of truth to it I think. However it does overlook the historical animous between Japan and China. They really don't play together very well. I don't see Japan moving away from the US towards China any time soon. What I do see however is a potential powderkeg in the region if China doesn't engage in serious efforts to de-nuke NK and that is that Japan could very well decide to join the nuke club themselves. That would be the last thing China would want to happen.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ May 14 2005, 12:31 PM)
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ May 14 2005, 09:14 AM)
Why is China willing to irritate the US over Taiwan, and butt heads with other nations over it, too?
Perhaps an anecdote can help reveal what's really going on here. Many years ago, Henry Kissinger had a long discussion with Chou En-Lai over political and diplomatic history. Dr. Kissinger asked Chou En-Lai what he thought of the significance of the French Revolution. Chou paused for a moment in thought, then said, "It's too early to tell."
The Chinese are master geopoliticians, always thinking decades ahead (in sharp contrast, I will add, to the Americans). Taiwan itself is of little direct value to China; indeed, an invasion of Taiwan would inflict heavy economic costs on China. Nor does China have any real interest in outright annexation of Taiwan, despite their public statements to the contrary. China's goal is the same that it has been for the last 2,000 years: East Asian hegemony. They are far too smart to want to annex anybody else -- that gets them into too much trouble with the locals. Their goal is to insure that all the other governments in East Asia kowtow to China. They want those countries to be formally independent but functionally subservient to China.
This leads to a geopolitical strategy of deliberately picking fights that demonstrate for all to see the impotence of those who defy them. They don't want to attack Taiwan just yet because the fight would be too uncertain. They want to keep that pot bubbling to insure that everybody sees the inevitable. As US power in East Asia declines, Taiwan will be forced to bow to Chinese demands.
This hypothesis provides us with a simple explanation for the impasse we face over North Korea. The Chinese could bring the North Koreans to heel with a snap of their fingers. But they want the world to see that America is utterly impotent here. They especially want Japan and South Korea to see that America can give them no protection against North Korea. They are stringing this situation along, deliberately letting the Americans fail and fail and fail. They can play this game indefinitely; so long as it continues, Asian faith in America delines. In the meantime, China wants to look the good guy by mouthing meaningless sanctimonies and expressing its great reluctance to pressure poor little North Korea against those big bully Americans. Every now and then it will demonstrate its true control of the situation by forcing some tiny concession from the North Koreans. My guess is that they'll deliver North Korea in return for South Korea and Japan renouncing their treaty arrangements with America. The logic will be impeccable: China can protect you; America cannot. Why not sign up with China instead of America?
Perhaps an anecdote can help reveal what's really going on here. Many years ago, Henry Kissinger had a long discussion with Chou En-Lai over political and diplomatic history. Dr. Kissinger asked Chou En-Lai what he thought of the significance of the French Revolution. Chou paused for a moment in thought, then said, "It's too early to tell."
The Chinese are master geopoliticians, always thinking decades ahead (in sharp contrast, I will add, to the Americans). Taiwan itself is of little direct value to China; indeed, an invasion of Taiwan would inflict heavy economic costs on China. Nor does China have any real interest in outright annexation of Taiwan, despite their public statements to the contrary. China's goal is the same that it has been for the last 2,000 years: East Asian hegemony. They are far too smart to want to annex anybody else -- that gets them into too much trouble with the locals. Their goal is to insure that all the other governments in East Asia kowtow to China. They want those countries to be formally independent but functionally subservient to China.
This leads to a geopolitical strategy of deliberately picking fights that demonstrate for all to see the impotence of those who defy them. They don't want to attack Taiwan just yet because the fight would be too uncertain. They want to keep that pot bubbling to insure that everybody sees the inevitable. As US power in East Asia declines, Taiwan will be forced to bow to Chinese demands.
This hypothesis provides us with a simple explanation for the impasse we face over North Korea. The Chinese could bring the North Koreans to heel with a snap of their fingers. But they want the world to see that America is utterly impotent here. They especially want Japan and South Korea to see that America can give them no protection against North Korea. They are stringing this situation along, deliberately letting the Americans fail and fail and fail. They can play this game indefinitely; so long as it continues, Asian faith in America delines. In the meantime, China wants to look the good guy by mouthing meaningless sanctimonies and expressing its great reluctance to pressure poor little North Korea against those big bully Americans. Every now and then it will demonstrate its true control of the situation by forcing some tiny concession from the North Koreans. My guess is that they'll deliver North Korea in return for South Korea and Japan renouncing their treaty arrangements with America. The logic will be impeccable: China can protect you; America cannot. Why not sign up with China instead of America?
Interesting hypothesis and one that has quite a lot of truth to it I think. However it does overlook the historical animous between Japan and China. They really don't play together very well. I don't see Japan moving away from the US towards China any time soon. What I do see however is a potential powderkeg in the region if China doesn't engage in serious efforts to de-nuke NK and that is that Japan could very well decide to join the nuke club themselves. That would be the last thing China would want to happen.
I had a vague notion that was similar (although not as developed), as Erasmussimo's, but now Vermillion's explanation filled in a lot of historical and current Asian political affairs gaps, and it reminded me of Hawaii. America wanted that as a staging ground, correct? So there it does seem there is a tactical reason for China wanting to hold on to Taiwan that I really wasn't seeing.
Throw in Japan on China's skirts, that Aquilla is highlighting (Japan was crowding the US in Hawaii at one time, wasn't it? Does anyone know more about that?), and I think I see a broader picture. One that makes a lot more sense than the one I had. Is China more afraid of Japan than of the US? I know Japan has a lot of weapons capacity, but I didn't know it had ever had a presence on Taiwan. Is Taiwan a good place to spy from, so much better than places in other nearby countries, that China sees it as a huge threat that way? If Japan and China got into a war, would Japan set up a staging ground on friendly Taiwan? What about India? Relations too uncertain, or terrain too difficult? I don't see how Taiwan is a huge problem as a staging ground for nuclear attacks, though, unless China has better sub detection equipment and aerial surveillance than the media is reporting.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ May 14 2005, 09:31 AM)
Interesting hypothesis and one that has quite a lot of truth to it I think. However it does overlook the historical animous between Japan and China. They really don't play together very well. I don't see Japan moving away from the US towards China any time soon. What I do see however is a potential powderkeg in the region if China doesn't engage in serious efforts to de-nuke NK and that is that Japan could very well decide to join the nuke club themselves. That would be the last thing China would want to happen.
Yes, the bad blood between Japan and China is a major stumbling block for the Chinese strategy. That's why they are proceeding so slowly. All the noise they're making about Japanese war crimes is part of a general attempt to insure that the relationship that develops between them is not perceived as a partnership. Unfortunately for the Chinese government, the Chinese population itself is not tightly controllable, and so they sometimes go over the top. Remember that the Japanese looked up to Chinese civilization right up to the 20th century. The Chinese government is attempting to restore that old relationship. It won't happen soon, and I think they know that. I believe that they're playing a game with a time scale measured in decades.
I agree that the possibility of a nuclear-armed Japan is worrisome to the Chinese, so they will probably rein in the North Koreans only to the extent necessary to keep the Japanese from crossing the nuclear threshold. I think that nuclear threshold to be very high, so the Chinese still have lots of maneuvering room.
QUOTE
A tongue in cheek remark by Ptarmigan started me wondering something:
Why is China willing to irritate the US over Taiwan, and butt heads with other nations over it, too?
Is this some kind of pride issue, or a deliberate attempt to annoy and worry other nations, or does China really care about one sliver of a manufacturing island, considering the mainland's thriving industrial base?
Is Taiwan a security threat to China?
Why is China willing to irritate the US over Taiwan, and butt heads with other nations over it, too?
Is this some kind of pride issue, or a deliberate attempt to annoy and worry other nations, or does China really care about one sliver of a manufacturing island, considering the mainland's thriving industrial base?
Is Taiwan a security threat to China?
Well, I disagree with the other posters here, I do not think that it is international concerns or geopolitics that drive China's policy towards Taiwan. I think that China considers it a domestic issue and one of stability.
China is a hugely centralised country - communist (even nominally communist) countries have to be far more centralised than any Western governments. It is also (comparitively) racially homogenous (although not as homogenous as the government likes to make out) and has existed for a very long time as one country / nation.
History tends to show that very centralised countries can often sharply fragment - a good example might be Russia, where Chechnya and the Balkan states are either fighting for or have achieved full independence from Russia, which used to rule them absolutely. I think that the Chinese government have a very real fear that a formally independent Taiwan might precipitate more areas of China attempting to split off and head for independence.
If China were ever to accept that it's territory is not absolute and final, then there are plenty of fringe areas (Tibet springs to mind) that might try to split away, potentially through violence.
QUOTE
The Chinese are master geopoliticians, always thinking decades ahead (in sharp contrast, I will add, to the Americans). Taiwan itself is of little direct value to China; indeed, an invasion of Taiwan would inflict heavy economic costs on China. Nor does China have any real interest in outright annexation of Taiwan, despite their public statements to the contrary. China's goal is the same that it has been for the last 2,000 years: East Asian hegemony. They are far too smart to want to annex anybody else -- that gets them into too much trouble with the locals. Their goal is to insure that all the other governments in East Asia kowtow to China. They want those countries to be formally independent but functionally subservient to China.
ErasmussinoWell, this has always been the view of China - but is there really anything backing it up? I mean, what exactly was the grand forward thinking plan behind the Cultural Revolution? In centuries hence, will people look back at The Great Leap Forward and think "wow, that was one impressive man-made famine!".
What I'm getting at is , the Chinese make the same mistakes as everyone else and their geopolitical strategy is similarly marred by human error and short-termism, as with any country. They 'may' want East Asian hegemony, however they will probably achieve that (or at least shared with Japan) through economic growth alone, without having to engage in the great game of geopolitics.
Besides, China have been trying to dominate East Asia for 2000 years, America dominates the entire world and 200 years ago was an irrelevant backwater. (No offence
). Who would you say is the 'Master Geopolitician' ?QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ May 16 2005, 02:04 AM)
Well, this has always been the view of China - but is there really anything backing it up? I mean, what exactly was the grand forward thinking plan behind the Cultural Revolution? In centuries hence, will people look back at The Great Leap Forward and think "wow, that was one impressive man-made famine!".
Lousy economic thinking does not imply lousy geopolitical thinking. Actually, China under the Manchus and since has been so eviscerated that they have not had any incentive to thinking in geopolitical terms -- domestic concerns were overwhelming. It is only since about 1970 that China has felt secure enough to resume thinking in terms of its place on the international stage.
QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ May 16 2005, 02:04 AM)
What I'm getting at is , the Chinese make the same mistakes as everyone else and their geopolitical strategy is similarly marred by human error and short-termism, as with any country. They 'may' want East Asian hegemony, however they will probably achieve that (or at least shared with Japan) through economic growth alone, without having to engage in the great game of geopolitics.
I don't see any evidence of short-term thinking in their geopolitical behavior, and I do see lots of evidence of long-term thinking, such as their recent diplomatic offensive in South America, their development of East Asian international groupings that exclude the US, and so forth.
QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ May 16 2005, 02:04 AM)
Besides, China have been trying to dominate East Asia for 2000 years, America dominates the entire world and 200 years ago was an irrelevant backwater. (No offence ). Who would you say is the 'Master Geopolitician' ?
). Who would you say is the 'Master Geopolitician' ?America has enjoyed vast economic power for most of the 20th century -- but its relative economic strength has halved in the last 50 years. America has done a great many things right, such as its reconstruction of Japan and Germany and the containment strategy for the Soviet Union. These were great examples of long-term thinking -- but they were instituted 50 years ago. I can't think of anything in the last 20 years that provides an example of long-term planning, and in fact I see short-termism growing.
But the long-term decline in American power is another topic that I'd like to start up some other time.
QUOTE
Lousy economic thinking does not imply lousy geopolitical thinking. Actually, China under the Manchus and since has been so eviscerated that they have not had any incentive to thinking in geopolitical terms -- domestic concerns were overwhelming. It is only since about 1970 that China has felt secure enough to resume thinking in terms of its place on the international stage
Well - I think that unless you have the domestic side fairly well sorted, then your foreign geopolitics is a bit of a waste of time really. America (and to an extent Europe) can afford to engage in long term geopolitics, because they have the economic stability and growth to be reasonably sure they will be able to continue these policies. China, for all its growth, will probably face increasingly problematic domestic issues that could easily derail whatever long term foreign plans it may be cooking up. They have a rapidly ageing population, huge environmental problems and an increasingly wealthy and educated population who, sooner or later, will want more democracy.
The future is inherently uncertain. Long term geopolitical planning has never really worked for anyone, least not the Chinese. Despite being the most populous and richest country in the region, they're still second fiddle to the Japanese. Sure, that might change - and the Chinese govt. is probably trying to plan for that, but they are still confined by uncertainty that limits their planning to about 50 years into the future at the most - which is about as far into the future that any country plans.
QUOTE
I don't see any evidence of short-term thinking in their geopolitical behavior, and I do see lots of evidence of long-term thinking, such as their recent diplomatic offensive in South America, their development of East Asian international groupings that exclude the US, and so forth.
Well, who is to say that these plans will be effective in the are short or long term or long term? You could make the same argument about any American involvement in the Middle East - that it has been for long term energy security. What we view as long-termist now may look stupidly short-termist in 10 years time, as circumstances change.
QUOTE
America has enjoyed vast economic power for most of the 20th century -- but its relative economic strength has halved in the last 50 years. America has done a great many things right, such as its reconstruction of Japan and Germany and the containment strategy for the Soviet Union. These were great examples of long-term thinking -- but they were instituted 50 years ago. I can't think of anything in the last 20 years that provides an example of long-term planning, and in fact I see short-termism growing.
America is still the world's powerhouse - and in 50 years time we might be looking back on Iraq and commenting on how intelligent America was to promote democracy in the Middle East and how it has lead to a stable and long lasting peace in the region. Or we may not, we may be mocking the US for having engaged in short-term interventionism in the pursuit of oil. It is not possible to predict what plans currently in motion will work out in the long term - and that is as true for China as it is for anyone.
QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ May 16 2005, 08:16 AM)
Well - I think that unless you have the domestic side fairly well sorted, then your foreign geopolitics is a bit of a waste of time really. America (and to an extent Europe) can afford to engage in long term geopolitics, because they have the economic stability and growth to be reasonably sure they will be able to continue these policies. China, for all its growth, will probably face increasingly problematic domestic issues that could easily derail whatever long term foreign plans it may be cooking up. They have a rapidly ageing population, huge environmental problems and an increasingly wealthy and educated population who, sooner or later, will want more democracy.
I am not as pessimistic about Chinese domestic policy. They've been working on this transition for 25 years now and, except for Tiananmen, it has gone swimmingly. The economy is booming and all measures of public well-being are going up steeply. They are definitely behind the curve on implementation of democracy, but their recent move towards township elections suggests that they have a bottom-up strategy in place. If you made me dictator of China, that's exactly the strategy I would use for the transition to democracy. Domestic problems have to be pretty serious to intrude on geopolitical plans. This happened during the late Manchu period and the warlord period, but those were really serious domestic problems, much more serious than what the Chinese face today.
QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ May 16 2005, 08:16 AM)
The future is inherently uncertain. Long term geopolitical planning has never really worked for anyone, least not the Chinese.
Planning is certainly too strong a term to use for geopolitical strategy. But that doesn't mean that we abandon all thought for the future and just go with the flow. Like whitewater rafters, geopoliticians cannot plot a precise course down the river -- but they can look far ahead, determine where the rocks are, and steer for what looks like the best course. I think that the Chinese have been doing that quite successfully in the last 20 years -- I can't think of a single geopolitical stumble on their part and all their diplomatic efforts seem inspired by a clear vision of Chinese hegemony in East Asia.
QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ May 16 2005, 08:16 AM)
Despite being the most populous and richest country in the region, they're still second fiddle to the Japanese. Sure, that might change - and the Chinese govt. is probably trying to plan for that, but they are still confined by uncertainty that limits their planning to about 50 years into the future at the most - which is about as far into the future that any country plans.
I think it's fairly well recognized that China will pass Japan in diplomatic muscle within 10 or 20 years. I agree that nobody can plan more than 50 years out. I think that the Chinese are planning towards East Asian hegemony within 50 years.
QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ May 16 2005, 08:16 AM)
Well, who is to say that these plans will be effective in the are short or long term or long term? You could make the same argument about any American involvement in the Middle East - that it has been for long term energy security. What we view as long-termist now may look stupidly short-termist in 10 years time, as circumstances change.
Yes, we can't know how it will all turn out, but I think it is safe to conclude that China is definitely ascendant in East Asia and US power there is on the wane. They are on the offensive, and we are on the defensive. So far, they seem to be playing their cards deftly.
QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ May 16 2005, 08:16 AM)
America is still the world's powerhouse
"Ay, Caesar -- but not gone."
Geographically, Taiwan is in between the southeast coast of China and the American base of Guam. Not too far north of Taiwan is the American military base in Okinawa and the 7th fleet. To the south of Taiwan are the Philippine islands, which was home to the American base in subic. A few hours of flight further south, you reach Australia, who recently just agreed to a missile defence system with the US. To the west of this invisible line of American military presence is the awakening China, which, as someone alluded to earlier, has been manipulating the world with its dealings with North Korea. To see how important this line is and why Taiwan's strategic position is vital to both China's stability and America's hegemony, we must study the Japanese aggression in world war 2 and Taiwan's role in it. In short, using Taiwan as a production and logistics base, Japanese troops invaded 3 quarters of China, occupied all the islands on the Pacific, invaded US bases in the Philippines, went as far as bombing Australia, and was on its way to inflicting heavy damage on American soil. To visualize how important this line to America admist a growing and possibly hostile China, go to map: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/p...cwar/pacwar.gif
North Korea is not the only diplomatic game China has been playing to weaken American influence in international politics, they are also trying to hurt the trans-Atlantic ties by pushing the EU to end the arms ban. China has also been dealing behind closed doors with Israel, Ukrain, and the Czech Republic on a few weapons/equipments deals that pose serious threat to the US. America's global influence is already waning, and the moment that China gains control over Taiwan will also mark the end of US hegemony.
North Korea is not the only diplomatic game China has been playing to weaken American influence in international politics, they are also trying to hurt the trans-Atlantic ties by pushing the EU to end the arms ban. China has also been dealing behind closed doors with Israel, Ukrain, and the Czech Republic on a few weapons/equipments deals that pose serious threat to the US. America's global influence is already waning, and the moment that China gains control over Taiwan will also mark the end of US hegemony.
I find the massing of troops on the Taiwanese border a little disturbing. As was the recent 'Peace Mission 05' wargames between Russian and Chinese troops. There seems to be quite a few mustles being flexed in the region. With the continuing problems in Iraq it seems to me that there is little the west could/would do if China decided to stamp it's authority.
I think that the quote previously of China taking 10-15 years to overtake Japan and the economic force in the region are way off. I would expect at there current rate of growth to overtake all but the US within the next 6-8 years.
Remember that this is the country that now owns IBM!! It has also bid (but had offers rejected) for a number of US energy companies. There is a war going on...albeit economic.
I think that the quote previously of China taking 10-15 years to overtake Japan and the economic force in the region are way off. I would expect at there current rate of growth to overtake all but the US within the next 6-8 years.
Remember that this is the country that now owns IBM!! It has also bid (but had offers rejected) for a number of US energy companies. There is a war going on...albeit economic.
QUOTE(GlennLawrence @ Sep 1 2005, 11:37 AM)
I think that the quote previously of China taking 10-15 years to overtake Japan and the economic force in the region are way off. I would expect at there current rate of growth to overtake all but the US within the next 6-8 years.
Remember that this is the country that now owns IBM!! It has also bid (but had offers rejected) for a number of US energy companies. There is a war going on...albeit economic.
Remember that this is the country that now owns IBM!! It has also bid (but had offers rejected) for a number of US energy companies. There is a war going on...albeit economic.
Some of these fears are off base. IBM sold their laptop company off to a Chinese company. It is not the entire company. China's economy is growing fast but they are not going to overtake Japan in eight years. China faces many economic obstacles ahead. In fact, if I had to predict a nation to rival the US economy over the next 50 years it would be India.
I know what you are saying but I think that America isn't in as stronger finanical position as it believes itself to be. The US stockmarket has been kept up by the unnaturally high profits of the top US companies for years. You can only keep investing in yourself for so long (and cooking the books too!) before the bubble bursts.
The recent events in New Orleans and the surrounding areas show how slow the US is at dealing with natural disasters or putting in place infrastructures to deal with NATURAL disasters. There was 2 weeks notice. There shouldn't have been numbers anywhere near the death toll that there is currently developing.
My statements are based around current growth and hits financially that the US might take should more natural disasters occur. The growth in hurricanes in the region over the past 10 years is pretty scary. New Orleans and other southern states will be hit with more regularity over the coming years. This coupled with ongoing campaigns on global terror will strech US finances further. Not to mention earthquakes......tornados.......etc.
China on the otherhand isn't (in the grand scheme of things) spending anywhere near as much as the US. True...their infrastructure would find it hard to cope too. But geograhically China is in a stronger position.
Of course you can't really base the financial might of a country against another based soley on global warming......but it makes for an interesting conversation!
With regards to india....I am not sure about that. Very interesting thought though. Will have to read up more on Indias predicted growth. Still.....I can't see it! What a great topic of conversation though. Love this website!!
The recent events in New Orleans and the surrounding areas show how slow the US is at dealing with natural disasters or putting in place infrastructures to deal with NATURAL disasters. There was 2 weeks notice. There shouldn't have been numbers anywhere near the death toll that there is currently developing.
My statements are based around current growth and hits financially that the US might take should more natural disasters occur. The growth in hurricanes in the region over the past 10 years is pretty scary. New Orleans and other southern states will be hit with more regularity over the coming years. This coupled with ongoing campaigns on global terror will strech US finances further. Not to mention earthquakes......tornados.......etc.
China on the otherhand isn't (in the grand scheme of things) spending anywhere near as much as the US. True...their infrastructure would find it hard to cope too. But geograhically China is in a stronger position.
Of course you can't really base the financial might of a country against another based soley on global warming......but it makes for an interesting conversation!
With regards to india....I am not sure about that. Very interesting thought though. Will have to read up more on Indias predicted growth. Still.....I can't see it! What a great topic of conversation though. Love this website!!
QUOTE
Is this some kind of pride issue, or a deliberate attempt to annoy and worry other nations, or does China really care about one sliver of a manufacturing island, considering the mainland's thriving industrial base?
Is Taiwan a security threat to China?
Is Taiwan a security threat to China?
I don't mean to be pithy, but has the phrase Manifest Destiny lost all resonance? China's government is fueled by the same sort of national myth that encouraged America to annex Hawaii, go to war over Cuba and Texas, and settle the west.
QUOTE(GlennLawrence @ Sep 1 2005, 12:08 PM)
I know what you are saying but I think that America isn't in as stronger finanical position as it believes itself to be. The US stockmarket has been kept up by the unnaturally high profits of the top US companies for years. You can only keep investing in yourself for so long (and cooking the books too!) before the bubble bursts.
The recent events in New Orleans and the surrounding areas show how slow the US is at dealing with natural disasters or putting in place infrastructures to deal with NATURAL disasters. There was 2 weeks notice. There shouldn't have been numbers anywhere near the death toll that there is currently developing.
The recent events in New Orleans and the surrounding areas show how slow the US is at dealing with natural disasters or putting in place infrastructures to deal with NATURAL disasters. There was 2 weeks notice. There shouldn't have been numbers anywhere near the death toll that there is currently developing.
I am not sure how your are basing your opinions here. Economics is what I studied in college and the stock market is a part of the economy, but it is not a barometer for what is going on. You are basically saying that the stock market is rigged and American is in trouble.
You are also saying that a natural disaster that we have not seen since Hurricane Camille is proof that the US cannot deal with disaster. This is some very negative worldview rhetoric. It has hardly been 3 days since the hurricane hit and people are pontificating about a subject they learned about watching 24/7 sensational news coverage.
It took 150 years for the US economy to become what it is today. The US is rich in natural resources and is a free market. China has neither of these commodities. I do not doubt China as an emerging economy, but some of the doom and gloom is unwarranted.
"things are never as good or as bad as they seem."
"things are never as good or as bad as they seem."
Does that mean that things are exactly what they seem?
Anyway, why does China want Taiwan so badly? Twchinese summed up a lot of it. It's economically and strategically valuable. It is also a matter of national pride for the Chinese.
There is a war going on economically with the US and China. And for now, Glenn has it right, China is winning. That economic might will lead to military might. That military might will lead to an invasion of Taiwan. China is just biding it's time until they see the best political and military scenario for them to do this. They are long term thinkers, but I think that we have seen a marked change in China's behavior since the War on Terror started. They see that the US is preoccupied and internationally unpopular. China is taking full advantage of it by building military alliances with Russia, securing oil interests in rouge Africa and Asian states, increasing rhetoric against the US and Japan, and working with Europe to drop their current arms ban. China has always been motivated. Now they are aggressive too, and must be watched closely.
Does that mean that things are exactly what they seem?
Anyway, why does China want Taiwan so badly? Twchinese summed up a lot of it. It's economically and strategically valuable. It is also a matter of national pride for the Chinese.
There is a war going on economically with the US and China. And for now, Glenn has it right, China is winning. That economic might will lead to military might. That military might will lead to an invasion of Taiwan. China is just biding it's time until they see the best political and military scenario for them to do this. They are long term thinkers, but I think that we have seen a marked change in China's behavior since the War on Terror started. They see that the US is preoccupied and internationally unpopular. China is taking full advantage of it by building military alliances with Russia, securing oil interests in rouge Africa and Asian states, increasing rhetoric against the US and Japan, and working with Europe to drop their current arms ban. China has always been motivated. Now they are aggressive too, and must be watched closely.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Sep 1 2005, 02:25 PM)
There is a war going on economically with the US and China. And for now, Glenn has it right, China is winning.
Excuse me for asking, but how exactly is China winning?
You didn't ask anything that you need to be excused for Nemov. China’s GDP is growing faster than the US’s. The US is clipping along at about 3.4% growth. Even lowball estimates of China’s growth are at 6%. Now you could argue that China’s economy is smaller which makes it is easier to grow like this article from the Heritage Foundation does. We’re not talking about China growing 10 cents to 11 cents here though. Heritage’s numbers show that China’s overall economy is $6.1 trillion compared to the United State’s $10.3 trillion. Considering real GDP growth in the US didn’t even near 5% during the economic boom of the 1990’s, I’d say that China is doing something special. At the current 3.4% and 6%-10% paces of growth of their GDPs, the Chinese economy surpasses the US in 13 years. Best case 22 years. Worst case 9 years.
Another scary sign is that China’s Foreign Direct Invest surpassed the US in 2002.
BTW, here is a nice article on the India vs China growth question from Business Week.
QUOTE(nemov @ Sep 1 2005, 01:49 PM)
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Sep 1 2005, 02:25 PM)
There is a war going on economically with the US and China. And for now, Glenn has it right, China is winning.
Excuse me for asking, but how exactly is China winning?
I pitch the next one. Why do people think of economics as a competition between nations?
There may be competition in individual industries but that is not reflected in GDP. The explosion in China's wealth and industry is a good thing for America. It means a bigger market for American goods and services as well as a better fed Chinese population, hopefully.
China is not "at war" with the US is any form or fashion. The danger comes not form its antagonism but a more tangential threat of China's authoritarian government propping up other regimes and gaining influence, reference Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
The reason China wants Taiwan are largely economic but the reason this might be unsavory to the US in the humanitarian issue. A lot of Tawainese are looking at life in Maoist China, not pretty.
Good question Turnea. Economic power leads to military power. It's what eventually stopped the USSR. It's what fueled our rise to military dominance. That is why I view economic growth as a competition between nations.
I agree that free trade helps everyone. Even better if it's fair trade too. In this case, it is not helping the people of Taiwan though that China is winning economically because that money is going to lead to the military strength to attack Taiwan. So the economic concerns tie directly to the causes of the predicted humanitarian concerns.
I agree that free trade helps everyone. Even better if it's fair trade too. In this case, it is not helping the people of Taiwan though that China is winning economically because that money is going to lead to the military strength to attack Taiwan. So the economic concerns tie directly to the causes of the predicted humanitarian concerns.
QUOTE
I agree that free trade helps everyone. Even better if it's fair trade too. In this case, it is not helping the people of Taiwan though that China is winning economically because that money is going to lead to the military strength to attack Taiwan. So the economic concerns tie directly to the causes of the predicted humanitarian concerns.
What do you mean? Are you telling us that China, with officially a population around 1,3 Billion, ut most likely around 1,5 Billion, do not have enought "military strength" to attack Taiwan? The U.S could not possible win over China, ever, if they would not use nuclear weapons (which is high likelihood the U.S would, as the only nation ever used them against any other human being).
Thats just.. Not right.
QUOTE(EricStanze @ Sep 18 2005, 05:07 PM)
What do you mean? Are you telling us that China, with officially a population around 1,3 Billion, ut most likely around 1,5 Billion, do not have enought "military strength" to attack Taiwan? The U.S could not possible win over China, ever, if they would not use nuclear weapons (which is high likelihood the U.S would, as the only nation ever used them against any other human being).
Actually, China does not currently have the military strength to occupy Taiwan in short order. The fact that the country has 1.3 billion people is irrelevant. What are they supposed to do, swim the 150 km to the island?
China has been increasing its military in leaps and bounds over the last decade, at least in terms of technology, training and equipment, in terms of sheer size it has actually shrunk lately, but Cghina still lacks any significant amphibious ability, and its Navy is sadly deficient. Its airlift capacity is also quite pitiful. Thus it lacks the means to deliver any substantial invasion force to taiwan, especially in the face of capable resistance.
And Taiwanese resistance would indeed be capable. Taiwan has 25 million people, small compared to China but no insignificant island. Its military, including mandatory 22 month military service is highly trained and equipped with the best weapons the West has to offer. It's airforce is composed of Domestic F-16s, Mirages and other advanced aircraft more than a match (technologically) for the aircraft of the PRC. Though they would eventually lose air superiority due to sheer numbers, it would be a costly battle of attrition.
The coastline of Taiwan is one huge bunker complex, heavily fortified with Western technology SAM sites and STS missile and gun complexes. They also have Perry class and Kidd class US ships buuld under licence, as well as French Lafayette class vessels.
The invasion and occupation of Taiwan by the PRC would certainly be possible, but it would inviolve a costly, bloody, protracted engagement designed to beat down the defences of the country while building up a jury-rigged amphibious capability, and eventually assaulting the heavily fortified shores.
During this drawn out war, the West would not be Idle, neither would Japn whose JSDF is quite formidable, and whose Naval assets might be placed at the disposal of Taiwan. Lastly it is not an accident that the US routinely has a Carrier group steaming through the region. While they might not intervene immediatly (It would be very difficult for the US to intervene considering they do not officially recognise the existence of Taiwan) a bloody engagement that lasted more than a week (which the war certainly would) would be more and more likely to drag in foreign powers.
I suspect eventual US intervention would take on a very Korean war tone, defence of the Island while refusing to engage targets in China proper, to avoid further escalation, but thats just a guess.
The point is, Chins cannot easily invade Taiwan unless it wants to embroil the entire mobile portion of its military in a costly war, and let us not even get IN to the horrors of trying to occupy a fiercly and violently patriotic nation like Taiwan...
Well, first off, Taiwan is not as fiercely patriotic as you think.
It's more like indifferent. Tha majority of the people there support the current status quo. They don't want independence nor do they want reunification.
They just want to live the capitalist lifestyle getting rich off their cousins in the mainland.
It's more like indifferent. Tha majority of the people there support the current status quo. They don't want independence nor do they want reunification.
They just want to live the capitalist lifestyle getting rich off their cousins in the mainland.
QUOTE(ralou @ May 14 2005, 03:42 PM)
Why does China want Taiwan so Bad?
Because it is rightfully ours. You don't have to take my word for it, but take a look at what the Japanese Library of Congress say about it:
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo...2_46shoshi.html
"This is known as the 'Cairo Communiqué.' It was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and President of the Republic of China Chiang Kai-shek on November 22, 1943 and was made public that same day. The Cairo Conference, of the leaders of the U.S., U.K. and China, was held from November 22 to discuss their policy on Japan. In response to a question from President Roosevelt, Chiang Kai-shek said that it was the Japanese people themselves who should decide whether or not the Emperor system would be abolished. The declaration, which was drafted by the U.S. and amended by the U.K., specified the unconditional surrender of Japan, the return to China of Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores, and the freedom and independence of Korea. The policy toward Japan in the Cairo Declaration was accepted as a basic policy of the Allied Powers and carried over into the Potsdam Declaration."
Potsdam is then reaffirmed by the Instrument of Surrender and the Treaty of Taipei. We probably need a new thread to go into the details of these documents.
QUOTE
Is Taiwan a security threat to China?
Taiwan had an active nuclear weapons until 1988. 500 grams of Plutonium had been missing from their civilian nuclear power plants and a member of the ruling DPP had recently claimed that they have the capability to produce a nuke in less than a year. (I will post the link after I find this one.)
Their military has a Bio-Safety IV lab and is playing with the SARS virus, evident by a Lt. Col. Chan's infection in late 2003:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3333775.stm
Their air force has plans to blow up the Three Gorges dam, the destruction of which can kill hundreds of thousands, and have conducted simulated exercises for precisely such an attack. Their prime minister has made threats against Shanghai and Hong Kong:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3249054
And their military is making good on that threat, Li Chie, Taiwan's Defense Minister, had confirmed that Taiwan is developing "strategic weapons" in a parliamentary hearing just a few months ago.
Now, do YOU think they are a threat?
Maybe I should start making a Powerpoint presentation of their mobile-NBC-lab-on-a-truck, which I can show to the UN, eh?
QUOTE(j10pilot @ Oct 7 2005, 02:04 AM)
QUOTE(ralou @ May 14 2005, 03:42 PM)
Why does China want Taiwan so Bad?
Because it is rightfully ours. You don't have to take my word for it, but take a look at what the Japanese Library of Congress say about it:
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo...2_46shoshi.html
"This is known as the 'Cairo Communiqué.' It was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and President of the Republic of China Chiang Kai-shek on November 22, 1943 and was made public that same day. The Cairo Conference, of the leaders of the U.S., U.K. and China, was held from November 22 to discuss their policy on Japan. In response to a question from President Roosevelt, Chiang Kai-shek said that it was the Japanese people themselves who should decide whether or not the Emperor system would be abolished. The declaration, which was drafted by the U.S. and amended by the U.K., specified the unconditional surrender of Japan, the return to China of Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores, and the freedom and independence of Korea. The policy toward Japan in the Cairo Declaration was accepted as a basic policy of the Allied Powers and carried over into the Potsdam Declaration."
Potsdam is then reaffirmed by the Instrument of Surrender and the Treaty of Taipei. We probably need a new thread to go into the details of these documents.
I would understand this argument if the people of Taiwan were being ruled by the Japanese, but that is not the case. Taiwan is governing itself. China legally had control over Taiwan immediately after WWII, but Taiwan has split off on it's own since then. The question is, does China have to right after 60 years of Taiwanese independence to use military force to bring them back under Communist rule? I do not think that such an act of aggression is warranted. Taiwan is it's own nation now and has done nothing morally reprehensible or aggressive to the mainland to justify attacking it after such a long period of time.
And as for Taiwan being a security threat to China - Taiwan is not the country passing laws stating that they have the right to use force to take over China. They do not appear to be the aggressors here. The island has strategic military value for sure, but the people on the island itself are not a threat.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Oct 22 2005, 02:13 AM)
I would understand this argument if the people of Taiwan were being ruled by the Japanese, but that is not the case. Taiwan is governing itself. China legally had control over Taiwan immediately after WWII, but Taiwan has split off on it's own since then. The question is, does China have to right after 60 years of Taiwanese independence to use military force to bring them back under Communist rule?
Well, buddy, you need to re-take your East Asian History 101.
Taiwan has never declare its independence. The formal name of the government on the island of Taiwan is the Republic of China. The Republic of China remained the legal representative of all of China in the U.N. until 1972, and was recognized by the U.S. as the legal government of China until 1979.
And there is this little thing called the "One-China Policy", which states that the U.S. recognizes the island of Taiwan as part of China, that is followed by every American president since Carter.
QUOTE
Taiwan is it's own nation now and has done nothing morally reprehensible or aggressive to the mainland to justify attacking it after such a long period of time.
Ahem, let me put on my Jeff Davis hat -- The Confederacy is it's own nation now and has done nothing morally reprehensible or aggressive to the Union to justify attacking it at any time.
QUOTE
And as for Taiwan being a security threat to China - Taiwan is not the country passing laws stating that they have the right to use force to take over China. They do not appear to be the aggressors here. The island has strategic military value for sure, but the people on the island itself are not a threat.
Did the Union have a right to use force to prevent the Confederacy from breaking away? I would say most Americans think so, seeing how Lincoln is considered one of the greatest American president ever.
So... was Iraq a security threat to the U.S. in 2002? Is Iran and North Korea a security threat now? Come on, I am just using the type of arguments the Bush Administration have used before.
Frankly, I think there will be a point twenty or thirty years down the road, when China is democratized enough, that either the people of the Mainland can accept an independent Taiwan, or the people of Taiwan would willingly re-unify with the Mainland. However, both the end result pursued by and tactics employed by the Taiwan Independence movement currently are harmful to the Chinese people and China as a nation, not just to the Communist government, which is why I oppose it.
BTW, correction to my last post:
Taiwan had an active nuclear weapons until 1988
should read:
Taiwan had an active nuclear weapons program until 1988
Well written jpilot. Few problems.
1) I don't care what Jimmy Carter thought about Taiwan 25 years ago.
2) There are marked differences between the US Civil War and China's hypothetical attacking of Taiwan. First, the US did not wait 60 years to rejoin the Union. The young men and women who would be fighting in this war have been Taiwanese their entire lives. They know nothing else. Should they be killed for defending their homeland? Second, slavery is morally reprehensible and the freeing of people is often justification for war. Taiwan has not given anyone a reason to feel that they are hampering their citizen's freedom.
3) I am not President Bush. I would like to see examples of the type of threatening rhetoric from Taiwan's leaders toward China though that we saw from Iraq and see from North Korea(which the US has not taken military action against) toward the US.
QUOTE(jpilot)
Frankly, I think there will be a point twenty or thirty years down the road, when China is democratized enough, that either the people of the Mainland can accept an independent Taiwan, or the people of Taiwan would willingly re-unify with the Mainland.
Here is where we agree. I hope that day has an opportunity to come without Chinese citizens killing other Chinese ethnics though.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Oct 22 2005, 03:24 AM)
Well written jpilot. Few problems.
1) I don't care what Jimmy Carter thought about Taiwan 25 years ago.
Well, our friend G.W. agrees with the "One-China Policy" too.
QUOTE
2) There are marked differences between the US Civil War and China's hypothetical attacking of Taiwan. First, the US did not wait 60 years to rejoin the Union. The young men and women who would be fighting in this war have been Taiwanese their entire lives. They know nothing else. Should they be killed for defending their homeland?
Well, the de-Chinafication (yes, it's an actual term used by Taiwanese politicians) started in the 1990s. Prior to that, kids in Taiwan were taught that they are Chinese. I knew this because I had a Taiwanese girlfriend for six years.
Now, no one would probably disagree with the fact that the government of the Republic of China relocated to Taiwan after the civil war with Communists. What most Americans do not know is that a Peace or Armistice Treaty was never signed. Up until the early 1980s, both sides regularly fired artillery shells into territory held by the other side. The government of the Republic of China did not end its state of emergency, which was in place since the start of the Chinese civil war, until 1988.
So, technically, the Chinese civil war has not quite ended yet.
QUOTE
Second, slavery is morally reprehensible and the freeing of people is often justification for war. Taiwan has not given anyone a reason to feel that they are hampering their citizen's freedom.
The Emancipation Proclamation was issued almost 2 years into the Civil War. Not to say that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, but it had as much to do with individual states' power as it had to do with slavery. And let's see, if we really wanna go with the "freeing people" route, Taiwan has compulsory military service, which mean young men are forced to join the military for 2 years. How is this for a grandiose slogan "Liberate Taiwan so that young men will no longer be butt ----ed in boot camp."
QUOTE
3) I am not President Bush. I would like to see examples of the type of threatening rhetoric from Taiwan's leaders toward China though that we saw from Iraq and see from North Korea(which the US has not taken military action against) toward the US.
If the links in my previous post aren't enough, can you provide the type of threatening rhetoric from Iraq and North Korea you have in mind? Otherwise, I wouldn't know which type of rhetoric you are referring too.
QUOTE
Here is where we agree. I hope that day has an opportunity to come without Chinese citizens killing other Chinese ethnics though.
I am glad we can find common ground, LOL.
QUOTE(j10pilot @ Oct 21 2005, 06:38 PM)
Well, the de-Chinafication (yes, it's an actual term used by Taiwanese politicians) started in the 1990s. Prior to that, kids in Taiwan were taught that they are Chinese. I knew this because I had a Taiwanese girlfriend for six years.
Now, no one would probably disagree with the fact that the government of the Republic of China relocated to Taiwan after the civil war with Communists. What most Americans do not know is that a Peace or Armistice Treaty was never signed. Up until the early 1980s, both sides regularly fired artillery shells into territory held by the other side. The government of the Republic of China did not end its state of emergency, which was in place since the start of the Chinese civil war, until 1988.
So, technically, the Chinese civil war has not quite ended yet.
Now, no one would probably disagree with the fact that the government of the Republic of China relocated to Taiwan after the civil war with Communists. What most Americans do not know is that a Peace or Armistice Treaty was never signed. Up until the early 1980s, both sides regularly fired artillery shells into territory held by the other side. The government of the Republic of China did not end its state of emergency, which was in place since the start of the Chinese civil war, until 1988.
So, technically, the Chinese civil war has not quite ended yet.
All very interesting, but it just confirms the fact that Taiwan is it's own nation now. Or do you contend that China is at war with Taiwan today? Taiwan has been independent for so long that reunification is no different than invasion.
QUOTE(j10pilot @ Oct 21 2005, 06:38 PM)
QUOTE
Second, slavery is morally reprehensible and the freeing of people is often justification for war. Taiwan has not given anyone a reason to feel that they are hampering their citizen's freedom.
The Emancipation Proclamation was issued almost 2 years into the Civil War. Not to say that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, but it had as much to do with individual states' power as it had to do with slavery. And let's see, if we really wanna go with the "freeing people" route, Taiwan has compulsory military service, which mean young men are forced to join the military for 2 years. How is this for a grandiose slogan "Liberate Taiwan so that young men will no longer be butt ----ed in boot camp."
Comparing a lifetime of being treated like mere property to temporary military service is not only ridiculous, but offensive.
QUOTE(j10pilot @ Oct 21 2005, 06:38 PM)
If the links in my previous post aren't enough, can you provide the type of threatening rhetoric from Iraq and North Korea you have in mind? Otherwise, I wouldn't know which type of rhetoric you are referring too.
Some Saddam quotes that we saw out of Iraq. Taiwan's leaders have simply said that they have the right to defend themselves against a Chinese attack. I have not seen quotes from their leadership implying that they are planning any sort of attack on China or that they are supporting groups to attack Chinese citizens. Meanwhile China has made it very clear that they intend to attack Taiwan.
QUOTE
Is Taiwan a security threat to China?
Taiwan is probably as much of a security threat to China as Cuba is to the United States. The fact that there are people on an island close by who have an ideology in conflict with the ideology held by those on the mainland poses somewhat of a threat, enough for the United States to continue a trade embargo against Cuba because it is "communist" while maintaining communist China as "most favored trade partner." Pretty inconsistent, isn't it?Taiwan might conceivably serve as a base for anti-People's Republic forces should diplomacy between powerful nations go catastrophically wrong.
Taiwanese people are Chinese. China looks upon Taiwan as a renegade province.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Oct 25 2005, 06:57 AM)
All very interesting, but it just confirms the fact that Taiwan is it's own nation now. Or do you contend that China is at war with Taiwan today? Taiwan has been independent for so long that reunification is no different than invasion.
Taiwan is NOT independent. How many times do I have to repeat that? There is no declaration of independence, no international recognition, not even enough support within Taiwan itself for full independence. What pro-independence politicians have been doing since the early 90s is to try to strip the people on the island of their Chinese identity, more of less along the line of forcing the Indians to speak English.
QUOTE
Comparing a lifetime of being treated like mere property to temporary military service is not only ridiculous, but offensive.
You are missing my point here. Lincoln was fully willing to compromise with the South on the slavery issue, what started the Civil War was not slavery but the secession of the South. Freeing slaves is just icing on the cake -- a moral argument to make the Union's actions justifiable. On the same token, if the PRC chooses to do so, it can find justifiable causes or grievances within the island of Taiwan to take up.
QUOTE
QUOTE(j10pilot @ Oct 21 2005, 06:38 PM)
If the links in my previous post aren't enough, can you provide the type of threatening rhetoric from Iraq and North Korea you have in mind? Otherwise, I wouldn't know which type of rhetoric you are referring too.
Some Saddam quotes that we saw out of Iraq. Taiwan's leaders have simply said that they have the right to defend themselves against a Chinese attack. I have not seen quotes from their leadership implying that they are planning any sort of attack on China or that they are supporting groups to attack Chinese citizens. Meanwhile China has made it very clear that they intend to attack Taiwan.
"Defend themselves" by killing Chinese civilians? Shanghai is a population and financial center must like New York. If you think it is okay for them to make threats on Shanghai, then what is wrong with Saddam making threats on New York after Bangdad was bombed?
QUOTE(j10pilot @ Oct 25 2005, 02:10 PM)
Taiwan is NOT independent. How many times do I have to repeat that? There is no declaration of independence, no international recognition, not even enough support within Taiwan itself for full independence. What pro-independence politicians have been doing since the early 90s is to try to strip the people on the island of their Chinese identity, more of less along the line of forcing the Indians to speak English.
Mere paperwork does not change the reality of Taiwan's independence.
QUOTE(j10pilot @ Oct 25 2005, 02:10 PM)
"Defend themselves" by killing Chinese civilians? Shanghai is a population and financial center must like New York. If you think it is okay for them to make threats on Shanghai, then what is wrong with Saddam making threats on New York after Bangdad was bombed?
You are taking the man out of context if you believe that he is threatening to attack Shanghai. His quote is “If you strike Taipei and Kaohsiung, I should at least be able to strike Shanghai.” The IF at the beginning is what makes his statements quite different than Saddam's. I stand by my statement that it is a defensive statement. Not an aggressive one.
To Senorita Paladino
Well put, Senorita.
Uh... those paperwork happens to be the cornerstone of the rule by law. Can you back up your claim by anything other than mere claims? Like some documents maybe?
Well, on the same token, Saddam can claim that his threats are "defensive", after all, you did bomb the ---- out of him in January of 1991.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 25 2005, 01:36 PM)
Taiwan is probably as much of a security threat to China as Cuba is to the United States. The fact that there are people on an island close by who have an ideology in conflict with the ideology held by those on the mainland poses somewhat of a threat, enough for the United States to continue a trade embargo against Cuba because it is "communist" while maintaining communist China as "most favored trade partner." Pretty inconsistent, isn't it?
Taiwan might conceivably serve as a base for anti-People's Republic forces should diplomacy between powerful nations go catastrophically wrong.
Taiwanese people are Chinese. China looks upon Taiwan as a renegade province.
Taiwan might conceivably serve as a base for anti-People's Republic forces should diplomacy between powerful nations go catastrophically wrong.
Taiwanese people are Chinese. China looks upon Taiwan as a renegade province.
Well put, Senorita.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Oct 26 2005, 03:54 AM)
Mere paperwork does not change the reality of Taiwan's independence.
Uh... those paperwork happens to be the cornerstone of the rule by law. Can you back up your claim by anything other than mere claims? Like some documents maybe?
QUOTE
You are taking the man out of context if you believe that he is threatening to attack Shanghai. His quote is “If you strike Taipei and Kaohsiung, I should at least be able to strike Shanghai.” The IF at the beginning is what makes his statements quite different than Saddam's. I stand by my statement that it is a defensive statement. Not an aggressive one.
Well, on the same token, Saddam can claim that his threats are "defensive", after all, you did bomb the ---- out of him in January of 1991.
What sort of documents are you looking for jpilot? Taiwan, by definition, is independent. They are self-governing. The people of Taiwan have their own President, legislature, flag. There is no debating that and no matter what anyone says or writes on the matter, those facts do not change without actions. Otherwise, China would not be threatening to attack them.
You are trying to say that Taiwan is a rogue state through the use of these papers and are trying to compare them to the South during the Civil War. Many years ago, there may have been similarities.
I contend that the statute of limitations for forcibly reuniting Taiwan with China has passed though. In practical terms, not rhetoric and papers, what is it exactly that makes China attacking Taiwan any different than China attacking South Korea today?
You are trying to say that Taiwan is a rogue state through the use of these papers and are trying to compare them to the South during the Civil War. Many years ago, there may have been similarities.
I contend that the statute of limitations for forcibly reuniting Taiwan with China has passed though. In practical terms, not rhetoric and papers, what is it exactly that makes China attacking Taiwan any different than China attacking South Korea today?
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Oct 26 2005, 10:51 AM)
What sort of documents are you looking for jpilot? Taiwan, by definition, is independent. They are self-governing. The people of Taiwan have their own President, legislature, flag.
Well, let's see -- Puerto Rico, own flags, legislature, currency, language, chief of executive branch, etc. -- NOT independent. If you have read the constitution of the Republic of China, which governs Taiwan now, you would see that they claim that they are the rightful ruler of all of China. And as I mentioned in previous posts, the legal representative of China in the U.N. did not switch from the government of ROC to the PRC until 1972, and prior to 1979, the US recognized the ROC as the legitimate government of China, but has recognized the PRC as the legitimate government of all of China, including Taiwan, since then.
If you are so adament about Taiwan's independent status, do you mind telling me when it became independent? Is there a declaration of independence that you can show me? Communique, press release, or declaration from any foreign government on recognizing Taiwan's independence?
QUOTE
There is no debating that and no matter what anyone says or writes on the matter, those facts do not change without actions. Otherwise, China would not be threatening to attack them.
Actually, China does not mind Taiwan having its own legislature, flag, currency, and elected chief of the executive branch, just look at Hong Kong and Macau, both have their own legislature, flag, currency, chief executive, etc., look them up, they are on the CIA's World Factbook too.
The Chinese government's position has always been that it will attack if Taiwan declares independence, which is why the Chinese law regarding this matter is called the "Anti-Secession Law."
QUOTE
You are trying to say that Taiwan is a rogue state through the use of these papers and are trying to compare them to the South during the Civil War. Many years ago, there may have been similarities.
Don't put words in my mouth please. What I said is that legally, Taiwan is still part of China, and that the current ROC government on the island of Taiwan used to control all of China, but as a result of the Chinese Civil War, they now only control part of China.
QUOTE
I contend that the statute of limitations for forcibly reuniting Taiwan with China has passed though.
Since Taiwan has not declared independence, i.e. the crime has not been committed yet, it's kinda early to talk about statue limitation. But since we are on the subject, do you mind telling me what the statute of limitation on treason is in your state?
QUOTE
In practical terms, not rhetoric and papers, what is it exactly that makes China attacking Taiwan any different than China attacking South Korea today?
In terms of death and destruction -- no, there is no difference. In terms of legal rights over the sovereignty of the said territory -- yes, there is a huge difference. In terms of geopolitics and mutual hostility, the difference is even greater.
QUOTE(j10pilot @ Oct 26 2005, 12:17 AM)
If you are so adament about Taiwan's independent status, do you mind telling me when it became independent? Is there a declaration of independence that you can show me? Communique, press release, or declaration from any foreign government on recognizing Taiwan's independence?
Taiwan became by definition independent the moment that they were not governed by a foreign power. They rule themselves under their own version of the Chinese constitution. They amend that constitution. They are free from China's control. I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that. You can talk about treason and legal rights all you want. I will support the United States if containment of an aggressive Chinese force is needed to stop death and destruction in any peaceful, free land like Taiwan.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Nov 4 2005, 08:53 PM)
Taiwan became by definition independent the moment that they were not governed by a foreign power. They rule themselves under their own version of the Chinese constitution. They amend that constitution. They are free from China's control. I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion regarding the status of Taiwan, however, Taiwan does not agree with you. They have never claimed independence from China, no politician in Power in Taiwan has ever made such a claim or declaration. That is why Taiwan does not have embassies in any country on the planet, as that would imply independent status. Rather, they have Cultural agencies in a select few nations. Taiwan does not have a seat in the UN. There is not a single first world nation on the planet that recognises the independence of Taiwan.
QUOTE
You can talk about treason and legal rights all you want. I will support the United States if containment of an aggressive Chinese force is needed to stop death and destruction in any peaceful, free land like Taiwan.
So I assume you recognise the right of China to interfere, say, if the US uses troops to quell rioting in Puerto Rico, or Guam, or the Marshall Islands?
Obviously there IS a difference between PRC and ROC, but to simply spout lines about 'agressive China' and 'poor free and independent Taiwan' is simplistic and counter productive. Considering the US itself does not recognise Taiwan, but instead recognises the chinese Island of Taipei in its place, its hard to make your case.
Question Vermillion. Is Taiwan self-governing or not?
If the US were to try and force Puerto Rico or Guam to become a state through military force, then I would expect the world to try and stop that. As for my terminology, I call them like I see them. If China attacks Taiwan, then they are being aggressive. Taiwan is a free and open country. I see nothing counterproductive in speaking the truth in plain terms.
The bottom line is that when a one party state attacks a democracy without military provocation, it's a bad thing.
If the US were to try and force Puerto Rico or Guam to become a state through military force, then I would expect the world to try and stop that. As for my terminology, I call them like I see them. If China attacks Taiwan, then they are being aggressive. Taiwan is a free and open country. I see nothing counterproductive in speaking the truth in plain terms.
The bottom line is that when a one party state attacks a democracy without military provocation, it's a bad thing.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Nov 6 2005, 03:33 PM)
The bottom line is that when a one party state attacks a democracy without military provocation, it's a bad thing.
Wait, wait... so when a democracy attacks a one party state without military provocation, it's not such a bad thing, all of a sudden?
What does a political system has to do with an independence and sovereignty?
QUOTE
Question Vermillion. Is Taiwan self-governing or not?
Taiwan is self-governing without any international recognition. Which, in plain speak, amounts to autonomy.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Nov 6 2005, 06:29 PM)
Wait, wait... so when a democracy attacks a one party state without military provocation, it's not such a bad thing, all of a sudden?
What does a political system has to do with an independence and sovereignty?
What does a political system has to do with an independence and sovereignty?
We'll find out exactly how bad that is. Maybe it is a bad thing since it makes little difference in terms of sovereignty. It does make quite a difference in terms of the citizen's freedoms though. I take it that you agree that it is a bad thing regardless of political systems?
Self-governing, autonomous, independent - we've had this discussion EH. They're all synonyms.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Nov 7 2005, 01:37 AM)
We'll find out exactly how bad that is. Maybe it is a bad thing since it makes little difference in terms of sovereignty. It does make quite a difference in terms of the citizen's freedoms though. I take it that you agree that it is a bad thing regardless of political systems?
No, when any state attacks any other state without provocation, it is a bad thing. Democracy may be argued to be a better form of government than some others, but true or not, a democratic state does not suddenly gain 'extra' international rights or legitimacy simply because it is a democracy.
QUOTE
Self-governing, autonomous, independent - we've had this discussion EH. They're all synonyms.
No, actually, they are not.
You can argue that Taiwan is independent all you want, but the reality is Taiwan itself disagrees with you. So does every first world state on the planet. Unless any of that changes, the argument for the current independent status of Taiwan is over before it started.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Nov 8 2005, 08:32 AM)
QUOTE
Self-governing, autonomous, independent - we've had this discussion EH. They're all synonyms.
No, actually, they are not.
Well the Thesaurus disagrees with you. So I guess that we are just going to be at a standoff here. If you want to discuss the legitimacy Taiwan's independence, we can do that. But I can not relent on the fact that they are currently independent unless you can provide a definition of the word that Taiwan does not meet or show that the definition provided does not apply to Taiwan.
Edited for clarification of final sentence.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Nov 10 2005, 03:26 AM)
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Nov 8 2005, 08:32 AM)
QUOTE
Self-governing, autonomous, independent - we've had this discussion EH. They're all synonyms.
No, actually, they are not.
Well the Thesaurus disagrees with you. So I guess that we are just going to be at a standoff here. If you want to discuss the legitimacy Taiwan's independence, we can do that. But I can not relent on the fact that they are currently independent unless you can provide a definition of the word that Taiwan does not meet or show that the definition provided does not apply to Taiwan.
Edited for clarification of final sentence.
(In Arnold's voice) I'm Baack!
Okay, I see we are still stuck on the independence issue. Let's resolve this once and for all.
First, this here list from the CIA's World Factbook of independence dates, please tell me if you find Taiwan?
Now, let's go back to our high school English class and re-learn how to use a thesaurus and the meaning of synonyms. Even according to Yahoo!, which you seem to consider an impeccable resource, a synonym can have "nearly the same", not "exactly the same", meaning as the other word. Case and point, the word -- divorce. Now "my parents are getting a divorce" makes perfect sense to all of us, but does "my parents are getting a detachment" or "my parents are getting a disjunction" make any sense at all? Not to mention the fact that Yahoo! lists "separation" as a synonym of "divorce", when legally, the two are different. So you tell me, is autonomous the same as independent? Is Puerto Rico independent?
You bring up a good point. Synonyms are either the same or nearly the same in terms of meaning. To answer your question on Puerto Rico; by definition, Puerto Rico is not independent. They are not completely free from US control since they pay some federal taxes, cannot put import duties on US goods, and did not pass their own Constitution until Public Law 600 passed the US Congress allowing it.
Taiwan on the other hand is free from China’s control. Show me how it is that China controls Taiwan and then you have a case for saying that Taiwan is not independent of China.
Taiwan on the other hand is free from China’s control. Show me how it is that China controls Taiwan and then you have a case for saying that Taiwan is not independent of China.
I have some questions here.
What is the relationship between Taiwan and the US? Will US send troops to TW if China attacks TW? I dont think so though.
First, the Olympic Games 2008 may be not in China if the war happens before 2008. Second, it is not easy any more to have a lot or most Chinese in army. Current Chinese people are far different from the people who were in Maoism period. Even many generals got retired when they heard the governement might decide to attack TW some day.
Another question is why China government manages to irritate Chinese on WW2 issues every year. Is it so-called patriotism? On the other hand, China's economic needs Japanese investment. So why? That China is going to get TW is a intimidation to Japan?
What is the relationship between Taiwan and the US? Will US send troops to TW if China attacks TW? I dont think so though.
First, the Olympic Games 2008 may be not in China if the war happens before 2008. Second, it is not easy any more to have a lot or most Chinese in army. Current Chinese people are far different from the people who were in Maoism period. Even many generals got retired when they heard the governement might decide to attack TW some day.
Another question is why China government manages to irritate Chinese on WW2 issues every year. Is it so-called patriotism? On the other hand, China's economic needs Japanese investment. So why? That China is going to get TW is a intimidation to Japan?
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Dec 7 2005, 08:42 PM)
Show me how it is that China controls Taiwan and then you have a case for saying that Taiwan is not independent of China.
This is getting silly. Let me put it very simply:
Who thinks Taiwan is still de jure part of China?
China thinks so.
Taiwan thinks so.
Every major power in the world thinks so.
The UN thinks so.
Who thinks Taiwan is completely independent of China?
'Just leave me alone'.
You're dodging the question Vermillion. What do you mean when you say that Taiwan is not independent? Define it for us. Do you even know what you mean or are you just parroting someone else? You have done nothing to disprove that Taiwan is by definition independent. What is silly is your refusal to either define what you mean or show in what manner that Taiwan is not independent by the definition that I have provided.
Hello everybody!
Just a few words to ad to the situation: whether a territory is or can be considered to be part of a bigger entity is more a question of perception: The Taiwan Independence Party might argue a political culture or system is already reason enough to claim political independence, however the cultural or historic links to the "bigger entity"?
Peking politicans might argue this or that political system are to neglect when looking at Chinas national faith in the international picture?
Since history gave Taiwan a political independence one way or the other, then the motherland needs very good reason to bring it "back home"; With China claiming for the territory in the way it does, it is causing distraction and the tensions between the two Chinese is surely not doing well for the perception of Chinese nationalism in the world and it is probably also doing harm inside both countries!
Everybody says if in 20 years those islanders decide to go with the mainland, China will be a different country - Why isn't China confident enough that when that day arrives the islanders still want to be part of that bigger entity? What happened to (Mainland) Chinas union with Hong Kong and Pekings opportunity to modernize it's political culture? What about Tibet? And why isn't China able to demonstrate and convince that it is an attractive society for those people and a union is a healthy solution for the region and its neighbors - including Japan and the US?
Thank you!
Just a few words to ad to the situation: whether a territory is or can be considered to be part of a bigger entity is more a question of perception: The Taiwan Independence Party might argue a political culture or system is already reason enough to claim political independence, however the cultural or historic links to the "bigger entity"?
Peking politicans might argue this or that political system are to neglect when looking at Chinas national faith in the international picture?
Since history gave Taiwan a political independence one way or the other, then the motherland needs very good reason to bring it "back home"; With China claiming for the territory in the way it does, it is causing distraction and the tensions between the two Chinese is surely not doing well for the perception of Chinese nationalism in the world and it is probably also doing harm inside both countries!
Everybody says if in 20 years those islanders decide to go with the mainland, China will be a different country - Why isn't China confident enough that when that day arrives the islanders still want to be part of that bigger entity? What happened to (Mainland) Chinas union with Hong Kong and Pekings opportunity to modernize it's political culture? What about Tibet? And why isn't China able to demonstrate and convince that it is an attractive society for those people and a union is a healthy solution for the region and its neighbors - including Japan and the US?
Thank you!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.