Taiwan: do as we say, not as we do
37 years ago, the Republic of China was stripped of its UN seat and relegated to geopolitical bottom feeder.
In March a group of Taiwanese politicians and reformers led by current president Chen Shui-bian plans on submitting a new membership application to the UN for admission into the general assembly.
When I first arrived in Taipei a month ago it was impossible to not notice this plan as glitzy posters greeted visitors as we walked through the airport hallways. These advertisements spelled out its case to the world, or at least the several thousand travellers that meandered around the luggage terminals. (see: UN for Taiwan).
Despite recently stating that there would be “heavy costs” to pursuing the referendum, it seems unlikely that the PRC would launch any military response prior to the summer Olympics.
This diplomatic issue is compounded by the fact that, as professor Geoffrey Forden has detailed (1 2 3), China is still not capable of launching a successful first strike against American military assets in space.
Furthermore, it is doubtful that the referendum will garner the necessary votes for passing, as countries voting in its favor would potentially lose both foreign aid shipments and other political capital from China (which is how both the PRC and RoC have historically paid for diplomatic recognition).
While this subject deserves more space than this post can afford, the US State Department believes that “conducting a referendum would be a mistake and intentionally provocative.”
One wonders what objective criteria secession and independence leaders must procure before they can join the exclusive nation-state club. If East Timor, Serbia, Eritrea and a dozen or so Soviet republics had what it takes, why doesn’t Taiwan?
Perhaps it is because, as Aaron Glantz and others have noted, the US State department fears that Kurdistan or other ethnic parts of Iraq may attempt to upset the status quo under similar overtures.
As an aside, why should the US taxpayer foot the defense bill in the event Taiwan does declare its independence? For this discussion see Taiwan, a Spark Plug for War by Doug Bandow.
Michael Turton
February 4th, 2008 at 8:08 am
,b>Furthermore, it is doubtful that the referendum will garner the necessary votes for passing, as countries voting in its favor would potentially lose both foreign aid shipments and other political capital from China (which is how both the PRC and RoC have historically paid for diplomatic recognition).
While this subject deserves more space than this post can afford, the US State Department believes that “conducting a referendum would be a mistake and intentionally provocative.”
The Bush Administration is currently supporting China and the local party in Taiwan that is cooperating with China, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). By opposing the referendum, they appease Beijing. Opposition by the Bush Administration to Taiwan independence has nothing to do with Iraq (the Bush Administration is busily turning Kosovo into an independent state over Russia’s complaints, so clearly independence per se is not a problem). Rather, it is rooted in the Administration’s obsession with the Middle East — the point that the US Navy/DOD is one of the most important conduits of diplomacy with the Chinese, and to the point that Iraq is likely to be China’s greatest victory. The Bush Administration believes that Taiwan will cause it fewer headaches if the KMT is running the show here — although the vast majority of Bush Administration Taiwan headaches are self-inflicted.
The Taiwan Relations Act, which you link to above, does not mandate intervention in the event China attacks Taiwan, that is a popular misconception. Why should US taxpayers foot the bill? Because it was the US that caused this mess, first by schlepping over Chiang Kai-shek’s troops in Sept and Oct of 1945 to occupy the island, dooming it to 50 years of martial law and political killings and then, by selling it out to China in the Shanghai Communique — determining the island’s fate without consulting its inhabitants.
Unless, of course, you’d rather abandon a longtime ally. Japanese analysts have already noticed that Taiwan’s fate and its own are interlinked, and have observed that China’s tactics against Taiwan, both in the media, the international sphere, and militarily and psychologically, will be the ones deployed against Japan in the long run. Another reason for supporting Taiwan is because of its connection to the security of Japan.
Yet another reason is that Taiwan is merely the first on a long list of acquisitions the PRC would like to make. Munich is overinvoked but the comparison is valid here — China has territorial claims on all its neighbors, and has attempted many times in the past to “stealth claim” islands far from its shores — the way it tried to create a claim to the Natunas in the 1990s. No sense in encouraging expansion.
The US need not fight a war with China. Credible deterrence, diplomatic leadership, and a security treaty with China’s neighboring countries would be a good start. But the Bush Administration has squandered our credibility, budget, and military on its criminal, and criminally stupid war in Iraq.
Michael
Andy
February 4th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I fail to see why a small, obscure island just 100 miles off China’s coast is of any concern to the United States. Do Mexico and Canada concern themselves with Taiwan?
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
It is well you mention the confluence of Japanese interests and those of the Republic of China on Taiwan.
As undoubtedly you know, Taiwan was long under Japanese rule, and never under the rule of the People’s Republic of China.
What most people do not know is how nostalgic some Chinese on Taiwan were about the Japanese when the first ragtag elements of the Nationalist Army arrived on the island after the Japanese surrender.
Having experienced an indulgent and well-ordered occupation, including considerable economic development under the Japanese, and with the unifying cultural emblems of Chan Buddhism and Confucius, “[t}he proper Taiwanese”, in the words of C.C. Cheng, “were absolutely scandalized by the miserable condition of the Chinese troops come to occupy the island, and I recall that many of them told me that they actually ready to break down in tears.”
The predations of the Nationalist officials that followed led to the spontaneous riots of 1947, which the Nationalists rather weakly tried to blame on the Communists and brutally suppressed.
After the Nationalist retreat to the island, Chiang Kai-shek ruled with an iron hand, and through an overlay of mainland Nationalists above both Taiwan’s Chinese and non-Han.
This regime, almost as foreign as the Japanese occupation, was relaxed in large degree under Chiang Chingkuo in his old age.
It was during this last period that the Taiwan independence movement first surfaced publicly, but in a sense what occurred was a simply a reassertion of the old anti-mainland and pro-Japanese sentiments.
Too, economically the Nationalists, even under Chiang Kai-shek, learned both from the islanders and from the new Japan.
It is thus no surprise to see Taiwanese and Japanese on the same page in many areas, including economics and culture, and also their joint, if very careful, exploitation of mainland manpower and investment.
If the confluence, still treated delicately by both Japan and Taiwan, seems a stunning new track to many Americans it is largely due to surviving blind spots of American ideology, including the persistent hangover of the old China Lobby and Cold War anti-Communism, especially among some of the Right Wing, but also, for different reasons, among American Cold Warriors on the left.
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
corr: “they were actually ready”.
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
On the same subject, I risk a long throw from far left field to home plate for anyone prepared to catch it.
Now and then seeing with new eyes involves abstraction from topics that seem far afield to whatever is at hand.
This is especially true where artists and writers see through to some unifying image below the surface of what they seem to treat at any particular moment.
One example is Emir Kusturica’s film, Underground: Once Upon A Time There Was a Country.
On the surface it looks to be about Yugoslavia under Tito, and no doubt that is the main subject. But it is the nature of a great classic, which the film is, to unravel much more than the immediate.
See the film often enough, and one may well see it as an organizing image about all sides in the Cold War, including those Americans still laboring deeply underground and for decreasing rewards, while the elite of right and left try to create a new outside terror, perhaps even a new Cold War with the Russian Federation, to keep those in the dark below laboring cheaply in a new and absolutely necessary patriotic war.
Having made that throw to home plate, one notes that another work of art, Vassily Aksyonov’s The Island Crimea, which is a science fictionesque alternative history about the Russian Revolution, can easily be read as an intriguing and trenchant analysis of the relation of mainland China and Taiwan.
In fact, I have no doubt that Aksyonov himself got the basic concept of his alternate history from what happened in China when Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan.
Which concept he dressed up in Russian and Soviet garb.
Reading the novel over several times, one may be prepared for the supreme irony that, though about a Russia that never existed, it is quite on point in many areas about a mainland China and Taiwan that do indeed still exist, and exist in the context of some basic cultural and political patterns outlined by Aksyonov.
syvanen
February 4th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
If Taiwan made a serious move towards declaring its independence and if the international community began to recognize that independence then there would be war. This has been made clear by China on many occasions. Any sensible person should urge the US to continue formally supporting the one-china policy and make it abundantly clear that the US would never intervene in a military action between Taiwan and the mainland.
I wish the Taiwanese well and hope they can negotiate a reunification pact that permits them a degree of independence. It is the reckless talk by some American politicians and officials that give the Taiwan independence groups hope that the US would intervene. This is extremely dangerous. Whenever this topic comes up people who consider themselves antiwar should point out the danger of independence talk. This means recognizing that if one advocates for Taiwan’s independence in this country, we should all take note that this is someone who is advocating for war with China. Hearing the ‘Munich’ analogy above sets off all of my alarm bells.
And finally, what is this foolishness about the Japanese being a major factor in this business. Japan would be crushed like a beetle in any confrontation with China.
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Nin shi yige Chungguode ren, dui bu dui?
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
“Crushed like a beetle” is the tip off.
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
“Do Mexico and Canada concern themselves with Taiwan?”
Very much so.
Michael Turton
February 4th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I fail to see why a small, obscure island just 100 miles off China’s coast is of any concern to the United States. Do Mexico and Canada concern themselves with Taiwan?
Why yes, Canada does. Canada has been far ahead of the US on the issue, in fact.
Like Hong Kong, whose independence is rapidly being smothered? And Tibet, annexed and crushed? Please.
Second, Taiwan was never part of China, so it can’t “re-unify”. No ethnic Chinese emperor ever owned the island. China’s drive is to annex Taiwan, no re-unify. That is merely propaganda.
It is the reckless talk by some American politicians and officials that give the Taiwan independence groups hope that the US would intervene.
No, it is 60 years of US foreign policy, and many years of intervention in various forms in the past. Such talk is not reckless, but prudent. It prevents war by creating credible prospects of US intervention.
Whenever this topic comes up people who consider themselves antiwar should point out the danger of independence talk.
This is just asinine. Essentially you argue that if Country A threatens to annex Country B by force, Country B is wrong to resist, and further, no one should support it.
It is NOT talk of independence that threatens war. It is China’s desire to annex the island (as well as other territories around its borders, and far from them). You are blaming the victim here. If China did not threaten to annex Taiwan, there would no threat of war.
This means recognizing that if one advocates for Taiwan’s independence in this country, we should all take note that this is someone who is advocating for war with China.
No, it is someone who is advocating peace with China. War in the region threatens everyone, as Japan well knows. The missile ‘tests’ in 1996 actually landed closer to Japanese territory than Taiwanese. An independent Taiwan threatens no one — except expansionists in Beijing.
Hearing the ‘Munich’ analogy above sets off all of my alarm bells.
As well it should. Whatever do you think China’s drive to annex its neighbors means? Do you think that after they acquire Taiwan they will stop? There’s Mongolia, the states in Central Asia, the Indian border areas, Vietnam, islands in the South Pacific…..
Michael
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Excellent summary.
Michael Turton
February 4th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Ignore the above comment, formatting failed!
I fail to see why a small, obscure island just 100 miles off China’s coast is of any concern to the United States. Do Mexico and Canada concern themselves with Taiwan?
Why yes, Canada does. Canada has been far ahead of the US on the issue, in fact.
I wish the Taiwanese well and hope they can negotiate a reunification pact that permits them a degree of independence.
Like Hong Kong, whose independence is rapidly being smothered? And Tibet, annexed and crushed? Please.
Second, Taiwan was never part of China, so it can’t “re-unify”. No ethnic Chinese emperor ever owned the island. China’s drive is to annex Taiwan, no re-unify. That is merely propaganda.
It is the reckless talk by some American politicians and officials that give the Taiwan independence groups hope that the US would intervene.
No, it is 60 years of US foreign policy, and many years of intervention in various forms in the past. Such talk is not reckless, but prudent. It prevents war by creating credible prospects of US intervention.
Whenever this topic comes up people who consider themselves antiwar should point out the danger of independence talk.
This is just asinine. Essentially you argue that if Country A threatens to annex Country B by force, Country B is wrong to resist, and further, no one should support it.
It is NOT talk of independence that threatens war. It is China’s desire to annex the island (as well as other territories around its borders, and far from them). You are blaming the victim here. If China did not threaten to annex Taiwan, there would no threat of war.
This means recognizing that if one advocates for Taiwan’s independence in this country, we should all take note that this is someone who is advocating for war with China.
No, it is someone who is advocating peace with China. It is those who oppose Taiwan independence who advocate for war, since without the US security guarantee, China would almost certain invade. War in the region threatens everyone, as Japan well knows. The missile ‘tests’ in 1996 actually landed closer to Japanese territory than Taiwanese. An independent Taiwan threatens no one — except expansionists in Beijing.
Hearing the ‘Munich’ analogy above sets off all of my alarm bells.
As well it should. Whatever do you think China’s drive to annex its neighbors means? Do you think that after they acquire Taiwan they will stop? There’s Mongolia, the states in Central Asia, the Indian border areas, Vietnam, islands in the South Pacific…..
Michael
syvanen
February 4th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Michael, as I said above your sentiments on Taiwan are dangerous. Your insistence that Taiwan is not Chinese and was not part of China is simply wrong. “Mongolia, the states in Central Asia, the Indian border areas, Vietnam, islands in the South Pacific” and not single one of these are cuturally Chinese nor has the current government made any claims on their territory. These are the same hysterical analogies that led us to war in Iraq. War with
china will be much more serious.
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Ah, I see: henosis of Singapore with the GREAT MONAD coming soon too.
“Dangerous talk”–oh my.
This is a bit too complex to make any reliable predictions about, and there are still many unresolved contingencies, but one scenario still open is that the mainland surrender to the Taiwanese in return for their technological, social and economic expertise.
Sorrily, the Taiwanese are less and less interested in having such a millstone around their neck.
When the Nationalists were still strong, the mainland refused one of the main points they demanded as a political party in any unification, that is: the right to be a national party and campaign in all of China, not just what would become the province of Taiwan.
Again I commend Aksyonov on the whole subject.
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Alas, is–is The Island Crimea available on the mainland in Chinese translation?
Potentially subversive stuff. If it is, it will no doubt shortly be banned, except perhaps in Russian.
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I can almost hear, as we chat, libraries being ransacked in Harbin.
Lester Ness
February 4th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
It should be noted that Taiwan and the mainland get more closely linked economically everyday. Taiwanese manufacturers have off-shored many of their factories to the mainland, often to Fujian province, which speaks the same language as Taiwan. Taiwanese individuals are all over the mainland, as students, tourists, small businessmen. Even old soldiers who fought for Jiang and against Mao are now visiting their hometowns on the mainland. (They do sometimes remove their anti-Communist tatooes. They would be embarrassing to explain at the village sauna.)
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
Ed March
February 4th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
The US should not anger China. Where else will Bush borrow the money to “kickstart” the American economy?
Lester Ness
February 4th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Paranoia will destroya!
Lester Ness
Lester Ness
February 4th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I’m sitting in a wifi cafe in China and The Island Crimea seems to be available cia e-mule. It’s an English translation, but lots of Chinese people read English these days.
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
Lester Ness
February 4th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
excuse me, “via e-mule.”
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
Lester Ness
February 4th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Well, Neo-cons, and other blood-thirsty do-gooders, not to mention Armegeddonites, need new Evil Empires at all times. I’m sure that slaughtering Muslims will get boring soon. There’s already one End Times ministry claiming that Revelations predicts an inevitable nuclear war between the US and China. The Neo-con(men) would probably say that conquest of China would pay for itself, via Chinese factories and resources.
Lester
Lester Ness
February 4th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
You know, guys, if any of you are unemployed and would like to know more about contemporary China, why not come teach English for a year? The main thing schools want from you is a standard accent, so that your conversation students can imitate you. Google “Teach English China” and you’ll get a host of web sites with job openings and chances to post your resume. Usually they want a college degree. I’d suggest you go with a public university rather than a private school. They offer less money, but will probably be easier for you to work with. Of course, you need a passport, but more important is a can-do attitude. If you can’t handle squat toilets, weird food, being surrounded by colored people who speak a foreign language, do not come.
Lester Ness
Kunming
China
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Yep. Given the right combination of circumstances, they may at some point be able to buy the mainland, lock stock and barrel.
That is one of the threats the putative Communists see with allowing Taiwanese politicians to have their own party nationwide on the mainland.
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
The mainland Communists are so pissed at the devaluation of the dollar, they are already spitting mad.
But what is one to do, when all the Ponzi schemes are so tightly interlocked?
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
“Colored people”?
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
What a turn of speech–”anger China”! Is that like “angering” the United States or Mexico?
What might it mean to say: “The United States should not anger the Russian Federation”?
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Hehe.
Kissinger will have to look for a new employer. Oman or Kuwait perhaps?
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
China as a “nation”–there’s one born every minute.
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Xiexie.
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Yes, I know the Beijing Romatzyh is Zhongguo, but in a misspent youth i learned one too many romanization systems after I learned the characters, so I take none of them seriously.
I am also very rusty.
Eugene Costa
February 4th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Romatzyh–unless my memory fails, that is spelled Chao Yuen Ren–by far the best system phonemically and tonemically, but also too complex for easy use.
Andy
February 4th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Taiwan is not a vital interest for the United States sir. Neither are any of the other areas you mention sir. You have re-invented the Domino theory. I can assure you no Canadian or Mexican soldiers would die for Taiwan. Only the Americans with their would-be messianic cult of interventionism would countenance such madness.
Charles
February 5th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Michael Turton has already done a lot of explaining, but I’ll add my two cents.
The Taiwan question is not one of US interests only, but of US support for a people to decide their own destiny.
If Taiwan’s people choose to unify with the People’s Republic of China — a political entity they have never been a part of — that is their choice.
But it is their right to choose, just as it is for other small countries. Not under threat or duress, but freely.
The fact that the PRC threatens military action does not change the US duty to support a long-time ally which is doing absolutely nothing that would be objected to, if any other country did it.
This is exactly the opposite of the reasoning that took the US to Iraq. In Iraq, the US set out on an ill-advised mission to destroy a perceived enemy and replace it with democracy.
In the case of Taiwan, the US would be providing support for a nation that has already proved itself a stable and liberal democratic society.
台灣萬歲!
Rad
February 5th, 2008 at 1:51 am
“One wonders what objective criteria secession and independence leaders must procure before they can join the exclusive nation-state club. If East Timor, Serbia, Eritrea and a dozen or so Soviet republics had what it takes, why doesn’t Taiwan?”
The “Mother Country” of all the countries above recognized their independence. China never do that for Taiwan. Look at Kosovo, with Serbia’s refusal to recognized its independence, I doubt Kosovo will join UN anytime soon…
Bubby
February 5th, 2008 at 2:18 am
What we all need to do is speak of Peace. This topic is delicate and should be left to the Chinese and Taiwan to work out. We do not need a problem with China. China is not a walk in the park and with their ally Russia will not be taken. The damage to Western interests will be severe and probably the end of US/Allies hedegemony.
Charles
February 5th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Rad — The PRC is in no way the “mother” of Taiwan, which it has never been a part of.
Elaine Supkis
February 5th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Every change in diplomatic status of China and Taiwan happen WITHOUT WARNING via FIAT.
My dad was negotiating between China and Taiwan and was the very first person in history to fly directly to Beijing from Taiwan when President Carter suddenly announced he was supporting China as the proper representative to the UN and was dropping Taiwan’s status as a sovereign nation.
There were riots in Taiwan and I feared for my father’s life. I harried the State Department to locate him. It turned out that even HE didn’t know what was happening in DC and was innocently visiting a farm in the countryside so he was safe.
When Kissinger suddenly, without any warning WITHIN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, arranged for Nixon to go to China the first time, my dad was the second person to go there under the new diplomatic rules. He had to always be on his feet concerning AMERICAN sudden lurches and the penchant of Presidents to suddenly change direction.
And pray tell, why has the US suddenly done these things? It all began when we were going bankrupt via the Vietnam war. To get out of Vietnam which wa an ally of Russia who was at war, sort of, with China since 1963 and the border clash near Mongolia, the US needed China’s help for withdrawal. In 1978, we needed China because of Russia’s expansion into Afghanistan.
Today, we are in debt to China and Europe is beholden to Russia due to energy needs. Both Russia and China have us in their grip and they have a list of things they want and our stupid saber rattling diplomacy has utterly failed to frighten them off, they are laughing at us now.
Japan is NOT beloved by its neighbors, by the way. The Japanese use US naval powers to protect their Co-Prosperity Sphere which involves them selling us value-added goods while they strangle their own domestic markets so no one can export value-added goods into Japan. One of the world’s biggest electronics makers has completely abandoned the Japanese markets this last month because of lack of sales. It has great sales in all of Asia and America but zero in Japan! And do we imagine Japan imports stuff from Taiwan? Except for their own factories in Taiwan? HAHAHA.
Elaine Supkis
Culture of LIfe News
Vassili
February 5th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Keeping aside that Aksenov is one patented rusofobiac and that can be clearly seen in the “Crimea Island” book…
First, we need to agree to disregard current Western propaganda about Russia turning totalitarian and not having bona fide rapid economy grouth (in addition to benefiting from high energy prices)…
So, in the REAL WORLD, Crimea Peninsula got annexed from Russia as a result of pro-Ukraine forces in Soviet Govt, as well as the result of the deconstruction of USSR. So – currently Crimea is part of Ukraine. Economics of Ukraine is weak, economics of Crimea is even weaker. Although it has been a resort for all of the USSR back then, now, due to anti-Russian policies of Ukraine, inspired by the West – the Crimea is in the decline (as the rest of former republics that we gladly let go in 1991, feeling they are more of a libality then an asset, and apart from Turkmenistan they are).
On the other hand Moscow is flowrishing – and all the glory bestowed by capitalism (according to Aksenov) can be seen in Moscow, and the misery that he depicts for future Moscow – can be seen in Crimea.
Most amazingly – how he was able to predict – although in reverse like the rest of it of course, that happy capitalist Russia would be counting money in “thous-rubs”, whereas gloomy capitalists would count in weak 1-2 roubles – so, we DO count money in “thous-rubs” ($40), whereas in the Crimea, being part of Ukraine they count money in “grivnas”, being $0.25 each.
So – I hope that eventually (after Kosovo separation, that is not welcome by Russia, but … the unfortunate PRECIDENT will be :-) Crimea will self-proclaim independance from Ukraine (and we (RU) should help as much as we can, although, of course obfuscating and denying that) – and we’ll have even more simularities with Taiwan.
Now – if we don’t practice to double standards :-) we should either welcome ALL separatism, or NOT welcome. Of course what happens is that US welcomes one it likes and condemns the one it does not.
Which brings us to a simple truth that “Might is Right”.
Having said that I doubt that China wants to perform a direct military agression against Taiwan. In a close analogy – I think that Crimea SHOULD declare independance, but I oppose the idea that it should be turned into a part of Russia, but rather a very friendly state, like US/Canada – i.e. no visas, no travel restriction, no work permits – same as Russia/Belorussia currently.
Vassili
February 5th, 2008 at 5:06 am
Indeed – although the initial US military support of Taiwan, was bad, forced reunification with Taiwan would be equally bad.
From my egocentric Russian viewpoint current situation with Taiwan is good, since it keeps reminding Chineese people about the predatory nature of the West.
As well as due to the fact that Taiwan is very valuable asset for electornics contract manufacturing (for both US and Russia – sic.), and the quality of electronic goods manufactured in Taiwan seems to be on par with S.Korea, Japan and the US.
Vassili
February 5th, 2008 at 5:11 am
I’d like to remind that unlike the West China does not have any history of World Wars, agressions etc. Not once it was in major war with Russia for example. Therefore it is as peaceful as it humanly possible :-)
Vassili
February 5th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Although I’m Russian I think I can speak good US accent, I would love to come to live in China for couple years… oh, dreams, sweet dreams…
China is THE hope of the modern World – one strong country not poisoned by deceptions of “democracy”, yet recovering from communist mirage in a graceful way.
ts
February 5th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The referendum is much more for show than anything else. The DPP (green) party was going to get crushed in the legislative elections in January (which they did, leaving the KMT (blue) controlling 75% of the seats). In order to at least have a chance at keeping the presidency, the referendum was introduced by Chen Shui-bian and the DPP to get a politically charged issue on the ballot for March. The UN referendum has a very remote chance of passing, and even if it does, the UN itself still has to accept Taiwan’s petition, not something that will happen with China on the Security Council.
The majority opinion in Taiwan seems to be a resignation to the fact that reunion with China is inevitable and business and economic ties should be strengthened to help the economy and lessen China’s drive to isolate the island. The economy has been in a stagflationary environment for a couple years which has only worsened as the US economy and dollar has weakened. This was the crucial factor in the legislative elections, coupled with an incredible amount of corruption charges that have been leveled against Chen Shui-bian.
The U.S. desire for an independent Taiwan has only been so far as to keep the island in its current state as a thorn in China’s side and to buy obsolete U.S. weaponry, while on the surface “favoring” evantual (meaning not in this millenium) reunification and currying business favors with the Chinese, in other words, having our cake and eating it too. If the Taiwanese themselves started pursuing reunification, this would be contrary to U.S. wishes and I wouldn’t be surprised at the next government taking a much greater interest in the tiny island. I think the U.S. understands that not even the Chinese want a military invasion.
The Chinese keep close tabs on Taiwan public opinion and they know the tilt is toward economic reunification, so for them it’s just a matter of time. The DPP has been useful for China as a way to keep the saber rattling and the pretense that this is a potential powder-keg is just a way to gently give a additional push to the reunification side.
As a side note, there has been a huge recent speculative boom buying property in Taiwan. Prices are only a third of what they are 40 miles away on the mainland, and the feeling is that when the KMT is elected they will remove restrictions on Chinese buying property and then the sky is the limit. You might want to file that one away if you have a little cash in hand.
syvanen
February 5th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Very noble goals. And every time you urge your fellow Americans to support the proud and independent democracy of Taiwan be sure to remind them that there support means that we are willing to go to war with China. That is the discussion we should be having now. Not at some future time after an American security pact forces us into a military confrontation with China.
This discussion should focus on the possible nature of such a war. Would the US use nuclear weapons against mainland China, for example, if the initial naval engagement went wrong? We do reserve the right for first use. Would the people of Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles be willing to sacrifice their cities in the cause of Taiwan’s democracy and independence? Many interesting questions that should be put on the table.
syvanen
February 5th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
These are sensible comments. I agree that the most likely outcome is economic integration and a gradual political accommodation. However, there are dangerous scenarios. And that is if the more volatile independence advocates in Taiwan and major forces in the War Party in the US manage to move dynamics in their direction. Do recall, that before the US became embroiled in Iraq, some of the neocon officials in the Bush administration were dropping hints that the US was going to increase support for Taiwan’s independence drive.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
What nonsense. The mainland oligarchs threaten war over Taiwan, on wholly invented premises, and to reject the premises means ‘willingness to go to war with China”.
This is very much like the threat of mainland Chinese intervention in Vietnam.
In fact, the United States should have been exerting itself very early to have the mainland Chinese invade. That would have united the whole populace of Vietnam against China.
Instead the morons sent massive numbers of US troops to Vietnam, which Diem had warned Kennedy about earlier, arguing that a large number of US troops, especially in the countryside, would turn a civil war with Communists, backed by China, into a national war of liberation against the US.
Diem was right–but soon enough both he and Kennedy were assassinated, weren’t they?
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Perhaps you might explain that supposed lack of foreign aggression to the Vietnamese, just for one example.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Both the Taiwanese and Japanese are not only heavily invested in one another, but also in mainland China, and most significantly, also in Vietnam.
The United States is increasingly marginal in the Far East.
In the end, it does not matter much one way or another whether the United States supports independence for Taiwan.
The Taiwanese have long ago learned not to rely on such an unreliable, backstabbing ally.
The Japanese are gradually learning the same lesson.
syvanen
February 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Which was very much like the threat of mainland intervention in Korea a decade earlier. In that case they drew a line in the sand and we crossed it and paid a horrendous price. In Vietnam we did not cross it. But still paid a horrendous price but at the hands of the Vietnamese instead of the Chinese.
So you want us to draw some more lines and make some more dares. Just as long the American people know in advance what the price will be if are bluff is called.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“Isolating Taiwan”–more nonsense. Certainly not financially and economically.
As with Hongkong, the mainland Communists eye a golden goose, but should they be stupid enough actually to invade, and could they invade successfully, the goose will fly the coop, taking its golden eggs with it.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
In fact, the mainland Communists need the Nationalists on Taiwan, even as mainly show, much more than the Nationalists need the Communists.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Your comments become a bit cliched, with their continual references to “danger”.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I could care less what lines Communist China or the United States draw in the sand.
Your analogy with Korea is flawed.
Ho Chi Minh, and the Vietnamese Communists, were as anti-Chinese as they were anti-United States.
The Chinese Communists would not have had a prayer invading Vietnam.
Their invasion of Vietnam, after Vietnam put a stop to the killing fields in Cambodia, is instructive.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Insofar as the mainland Communists support the Nationalists on Taiwan, they get a mixed bag. One requirement of serious Nationalists for any discussion of unification with the mainland is that the Chinese Communist Party give up its party monopoly on the mainland.
Ah well, is there an Olympics coming up soon? That should be superb vaudeville all around.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
A true fan of Aksyonov!
As prophet an eagle with two heads, looking East and West.
I have glancing knowledge of Ukraina, which I will keep to myself for the nonce, save this–a larger, slightly more stubborn version of Lithuania.
Without Russia they can cut one another’s hair and trade vegetables.
Lester Ness
February 5th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Surprisingly, the leaders of Taiwan’s Guo Min Dang have been visiting the mainland in the last year or two, talking about who knows what? in private. You surely know that everything important in China is done in private.
Lester Ness
February 5th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Well, lots of ordinary Chinese people hoard silver trade dollars, even Qing dynasty sycee ingots shaped like hats. Even the most uneducated working man knows how to blow on the edge of a coin and judge it’s silver content.
Lester Ness
February 5th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Well, lots of ordinary Chinese people hoard silver trade dollars, even Qing dynasty sycee ingots shaped like hats. Even the most uneducated working man knows how to blow on the edge of a coin and judge it’s silver content.
Why not? I’ve met other Russian people in China and as long as you have an OK English Eaccent, you can find an employer. As the Russian economy grows, the amount of commerce with Russia will grow, too, and the desire to learn Russian language. If you go to one of the provinces bordering Russia, they will probably teach Russian as well as English.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Stocking up on gold and silver, as coins, bullion, and artifacts, is traditional, and not only among Chinese.
Taiwanese alone often effect the world price when, for one reason or another, they decide collectively to add to their stores, often on news that never makes it into the nearly worthless American conventional media, or, if it does, which is denatured of its thrust in the telling.
“Hoarding” is a bit of a charged term in English, don’t you think?
Is this another item to be added to what has, since the second Roosevelt, been considered much too sensible financially to be “patriotic”?
Lester Ness
February 5th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
You are reading too much into a simple verb.
Lester Ness
February 5th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
China is a civilization as well as a country, perhaps several countries. Same-same the Indian sub-continent.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
This has been going on for a lot longer than two years, indeed from long before the air link to the mainland, so it is no surprise at all.
It may be more public recently, that’s all.
The Kuomintang (is that Wade-Gery, hehe), for various reasons, has had a much closer talking relation, even from the earliest days, with the Chinese Communist Party than is generally known.
In those earliest days, as many don’t know, the Soviets, who were covert supporters of Chiang, often served as the middle men.
What’s the old song–”That’s entertainment”.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
It is only half-humorous.
Consider its use in other contexts, like “hoarding food”, eh?
True enough in ancient numismatics, for example, collections found buried are simply “hoards”, but that is a strictly technical meaning.
Who hoards gold under the elm tree in the backyard nowadays?
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Pardon I seem to have pushed a button above by mistake.
Merely by the way, the often suspect flavor of hoarding in English can be expanded with such uses as “animal hoarding” and even “knowledge hoarding”, which you can easily find on the net.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Indeed, and really no “nation” at all in the strictest sense, but several nations.
And more important that that–a cultural icon (I deliberately avoid simply “culture”, because it is not monolithic) and a written language.
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
corr: “than that”
Eugene Costa
February 5th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
At one point Mao seriously considered getting rid of the character system until he realized–well, the obvious.
Randy
February 5th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I discussed with a Taiwanese friend the paper “Taiwan’s Defense Budget: How Taipei’s Free Riding Risks War” by Justin Logan and Ted Galen Carpenter.
Surprisingly, I got a very blunt and long response back. It claims exactly the opposite of the paper: “The US has been getting a free ride from Taiwan for far too long. It has been long over-due for the US to reign in its arrogant and betrayal behaviors, show some appreciation to Taiwan, and start doing something positive for Taiwan in return”
I attach the full response below.
* * *
In response to
“Taiwan’s Defense Budget: How Taipei’s Free Riding Risks War”
by Justin Logan and Ted Galen Carpenter
Published by CATO Institute
September 13, 2007, Policy Analysis no. 600
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8698
The so-called think tanks are the starting point of the media lies, as media cites those “expert” analyses. The elites, think tanks, and the military-industrial complex are different sides of the same group. You read one think tank paper about Taiwan’s defense and you have read them all. Not surprisingly, from different angles, they all lead to the same conclusion: Taiwan has not done enough of sending more money to the US military-industrial establishment. The unspoken assumption is that the only viable defense strategy in the world, and in the entire human history for that matter, is to buy outrageously over-priced American weapons.
The elites use Taiwan as a chip to counter China, and the military-industrial complex profit immensely from Taiwan, during normal times. During unusual times, the elites are ready to sell Taiwan (Republic of China – ROC), as they did in 1948 and again in 1979.
Therefore, under the elites’ global strategy, Taiwan is not allowed to have nukes (but OK for Israel, India, Pakistan, and even N. Korea), and must not be allowed to have critical conventional weapon programs of its own. Taiwan must continue to pay for outrageously over-priced US weapons of US choice so that Taiwan remains under the full control of the US.
The think tanks’ publications are no more than propaganda to sell their global strategy, just like they sold the cake-walk Iraq War, and now the easy Iran attacks, under the disguise of some “academic” or “expert” analyses.
Those who believe and depend on protections or promises from the US elites usually meet with horrible and violent deaths. Remember the million Vietnam boat people, or the 2 millions Cambodians dies at the killing fields? The Iraqis who hopes for a better life from the US “liberation” either died from the US cluster bombs or in the hands of the death squads instigated by the US special operations – modeled after the US organized death squads in S. America during 1980’s. These so-called elites have shown no remorse for the consequences of their failed foreign policies, past or present. And you take these guys seriously? Are you nuts?
Bush said something like: the Iraq war is a noble cause; we are fighting evil; the human civilization is under attack; there is no higher calling than military services, etc., etc. The military is lowering enlist standard, lifting age ceiling, providing up to $40,000 bonus for enlistment. Wondering if you or your loved ones would like to enlist in the military and fight at front line in Iraq?
If you do enlist, I would gladly send you a dozen flowers, in case those happily liberated Iraqis forget to throw flowers at you.
Taking these pathetic liars (think tanks or politicians) seriously, is detrimental, frequently fatal, to your mental and physical health.
= = = = =
The delusion of the US military power
The overwhelming popular support of Iraqi invasion in March 2003 is partially due to the perception that there is NO military risk. Victory is easy and assured. War is just like a video game: dropping bombs or firing missiles from afar, and diaper heads dropping dead like flies. Then, we victoriously enter the conquered cities with people welcoming us with flowers and kisses.
This is exactly the core of the illusion – American military prowess. This delusion has been building for a very long time – since the end of the Vietnam War 30 years ago. The overwhelming success of the first Gulf War in 1991 greatly reinforces this illusion. The euphoric illusion reached its climatic peak on April 9, 2003, upon the fall of Baghdad after only three weeks of fighting with very limited American casualties.
“It’s not mismanagement that has us mired in Iraq. There is a more fundamental explanation: the misleading and dangerous conception of modern war to which Democrats and Republicans alike have subscribed.
“Central to this infatuation was the conviction, emerging out of Desert Storm, that the United States had unlocked the innermost secrets of warfare. For the world’s sole superpower, gone were the risks and uncertainties endemic to past conflicts. Gone too was the prospect of massive destruction and incidental slaughter. Armed with its high-tech arsenal, the United States could henceforth employ its military might with laser-like precision and unerring effectiveness.
“Time and again, history has made a mockery of man’s efforts to effectively harness violence for political purposes. During the interval between the Cold War and 9/11, Americans had indulged in the fantasy that history no longer constrained the United States. ”
Human race have waged war for over 5,000 years, under vast variety of weapons, tactics, terrenes, cultural backgrounds, etc. The US military arrogantly dismiss historical lessons, and believe instead that dropping “smart” bombs is all you need to know about war. This deep-rooted and unique American obsession to fire power is almost a cult.
The US military has the best weapons money can buy, but the overall performance has been very poor: since WW2, the US failed to win any meaningful war except 1991 Gulf War – Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq War, Afghanistan invasion, you name it.
War is not a fashion show that the military comes to show off their latest gears. You have to win the war and achieve the political goals. Otherwise, don’t start a war. There are always diplomatic and political alternatives to war.
Some historical facts: the failed Afghanistan invasion and occupation by the British Empire and again by the Soviet Empire. The failed military adventures in Afghanistan had some disastrous consequences. In one instance, over 10,000 British troops fighting to retreat out of Afghanistan were all killed except one. The Afghan fighters left one survivor to go tell the story to the world. The failed and costly Soviet adventure in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1988 greatly contribute to the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
Today, Soviet Union has long gone, but the same Afghan warlords that fought off the Soviets are still in control of the countryside of Afghanistan and many of them joined the fight against the US, NATO and the US installed major of Kabul (although the major prefers to be called the President of Afghanistan). The US “elites” believe that they can succeed where the Britons and Soviets failed, simply because we have hi-tech precision bombs. Everything is different now because of the hi-tech bombs.
In August 2004, the US Marines were fighting the uprising led by al-Sadr in Najef, Iraq. The fighting was especially fierce around the holy shrine. At the same time, other US forces were fighting Faluja rebels and in preparation for the large-scale second siege of Faluja that was launched after the US November election of 2004. You may wish that the US planners had studied the Iraq history. In 1920, another al-Sadr, a great uncle of today’s young Sadr, led the uprising against the British occupation, from the exact same holy shrine in Najef. Armed revolt immediately broke out in support of the 1920 Najef uprising from no other than — Faluja. It is not coincidence that every Iraqi cities have a street or square named “1920″. An Iraqi rebel group calls itself “1920 Bridget”. Of course, the US elites don’t think the US occupation will meet the same fate as the British one in the 1920’s. BECAUSE, we are exceptional – we have hi-tech bombs.
History does not repeat exactly, but it surely rhythms.
In addition to the current Iraq War and the wars before, the fundamental flaw of the US military doctrines is most recently exposed in plain sight once again last year during the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon. The Israelis dropped all the precision ammunitions the Israel and the US combined have at the time, and followed by thousand barrages of heavy artillery shelling. And, then followed by full ground assaults supported by heavy armors, attack helicopters and F16’s. After 30 days of bombing and fighting, the result is merely to devastate the infrastructure and killed some over 1,000 civilians, but failed to dislodge 5,000 determined Hezbola fighters.
In contrast, Taiwan, a small island, successfully defended itself from the nuclear armed China for six decades, with only sporadic help from an unreliable ally (the US) who is always there to profit from Taiwan and may betray any time. (In addition to the outrageous prices Taiwan pays for American weapons, Taiwan’s 80 billion dollar reverse greatly helps the US deficit, but Taiwan has to take loses everyday with the dollar depreciation.)
In 1941, during WW2, in the Pacific, the US lost badly to Japan in Philippine and Indochina; General McArthur was running for life; over 100,000 British soldiers were captured by the advancing Japanese forces. In Europe, hundred of thousands of Soviet soldiers surrendered; Moscow lost to NAZI. The entire year, the only allied victories were delivered by the poorly equipped and vastly out-gunned ROC Nationalist army over Japanese troops. One instance of 1942 in Burma, the Nationalist army broke the Japanese siege and rescued over 7,000 British soldiers from being captured. Admittedly, the ROC army’s victories came a bit too late to save the other 100,000 British soldiers from being captured, but the ROC offensives successfully broke or slowed the Japanese advances. Many allied forces, Britons and Americans alike, were able to safely retreat into India. Without ROC, there would have been 2-3 times more British and American forces being captured. Without ROC, the situation in Indochina would have been as bad as in the Soviet front.
The think tanks use the failed US military model to evaluate what Taiwan needs or doesn’t need for defense. A military that is losing two wars lectures a successful defender on defense, with a straight face. This is total nonsense, no more than money scam for the military-industrial complex.
Instead of lecturing Taiwan, these egg-head propagandists, who advocated the cake-walk Iraq War, should go write about how to prevent US soldiers from being blown up by roadside bombs in Iraq, how to improve the poor US military performance since WW2, how to finance the endless global war with the crashing dollar, or how to prevent no-bid contracts flown into well-connected companies, etc. etc. If the US comes out of the bubble and develops a little modesty, Taiwan may advise some superior military strategies so that the US military can improve performances.
The truth is that Taiwan has been faithful and successful in defending itself and protecting the US interests in the E. Asia for many decades. The US has been getting a free ride from Taiwan for far too long. It has been long over-due for the US to reign in its arrogant and betrayal behaviors, show some appreciation to Taiwan, and start doing something positive for Taiwan in return, such as:
1. Sell to Taiwan weapons of Taiwan’s choice, not of US choice, at the same prices as those sold to Britain or Australia, instead of jacking up the prices 2-3 times.
2. Stop any intervention into Taiwan’s own weapon programs, conventional or nuclear.
3. Stop criticizing Taiwan’s defense strategy. It is increasingly annoying for a loser to continue lecturing, sometimes demanding changes to, a winner’s defense’s strategy.
In 1989, China had a democratic uprising, demanding freedom and democracy, perhaps American style. Now any mention of American democracy and freedom in China is ridiculed: go enjoy American-created freedom and democracy in Iraq, and don’t come back to China! A German newspaper had this headline: Bush threatens ‘freedom’. American ‘freedom’ becomes a synonym of death and destruction. America had made freedom and democracy a butt of joke in the world. It is only because of Taiwan that many in China still look up to freedom and democracy. Today, the small Taiwan is a towering giant over Chinese Communist dictatorship and the American Cronyism and Imperialism, upholding the ideal of freedom and democracy.
Eugene Costa
February 6th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Well done and accurate in gist and outline.
Three points that I merely mention without going into great detail:
(1) The myth of United States military prowess began after World War II, at least partly as a result of overestimating the United States’ role and underestimating the role of the Russians and Chinese. The Atomic Bomb alone was also not the prime reason for the Japanese surrender.
(2) The United States did not win the First Gulf War by any stretch of the imagination. It was much closer to a draw. In depreciating Saddam Hussein’s military acumen, Schwartzkopf gave the game away when he called the run to Baghdad “A Hail Mary Pass”. Either Schwartzkopf did not know what a Hail Mary pass is, or he was covertly alluding to the fact the run through the desert was a last desperate gamble. Which is exactly what it was. One again by crowing up a great victory the myth was validated and reinforced.
(3) The War against Yugoslavia was also something less than a victory in military terms. The Yugoslavs called it quits because the political leadership could not compass any more damage to the civilian infrastructure, which was the real target of the air attacks. The Yugoslav Army, like the Republican Guard in the first Gulf War, was more or less untouched. The real significance of the War in Yugoslavia was once again to reinforce the myth and prepare the way for the present disaster in Iraq.
syvanen
February 6th, 2008 at 12:51 am
For the US to support Taiwan independence would be very dangerous. I repeat the word because you fools seem to be oblivious to the danger.
Eugene Costa
February 6th, 2008 at 12:55 am
corr:”once again”
Eugene Costa
February 6th, 2008 at 1:50 am
“The majority opinion in Taiwan seems to be a resignation to the fact that reunion with China is inevitable….”
What “reunion” might that be, prithee?
Lester Ness
February 6th, 2008 at 3:14 am
Some member of the Giant Octopus Party.
Lester Ness
February 6th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Harbin’s not a very intellectual place. Baijiu and vodka are more popular than books.
Lester Ness
February 6th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Gong xi fa cai, gentlemen,and happy Spring Festival! Eat Jiaozi!
Stan D. Thomas
February 6th, 2008 at 8:20 am
“hoard (n.)
O.E. hord “treasure, valuable stock or store,” from P.Gmc. *khuzdan (cf. O.N. hodd, Ger. hort, Goth. huzd “treasure,” lit. “hidden treasure”), from *kuzdho, probably from PIE base *(s)keu- “to cover, conceal” (see hide (n.1)). The verb is from O.E. hordian. ” To those who covet to take our wealth, to hoard would thwart their pupose.
Stan D. Thomas
February 6th, 2008 at 9:02 am
How many broadcast deals were made with US politicians in exchange for favorable policies, foreign welfare programs and interest bearing loans? In Michigan we have been watching as the US government subsidizes the wholesale transfer of our productive assets (tools and machines) to the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). All this largesse to PRC may be but a tool of corporate media powers hoping to sway a deal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1721160.stm
http://www.danwei.org/media_business/our_hero_ruper_murdoch_and_new.php
http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_301.html
What does that do to USA defensive capabilities? For WWII a productive capacity in the US stalled for years by a centrally controlled monetary policy exploded with airplanes, ships and arms to force unconditional surrender of several offending nations. More and more tools now say “Made in China.” Many are prone to break or wear out with regular use. We are now a debtor nation, both we the people and the government that represents us. Even if we have sufficient productive capacity, will there be enough sound money products to support a war effort.
The promise of a media able to convert the PRC to their own homegrown version of infantile consumerism which already sways the Western world must leave investors drooling. It’s a banker’s nirvana, a billion hard working, conscientious credit card debtors happily paying monthly. Investors, businessmen and politicians should drink the kool-aid of globalism and care not that individual rights are already being sent to the dustbin of history. But who cares, after the end of history a culture loses itself as it has lost its very foundation. Now we can make the same mistakes over and over without guilt in a world where deception is just another’s imaginative version of events. So sing the medias sirens.
I am suggesting that media empires are affecting US policy toward with the PRC and the RoC far more than has been suggested in these comments.
Eric Hu
February 6th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Mr. Costa’s comments have a lot of errors. First, Taiwan was under China’s rule for hundreds years. Otherwise, how could China gave up the island to Japan after lossing a war to Japan. Second, under Japanese occupation, only few Taiwanese could go to college and sever punishment were used to supress opposition. Furthmore, all the economic establisments in Taiwan during that period of time was to support Japan’s war machine against US and China. Why don’t Mr. Costa ask how many Taiwanese died in World war two fighting with the US? Third, Nationalist brought money and skilled workers to reestablish Taiwan after world war two. Most important of all, Nationalist did not supress Taiwanese as Japanese did. Most Taiwanese are Chinese immigrants anyway. During that time, Nationalist had to fight with the communist with iron hands. See how US battle the terrorists now!
Eugene Costa
February 6th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
What you say can also be emblemized as, say, “Murdoch & Son”.
It’s not that new as a tactic. Who killed Ján Ludvík Hoch?
Eugene Costa
February 6th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Ah, but the Russian language is well known there. Along with shipbuilding, fracture mechanics, and even cheese.
Eugene Costa
February 6th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
“Crimean Independence Activists Charged
The Ukrainian Security Service has initiated a criminal case against members of the Sevastopol-Crimea-Russia People’s Front for calling for the violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity in public statements. Ukrainian Security Service press secretary Marina Ostapenko told the UNIAN information service that the activists were being charged under article 110, part 1, of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (’Infringement of the territorial integrity and inviolacy of Ukraine’). She said that the activists had called for the violent reunification of the Crimea with Russia.
According to Ostapenko, the activists had received numerous warnings from the security service and had faced misdemeanor charged by police for procedural violations when organizing public meetings. Now a special investigative group has been set up to look into the actions of the Russian patriots in the Crimea.
The Sevastopol-Crimea-Russia People’s Front was set up in August 2005 and embraces 12 public group based on the peninsula, including the Russian People’s Veche, Yalta Voters’ Club, Russian Community of Feodosia, Russian Community of Evpatoria and Fatherland Russian Community of Kerch. It began a campaign it calls ‘Ukraine without the Crimea’ last year.”
[Kommersant January 29, 2008]
Eugene Costa
February 6th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
The errors are all yours.
Taiwan was never under the rule of the People’s Republic of China.
The rest of what you say is ideological nonsense.
Eugene Costa
February 6th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
You certainly seem to find the use of the word “danger” thrilling enough.
Do they know the works of the American H. P. Lovecraft in mainland China nowadays?
Absolutely dreadful butcher of the English language–and not worth the time beyond a story or two, and that only to see how bad a stylist he is.
In any instance, Lovecraft seems to have been as thrilled by the word “horror” and related forms as you are by “danger” and “dangerous”.
sam
February 8th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
The Allied During the second world war agreed at the Cairo Conference that once Japan was defeated, Taiwan would be handed back to China. therefore should the inhabitants of Taiwan choose to declare independence, Chinas has the legal right to prevent this from happening, using military force if necessary. After all wasnt that what the American Civil war about, the southern states leaving the union.
Democracy versus communism has nothing to do with it.
I fail to fathom out why the West continually harps on about democracy and human rights in china.Time Magazine, Newsweek and The Economist are magazines that have reported a general antipathy towards democracy in China and Asia in general, over the last year or two. when writing Tien Ah Men Square revisited articles..
I dont find this surprising as It was Winstone Churchill who often stated that Democracy is the worst form of Government.
Alexander Tyler a Scottish history professor at the Edinborough University,had this to say when commenting about the demise of the Athenian Republic
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
Moreever China has gotten along just fine for the last 5000yrs so unless the west can boast of a continuous 5000yr existence since full emancipation of its citizenry, it should butt out.
India and Japan are held up as shinning examples of democracy.?
Hah. Both countries have political parties that are dynastic in nature. The Japs are so pathetic they keep voting the same party back into power, for over 60yrs.
Indias democratic system is so dysfunctional, it totally lags behind what China has done for its people. The only thing it leads China in is, speaking English (big deal)Corruption, human right abuses, illiteracy,..
I also fail to understand why critics keep harping on about Tien ah mein square., after all wasnt that the place where the the colonising powers in China executed the leaders of the BOxer Rebellion so why should we be continued to be reminded of such infamy by our ancestors?
sam
February 8th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
THe WEst also criticises the lack of democratic progress in Hong Kong by China. One shouldnt forget it was the British who ran HK for over 100yrs and never entertained the thought of installing democray there until it was time to hand it back to China.
THey only set up the changes to through a spanner in the works for China.
It was also reported by the BBC on the 19th Nov 2007 that Hong Kongs pro democracy parties have suffered heavy looses in district council elections, at the expense of groups that favour Peking
Eugene Costa
February 8th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
The Allied During the second world war agreed at the Cairo Conference that once Japan was defeated, Taiwan would be handed back to China. therefore should the inhabitants of Taiwan choose to declare independence, Chinas has the legal right to prevent this from happening, using military force if necessary.
Ah, the complete lack of logic and consistency suggests another PRC propagandist. Above, for example, the argument seems to be that what the Allied side agreed do now accords “China” a legal right to use force against Taiwan.
What sort of “legal right” is that?
Second, what was this “China”. Obviously the Republic of China, now on Taiwan.
Actually the question of “independence” is a subtle one. The ROC on Taiwan is independent, and already “China”. The only real question is getting formal recognition of the fact that there may be, if the Taiwanese wish, several “Chinas” in the world, as there have been for much of Chinese history.
At any rate, Taiwan was never under the rule of the People’s Republic of China on the mainland, and there is no “reunion” as an issue.
Should the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China wish to arrange some sort of union, it is incumbent upon the mainlanders to recognize that the Taiwanese have no intention to confine their parties or politics to a province of a mainland Communist regime that allows them no participation outside that province.
One price of union for long years was that the Chinese Communist Party on the mainland give up its monopoly of political power.
That will happen one of these days, one way or another, so why the rush?
At any rate, all you establish quite absurdly by the above argument is that the Allies recognized the Republic of China on Taiwan and that that Republic has the legal right to use military force against the secessionist mainland.
If you think that is a joke, one suggests you think it through a bit longer.
The mainland regime is coming apart at the seams and the Communists need the Nationalists a lot more than the Nationalist need the Communists.
After all wasnt that what the American Civil war about, the southern states leaving the union.
Democracy versus communism has nothing to do with it.
I fail to fathom out why the West continually harps on about democracy and human rights in china.Time Magazine, Newsweek and The Economist are magazines that have reported a general antipathy towards democracy in China and Asia in general, over the last year or two. when writing Tien Ah Men Square revisited articles.
.
I dont find this surprising as It was Winstone Churchill who often stated that Democracy is the worst form of Government.
Alexander Tyler a Scottish history professor at the Edinborough University,had this to say when commenting about the demise of the Athenian Republic
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
This is all irrelevant, unless a reference to some of the allies that made the use of military force against the mainland by the ROC “legal”, according to your own arguments.
The real hilarity here, however, is that you are apparently admitting that the Chinese Communist Party has given up any pretensions to being democratic. That’s nice.
The rest of the references are trash, particularly the reference to the Athenians.
Tyler is an ideologue and he generalizes about “demokratia” on no basis whatever. Besides, what lost the Athenians the Peloponnesian War was their empire, and a similar possession of empire eventually lost the victors in that war, the Spartans, the wars that ended their own military supremacy in mainland Greece.
Moreover China has gotten along just fine for the last 5000yrs so unless the west can boast of a continuous 5000yr existence since full emancipation of its citizenry, it should butt out.
India and Japan are held up as shinning examples of democracy.?
Hah. Both countries have political parties that are dynastic in nature. The Japs are so pathetic they keep voting the same party back into power, for over 60yrs.
Indias democratic system is so dysfunctional, it totally lags behind what China has done for its people. The only thing it leads China in is, speaking English (big deal)Corruption, human right abuses, illiteracy,..
There is no question that the Chinese Communist Party in the early days did an enormous amount for the rural people of the mainland, as the Nationalists also did to an extent, despite their corruption.
Mao Ts-tung himself, for example, and many others were educated because of the reforms of Sun Yat-sen.
But that China has been doing well for millennia? My dear sir, isn’t that contrary to the whole gist of Communist Chinese ideology and history?
Please be very careful here–you may be getting yourself in trouble with the mainland authorities with wild talk like that.
At any rate, the real question of the mainland Chinese to the Chinese Communist Party is perhaps better phrased–”What have you done for me lately?”
The pollution, the corruption, the brutality, and the tyranny are too widely known to need chronicling.
What mainlander not a Communist or a young Princeling would not prefer to immigrate to Taiwan?
I also fail to understand why critics keep harping on about Tien ah mein square., after all wasnt that the place where the the colonising powers in China executed the leaders of the BOxer Rebellion so why should we be continued to be reminded of such infamy by our ancestors?
The Boxer Rebellion excuses Tiananmen Square? Why are both events that you mention happening there not infamous?
Really, my dear fellow, the mainland Communists have become incompetent, greedy dinosaurs, and the handwriting is on the wall.
And surely the continual threats of force are hardly the way to persuade the Republic of China on Taiwan generously to surrender their present prosperity and independence to be part of a brutal regime which needs their help much more than they need the brutal regime.
Eugene Costa
February 8th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
What the West criticizes hypocritically has nothing to do with what the people of Hongkong have to say on the subject, or, since their freedom of speech is limited, what other people in Asia, including the people on Taiwan, can see is happening with their own eyes.
The British are hypocrites–we agree. What has that to do with the price of rice in China?
Eugene Costa
February 8th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I think it also important to note that Tiananmen Square is not isolated and to recall the brutal suppression of Falun Dafa in 1999 and thereafter, including well documented and continuing brutality and atrocities.
This all for a silent protest.
Perhaps all this has been already forgot in most of the West, and among the tourists that will attend the Olympics on the mainland.
Perhaps not. In the East it is a different story.
Eugene Costa
February 8th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Are indeed the Chinese really at a crossorads or have they already decided the path:
“Now allegations that China is executing prisoners from the outlawed Falun Gong spiritual movement, and harvesting their organs for transplant, add to the possibility that unless China changes, it may find itself squirming uncomfortably when the world comes calling in 2008.
A report from two respected Canadian human rights activists, featured in today’s Monitor and widely elsewhere, charges China with putting to death ‘a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience’ since 1999 and selling their organs – hearts, kidneys, livers, corneas – at high prices to foreigners. China quickly dismissed the charges.
The report’s evidence is circumstantial, but persuasive. It includes a sharp rise in transplants that parallels massive arrests of Falun Gong members, websites listing organs for sale, officials at Chinese hospitals and clinics admitting by phone that they have Falun Gong organs on hand, and a shocking secondhand account from the wife of a transplant surgeon.
The Canadians, David Kilgour, a former member of Parliament and cabinet minister, and David Matas, a human rights lawyer, have put their own considerable reputations on the line to stand behind their report. Neither is a member of Falun Gong.”
[Christian Science Monitor August 03, 2006]
[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0803/p08s02-comv.html]
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Comment by Eugene Costa on 2008-02-08 16:55:33 Report abuse
What the West criticizes hypocritically has nothing to do with what the people of Hongkong have to say on the subject, or, since their freedom of speech is limited, what other people in Asia, including the people on Taiwan, can see is happening with their own eyes.
The British are hypocrites–we agree. What has that to do with the price of rice in China?
Everything
Firstly people in HK do not have their freedom of speech limited
Considering only a third of HKs pop voted for democracy and about the same in Taiwan want independence and lets say based on those figures a third of CHinas pop.are demented enough to want democracy, the WEst should accept them.It shouldnt be a problem for USA, given its Landmass and resources.. The bulk of us who prefer authoritarian rule should be left alone..otherwise just but out and mind your own business.
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Comment by Eugene Costa on 2008-02-08 16:47:59 Report abuse
The Allied During the second world war agreed at the Cairo Conference that once Japan was defeated, Taiwan would be handed back to China. therefore should the inhabitants of Taiwan choose to declare independence, Chinas has the legal right to prevent this from happening, using military force if necessary.
Ah, the complete lack of logic and consistency suggests another PRC propagandist. Above, for example, the argument seems to be that what the Allied side agreed do now accords “China” a legal right to use force against Taiwan.
What sort of “legal right” is that?
Ownership and intergreity to maintain whats theirs, and maintaining the security of the nation.The Kmt rretreated to Taiwan with the help of the Americans, the civil war isnt over, lets just say time out was called as no peace document was ever signed.I cite the Amercian Civil war as a precedent. The British Falkland Wars as another example; Those Island only happened to be British because some sailor stumbled upon them. claimed them and never bothered going back. Britain has never done anything for that island prior to the war/ only realising its strategic importance in giving it a claim to the resources of the Antartic.It was only Argentina who ever supplied any ammenities to the island.
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 2:01 am
You are quite fluent in fallacies, as are so many PRC propagandists.
Those of the Taiwanese who do not support independence support “unification” with the mainland on the mainland’s terms?
You are quite hilarious, my dear sir.
Anything more to say on Tiananmen and Falun Dafa?
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 2:10 am
And these repetitions and citations are what you call a “legal right”.
Is it official policy now for the People’s Republic of China to support Britain’s claim to the Malvinas?
How interesting.
May we inform the Argentines in case they don’t know it yet?
I am sure the Taiwanese will find that item useful.
But perhaps you should confirm it first with the authoritarians you are so eager to do proskynesis to.
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 2:32 am
The rest of the references are trash, particularly the reference to the Athenians.
I was using tylers thoughts on democray to support democracies undesirability and shortcomings. Tylers comments on how democracy will revert back to a dictatorship is bourne out in Thailand and all the other failed democratic revolutions sponsered by America. eg the orange and tuplip revolutions.from the old soviet republics. and the erosion of democracy in Russia. Even your own civil rights are being eroded
I note with interest your opinion on Winstone Churchills comments about democracy being the worst form of government,as trash I can assure you he was deadly serious, even Charles Dickens detested representative democracy, im America, saying its its full of corruption and pork barrel politics.
Comment by Eugene Costa on 2008-02-08 18:17:04 Report abuse
I think it also important to note that Tiananmen Square is not isolated and to recall the brutal suppression of Falun Dafa in 1999 and thereafter, including well documented and continuing brutality and atrocities.
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Excerpt from Ian Williams, Bullying and diplomacy,
Guardian Unlimited September 17, 2008:
“Last week I got a personal taste of Beijing’s diplomacy. Their mission to the United Nations called me up and warned at the beginning and end of a 20 minute impromptu telephone debate that if I appeared on a panel with Taiwan’s ’so-called’ President Chen Shui-bian they would ‘take it very seriously.’
Around the world, most governments seem to quail in the face of such implied threats. In contrast, seeing no sign of Chinese gunboats in the East River, and reckoning that the worst that could happen was my missing the 2008 Olympics, the bluster reinforced my determination.
On Friday I appeared not only with President Chen on a video link but with John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, in person, and on Saturday on a platform with the Taiwanese sea-goddess Matsu, flown over on her own seat to New York.
I was thinking that if Bolton and I could agree on any issue, Matsu may have been working hard on the miracle front. She will have to work even harder to get Beijing in a reasonable mode.
China’s diplomat told me that Chen was a trouble-maker, and took even more umbrage when I pointed out that in fact it was the mainland that was pointing almost a thousand missiles at Taiwan, and not the other way round. ‘We will consider that you support Taiwanese independence,’ she accused ominously.
Actually, I pointed out that I was neutral on that question, which was up to the Taiwanese to decide, but that I did strongly support their right to decide, just as I had vociferously supported the right to self determination of the Timorese, the Sahrawis of the Western Sahara, Palestinians and Kosovans.
‘That is in violation of international law,’ she snapped. Well, no, I pointed out. Self-determination for former colonial territories was a basic principle of the United Nations, and indeed Mao told Edgar Snow, as reported in Red Star Over China, that Formosa – as Taiwan was then known – would be able to choose its own destiny when Japan was defeated….”
The whole article is well worth the read. Near the end Williams even alludes to the Falklands:
[http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ian_williams/2007/09/bullying_and_diplomacy.html]
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 2:40 am
The pattern is fairly common and boring nowadays, even with journalists, and is obviously a planned and systematic effort at intimidation by the Chinese Communists around the globe, and now also online.
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 3:04 am
Comment by Eugene Costa on 2008-02-08 18:17:04 Report abuse
I think it also important to note that Tiananmen Square is not isolated and to recall the brutal suppression of Falun Dafa in 1999 and thereafter, including well documented and continuing brutality and atrocities.
What is totally ignored by the WEst is that the bulk of the nation was most supportive of the Government actions.. This is also well noted in Western Publications such as Time and Newsweek who ran commemorative articles on the event.
I was also at Tiananmen Square a week before the soilders moved in.In actual fact the students were begining to disperse feeling they have made, their point, it was only the actions by the more radically oriented stirrers urged on by some foreign supporters who got the students to come back.
I daresay we should perhaps have a moments remembrance to Waco for the lives lost , caused by the authorities clamping down on the groups activities. Or the protesters against Czarist Russia who were charged down by the cossacks
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 3:14 am
Comment by Eugene Costa on 2008-02-09 02:35:15 Report abuse
Excerpt from Ian Williams, Bullying and diplomacy,
Guardian Unlimited September 17, 2008:
Ian Williams is a supercilious interfering fart who should also mind his own business
Its easy to cite the united nations policies when it it suits and ignore others.THe Usa is very good at doing this.
Calling China a bully is a case of the kettle calling the pot black
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Comment by Eugene Costa on 2008-02-09 02:35:15 Report abuse
Excerpt from Ian Williams, Bullying and diplomacy,
Guardian Unlimited September 17, 2008:
decide, just as I had vociferously supported the right to self determination of the Timorese, the Sahrawis of the Western Sahara, Palestinians and Kosovans.
REALLY can u show me when he came out and acted as a cheerleader
for Hamas , who were democratically elected seems to me the west only likes democratic elections if it gives them wahat they want
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 3:41 am
Comment by Eugene Costa on 2008-02-09 02:10:40 Report abuse
And these repetitions and citations are what you call a “legal right”.
Is it official policy now for the People’s Republic of China to support Britain’s claim to the Malvinas?
How interesting.
May we inform the Argentines in case they don’t know it yet?
I am sure the Taiwanese will find that item useful.
But perhaps you should confirm it first with the authoritarians you are so eager to do proskynesis to.
Reverting to sarcasm illustrates the weakness of your stance.
On a quick note you ask how many chinese will go to Taiwan if given the opportunity, I strongly suggest not as much as u think given by the tens of thousands of returning Chinese who have permanent US residency. They are even wiliing to trade 6figure incomes for a pitance to come back to work and live in our Glorious motherland.(I chucked that in to reinforce your belief that Im a Chinese Communist LOL by the way why dont you tell your government to vacate Deigo Garcia which is illegally Occupied and its original inhabitants removed
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 4:01 am
Comment by Eugene Costa The maionlaind communist coming apart at the seams
Totally without substance, merely wishful thinking on your part.along with other writers who interview their wordprocessors when writing about China.
China’s success story is also the most serious challenge that your liberal democracy has faced since fascism in the 1930s.
This is not because China poses a great military threat: war with the US, or even Japan, is only a fantasy in the minds of a few ultra-nationalist cranks and paranoiacs. It is in the realm of ideas that China’s political-economic model, regardless of its environmental consequences, is scoring victories and looking like an attractive alternative to liberal democratic capitalism.
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Comment by Eugene Costa on 2008-02-08 18:57:56 Report abuse
“Now allegations that China is executing prisoners from the outlawed Falun Gong spiritual movement, and harvesting their organs for transplat..
How true the operative word being allegations. Even if the Fulun Gong experience harsh treatment, its totally deserved for breaking the law
Last week Der Spiegel reprinted and article from a American Nespaper expressing the disdain by Amercian Citizens for the behaviour of the Fulung Gong in New York during some dance performance at Radio City.It also discussed their believes such as being against scientific development, and their leader coming from outa space. What a bunch of nutters, here i was thinking that only amercian society was capable of giving birth to wierdoes. A personally reckon that the government should declare religist practioners and the Fulun Gong as mentally diseased.
By the way Im not a communist spokesman My grandfather was a founding member of the KMT who escaped to Taiwan and then on to America.Should he be alive now he would also be opposed to american involvement in Taiwan and would like to see reunification with China.
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Judging by Eugene Costa’s silence, I can only assume he is in full accordance with my views on India being a Dysfunctional democracy,and compared with China, has achieved very little especially since it was better prepared and had a head start
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 11:03 am
You are very predictable–I was waiting for you to mention Waco.
It is irrelevant, but personally I reckoned at the time that Clinton should have been impeached over that alone.
Others will recall that while the compound burned, Clinton was in the White House Map Room courting a Chinese Communist General.
Another backfire, poor dear.
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 11:13 am
More of the same bilge, Mr. “sam”, and interesting to read only as an excellent specimen of the rhetorical trash that the Chinese Communists spew, not only on this issue but in regard to many others as well.
Most of these issues will become clear enough over time.
You are obviously not interested in any genuine analysis but only in arguing a party line.
It is a pity the quality of the English teachers the Chinese Communists hire is so low.
That is due directly to the low wages they pay, and the lack of freedom to teach the language as anything other than a technical and ideological tool.
I have run into all this before. I see nothing much has changed in two or three decades.
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Comment by Eugene Costa on 2008-02-09 11:03:32 Report abuse
You are very predictable–I was waiting for you to mention Waco.
It is irrelevant, but personally I reckoned at the time that Clinton should have been impeached over that alone.
Others will recall that while the compound burned, Clinton was in the White House Map Room courting a Chinese Communist General.
Another backfire, poor dear.
I dont want to step down to your level of arguement, but what relevancy does that have? Was Clinton asking for advice??
For the record, at the time of this incident I was sitting on the toilet, teaching myself english, by reading an old National Geographic article about Life in Mid Town America circa early 60’s
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
m
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Comment to Eugene Costa
Attacking the person rather than the opposite viewpoint demonstrates the weakeness of your stance.It is full of subjectivity with unsubstantiated vagueness and innuendoes.
While I do not condone Chinas trangressions against humanity,The United States or any western democracy is not guiltless
The United States While being more than generous in its charity has been the biggest instigator of human misery over its brief history.
WE can blame the us for:
Middle east
The Killing Fields in CAmbodia (In Vietnam War the Us underminded Prince Sihanook, thus creating an opportunity for the Khymer Rouge to achieve power)
Indonesia (the CIA provided Suharto with hundreds of thousands of suspected communists and their sympathysers
Cuba
South America
Venezuela
And the list goes on.
While we do not agree on the rights and wrongs of Chinas approch to Taiwan,I cite my information from the BBC and Taiwanese Newspapers, which reprted the results of the recently held elections ,with a big emphaasis on relations between the two countries.
Taiwan may well have been one of the catalysts for PRCs growth,but youare definitey incorrect about Chinas dependance on taiwan. After reading articles fom Businessweek THe Economist one wold arrive at the opposite conclusion.
This debate has evolved into the merits of an authoritarian system versus a democratic one.. THe hard facts are that the democratic model does not suit all countries. eg Africa Middle east .
You are prepared to bring up Chinas shortcomings while ignoring those that are so rampant in the democratic system.such as Human right abuses, Organ theft and transplants in Democratic India, a problem much worse than China, refer to BBC archives. Corruption.eg American politics. Greed eg Wall street and the excessive paychecks the executive earns compared to the people lower down the hierachy. A Few Decades ago A chief executives salary was about 7x that of his employees lower down the responsibilty chain. So lets say 7×14Hr say $100hr Now he draws Millions with bonuses. now thats excessive greed.
Unfortunately like I said in my earlier posting you and a minority of others are worried about China and its success and providing an increasingly acceptable aternative to the liberal democratic way of thinking.
NO doubt u are also supportive of the demonstraters who are going to Peking to try an embarass them in the eyes of the world with their myopic views. You will also cry foul, should they cross the point of what makes an acceptable demonstration, and get roughed up for their troubles.. I for one certainly hope they cop a few smashed noses, black eyes, and other injuries to their bodies for their trouble. after all thats what the security and police do to their protesters
BY the way heres a counter to Ian Williams allegations on Chinas Bullying
They are only extracts so I have provided the link should you want to read the whole article.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200710170076.html
Zimbabwe: China, a Giant That Never Bullies
The Herald Harare
TRUE friendship, it is said, endures in times of adversity in line with the adage, “in prosperity our friends know us, in adversity we know our friends.”
Nowhere is this adage manifest than in the relationship the Communist Party of China, at the helm of China since the revolution, has handled the country’s domestic and foreign policy, turning China into a giant that never bullies…………….(The Bulk of the midtext gives a brief description of the relationship.………Though vehemently opposed to China’s growing investments in Zimbabwe, the US government has conceded the virtues of China’s policy in Africa describing it as pragmatic and primarily oriented towards economic and commercial goals
US principal deputy assistant for African affairs, Michael Ranneberger, made the revelations as he presented a paper to the International Sub-Committee on Africa, Global, Human Rights and International Relations last year.
“Chinese-supported infrastructure projects are also complementing efforts to promote African growth; China’s experience in poverty reduction can be helpful to developing African countries, (and) China was an early supporter of the African Union, and has provided financial support for it.”
Ranneberger said the US should not see China’s engagement on the continent as a threat, but as an opportunity for co-operation……………Ranneberger said China’s growing presence in Africa, which is more visible on the economic front, was a natural consequence of Beijing’s economic growth. American acknowledgement of the virtues of China’s influence in Africa puts Zimbabwe’s Look East policy into perspective………………..China and Zimbabwe have maintained and exchanged high-level visits over the past seven years to the chagrin of some western nations keen to see the isolation of Zimbabwe.and …………….on and on on
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
So Mr Costa Methinks you live in a world of denial about CHina just like the US was prior to Nixons visit
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Perhaps someone may wish to comment on this, In Australia it is illegal not to vote. I thought Democracy was about freedom of choice.
If you dont vote in the federal elections , one is tracked down. heavily fined, and one can them assume that if payment isnt forthcoming, run the risk of imprisonment
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
And just to illustrate a point, “Methinks” means what?
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Meseems it best, dear fellow, to discuss that with Australians.
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Merely by the way, what the mainlanders teach to foreigners as “Chinese” is, in most instances, as shoddy and artificial as what their low paid foreigners teach them as “English”.
The funniest of the lot, however, are the Chinese mainlanders that learn their accents from the BBC, and then think themselves initiated into some superior version of “English”.
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
What the mainland Communist Party has become would no doubt horrify Chiang Kai-shek. In my opinion, and also from what I know of his last days, it would also horrify Mao Tse-Tung.
Pardon the Lovecraftian tenor.
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
The answer is obvious.
To give the elected party an air of legitimacy/ a claim that is quite often levelled againts the PRC of lacking.
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I do not know enough about the Australian Constitution or its political operation to say.
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Why should it horrify Chiang it should please him no end.Chiang was a Fascist in practice Chinas Government of the past two decades are no different.As long as it meets their ends,our party leaders or fools,monsters, call them what u wish, will continue to give lip service to Communist ideology, only a fool still believes that Communism exists in China ., however there is some synergy between them and the KMT, and over time a more benelovent authoritarian regime would emerge over time.
Anyway as far as im concerned this debate between ourselves has evolved from Chinas stance re taiwan into a debate between the merits of a authoritarian regime, whether it be communist, fascist, republican etc is irrelevant, and representative democracy as Americas founding fathers meant it to be.
DEmocracy just doesnt work in these thirld world countries until a certain level of stability has been reached.and a increasing amount of political scientists are of that opinion.
Korea Taiwan THailand did not turn to democracy until a certain amount of stability had been reached.Another thing they had in common was an income of about $6000 per person
sam
February 9th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
You must be extremely confused, the last I heard its the the higher class people of the Indian sub continent and privately shooled arabs in english schools that go around with their BBC accents.
If that comment On English ability is aimed at myself, Ill wager that as English is my 4th language, which i have known only for a few years, I make a pretty good job of it. .Im even prepared to wager that L ll wager that I speak and write better Russian ,Japanese and English than you do Chinese
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“Democracy” is very complex. The way the politicians in the United States use it is a fraud, to be sure, but that is not the whole of what is referred, ancient and modern, and it is letting the propagandists control the debate.
I would not easily use “Fascist” to describe Chiang, and I have a much higher opinion of Mao than you might expect.
But this is a long and complicated discussion and this is not the place.
What I am fairly certain of is that the Chinese Communist Party is on the way to disaster in its present form.
Both Tiananmen and the suppression of the Falun Gong are clear evidence of that.
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Indeed, the Indians with the BBC accents are similarly deprived for the most part. There are certain tipoffs to every language that say it is not the speaker’s native tongue, and sometimes even that it is the speaker’s second language.
Mimicking a good spoken accent is useful, but only to an extent.
Grammatical slips with a BBC accent tend not to be noticed, even by most native speakers.
But they are they for the attentive.
But there is also the matter of artificial languages and a lack of local dialect as a substrate.
“BBC”, is in fact, an artificial accent even among the British for the most part.
“Fluency” in any language is no easy proposition, especially at the high end, nor is it one easily defined thing.
There are many different levels.
“Methinks” is a tip-off, for example, even among native speakers of English, including most Americans, who don’t know either its form or what it really means, but treat it as if it is equivalent to “I think”.
Which, of course, it is not.
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Corr: “They are there”
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Ah, “Mid-Town” exists only as a type.
Was it set in a particular geographic locale?
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Actually, my dear fellow, it would be stepping up, but I shouldn’t wish you to hurt yourself.
Eugene Costa
February 9th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
It might surprise you that I do not disagree with the gist of much of what you say here, and even those disagreements might surprise you.
My point is rather that Communist China is not living up to what it once promised to be and might still be, and in regard mainly to the Chinese people.
Accusing the British of this or that, or the United States, is irrelevant to that point.
There is no question the United States was centrally responsible for causing the killing fields in Cambodia, for example, by undermining Snookie.
But it is worse than that. Communist China was sponsoring the Khmer Rouge, and through Kissinger, who knew what was going on, and because of the rapprochement, the United States stood by, and more than that, was quite happy at what was going on.
Moreover, the United States, with Communist China as I recall, protested vigorously when the Vietnamese invaded and put a stop to the killing.
Ironically, I should also be much less generous about what you call United States “charity”.
I could list many other topics where your estimate of the United States actually looks rather rose-colored and overly generous as well.
But it not my business to provide you with a bibliography.
sam
February 10th, 2008 at 1:01 am
You dont have to.The Australian Parliament introduced Compulsory voting in the Federal elections to compensate for the poor turn out in the elections. about a coupe of decades ago.Maybe more
Traditionally American Federal elections have a poor turn out, so perhaps they could try the same thing.
However you are quite dismissive of Tyler’s Treatise on Democracy.Im not into philosophy nor pol Sci, but his point about the buying of votes rings true.Australia recently had their federal Elections with both parties ofering Mega Billions of tax Payers money in return for Votes.Fiji Pakistan are examples of countries who have had a Democratic elected governments which have been overthrown by
army coups from time to time.Fijis had 3 in 10yrs
Nz which prides itself on elected representation is in the process of curbing free speech in election year.It is doing this by way of restricting the amount of money (I have 2 be corrected on this amount because they were going to raise it slightly, but it wasnt much) so lets say to $10.000 that any self interest group could spend in campaigning against the policies of the electioneering parties. Ill apply this concept to an American background so you can understand me better
In America we have the Republicans and the Democrats.
Lets say the Pro Life group or any other protest body associated with the organisation decides to publicise anti abortion material against the Democrats this year. The total amount they would be allowed to spend would be $10,000 for the Whole year.
That wouldnt pay for a full page spread in a major Newspaper, let alone nationwide. So you can see democracies are already on the slippery slope of self destruction.
I personally favour a benign authoritarian system ruling by referendum.
Politicians start wars soilders have to finish them, and im not interested in having my butt shot at
Eugene Costa
February 10th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Pardon me, but most of this is childish stuff, and that is not directed at you.
Get out your Plutarch and read his life of Aristides The Just, for example.
Then, look up voting ostraka on the net, and you might find some telling pictures (I haven’t looked myself, since I know them well)
Tyler is an ideologue, and from just what you quoted not worth paying attention to, since his facts are wrong.
And even if they were right, it wouldn’t establish much by itself, although I suppose a Japanese might argue they have had a “Emperor” for a very long time.
What is “benign” and how is it enforced?
Eugene Costa
February 10th, 2008 at 1:26 am
I am still interested in what you remember of or what you got out of this “Mid-town” article.
sam
February 10th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Def. of Benign Aristides, I cant think of anybody in modern history that had his integrity.
My mistake I think I mean mid-west but i cant remember for sure whether it was Canada or USA. but it definitely was a farming enviroment as there were grain silos. I was only looking at the photographs. But I had gone into the living room and CNN was showing the final showdown.. I ve never heard of Waco so i was mentally comparing it to the article in the mag.
It was something else in the magazine that i remembered that had a greater affect on me. At the time I was a struggling 1st yeardesign/architecture student.One of the papers ( a cultural type paper)we had study included a philosophy oriented section, where we had to write a critque on the work of modernist thinkers of the time and show how the cultural influences was reflected in design approaches of the time. etc etcThis was a complete struggle for me as I had completed English as a second language course, and i was putting more emphasis on the spoken, and not too worried about grammar. I was going to to drop out. WEll to cut it short the magazine also had an article on Brazil and showing some of the work of Oscar Niemeyer, whose work I have come to admire made me press on. I ended up with a D C C for the assignments with an overall passing grade of 50%. Why do they have to write in simple english thats so hard to understand,.
Another student friend studying english had to put a lesbian slant on Wuthering Heights for his assignment// so strange these English Studies. Anyway last year I came across a book in a public Library called Philosphy for Dummies,It was exactly what I required all those yrs ago but I wonder how it would have gone down with the lecturers/tutors if I had cited a book like that in my list of references.
sam
February 10th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Ok
My grandfather who was founding member of KMT didnt think much of Chiang often referring to as a fascist Im told.
Anyway he appears in a book about the Chinese in Australia. During his stay there he was an editor of a chinese newspaper in which he advocated the bombing and killing as part of the way for the KMT to achieve its aims. His main job was to collect funds fom the Chinese for the cause)Perhaps hes A forerunner of your modern day terroist.)Needless to say he was declared Persona non grata (is that the phrase) and had to leave
Eugene Costa
February 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I said “would not easily use ‘Fascist’ to describe Chiang” for that same reason–with the emphasis on “easily”.
Partly because “Fascist” is a western term.
I tend to use it precisely in regard to its political and economic significance, in regard to “the State’, another western term, and “corporations”.
“Corporation” has a long history in both East and West, and I would not call it only a Western term, if even in its modern usage, most mean western legal corporations when they use it.
Nonetheless, both ancient China and ancient Rome have versions.
Among the Romans, “burial societies” were very much corporations in their modern legal sense, save for the corporation not being a legal person as in the United States.
Anyway, depending how one uses the term and the context, I think “Fascist” applies to Chiang in some ways but not in others.
I also think it applies to the Communists on the mainland right now, which leads to the curious, but not necessarily contradictory denomination, “Communist Fascists”.
But, as you say, in some respects the mainland Communsits are Communists in name only.
Are they, however, really as monolithic as the face they present to the outside world?
Eugene Costa
February 10th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
By the way, “nutter” is mainly British usage, though it no doubt became popular in Australia as well, and has some recent currency in the United States.
An American would likely just say “nut”.
I think the mainland government mainland government lost two golden opportunities in regard to both Tiananmen and Falun Gong.
Brutal suppression in both cases sent messages exactly the opposite of what they intended.
It actually showed the regime’s political weakness in my opinion.
What sort of weakness in detail is complex. Just the Party?
Eugene Costa
February 10th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
What is your opinion of the Nationalist requirement that the mainland Communists give up their party monopoly as one price of some sort of union?
Eugene Costa
February 10th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Pardon the diplosis.
Eugene Costa
February 10th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Modern “Political Scientists” are mostly a worthless lot.
The American variety, for example, mainly accept the status quo, and take such terms as “representative democracy” seriously.
Americans have not even settled the issue of what “represent” might mean, if anything. They just keep repeating the word, whatever the practice, as if it carries some meaning and significance on its own.
This “representative” votes for what his constituents want, that one against, but they both “represent”, and act “democratically”.
sam
February 11th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Hmmmmmm Well if u r prepared to put up with more disjointed thoughts
Firstly,have you read my response to you about what i got out of the ‘mid town article’?
Well, the tutors remarks on my critique on some modernist/ postmodernist philospher whose name I have long forgotten was someting along the lines of ” needing to write effectively ,succinctly and in analysing and presenting well formed and balanced arguments.
(A hard task for a english as a second language student) and because I dont know when this blog will be closed off, Im making a n immediate response without taking time off to think about it.
I think its an area where the KMT need to exercise a little patience, be a little flexible, and try to leave it open for consideration at some designated time,…….. eg abit like the HK arrangement I guess…..HOwever i would like to see this happen,
the Government of the PRC have to use this time to win back the trust and respect of the people and become a credible party worth voting for. They could possibly achieve this by permitting genuine criticism and freedom of the press something along the lines of Mao’s let a hundred flowers bloom campaign, although I think his was done for diferrent reasons. By doing this and if the government can stand the heat.a great deal of the rorts and corruption could possibly be stopped and there would not be any need for these selected stage managed corruption trials.
But this itself would present problems because I have no doubt there would be an infinite amount of embarrassing criticism, so much so that China’s critics would take great delight in highlighting. This could lead to conservative elements putting the kybosh on these changes
Other problems include the fact that China currently lacks the leaders who have enough Mana/pull to effect such changes and a cant see any in the horizon. Its Leaders still have the soviet type imagery…. its a bit hard to explain but theres no Deng or Chou En Lai, people, who have actually lived in the West,got their hands dirty while earning a living (didnt deng work in a French automobile factory as a young lad/) and observe first hand , freedom of the press and democracy
functioning. I also think the PRC, let a greater cross section of skilled power, occupy positions of genuine authority.By this I mean lawyers, people educated in the social sciences, develop a different mindset on how to handle problems.
I think unless they can somehow effect such changes while agreeing to give up party monopoly, they will go the way of the dodo.
While I have no great affection for Chinas rulers, I am quite proud of some of their achievements, and would in some ways, be sorry to the way they ram things through, for good or worse disappear,only to be replaced by this political infighting as part of the decision making process
sam
February 11th, 2008 at 2:35 am
yes they do appear monolithic , but some books did describe Chou as being quite urbane, in his foreign minister role, and when one looks at photoes of Deng as a young man during his period in France there is a human mischevious look about him.. Perhaps living in a society where everybody is expected to conform, does something to the human spirit.
when you see photoes of the soviets looking down from the Kremlin during National day parade, I thought it was the weather that made them look glum, though Krueschev seem to some character its the face, i can see laugh lines
This post is up for deletion » Doctor Recommended
February 20th, 2008 at 2:36 am
[...] This typical involves something drastic, like deleting the entire entry for Taiwan (because you know, it doesn’t technically exist). [...]
Tap water still tastes bad » Doctor Recommended
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:54 am
[...] – Here are some other observations I’ve written elsewhere: 1 2 « Jack Black’s Brother from another Mother Survival of the ugly gene » [...]
Yubi Yamada
March 4th, 2008 at 6:46 am
well, kosovo’s population is ethnic albanian for the most part, over 90 percent. taiwan’s population is 99 percent ethnic han chinese. serbia is a multiethnic country (serbs,croats,hungarians,slovaks,…),on the other hand, the island of taiwan isn’t really multiethnic although they do have their aborigines, but they’re definitely a minority. serbia was under the soviet union rule, serbian citizens were not russian, and all those ethnicities were forced to live in the same territory,and later on had to deal with their cultural issues, so there’s a reason for independence. taiwan (before the japanese invasion) was under the same government as the mainland, japanese were only there for fifty years, that’s nothing compared to thousands of years. taiwanese share the same culture with mainlanders, even though taiwan has some more western influence,but china has it too. kosovo’s situation cannot be compared to taiwan’s. i think chinese people in general weren’t really “happy” with japanese invasion and they certainly don’t feel any nostalgic feeling towards those years of japanese invasion. china is a permanent member of the security council in the UN, so that request (by taiwan) to join the UN is so out of the question, anyways they have tried it before and it was rejected countless times. i’m totally pro kosovo’s joining the UN and it’s going to happen let’s hope sooner rather than later. :) yubi
5 Reasons Why the PRC will not Invade Taiwan shortly after the Olympics » Doctor Recommended
March 16th, 2008 at 9:07 am
[...] I have mentioned elsewhere that the PRC does not appear to have the military capability to defeat Taiwan or the US in a conventional warfare (primarily because of the analysis by professor Geoffrey Forden: 1 2 3). [...]
Jefferey Lewis
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Anybody else thinks that this Eugene Costas needs to STFU?
God, he sounds like one of these people who love to support the croney capitalists in Taiwan just because he hates the Chinese.
This guy has got to be some kind of internet troll. I think the bit about Taiwan “buying up all of China lock stock and barrel” tipped me off.
Taiwanrox8
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Whats wrong with capitalism and democracy? Whats wrong with freedom?