China: U.S. must back off

[kitty]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/11/china.hk.us/index.html

China: U.S. must back off

HONG KONG, China -- China has asked the United States to "stop interfering" in its internal affairs, following calls by Washington for more democracy in Hong Kong.

Responding to comments from U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, China's official Xinhua news agency quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan as saying Beijing opposes any other government interfering in the affairs of Hong Kong.

He also warned Washington not to jeopardize Sino-American ties, nor do anything that would harm the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong, amid growing calls for democracy from both within and outside the former British colony.

"Hong Kong affairs (are) an internal issue of China, and the Chinese government firmly opposes any foreign government interference in the affairs of Hong Kong in any form," Xinhua said, paraphrasing Kong.

It quoted Kong as saying that "Hong Kong's political structure must develop in a gradual and orderly manner."

Since 1997 Hong Kong has been a special Chinese administrative region governed under the "one country, two systems" principle.

Its constitution, the Basic Law, gives the city a high degree of autonomy under Chinese rule. Under the law, the territory could theoretically enjoy full democracy by 2007, the year when unpopular Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's term expires.

But the constitution also says Beijing has final say over any electoral changes.

In his annual policy speech on Wednesday, Tung skirted growing demands for democratic reform, disappointing activists in the territory who had hoped he would launch public consultations early this year.

Instead, Tung said any consultations on democracy would be with Beijing first, and said he would establish a task force to consult with Chinese leaders.

Reacting to the moves, Boucher said Friday Washington had "strong support for democracy through electoral reform and universal suffrage in Hong Kong," saying that would stimulate the territory's economic development.

"Our belief is in democracy," Boucher said at a briefing in Washington. "The Hong Kong people and the Hong Kong government need to start addressing this issue."

He said the United States wanted to make sure the people of Hong Kong "get their choice to design their system that's appropriate for them." He added: "We care a lot about the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong."

Around half a million people rallied in July, and a smaller number on January 1, demanding political change in a city where the chief executive is handpicked by an election committee loyal to Beijing and only half the legislature is directly elected.

But China's leaders are worried that calls for more voting power in the city will spill over to the mainland.

[SunWuKong]

it's great that the US wants to lend its support to HK's democracy movement. but at the same time, it's so very typical of the US to lend its support when it wasn't even asked for.

[golden_buns]

it's great that the US wants to lend its support to HK's democracy movement. but at the same time, it's so very typical of the US to lend its support when it wasn't even asked for.

US only interfers only when it's convinient.
HK is the financial gate of asia, and by demanding for more 'democracy', they'd leave the doors open for lobbying and shaping laws for Washington's own business covinience.

[bonsai]

here the US goes again intruding into another country's business in the name of democracy. a predictable display of self-righteousness by the US, and way to go china for standing up to it.

[bluemonq]

here the US goes again intruding into another country's business in the name of democracy. a predictable display of self-righteousness by the US, and way to go china for standing up to it.
i'd agree completely if they weren't the only possible defender against an attack on taiwan; what's doubly ironic for me is that it's the *republicans* who'd want to do so, not the dems...

[SunWuKong]

i'd agree completely if they weren't the only possible defender against an attack on taiwan; what's doubly ironic for me is that it's the *republicans* who'd want to do so, not the dems...

no, i think the democrats would do it, too. except they'd be even more hypocritical when they do it because they generally have a friendlier stance toward China than the republicans do.

[Made in China]

US should stay out of Taiwan and Chian issue too, Civil war has not ended.

Didn't america didn't want outsiders to interferr with THEIR civil war, they should butt out of China's.

Taiwan would have become PRC decades ago without US intervention.

[bluemonq]

US should stay out of Taiwan and Chian issue too, Civil war has not ended.

Didn't america didn't want outsiders to interferr with THEIR civil war, they should butt out of China's.

Taiwan would have become PRC decades ago without US intervention.
not entirely true...the csa was courting the british, who built ships for them. to get around complaints about being arming the csa, they'd build the ships then sail them to south america to be fitted. then the ships would be delivered. the french too, were considering helping, if my 10th grade american history is remembered correctly; the entire point was to weaken a rising united states, who managed to hold its own in the war of 1812. what actually happened, though, was that the us told them that they'd open a can of whoopass on them after they finished off the csa, and the two countries decided to sit it out. i also believe the only time (bit shakier on this) that the us actually sent ships in was in '96 with the entire missile firing thing. the taiwanese fended the chinese off in the '60s; with us weaponry that is true, but then, the us sells weaponry to lots of countries. i believe right before tiananmen the us was on the verge of selling some advanced avionics packages to china.

[Emperor_Mike]

To be precise: the United States should not interfere with China's business. Of course, all we're seeing now is active encouragement and no advocate of democracy in the People's Republic would be crazy enough to take Washington's supportive words as a signal to begin a movement to topple the Communist leadership. At this juncture the United States is not unlike the nosy neighbour who keeps giving you advice whether you want it or not. It's basically harmless stuff until someone decides to make something out of it. Chalk it up as another diplomatic poke-with-a-stick by the US at China.

[Martino]

Chalk it up as another diplomatic poke-with-a-stick by the US at China.

http://www.kirupa.com/forums/smileys_files/stickpoke.gif

Didn't Mr Bush recently condemned Taiwanese moves towards greater democratic freedom? And now this ... ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3358655.stm

[BaiginLong]

well I'm neutral on the HK thing definitely a diplomatic poke
but still what if the people want more voting rights

so are we gonna watch another protest go down in massacre
i believe firmly in the rights of the people

and for one if Taiwan has declared itself a separate nation I believe that China should back the fuck off

they left the mainland because they were defeated during the communist revolution
considering that it was a civil war in a sense we can say the nation divided into two nations
either way it isn't fair to force the peoples of that area to become a part of your nation
same with Tibet

[SunWuKong]

and for one if Taiwan has declared itself a separate nation I believe that China should back the fuck off

they left the mainland because they were defeated during the communist revolution
considering that it was a civil war in a sense we can say the nation divided into two nations
either way it isn't fair to force the peoples of that area to become a part of your nation
same with Tibet

well, there is historical evidence that Taiwan and Tibet are each a part of China. saying that we should let whoever wants to break off to break off from your nation amounts to letting rebels take pieces of your nation whenever they want. even the US wouldn't let that happen, as we've seen in the American Civil War.

[BaiginLong]

with the Communist revolution it was war over which goverment that would rule the nation
however there were peoples who would not accept the Communist standard and thus retreated to this island have so far maintained a strong defensive position that the Chinese havve yet to breach and a virtual soveriegnty
it would be a violation of human rights to allow China to retake Taiwan
it would seem appropriate to allow them to form their own country fer' crying out loud
the virtually had one for nearly 50 years

Tibet... well it's been around for a while
and personally I don't tend to mess with spiritual places
who knows what higher powers would retaliate against the country that would try to claim it

Hong Kong... well it will always *be* Hong Kong
regardless of who controls it the attitude will be the same and whether or not the Communists try to deprive them of their democracy I have a good feeling they'll take care of themselves

[SunWuKong]

with the Communist revolution it was war over which goverment that would rule the nation
however there were peoples who would not accept the Communist standard and thus retreated to this island have so far maintained a strong defensive position that the Chinese havve yet to breach and a virtual soveriegnty
it would be a violation of human rights to allow China to retake Taiwan
it would seem appropriate to allow them to form their own country fer' crying out loud
the virtually had one for nearly 50 years

Tibet... well it's been around for a while
and personally I don't tend to mess with spiritual places
who knows what higher powers would retaliate against the country that would try to claim it

like i said, Tibet has always been Chinese territory, and Taiwan was always Chinese territory until the KMT took it over. the Chinese government has never given up claim on the island. it would not automatically be a violation of human rights if mainland China and Taiwan re-unify. Taiwan could be given a very high amount of sovereignty. but i do agree that in all practicality, Taiwan is its own country.

[Martino]

well, there is historical evidence that Taiwan and Tibet are each a part of China. saying that we should let whoever wants to break off to break off from your nation amounts to letting rebels take pieces of your nation whenever they want. even the US wouldn't let that happen, as we've seen in the American Civil War.

Well, Taiwan is China, isn't it? A chunk of it. It was just a backwater until the Nationalists retreated there, but its certainly still a part of China - mainly because it hasn't declared itself independent of China, nor is it formally recognised internationally. Until it does make such a declaration, it's still just a rebel province.

Personally, I think its a shame world attention is centred squarely on Taiwan, and not on, say, Xinjiang, which is much more actively pursuing some form of independence.

[bluemonq]

well, there is historical evidence that Taiwan and Tibet are each a part of China. saying that we should let whoever wants to break off to break off from your nation amounts to letting rebels take pieces of your nation whenever they want. even the US wouldn't let that happen, as we've seen in the American Civil War.

And they'll let East Timor do so? I realize that it's a different case, but still, doesn't the UN Charter say something about the right to self-determination? Sounds like hypocritcal crap to me: oh, you can self-determine...if I don't own you. SWK: it could be a violation of human rights if Taiwan is forced to reunify. Now if it did it of its own volition, I wouldn't mind. But to shake (admittedly, *not* loose) a few ballistic missiles now...Martino: define internationally; it is recognized by one or two dozen countries in central america and africa.

[Martino]

Martino: define internationally; it is recognized by one or two dozen countries in central america and africa.

The UN does not recognise Taiwan for starters. In fact, (just have to look this up to check ... yup) Resolution 2758 rejected a Taiwanese application for UN entry.

According to my encyclopedia, Taiwan has formal diplomatic relations with Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Príncipe, Senegal,
Swaziland, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vatican City.

Not exactly distinguished company.

EDIT: Just found this: Taiwan's official website:
http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/brief/foreign.htm

[bluemonq]

The UN does not recognise Taiwan for starters. In fact, (just have to look this up to check ... yup) Resolution 2758 rejected a Taiwanese application for UN entry.

...application vetoed by proc and its supporters. un recognition will never occur. mind you, taiwan *was* recognized as the roc. the withdrawal of recognition was particularly annoying. the point is, though, that there are a goodly number of countries who recognize roc or taiwan. this is different from, saying, okay i secede from the united states and call my house "monqworld"

[bluemonq]

oh, one other interesting note: taiwan was not always part of china. i believe in 1895 after the sino-japanese war, which china lost, china gave up taiwan in the peace treaty. now, first, since they lost, traditionally speaking, the winner gets to keep the land. but after japan lost wwII it was forced to return the island. ok, *maybe* i'll accept that. HOWEVER - and this is the big thing - taiwan declared independence after japan came. it was promptly quashed, but that leads to the question: should taiwan have been returned to mainland china in '45? or should it have been turned loose after the war?

[SynRG]

I agree with Bluemonq. The Taiwan situation is not simply a seccession issue. The only reason most countries in the world choose to officially not recognize Taiwan as a country is not to hamper their relations with China. Most countries in the world (including the U.S.) choose to "unofficially" recognize Taiwan.

Taiwan is a seperate political entity from China. China controls Xinjiang, China controls Tibet, China controls Hong Kong, China does not control Taiwan. Calling Taiwan-China relations an "internal issue" is a total cop-out on the part of the Chinese government because the situation is completely different from that of HK, Tibet and Xinjiang, where Beijing currently has direct control.

Furthermore, if reunification were to occur naturally, then yes, it would not be in violation of human rights. However, if reunification were to occur forcibly.. as in if China were to invade Taiwan, that would most definitely be in violation of human rights.

[Martino]

Furthermore, if reunification were to occur naturally, then yes, it would not be in violation of human rights. However, if reunification were to occur forcibly.. as in if China were to invade Taiwan, that would most definitely be in violation of human rights.

Well, you've used the word reunification, which suggests that on same level you accept that Mainland China and this island are part of the same entity. So China cannot invade China. Until Taiwan formally declares itself an independant state, it remains a rebel province of the People's Republic.

[SynRG]

Well, you've used the word reunification, which suggests that on same level you accept that Mainland China and this island are part of the same entity. So China cannot invade China. Until Taiwan formally declares itself an independant state, it remains a rebel province of the People's Republic.

...yeah. On paper.

Taiwan has been a self-governing political entity for generations. The issue is alot bigger than whether or not they officially "declared" independance. War is war, it doesn't matter if it was "civil" or not. The CCP took control of China, the KMT took control of Taiwan. Since the KMT took control of Taiwan they have evolved from a military dictatorship to a multiparty democracy, indicating that the people of Taiwan are in fact in principle independant from China, and would like to remain that way. Thus, China's use of force against Taiwan would be in violation of human rights.

I personally don't like this notion that everyone on Taiwan is somehow a "criminal."

Put yourself in the Taiwanese government's shoes. "Officially" declaring independence is a very tricky and dangerous thing to do. They would risk not only getting bombed but also their economic ties with countries around the world which sustain their economy and put food into the mouths of their people. Not to mention the fact that your citizens freedoms would be infringed upon should Taiwan return to Chinese control. You cannot move from Democracy to Authoritarianism. No one wants to take a step backwards.

BTW, "Reunification" is simply the accepted term used for Taiwan returning to Chinese control. It does not suggest that I think China and Taiwan are part of the same entity. Please do not put words in my mouth.

They are two countries that have the same roots, like America and England. The only difference is that Taiwan has not "officially" declared independence. You saying "China cannot invade China" is exactly the same reasoning China uses when they say Taiwan-China relations are an internal issue, which they are not. They are an international issue, and it's the business of any government that has both political or economic ties to Taiwan, and particularly the business of anyone who has family in Taiwan, as alot of Americans do.

I personally do not believe Taiwan and China can reunify unless either 1) China democratizes, which isn't happening soon or 2) it becomes in both countries best interest to do so, in which it would occur naturally. Personally I don't see this happening unless there is some serious governmental reform in China.

Until then, the people of Taiwan benefit from the status quo. MIC, as warped as I feel his information on the subject probably is, is right in one aspect- the "war" is not over, it's simply at a standstill (just ask all the Taiwanese soldiers on Jinmen island that stare at China everyday). That's the point of view people should be looking at it as.. in which case if at outside entity stepped in, it would be a mediating process. The benefit Taiwan and China have right now over that bigass mess that's going on in Israel is that people aren't blowing each other up and running over people's houses with tanks.

Nobody wants Taiwan and China to return to a hot-war, however the AIM of improving Chinese-Taiwan relations should be peaceful coexistance, not reunification.

[Martino]

...yeah. On paper.

Alas, 'on paper' is enough. It's not a recognised political entity.

Taiwan has been a self-governing political entity for generations. The issue is alot bigger than whether or not they officially "declared" independance.

Self-governing yes, but the passage of time hasn't given it any legitimacy. Hence its non-recognition by the UN, the EU, and most other countries in the world including its democratic near neighbours.

War is war, it doesn't matter if it was "civil" or not. The CCP took control of China, the KMT took control of Taiwan. Since the KMT took control of Taiwan they have evolved from a military dictatorship to a multiparty democracy, indicating that the people of Taiwan are in fact in principle independant from China

'In principle' on paper, perhaps?

and would like to remain that way. Thus, China's use of force against Taiwan would be in violation of human rights.

Right or wrong, all governments use force to secure their borders and suppress seperatists. Look at Spain and the Basques. Use of force might be immoral, but it may not be illegal.

I personally don't like this notion that everyone on Taiwan is somehow a "criminal."

Nor do I. You seem to be under the impression that I've taken sides in this, or am anti-Taiwan. I'm just stating the political reality of the situation.

Put yourself in the Taiwanese government's shoes. 'Officially' declaring independence is a very tricky and dangerous thing to do. They would risk not only getting bombed but also their economic ties with countries around the world which sustain their economy and put food into the mouths of their people. Not to mention the fact that your citizens freedoms would be infringed upon should Taiwan return to Chinese control. You cannot move from Democracy to Authoritarianism. No one wants to take a step backwards.

So what are Taiwan's choices then? What are CHINA'S choice? Play Devil's Advocate, put yourself in China's shoes, totalitarian state ort not.

BTW, "Reunification" is simply the accepted term used for Taiwan returning to Chinese control. It does not suggest that I think China and Taiwan are part of the same entity. Please do not put words in my mouth.

The word reunification has a pretty clear definition. Don't use it if you don't like it.

They are two countries that have the same roots, like America and England.

America and England do not have the same roots ... and America gained independence from Britain only through a bold war with the then superpower ...

The only difference is that Taiwan has not "officially" declared independence. You saying "China cannot invade China" is exactly the same reasoning China uses when they say Taiwan-China relations are an internal issue, which they are not. They are an international issue, and it's the business of any government that has both political or economic ties to Taiwan ...

So which governments would you like to see intervene? And how? The countries that recognise Taiwan politically are all pretty feeble. So what do you expect of them?

[bluemonq]

Well, you've used the word reunification, which suggests that on same level you accept that Mainland China and this island are part of the same entity. So China cannot invade China. Until Taiwan formally declares itself an independant state, it remains a rebel province of the People's Republic.
umm, that's a fallacious argument, if just based on the word "reunification". see west germany and east germany, which originally many people saw OR want to be reunified, but it was still talked in terms of such. also, reunification could logically be used because they *were* originally part of the same nation, *before* the split.

[Martino]

umm, that's a fallacious argument, if just based on the word "reunification". see west germany and east germany, which originally many people saw OR want to be reunified, but it was still talked in terms of such. also, reunification could logically be used because they *were* originally part of the same nation, *before* the split.

Again, I point out that I didn't originally use the word, but the meaning of the word is clear. If I was arguing from the opposite position, I ld use the word union. Again, I also point out I'm only spelling out Taiwan's predicament - not siding against Taiwan. Taiwan's international position and dilemma is clear cut.

As for the case of China (or the two Chinas?), there was no 'split' ... Taiwan was simply the last stronghold of an ousted government. Taiwan didn't, by any process, peel away from China.

Taiwan has left itself in this position, or has been persuaded to remain in this position, for very complicated reasons. It's interesting to compare Taiwan's story with that of Israel, which more or less forced itself into existence against very great odds. Israel too had trouble gaining the support of the outside world. The UN had very different ideas about the size and shape of the Jewish state, and didn't approve of Jewish aggression, but the Israelis simply took matters into their own hands.

The division of the two Germanies is a poor comparison, and I'm not quite sure I follow your point. At any rate, Germany was effectively divided and occupied by an outside force, Russia, under the guise of the Warsaw Pact. For Germans, reunification was a very emotive topic, and highly desired not only by both sides, but throughout the West.

[SunWuKong]

And they'll let East Timor do so? I realize that it's a different case, but still, doesn't the UN Charter say something about the right to self-determination? Sounds like hypocritcal crap to me: oh, you can self-determine...if I don't own you. SWK: it could be a violation of human rights if Taiwan is forced to reunify. Now if it did it of its own volition, I wouldn't mind. But to shake (admittedly, *not* loose) a few ballistic missiles now...Martino: define internationally; it is recognized by one or two dozen countries in central america and africa.

don't get me wrong, i am adamantly against a forceful or violent reunification.

[SunWuKong]

oh, one other interesting note: taiwan was not always part of china. i believe in 1895 after the sino-japanese war, which china lost, china gave up taiwan in the peace treaty. now, first, since they lost, traditionally speaking, the winner gets to keep the land. but after japan lost wwII it was forced to return the island. ok, *maybe* i'll accept that. HOWEVER - and this is the big thing - taiwan declared independence after japan came. it was promptly quashed, but that leads to the question: should taiwan have been returned to mainland china in '45? or should it have been turned loose after the war?

giving up a piece of land after losing a war is not exactly a self-willing act. in fact, all the territories that China had ceded to colonial powers were lost through the defeat in armed conflicts. the point here is that Taiwan was taken from China forcefully and China has every right to claim it back after the Japanese left.

[SunWuKong]

Taiwan is a seperate political entity from China. China controls Xinjiang, China controls Tibet, China controls Hong Kong, China does not control Taiwan. Calling Taiwan-China relations an "internal issue" is a total cop-out on the part of the Chinese government because the situation is completely different from that of HK, Tibet and Xinjiang, where Beijing currently has direct control.

that's a matter of interpretation because the CCP considers Taiwan a rogue province.

[Martino]

that's a matter of interpretation because the CCP considers Taiwan a rogue province.

... and the UN, in not recognising Taiwan, tacitly concurs.

[SunWuKong]

Taiwan has been a self-governing political entity for generations.

to be exact, it's only been about 3 generations.

The issue is alot bigger than whether or not they officially "declared" independance.War is war, it doesn't matter if it was "civil" or not. The CCP took control of China, the KMT took control of Taiwan. Since the KMT took control of Taiwan they have evolved from a military dictatorship to a multiparty democracy, indicating that the people of Taiwan are in fact in principle independant from China, and would like to remain that way. Thus, China's use of force against Taiwan would be in violation of human rights.

what is the definition of "violation of human rights" again? if the armed conflicts were entirely engaged by the militaries on both sides, and if the CCP won, and then gave Taiwan a high level of autonomy, would that still be a "violation of human rights"?

but anyway, as a disclaimer, i personally don't agree with a violent reunification.

I personally don't like this notion that everyone on Taiwan is somehow a "criminal."

Put yourself in the Taiwanese government's shoes. "Officially" declaring independence is a very tricky and dangerous thing to do. They would risk not only getting bombed but also their economic ties with countries around the world which sustain their economy and put food into the mouths of their people. Not to mention the fact that your citizens freedoms would be infringed upon should Taiwan return to Chinese control. You cannot move from Democracy to Authoritarianism. No one wants to take a step backwards.

i'd agree with you there. i support reunification, but i don't think the time is right yet. the CCP still has a lot of reform to do.

BTW, "Reunification" is simply the accepted term used for Taiwan returning to Chinese control. It does not suggest that I think China and Taiwan are part of the same entity. Please do not put words in my mouth.

They are two countries that have the same roots, like America and England. The only difference is that Taiwan has not "officially" declared independence. You saying "China cannot invade China" is exactly the same reasoning China uses when they say Taiwan-China relations are an internal issue, which they are not. They are an international issue, and it's the business of any government that has both political or economic ties to Taiwan, and particularly the business of anyone who has family in Taiwan, as alot of Americans do.

history goes to the victor. if the South had won the Civil War, it would have been considered an invasion and an international issue. if England had won the War of Independence, it would have been considered a civil war and an internal issue. it doesn't really change the hypocrisy of those that officially does not recognise Taiwan, but yet deals with Taiwan like it does. and that's where the international community is committing it's wrongs - it has ties to Taiwan directly instead of through mainland China.

I personally do not believe Taiwan and China can reunify unless either 1) China democratizes, which isn't happening soon or 2) it becomes in both countries best interest to do so, in which it would occur naturally. Personally I don't see this happening unless there is some serious governmental reform in China.

it's only a matter of time, but it'll be a very slow process. there is continual reform in mainland China, although at a very slow pace - but i don't blame them because they're still in a transitory stage to capitalism, and things can become very unstable very quickly. closer economic ties is inevitable unless Taiwan wants to continue on its downward spiral of economic depression, and i think most Taiwanese people are smart enough to want more economic ties with the mainland.

[tazadar]

Taiwan has been a self-governing political entity for generations. The issue is alot bigger than whether or not they officially "declared" independance. War is war, it doesn't matter if it was "civil" or not. The CCP took control of China, the KMT took control of Taiwan. Since the KMT took control of Taiwan they have evolved from a military dictatorship to a multiparty democracy, indicating that the people of Taiwan are in fact in principle independant from China, and would like to remain that way. Thus, China's use of force against Taiwan would be in violation of human rights.

Taiwan is not an independent nation. Taiwan is part of China. The U.S. needs to stay out of China's internal affairs. Those Taiwanese calling for independence are traitors to the Chinese race.

[bluemonq]

Taiwan is not an independent nation. Taiwan is part of China. The U.S. needs to stay out of China's internal affairs. Those Taiwanese calling for independence are traitors to the Chinese race.
actually...and this i'm pretty familiar with - many taiwanese aren't interested in independence (to tell you the truth, if things were to stay the same, i wouldn't care either; the only thing is, my family can be traced back definitively for at 2and1/2 centuries...sort of a latent "provincialism"). the people who are usually the most fervent about independece actually probably have the most legitimate reason: the taiwanese aboriginies. and before people start saying, oh the aborigines came from china so they should still be a part of china... if current wisdom is to be believed, humanity originated from somewhere in africa; does that mean that china should be part of some african nation?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

actually...and this i'm pretty familiar with - many taiwanese aren't interested in independence (to tell you the truth, if things were to stay the same, i wouldn't care either; the only thing is, my family can be traced back definitively for at 2and1/2 centuries...sort of a latent "provincialism"). the people who are usually the most fervent about independece actually probably have the most legitimate reason: the taiwanese aboriginies. and before people start saying, oh the aborigines came from china so they should still be a part of china... if current wisdom is to be believed, humanity originated from somewhere in africa; does that mean that china should be part of some african nation?

I'm not an expert in this area by any means, but doesn't the vast majority of the population on Taiwan have either all or most of their bloodline in earlier generations migrating from the mainland (mostly from the Fujian provincial area)? The ones who can be labeled 'Taiwanese aborigines' are still a great minority and the aborigines as far as I understand were not the ones responsible for the establishment of the entity that is Taiwan today.

[SunWuKong]

actually...and this i'm pretty familiar with - many taiwanese aren't interested in independence (to tell you the truth, if things were to stay the same, i wouldn't care either; the only thing is, my family can be traced back definitively for at 2and1/2 centuries...sort of a latent "provincialism"). the people who are usually the most fervent about independece actually probably have the most legitimate reason: the taiwanese aboriginies. and before people start saying, oh the aborigines came from china so they should still be a part of china... if current wisdom is to be believed, humanity originated from somewhere in africa; does that mean that china should be part of some african nation?

actually, i thought Taiwanese aboriginals were closer to Polynesians or they came from the same stock as Southeast Asians? and they're only about 5% of the entire population of the island, right?

[bluemonq]

both gumby and swk are correct. the point i was informed though (and it seems interesting to at least me) is that they were doing fairly well until chiang kai-shek and KMT retreated to taiwan and promptly began abusing the aborigines. "my" point was that they seemed to have the most legitamate reason for wanting independence

[Napoleon Chynamite]

both gumby and swk are correct. the point i was informed though (and it seems interesting to at least me) is that they were doing fairly well until chiang kai-shek and KMT retreated to taiwan and promptly began abusing the aborigines. "my" point was that they seemed to have the most legitamate reason for wanting independence

But then I think the following should be emphasized...the aboriginal interests (pro-independence or not) are and should remain separate from the interests of the current government apparatus and/or entity that is present-day Taiwan and the vast majority of the population it governs (which includes aboriginal Taiwanese yes but it's agreed they are in the minority). I'm not sure how you can have the interests of either side come together without actually harming your overall argument. If the Taiwanese government and what Taiwan is today is the direct result of the KMT and their efforts to establish an independent nation, the interests of the aborigines (in the way that you mentioned above) would only make modern day Taiwan seemingly even more undeserving of independence due to the abusive behavior of the forefathers. It would almost be akin to using the interests of Native Americans to support the push for U.S. independence during the American Revolution.

Once again, I do not debate on this issue often simply because I don't know a lot about it, but my words are a reaction to the information presented and are limited by my understanding.

[SynRG]

Alas, 'on paper' is enough. It's not a recognised political entity.


Fair enough. Taiwan is not an officially recognized political entity. However my arguement was that it was a seperate political entity from that of China.


Self-governing yes, but the passage of time hasn't given it any legitimacy. Hence its non-recognition by the UN, the EU, and most other countries in the world including its democratic near neighbours.


Since I've allready admitted you are right on the "legal" aspect of the situation, I won't argue that point further. However I want to point out if the UN and the EU don't officially recognize Taiwan.. that doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a self-governing entity that is seperate and not controlled by China.


Right or wrong, all governments use force to secure their borders and suppress seperatists. Look at Spain and the Basques. Use of force might be immoral, but it may not be illegal.


Perhaps this is the source of our arguement. I'm taking the moral side of the issue, you are taking the legal side.


Nor do I. You seem to be under the impression that I've taken sides in this, or am anti-Taiwan. I'm just stating the political reality of the situation.


I apologize if I mis-judged you as being anti-Taiwan. The Taiwan-China issue is a particularly sensitive subject with me as I grew up there and my family still lives there. I still also have friends in the Taiwanese army. I still think that Taiwan-China relations is much more that just a legitamacy issue and I just get annoyed when people try to play it off as such. There are things to consider such as the rights of the citizens of Taiwan to choose and elect their leadership, and well as the cultural differences between Taiwan and China that, unlike legitmacy, are increasingly changing with the passage of time.


So what are Taiwan's choices then? What are CHINA'S choice? Play Devil's Advocate, put yourself in China's shoes, totalitarian state ort not.


I have. Believe it or not, before I moved here, my stance on the situation was much more one-sided than it is now. However, even after living in both countries, I still feel that if a solution is to be found, reunification or not, China must be deterred from threatening the island with military action. Furthermore, at the current state, I do not believe the two are capable of reunifying. The two have been seperated to a point where they are ideologically incompatible and with the passage of time becoming more culturally incompatible, and unless they find a way to open up to each other this situation will only continue.

Anyways, the way I see it, both parties should be negotiating towards a goal of peaceful coexistance, not reunification. If reunification can occur naturally and peacefully, then so be it, but as I stated before unless things change first (such political reform on the part of the Chinese gov't), I don't think this is possible. Peaceful co-existence, however includes opening up more trade, direct flights, etc., not to mention the sore spot of Mainland Chinese not being allowed to enter Taiwan, but Taiwanese being allowed to enter China. I also think that no matter what the Taiwanese should still be allowed to elect their leaders and their own government should be allowed to protect it's citizens.

I should also point out that I don't like the direction Chen Shui-Bian is going with the aforementioned. Like Bush, I think he's a horrible diplomat and doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut, and has an agenda of trying to embarrass China, which is not constructive to their peaceful coexistence. If there's anyone that's going to start a war, it's him. And that's exactly what I would like to avoid.

The view from the Chinese side however is complicated not only by their totalitarian ideology but also their culture. They see Taiwan's existance as a seperate entity as an "insult" to them and IMO clouds their judgement on the issue. For cultural reasons, I'm not sure that issue can be resolved within that generation, because they simply won't get over it. Furthermore, the government is also doing whatever it can to make sure it's citizens don't sympathize with Taiwan, including biased reporting and even "blacking out" chunks of CNN that report on the cross strait issue. I don't think this is very constructive to the issue.

From the Taiwanese side, it is a sovereignty issue. People can argue that "Taiwanese are Chinese and they should want to go back to China" until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that these people have been born and raised outside of China's influence, and I'm not talking about just the Taiwanese aboriginals, but also the Taiwan wai-shen ren that originally fled the Mainland that make up a great chunk of Taiwanese society and are responsible for developing Taiwan into what it is today.


The word reunification has a pretty clear definition. Don't use it if you don't like it.


The issue I had was you assuming that my use of the word "reunification" implied that I think the two countries are part of the same entity. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Are and were are two completely different things. I'm not misusing the word here.


America and England do not have the same roots ... and America gained independence from Britain only through a bold war with the then superpower ...


Taiwan, as it is today, gained it's existance as a result of the KMT battling the CCP. The CCP retained control of China and the KMT retreated to Taiwan, and then developed Taiwan into a seperate entity outside of the CCP's control. I don't see how these two examples are all that different.


So which governments would you like to see intervene? And how? The countries that recognise Taiwan politically are all pretty feeble. So what do you expect of them?

Currently, although relations between the two are sh*t, the status-quo is still peaceful. China invading Taiwan would undoubtably create instability in the region, and I would like to see more steps on the part of the international community to prevent that. This doesn't mean they have to officially recognize Taiwan, it simply means they will not tolerate China creating that instability in the region, and that there will be consequences. As long China can be deterred from using force, then work can be done to improve relations between the two countries (or parties, regions, whatever). Basically I want it made clear to China that the use of force should not be an option. Relations between the two can never be improved admidst China's constant threats of using force.

[SunWuKong]

I should also point out that I don't like the direction Chen Shui-Bian is going with the aforementioned. Like Bush, I think he's a horrible diplomat and doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut, and has an agenda of trying to embarrass China, which is not constructive to their peaceful coexistence. If there's anyone that's going to start a war, it's him. And that's exactly what I would like to avoid.

The view from the Chinese side however is complicated not only by their totalitarian ideology but also their culture. They see Taiwan's existance as a seperate entity as an "insult" to them and IMO clouds their judgement on the issue. For cultural reasons, I'm not sure that issue can be resolved within that generation, because they simply won't get over it. Furthermore, the government is also doing whatever it can to make sure it's citizens don't sympathize with Taiwan, including biased reporting and even "blacking out" chunks of CNN that report on the cross strait issue. I don't think this is very constructive to the issue.

let's get real here, the CCP is not stupid. they're never going to attack Taiwan in the foreseeable future. their number one concern right now is the economy over all else. getting into an armed conflict, especially when they know that the US would be involved, would completely collapse their economy. the way it works is this: Ah Bian says something asinine, the CCP threatens to invade, Taiwanese stocks plummet, Ah Bian retracts asinine comment. repeat. the threat to attack is just that - a threat.

as for biased news reporting on the CCP side. this may be true, but biased news reporting is hardly necessary for Chinese people to want Taiwan back. there is no news blackout in HK, and you can access all sources of foreign news in HK - yet the majority of HKers agree that Taiwan should be a part of China. and it's not as if the CCP is the only one that engages in biased news reporting. just a year or two ago, a magazine office was raided by the Taiwanese police for wanting to publish an article about government spending. apparently someone didn't like it to be known that the DPP is spending just a bit too much money buying opinions in the US. if you think the CCP is the only one that engages in biased news reporting, you are sorely mistaken. it's just that the DPP is better at hiding it. and DPP's website is full of propaganda. the way that they use the term "communist", it's like they didn't know that the Cold War is over and that China is now only communist by name.

[SynRG]

that's a matter of interpretation because the CCP considers Taiwan a rogue province.

My point was the CCP doesn't directly control Taiwan, unlike Tibet, Xinjiang and HK.

Anyways, at the end of the day, it is a matter of interpretation. I have no problem seeing it from the Mainland Chinese point of view, but I do not agree with it at all.

[SynRG]

what is the definition of "violation of human rights" again? if the armed conflicts were entirely engaged by the militaries on both sides, and if the CCP won, and then gave Taiwan a high level of autonomy, would that still be a "violation of human rights"?


...i may have jumped the gun there a little bit 'cuz I was a tad bit emotional when I made that initial post. I'm not sure if China invading Taiwan would necessarily be an invasian of human rights by the proper definition. I'll admit that. My biggest concern though is the rights of the people there to elect their own government.


but anyway, as a disclaimer, i personally don't agree with a violent reunification.


Word. You and I are on the same page there.


history goes to the victor. if the South had won the Civil War, it would have been considered an invasion and an international issue. if England had won the War of Independence, it would have been considered a civil war and an internal issue. it doesn't really change the hypocrisy of those that officially does not recognise Taiwan, but yet deals with Taiwan like it does. and that's where the international community is committing it's wrongs - it has ties to Taiwan directly instead of through mainland China.


But given the current situation, how can you have ties to Taiwan indirectly through Mainland China? I mean, you can't even fly directly from Taiwan to China.. perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, but how else are countries that want to have ties to Taiwan going to do so without doing so directly, since China doesn't control Taiwan?


it's only a matter of time, but it'll be a very slow process. there is continual reform in mainland China, although at a very slow pace - but i don't blame them because they're still in a transitory stage to capitalism, and things can become very unstable very quickly. closer economic ties is inevitable unless Taiwan wants to continue on its downward spiral of economic depression, and i think most Taiwanese people are smart enough to want more economic ties with the mainland.

Perhaps. Like I said I haven't ruled out reunification (peaceful of course). But until then efforts IMO should be put towards peaceful coexistance, which includes improving the economic ties as you just stated. I just don't like this attitude that Taiwan should "succumb" to China when in fact China IMO hasn't developed and reformed it's own political economic system to the point where it would even be fit to run Taiwan.

[SynRG]

let's get real here, the CCP is not stupid. they're never going to attack Taiwan in the foreseeable future. their number one concern right now is the economy over all else. getting into an armed conflict, especially when they know that the US would be involved, would completely collapse their economy. the way it works is this: Ah Bian says something asinine, the CCP threatens to invade, Taiwanese stocks plummet, Ah Bian retracts asinine comment. repeat. the threat to attack is just that - a threat.


You know.. when I was living in Taiwan that was my exact line of thinking. In fact my dad still thinks that way and doesn't even worry about it. But since I moved to China I'm just not so sure anymore. People here are incredibably ignorant about the Taiwan issue, and to be honest I'm not sure where than ignorance line ends the higher up you move in society and government. I don't think the CCP is stupid, but sometimes I get uneasy with the propaganda crap I see on TV and the crazy sh*t I hear.


as for biased news reporting on the CCP side. this may be true, but biased news reporting is hardly necessary for Chinese people to want Taiwan back. there is no news blackout in HK, and you can access all sources of foreign news in HK - yet the majority of HKers agree that Taiwan should be a part of China. and it's not as if the CCP is the only one that engages in biased news reporting. just a year or two ago, a magazine office was raided by the Taiwanese police for wanting to publish an article about government spending. apparently someone didn't like it to be known that the DPP is spending just a bit too much money buying opinions in the US. if you think the CCP is the only one that engages in biased news reporting, you are sorely mistaken. it's just that the DPP is better at hiding it. and DPP's website is full of propaganda. the way that they use the term "communist", it's like they didn't know that the Cold War is over and that China is now only communist by name.

I'm not naive enough (although when I was younger I used to be) to think that Taiwanese news is not completely biased either.. but your average Taiwanese guy is still in a better position to obtain facts on both sides of the issue than your average Mainland Chinese. At least Taiwanese people can actually go to China (although Mainland Chinese not being able to go to Taiwan is really actually Taiwan's fault).

[SunWuKong]

But given the current situation, how can you have ties to Taiwan indirectly through Mainland China? I mean, you can't even fly directly from Taiwan to China.. perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, but how else are countries that want to have ties to Taiwan going to do so without doing so directly, since China doesn't control Taiwan?

that's the point. as a rogue province, it really isn't supposed to have ties to the international community if it has severed ties to the central government in mainland China.



Perhaps. Like I said I haven't ruled out reunification (peaceful of course). But until then efforts IMO should be put towards peaceful coexistance, which includes improving the economic ties as you just stated. I just don't like this attitude that Taiwan should "succumb" to China when in fact China IMO hasn't developed and reformed it's own political economic system to the point where it would even be fit to run Taiwan.

i'll agree with you there. both sides need to work together instead of agitating one another. i think it's stupid of the CCP to use the threat of force. it just makes Taiwanese people have more negative feelings about the mainland. the CCP just doesn't get it, the best way to win Taiwan back is to entice Taiwanese people to want reunification.

[Proxy]

Hi Guys

I would like to present a more pragmatic perspective to the Sino-Taiwan issue.

The Chinese military has full capabilities of successfully reuniting Taiwan with force baring the non-intervention of the United States. (I can go in detail if necassary), however the consequences to her political\economic would be unacceptable within the next 10 years.

In response to the pro-independence camp who make unsubstantiated claims that the PRC will force their ideology and laws upon the Taiwan-Chinese, the CCP has officially acknowledged that unlike Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau, the PRC will:

1.) Not station any troops on Taiwan
2.) Allow full democratic political system in Taiwan, Wen Jia Bao (vice primeir of China) on a recent trip to the United States has stated China seeks to eventually become a civilized democratic country and has already started grass root projects in the country.
3.) Taiwan will be allowed to retain her own military.

Currently over 1 million top Taiwan business people reside on the mainland and over 50% of all new marriages are cross straits. The new economic implications of China entering the WTO and dynamics of globalization will force Taiwan to embrace her largest trading partner: China.

The bottom line is Taiwan WILL be reunited either peacefully or with force. The carrot\stick strategy for the PRC is working to plan. Under the Chinese official defense white papers, the projected reunification date is 2050. A combination of economic necessity with political freedom as opposed to swift military conquest will eventually bring about a stronger unified China.

[SynRG]

i'll agree with you there. both sides need to work together instead of agitating one another. i think it's stupid of the CCP to use the threat of force. it just makes Taiwanese people have more negative feelings about the mainland. the CCP just doesn't get it, the best way to win Taiwan back is to entice Taiwanese people to want reunification.

Exactly! By golly, we have found the common ground. :biggrin:

[AltimaGTR]

Taiwan is not an independent nation. Taiwan is part of China. The U.S. needs to stay out of China's internal affairs. Those Taiwanese calling for independence are traitors to the Chinese race.

Yup, I am a traitor and a sellout to the entire friggin Chinese race! :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I think President Chen is foolish for pushing this referendum. I believe it is too soon for a resolution to this issue. I'm pretty sure by the time all the old farts die (both sides), they will all come to their senses and agree on either 'reunification' or independence. If something happens though, I'm definitely heading back to Taiwan and enlisting. It may seem stupid, but Taiwan is just as important to me as America. Oh yeah, and I totally agree with you that the U.S. needs to reexamine its policy on foreign affairs.

[BaiginLong]

Antonio my brudda how you doing glad to see you back on YW
karma for you
and hmm we need to figure out the whole barbeque thing either tomorrow Sunday or next friday ya

hmm yeah well I see Taiwan as a sperate nation now regardless I guess
but still it would be better if the Chinese as an ethinicity were more united and I do NOT aprove of abusing any aboriginals so they lost mucho sympathy points for running away to the island and taking over but I guess that's the way watr is run and that's the results ya?

[SunWuKong]

Seriously though, I think President Chen is foolish for pushing this referendum.

he's using it for re-election, plain and simple.

[SunWuKong]

but still it would be better if the Chinese as an ethinicity were more united

see, personally, i see it as a matter of history, and not a re-unification of the Chinese race. there are Chinese people all over the world outside of mainland China.

[ShortNBitter]

see, personally, i see it as a matter of history, and not a re-unification of the Chinese race. there are Chinese people all over the world outside of mainland China.

not to mention china in the first place is flippin huge. and just their history in general has split them up all over da place.

[bluemonq]

he's using it for re-election, plain and simple.
im just damn pissed that he beat soong tsu yi (i have no idea how to romanize his last name), the guy who broke away from KMT. he was one of the few who seemed to have his head screwed on right

[Faithless]

Is the problem with "US interference" just with the Bush administration?

On the surface, a democratic HK is a valid concern for the US, only in the sense that it would be a shame to see it lose out to communism.

Saw this article on desires to unify China:

Part 7: The referendum question (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FA31Ad04.html)
...
All Chinese seek single Chinese state
The national goal of all Chinese is a single Chinese state under a single government that regains all territorial integrity of China. As Hong Kong and Macau are now again under the sovereignty of China, the immediate outstanding issue is now Taiwan. The government of the PRC under the leadership of CCP, and to varying degrees the GMD and the PFP on Taiwan, all support peaceful political inter-party accommodation toward national reconstruction. In Taiwan politics, this group is known as the pan-blue coalition.
...

[Martino]

Is the problem with "US interference" just with the Bush administration?

On the surface, a democratic HK is a valid concern for the US, only in the sense that it would be a shame to see it lose out to communism.

And the US wouldn't have any ulterior motive for interfering with Chinese internal affairs? I mean, the US isn't too concerned with democracy, or lack of it, in a lot of other countries in Asia, the Mid East, Africa. The US's 'concern' only seems to arise when there is oil in a country or if it can somehow destabilise one of its enemies ....

[Faithless]

And the US wouldn't have any ulterior motive for interfering with Chinese internal affairs? I mean, the US isn't too concerned with democracy, or lack of it, in a lot of other countries in Asia, the Mid East, Africa. The US's 'concern' only seems to arise when there is oil in a country or if it can somehow destabilise one of its enemies ....
OK.

That's why I added in my question if this is just a Bush administration concern.

But are you saying that the US have never really had a concern over democracy in China?

[Emperor_Mike]

OK.

That's why I added in my question if this is just a Bush administration concern.

But are you saying that the US have never really had a concern over democracy in China?

I don't think the promotion of democracy in far off lands has ever been a primary issue in American foreign policy over the past several decades since the end of WWI. Democracy is a useful reason to go off on military adventures abroad and any changes in foreign governments are purely incidental.

[Martino]

But are you saying that the US have never really had a concern over democracy in China?

You don't think America would see China as a threat, whatever kind of government it had?

[Faithless]

You don't think America would see China as a threat, whatever kind of government it had?
You got me.

I suspecting that philosophy would be that a "democratic" would be easier to work with.

[Faithless]

I don't think the promotion of democracy in far off lands has ever been a primary issue in American foreign policy over the past several decades since the end of WWI. Democracy is a useful reason to go off on military adventures abroad and any changes in foreign governments are purely incidental.
Yeah, it certainly has looked that way.

I know the US encourages it to flourish. Sure beats the hell out of dictatorships.

[Martino]

You got me.

I suspecting that philosophy would be that a "democratic" would be easier to work with.

The US gets on well with democracies like France?

[Martino]

Yeah, it certainly has looked that way.

I know the US encourages it to flourish. Sure beats the hell out of dictatorships.

The US isn't a force of benevolence in the modern world. It has a tradition of propping up dictatorships.

[SynRG]

You don't think America would see China as a threat, whatever kind of government it had?

That's a very good point. If China continues to develop at the pace it is going, democracy or not, the U.S. will continue to see China as a threat, particularly to its hegemonic status.

Basically I don't the the U.S. and China getting in bed with each other anytime soon.

[golden_buns]

"Freedom and Democracy" are the words used for the US everytime they make an incursion in other countries. It used to work quite well when communism was alive, since many ppl feared communism. But nowdays it's quite clear the freedom and democracy aren't the US reason for incursions.

[Faithless]

The US gets on well with democracies like France?
Are you just looking at the Bush Administration's relationship to France?

I don't know what to say to your "propping up" dictatorships issue. What would you have the US do?

[VV o n g B a]

let's get real here, the CCP is not stupid. they're never going to attack Taiwan in the foreseeable future. their number one concern right now is the economy over all else. getting into an armed conflict, especially when they know that the US would be involved, would completely collapse their economy. the way it works is this: Ah Bian says something asinine, the CCP threatens to invade, Taiwanese stocks plummet, Ah Bian retracts asinine comment. repeat. the threat to attack is just that - a threat.
i don't agree. just because polititians wouldn't want to invade doesn't mean that they won't do it. i would bet that if hu jintao didn't invade upon a declaration of independence by taiwan, then he would face an immediate military coup... as would any leading politician for the foreseeable future.

and even if he headed off that military coup, he would then face massive unrest from your average chinese citizen. it would be like what the chinese did to the US embassy after the yugoslavia bombing multiplied by a thousand except directed against his gov't. they would want his head on a plate.

i think he would invade taiwan w/ full knowledge that it could trash world opinion of china and destroy its economy. he would do it simply b/c he had no alternative if he wanted to maintain control.

[Martino]

Are you just looking at the Bush Administration's relationship to France?

I think it would be fair to say Franco-American relationships have been uniformly rocky from de Gaul onwards.

[Martino]

I don't know what to say to your "propping up" dictatorships issue. What would you have the US do?

How about ... not propping up dictatorships?

Too radical?

[Martino]

i think he would invade taiwan w/ full knowledge that it could trash world opinion of china and destroy its economy. he would do it simply b/c he had no alternative if he wanted to maintain control.

Interesting assessment. I think you are right in that China could easily find itself in a situation where it would be compelled to act even with fore-knowledge that such action could cause it incalculable external problems.

I don't know if questions of 'face' could still be said to apply to a contemporary PRC ruling party, but China may feel that not acting could cause too many internal problems: number one being the separatist elements in its far western provinces.

This whole thing of America's "warning" China over Hong Kong whilst expressing displeasure with Taiwan for moving towards greater democracy if a pretty big hint that the US's concerns aren't about the rights of the average Chinese citizen.

[Faithless]

How about ... not propping up dictatorships?

Too radical?
I didn't mean to say that the US should support dictators.

But I guess that I have been conditioned to believe that the US should stay involved with dictatorial countries in some fashion.

[SunWuKong]

i don't agree. just because polititians wouldn't want to invade doesn't mean that they won't do it. i would bet that if hu jintao didn't invade upon a declaration of independence by taiwan, then he would face an immediate military coup... as would any leading politician for the foreseeable future.

and even if he headed off that military coup, he would then face massive unrest from your average chinese citizen. it would be like what the chinese did to the US embassy after the yugoslavia bombing multiplied by a thousand except directed against his gov't. they would want his head on a plate.

i think he would invade taiwan w/ full knowledge that it could trash world opinion of china and destroy its economy. he would do it simply b/c he had no alternative if he wanted to maintain control.

you give the average Chinese citizen and the Chinese military much too little credit. for one, the average Chinese citizen is entirely more concerned about making more money than the Taiwan issue. for another, the Chinese military do hold their allegiance to Jiang Zemin, if not some other high ranking politicians. if anything, it wouldn't be so much a military coup as it is a political coup.

[SunWuKong]

This whole thing of America's "warning" China over Hong Kong whilst expressing displeasure with Taiwan for moving towards greater democracy if a pretty big hint that the US's concerns aren't about the rights of the average Chinese citizen.

that's correct. the US wants to support anything that agonises the Chinese government, but only show so much support that it does not damage Sino-American relationships.

[Made in China]

HK is the best!

[SunWuKong]

HK is the best!

not really. it has it's own problems.