so about taiwan

[loserbutt]

ok, so I don't get this. Why does China care so much about Taiwan? why threaten the island with war? if there were ever a war, china would probably lose most of its trading partners and it's standard of living would plummet... so why go around threatening taiwan like that? why not just let them go...?

[kasia]

flaming in this thread will be met with warnings. 3 warnings = temporary ban.

[yoMAMA]

ok, so I don't get this. Why does China care so much about Taiwan? why threaten the island with war? if there were ever a war, china would probably lose most of its trading partners and it's standard of living would plummet... so why go around threatening taiwan like that? why not just let them go...?

I think one of the reasons is that Taiwan's strategic location: it's China's only way of completely uninterfererred access to the pacific ocean, because all of China's other coast line are inland seas and there are small Japanese islands blocking the way to the Pacific. China's goal is to eventually build a blue water navy to protect its trade routes and oil supplies as it's on the way to become an economic and military superpower.

Another reason is probably the CCP wants to settle old scores with the nationalist, although they have lost power since the democratization and looks like the democratic party of U.S :biggrin:

Also, the CCP likes to create enemies of the "motherland", such as the U.S, Japan of course, Taiwan seperatist....and the like......therefore the justify their continued dictatorship.

my two cents.

[ism]

Your left brain wins control of your entire body, and your right brain isn't too happy, so it relocates to your left nipple. 50 years later, your left nipple, under the control of the more creative half your brain, attracts a good amount of sucking and licking, although the rest of your body gets some too. Your left brain has always believed the left nipple to be part of the rest of the body and can't really destroy or sever it since that would hurt pretty bad and be pretty embarssing, since the left nipple is doing pretty well under the direction of your right brain, and you don't want to be missing a nipple.

Your friends would prefer your right and left brain get back together, but they're so different, and no one can really agree as to which philosophy your body should be ruled under (after all, the right brain is highly creative, and the other is very analytical). Your left brain does some things to scare your right brain and your friends. First, it says it's going to pierce the left nipple. The right brain gets scared and stops saying it represents the entire body. Next, the left brain "experiments" with body piercing -- a tongue stud, then a few months later, a ring in the right nipple.

This makes your friends back off. They say if your left brain is gonna pierce the left nipple, they're not going to stop you (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/12/30/2003217315). After all, it's your own business. As long as it doesn't affect your performance in bed...

[yoMAMA]

Your left brain wins control of your entire body, and your right brain isn't too happy, so it relocates to your left nipple. 50 years later, your left nipple, under the control of the more creative half your brain, attracts a good amount of sucking and licking, although the rest of your body gets some too. Your left brain has always believed the left nipple to be part of the rest of the body and can't really destroy or sever it since that would hurt pretty bad and be pretty embarssing, since the left nipple is doing pretty well under the direction of your right brain, and you don't want to be missing a nipple.

Your friends would prefer your right and left brain get back together, but they're so different, and no one can really agree as to which philosophy your body should be ruled under (after all, the right brain is highly creative, and the other is very analytical). Your left brain does some things to scare your right brain and your friends. First, it says it's going to pierce the left nipple. The right brain gets scared and stops saying it represents the entire body. Next, the left brain "experiments" with body piercing -- a tongue stud, then a few months later, a ring in the right nipple.

This makes your friends back off. They say if your left brain is gonna pierce the left nipple, they're not going to stop you (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/12/30/2003217315). After all, it's your own business. As long as it doesn't affect your performance in bed...


haha...that's a pretty good analogy.

:biggrin:

Although I think Taiwan will eventually be unified with the motherland, it's not gonna happen untill China becomes a democracy because people in Taiwan doesn't want to kow tow to Beijing and become a second HK.

Although I also doubt China will really invade Taiwan, because

1. China and Taiwan are so in bed together economically, just think how many refugees a war is gonna create with all the Taiwanese businessman's mistress on the mainland.

2. China's navy suck monkey balls. Its submarine fleet will probably be sinked in seconds they tried to penetrate Taiwanese water because Taiwan has pretty good anti submarine stuff from the U.S and Japan [i think].

[kpih]

Although I also doubt China will really invade Taiwan, because

1. China and Taiwan are so in bed together economically, just think how many refugees a war is gonna create with all the Taiwanese businessman's mistress on the mainland.



Also it is unlikely the Chinese Central Government is willing to disrupt the current economic surge with western countries. They know they have a good thing going and the powers to be are happy about it...

Unless the Taiwanese government renounces the central government and claim independence...

[tint]

ok, so I don't get this. Why does China care so much about Taiwan? why threaten the island with war? if there were ever a war, china would probably lose most of its trading partners and it's standard of living would plummet... so why go around threatening taiwan like that? why not just let them go...?
If Taiwan becomes independent, the US will turn the island into a strategic military stage. The US is now building up an anti-Chinese ICBM missile shield in Afghanistan. The aim is to control the flow of natural resources (oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea) and contain the increase of Chinese economic and military hegemony. Taiwan is not only a strategic point to curtail US military influence in Asia, but Taiwan is part of China.

1. China and Taiwan are so in bed together economically, just think how many refugees a war is gonna create with all the Taiwanese businessman's mistress on the mainland.
The status quo is good. Beijing wants a peaceful reunification, but this can only happen with the increase of China's economic and military influence. If Taiwan declares independence, she has force the hands of Beijing. Beijing will have no alternative but to recapture the island by military force.

2. China's navy suck monkey balls. Its submarine fleet will probably be sinked in seconds they tried to penetrate Taiwanese water because Taiwan has pretty good anti submarine stuff from the U.S and Japan [i think].
The PLA is not stupid to send boats. Taiwan defenses will be taken out by ICBMs first.

Taiwan will not declare independence, because the US will not commit military support. A Sino-US War means end of the world.

[Chad]

Let's not forget the fact that nations generally don't like to give up any territory when they don't have to, unless that territory has become more of a burden than an asset. Any Chinese leadership who let Taiwan go would go down in history as a big loser, it would be shameful.

[Mr.Lum]

Let's not forget the fact that nations generally don't like to give up any territory when they don't have to, unless that territory has become more of a burden than an asset. Any Chinese leadership who let Taiwan go would go down in history as a big loser, it would be shameful.

Yeah, that would be a scar on Chinese history.

[yoMAMA]

Let's not forget the fact that nations generally don't like to give up any territory when they don't have to, unless that territory has become more of a burden than an asset. Any Chinese leadership who let Taiwan go would go down in history as a big loser, it would be shameful.

If China can unfity with Taiwan in the Germany way, that'd be cool.

:biggrin:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

There will be no Sino-US war. China is the largest carrier/owner of most of U.S. debt, not to mention other outlets of economic intertwining between the two giants. I don't think Americans are ready to pay $30 for a pair of socks or low-quality slippers at the nearest Payless outlet, and China doesn't want all the fruits of its economic development (whatever actual honest effort that went into it) to go down the shitter. Even Bush isn't stupid enough to start a war with China, especially not over Taiwan. Nothing short of Chinese planes bombing the crap out of U.S. soil in a sudden military offensive (or vice versa) would allow such a thing to take place.

[SunWuKong]

why threaten the island with war?

it's very simple, and i've mentioned this before on older threads. it's like this: Ah-Bian says something assinine, CCP threatens war, Taiwanese stocks plummet, Ah-Bian retracts assinine comment. repeat.

the threat of war is just that - a threat. i really doubt a war will happen, at least in the next few decades, because it'll crash the Chinese economy, which currently is highly dependent on FDI.

i'm personally for a peaceful reunification and i think the war threats will only make the Taiwanese people lean toward independence even more. but at the same time, i don't like Ah-Bian or the way he stole the election.

[kuilong]

but at the same time, i don't like Ah-Bian or the way he stole the election.

Are people still on about that? Pan-green lost the legislative elections, at any rate.

[yoMAMA]

all the tawianese people I've met with kuomintang backgrounds were so bitter about losing power to ah bian :p

[SunWuKong]

Are people still on about that? Pan-green lost the legislative elections, at any rate.


well the fumes have died down. but whenever Ah-Bian and cross-straits relations is brought up, it makes me think about it.

[Faithless]

I'm with Clinton on this. Kind of curious, though, that he seems to be pulling Condi's role. She'd probably just fuck it up.

Clinton urges Taiwan Strait calm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4301789.stm)

Former US President Bill Clinton has called on China and Taiwan to set aside their differences and work together for common economic goals.
Mr Clinton made the remarks during a visit to Taiwan that has drawn criticism from China, but he said he stood by Beijing's One-China policy.

He later met Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian for a private dinner.

China fears Mr Chen wants to push towards independence for Taiwan - a move it would regard as an act of war.

The BBC's Chris Hogg in Hong Kong says that even though it is four years since Mr Clinton left the White House, Beijing does not like such a high-profile elder statesman setting foot on Taiwan.

The Chinese leadership regards Taiwan as a breakaway province and does all it can to exclude the island from international bodies and summits.

Security speech

Mr Clinton arrived in Taiwan on Sunday evening after a visit to the mainland on an official invitation.

He delivered a speech on democracy and security in Asia, saying that "common humanity" mattered more than differences.

"Whether in our backyard, in Taiwan, China...we cannot escape each other," he said.

"The more people have positive things to do, the less likely they are to fall into destructive patterns," he added.

Mr Clinton will continue his visit on Monday, meeting opposition leader Lien Chan and signing copies of his autobiography in the world's tallest building, Taipei 101.

Mr Clinton never visited Taiwan while he was US president.

However, correspondents say he is popular with the Taiwanese after making four trips there as governor of the US state of Arkansas.
.
PRESIDENT EXTENDS OLIVE BRANCH TO BEIJING (http://english.www.gov.tw/index.jsp?action=cna&cnaid=7276)
2005/03/01 20:13:15

New York, Feb. 28 (CNA) Republic of China President Chen Shui-bian said in a recent interview with Newsweek magazine that his administration is willing to discuss any kind of peace treaty with mainland China in an effort to secure peace across the Taiwan Strait. "We are willing to discuss and talk about any sort of peace agreement -- short-term, long-term, mid-term, " Chen told staff reporters at the Presidential Office in Taipei.

Chen made the remarks when asked to express his viewpoints on a proposal by Kenneth Lieberthal, an advisor to former U.S. President Bill Clinton on East Asia, that Taiwan and the mainland delay a final resolution of the island's status for a generation to avoid war, during which Taipei would agree not to declare independence and Beijing would agree not to use force against the island. As for another Lieberthal proposal -- that sensitive cross-strait issues be set aside for 30 years -- Chen said that 30 years is just a proposed time frame, adding that "if by then China has not achieved a mature democracy, we could delay it to 50 or 100 years."

Asked to envision a future in which Taiwan and the mainland unify, Chen noted that if the people of Taiwan choose to unify with the mainland one day, it must be done after their political situations have achieved complete synergy in which both sides enjoy democratic elections, multiparty politics, a truly neutral military and freedom of speech. Moreover, Chen added, by then the average income on the mainland should be about equal to that of Taiwan.

In reply to the question of whether Beijing's plan to enact a new "anti-secession law" targeting Taiwan will impact the island, Chen expressed deep concern over the issue, pointing out that Taiwan might not be able to change Beijing's decision. "This year we successfully arranged charter flights from the mainland to Taiwan for the Lunar New Year holiday, signifying that cross-strait relations are making advancements, like flowers blossoming in the spring. But if they insist on passing the "anti-secession law, " it would be like casting a shadow and causing torrential rain, " Chen said, adding that groups in Taiwan have started talking about enacting counterlegislation such as an anti-annexation law. "Is this the result the Beijing authorities want to achieve?" the president asked.

Touching on several critics' statement that he has contributed to cross-strait tension by being needlessly provocative, Chen said Beijing should understand that the referendum and protests last year only reflected the people's love for their homeland. "Some want to misrepresent such events as provocative gestures. But they have overlooked the aspirations of Taiwan's 23 million people to be the masters of their own land, and the fact that China has deployed 706 ballistic missiles targeting us.

Should Taiwan just raise a white flag and surrender?" As for whether any configuration of the Beijing-proposed "one country, two systems" formula for unification are acceptable, Chen said that "we hope to see only one system everywhere, and that is the democratic system." The president voiced the hope that Taiwan's democracy can serve as a lighthouse for Beijing and that the mainland will become democratic, even more so than Taiwan is today. "But China lacks important elements like elections, multiparty politics and a neutral military," he went on.

Asked what he achieved by meeting opposition People First Party Chairman James Soong last week, Chen said the meeting has proved that anything is possible, even reconciliation between the ruling party and the opposition. Chen further said he took the opportunity to reaffirm his promises, including no declaration of Taiwan independence and no change of the name of the Republic of China. (By Luis Huang and Lillian Lin) ENDITEM/J

[SunWuKong]

PRESIDENT EXTENDS OLIVE BRANCH TO BEIJING (http://english.www.gov.tw/index.jsp?action=cna&cnaid=7276)

Chen Shui-bian and the DPP have always said they welcome dialogue with the Chinese government. it's just that the CCP does not trust his intentions and say that the Taiwanese government must accept the "One China" policy before they can have open dialogue again. i think one of the main concerns of the Chinese government is that open dialogue without Taiwanese acceptance of the "One China" policy would be seen as state-to-state dialogue, and not internal dialogue. and to be honest, Ah Bian probably wants it to be portrayed as state-to-state dialogue.

[yoMAMA]

to be honest I don't see what's the big deal of two chinas......PRC and ROC, just like two koreas today, and the previous west germany and DDR.

so with two chinas, the CCP isn't losing any legal definitions battle, since there are two chinas and under the presupposition that the two will become one again sometime in the future.

[Faithless]

Chen Shui-bian and the DPP have always said they welcome dialogue with the Chinese government. it's just that the CCP does not trust his intentions and say that the Taiwanese government must accept the "One China" policy before they can have open dialogue again. i think one of the main concerns of the Chinese government is that open dialogue without Taiwanese acceptance of the "One China" policy would be seen as state-to-state dialogue, and not internal dialogue. and to be honest, Ah Bian probably wants it to be portrayed as state-to-state dialogue.
I don't see how any country that has experienced democracy can go back to a "One China"-like policy.

Here's another thing I find odd. How can Bush say that he supports a free Iraq, but not support a free Taiwan?

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/727/1/79/

Secretary Powell also noted that during his tenure, US-China relations had achieved great progress on the basis of mutual respect and cooperation. He remarked that President Bush attaches great importance to the development of mutually beneficial and cooperative relations and the constructive role China plays in such major international issues as anti-terrorism and the Sudan. The US, he said, will, as always, continue to resolutely support the One China Policy and oppose any activities leading to "Taiwan independence."

[SunWuKong]

I don't see how any country that has experienced democracy can go back to a "One China"-like policy.

well, for one thing, Taiwan under the KMT wasn't really very democratic, so it was only in the last several years that there was "real" democracy. but i agree with you on this. it's inconceivable that Taiwan would want to be ruled by the Chinese government in its current form. personally i'm for a peaceful reunification, but i think the Chinese government has a long way to go in terms of reforms before it would be a good idea for reunification to happen.

[Faithless]

.
to be honest I don't see what's the big deal of two chinas......PRC and ROC, just like two koreas today, and the previous west germany and DDR.

so with two chinas, the CCP isn't losing any legal definitions battle, since there are two chinas and under the presupposition that the two will become one again sometime in the future.
The "One China" slogan just sounds like a gimmic. And to that end, one country shouldn't really say they own another.

[SunWuKong]

Here's another thing I find odd. How can Bush say that he supports a free Iraq, but not support a free Taiwan?

because it's all about the benjamins.

.

The "One China" slogan just sounds like a gimmic. And to that end, one country shouldn't really say they own another.

that's the thing, China doesn't consider Taiwan a seperate country.

[Faithless]

.
...
personally i'm for a peaceful reunification, but i think the Chinese government has a long way to go in terms of reforms before it would be a good idea for reunification to happen.
I would say -- a peaceful reunification -- so long as the Taiwanese people want it as well -- not because the mainland is pushing it.

.
that's the thing, China doesn't consider Taiwan a seperate country.
Hm. How long has that been going on for, now?

I remember this issue when I was in school. :rolleyes:

Talk about your good versus evil portrayals.

[SunWuKong]

I would say -- a peaceful reunification -- so long as the Taiwanese people want it as well -- not because the mainland is pushing it.

this is one thing i don't like about CCP's strategy for reunification. it's like the Chinese leadership cannot grasp the idea of how a democracy works. it would be much better if they were spending money and efforts to win the hearts of Taiwanese people instead of threatening to missle Taiwan into oblivion.

[kimpossible]

Not to mention defining more concretely what reunification means in everyday practical terms. Retaining autonomy, currency, written language, and so on. That would be a good first step towards real reunification outside of the business ties between Taiwan and the mainland.

[Faithless]

this is one thing i don't like about CCP's strategy for reunification. it's like the Chinese leadership cannot grasp the idea of how a democracy works. it would be much better if they were spending money and efforts to win the hearts of Taiwanese people ...
But that couldn't happen unless the CCP was okay with democracy themselves.

I wonder if Hong Kong's unification (if you can call it that) can serve as any model for how well Taiwan would fair.

.
Not to mention defining more concretely what reunification means in everyday practical terms. Retaining autonomy, currency, written language, and so on. That would be a good first step towards real reunification outside of the business ties between Taiwan and the mainland.
I guess that also goes to SWK's "Benjamins" comment.

What does the CCP (as SWK calls it) really see in Taiwan. $ signs. And if so -- in a meddlesome way?

Written language, huh. I'm ignorant. What about that?

[SunWuKong]

But that couldn't happen unless the CCP was okay with democracy themselves.

I wonder if Hong Kong's unification (if you can call it that) can serve as any model for how well Taiwan would fair.

what China did with HK was supposed to be a model (one country, two systems) that was originally designed for Taiwan. but about 8 years after the HK handover, it's pretty obvious that Beijing is pulling the strings in the higher levels of government, and Taiwan doesn't like what it sees in HK. the problem is that the CCP kept "one country, two systems" a pretty ambiguous policy, the same with the "one China" policy. it's no wonder at all that Taiwan wants more details.

it was flawed to have tried to apply in HK what they wanted to do in Taiwan in the first place. but oh well. nowadays HKers seem to be becoming more politically minded. hopefully people will keeping fighting the good fight.

I guess that also goes to SWK's "Benjamins" comment.

What does the CCP (as SWK calls it) really see in Taiwan. $ signs. And if so -- in a meddlesome way?

Written language, huh. I'm ignorant. What about that?

money is probably a big part of it, but it's not like they suddenly decided they want Taiwan back now that Taiwan is rich (relatively speaking). the CCP had wanted to take Taiwan back as soon as the KMT escaped there after the civil war in 1949. nothing has changed in that regard.


(written language: i think she's talking about Traditional Chinese vs. Simplified Chinese. i don't think this is a big issue. HK and Macau are both allowed to use Traditional Chinese.)

[kimpossible]

I wonder if Hong Kong's unification (if you can call it that) can serve as any model for how well Taiwan would fair.

If the point is to avoid violent conflict, I wouldn't advocate using HK as an example to Taiwanese for reunification. HK returned under control of the PRC and I think this is one of the main issues for Taiwanese. Yes, the KMT were/are corrupt as hell. Yes, a lot of people hate Ah-bian and mock him relentlessly but being under thumb of the mainland government might make those even in great favor of reunification bristle because many older Taiwanese were born out of province, and are in fact originally from the mainland, still carrying residual feelings from the cultural revolution - to the point where hearing a Northern accent or reading simplified Chinese provokes negative feelings.


(written language: i think she's talking about Traditional Chinese vs. Simplified Chinese. i don't think this is a big issue. HK and Macau are both allowed to use Traditional Chinese.)

That is what I meant but I would disagree slightly that it isn't potentially a big issue. I do know that HK and Macau still use traditional characters but I also know there's a bigger push now for HKers to learn Mandarin and most likely that also means adapting to simplified characters to mesh more with the mainland. I can't say I know that for sure but that would be my guess. I also would say that HK and Macau people don't have the same problem with simplified characters as Taiwanese potentially do.


money is probably a big part of it, but it's not like they suddenly decided they want Taiwan back now that Taiwan is rich (relatively speaking). the CCP had wanted to take Taiwan back as soon as the KMT escaped there after the civil war in 1949. nothing has changed in that regard.


^what he said.

[Faithless]

If the point is to avoid violent conflict, I wouldn't advocate using HK as an example to Taiwanese for reunification. HK returned under control of the PRC and I think this is one of the main issues for Taiwanese. Yes, the KMT were/are corrupt as hell. Yes, a lot of people hate Ah-bian and mock him relentlessly but being under thumb of the mainland government might make those even in great favor of reunification bristle because many older Taiwanese were born out of province, and are in fact originally from the mainland, still carrying residual feelings from the cultural revolution - to the point where hearing a Northern accent or reading simplified Chinese provokes negative feelings.
Hm. There is that. But, to me, even if there's corruption in Taiwan, they ought to figure their way out of that -- and preserving their democracy at the same.

It also appears that the PRC is having problems with the way HK is being government/monitored by its own with HK.

HK folk aren't too happy with their reunification with the mainland. (I probably need a terminology education.)

.
Interesting article on how a Republican congress also sides against Bush on the issue of Taiwan --

Congress pressures Bush on PRC anti-secession law (http://www.etaiwannews.com/World/2005/02/24/1109208736.htm)
2005-02-24 / Agence France-Presse /

The Bush administration is under pressure from Congress to strongly oppose a prospective Chinese law laying the basis to seize Taiwan by force if the island declares independence, officials said Tuesday.

The plenary session of China's parliament, the National People's Congress, will next month consider the "anti-secession law," the draft of which has already been cleared by the policy-making body of the rubber-stamp legislature.

"The Chinese government is moving the situation closer to a violent conclusion," said Carolyn Bartholomew of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, tracking Taiwan's history since its 1949 split from China.

"It is simply unacceptable" for U.S. President George W. Bush, who has vowed to champion freedom during his second term in office, "to allow the free and democratic people of Taiwan to fall under the domination of China's authoritarian government," Bartholomew said.

Her Congress-mandated commission has been pushing for a tough U.S. approach to China on trade and security.

The anti-secession legislation could make it illegal for Taiwan to declare independence and might create the legal basis for China to take the island by force or pressure it to accept reunification, political analysts have said.

U.S. lawmakers have attacked the planned legislation and have requested China's parliament for a copy of the statute, which has not been made public.

"No one has the text, but there is concern that this would be lead to either a change in the status quo or the implication of the threat of the possible use of force," said Dennis Halpin, a senior staff at the House of Representatives' international relations panel.

U.S. lawmakers in the panel have introduced two resolutions in what is seen as possible retaliation if Beijing passed the law.

One resolution demands the resumption of diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Washington switched recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979 but under U.S. law, it is obliged to offer the island a means of self-defense if its security is threatened.

"The resolutions that have been introduced in the House call upon the president and the administration to be more vocal in telling Beijing the U.S. concerns about this legislation," Halpin said.

The anti-secession law has parallels to China's efforts "to stifle dissent" in Hong Kong, Bartholomew said, citing an article in Hong Kong's Basic Law to "curtail activism" and "criminalize freedom of speech."

Hong Kong has been ruled by Beijing as a semi-autonomous region since British colonial rule ended in 1997.

Bartholomew said that by giving credence to China's passage of an anti-secession bill aimed at Taiwan, the United States "would be granting it license to declare war on a territory it declares to be its own in the face of the reality that we and others in the international community views that territory's status differently.

[SunWuKong]

HK folk aren't too happy with their reunification with the mainland. (I probably need a terminology education.)

it's not really that they're unhappy with the reunification itself. they're unhappy with the fact that Beijing is pulling the strings in the HK government, and they want more self-rule. or most people do, anyway. there are others that are perfectly happy with the way that Beijing makes the higher-level decisions.

Interesting article on how a Republican congress also sides against Bush on the issue of Taiwan --

Congress pressures Bush on PRC anti-secession law (http://www.etaiwannews.com/World/2005/02/24/1109208736.htm)

that's not surprising. Taiwan has a rich and powerful lobby in Washington.

[kimpossible]

It's also the difference between the return of a colony leased to the British and reunification with a 'renegade' provincial government that formerly governed China before its defeat.

[DaMuo]

I think one of the reasons is that Taiwan's strategic location: it's China's only way of completely uninterfererred access to the pacific ocean, because all of China's other coast line are inland seas and there are small Japanese islands blocking the way to the Pacific. China's goal is to eventually build a blue water navy to protect its trade routes and oil supplies as it's on the way to become an economic and military superpower.

I'd have to agree with yoMAMA. I think it is an issue of PRC national security to ensure that the island of Taiwan does not turn into a staging ground for a US proxy war. Kinda like why we freaked out during the Cuban missile crisis. Same issue on strategic placement.

From what I have seen of the US assessment of current Chinese military doctrine and strategy, it is all about countering any potential US military positioning that can threaten both trade and power balances in the region if US gets involved.

Consolidating the PRC borders (reunifying Taiwan) reduces one of many potential staging area of the US. You can bet lots of military $'s is spent on working out how to cut off Japan and South Korea.

As for reunification, it's inevitable--resistance is futile! PRC is the borg! War? That would be a waste of time and money and lives in any assessment. China will just wrestle Taiwan into economic submission -- waiting game. As for the saber rattling, it doesn't help that we (taiwan) contstantly gives Beijing the finger.

[AngryABCGirl]

If China really did "take back" Taiwan, they'd want to get rid of them tomorrow.

[golden_buns]

china would probably lose most of its trading partners and it's standard of living would plummet...

China is a huge economy now, I doubt that super powers such as EU nations, US, or Japan would put in risk their sluggish economies by pulling out trade with China. Unless Taiwan could offer the benefits of doing FDI that China has

[SunWuKong]

China is a huge economy now, I doubt that super powers such as EU nations, US, or Japan would put in risk their sluggish economies by pulling out trade with China. Unless Taiwan could offer the benefits of doing FDI that China has

that's a gamble the CCP probably doesn't want to take though. plus, i think i have to disagree with you anyway. i think many countries would pull out in case of war. i mean, the US is one thing - it's a democracy and it has very stable financial infrastructures. but the Chinese government is much less accountable to it's own people's opinions, and therefore can do whatever the hell it likes, and China is still trying to build financial infrastructures. the profitability of foreign businesses in China relies on the assumption that China continues to reform and grow socially and financially.

[yoMAMA]

that's a gamble the CCP probably doesn't want to take though. plus, i think i have to disagree with you anyway. i think many countries would pull out in case of war. i mean, the US is one thing - it's a democracy and it has very stable financial infrastructures. but the Chinese government is much less accountable to it's own people's opinions, and therefore can do whatever the hell it likes, and China is still trying to build financial infrastructures. the profitability of foreign businesses in China relies on the assumption that China continues to reform and grow socially and financially.

but china can also withdraw their savings in the U.S treasury, i think somewhere in the range of $500 billion......and that would create chaos in wall street and raise the interest rate substantially....possible plunge the whole U.S economy into a deep recession.

of course that would be suicide for china as well since it relies on the U.S market to make $$$.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

So the moral of the story is, in the case of a war involving a significant degree of Chinese and U.S. involvement at opposing ends, we're pretty much all fucked.

[yoMAMA]

So the moral of the story is, in the case of a war involving a significant degree of Chinese and U.S. involvement at opposing ends, we're pretty much all fucked.

indeed.

that's why i think neither side will do anything stupid......

:biggrin:

[haplesshobo]

but china can also withdraw their savings in the U.S treasury, i think somewhere in the range of $500 billion......and that would create chaos in wall street and raise the interest rate substantially....possible plunge the whole U.S economy into a deep recession.

of course that would be suicide for china as well since it relies on the U.S market to make $$$.

I don't want to come off as an ashole since this is my first post, but umm, US treasuries are not callabe (or puttable from the borrower's perspective). Most of them have long maturities, some around 30 years. Its a common misperception but the Chinese would not be able to call in all our debt at once. The one thing they could do is to stop buying up all our debt, and so America would need to probably raise interest rates if nobody else stepped in and started financing our debt. But, our interest rates are already at historic lows.

You're right in that the Chinese wouldn't do this either, since they've linked the yuan to the dollar. When they buy our treasury bonds, it helps keep our interest rates low and helps us buy all their goods. If they didn't, you'd have massive amounts of instability and unemployment in China.

[Faithless]

...
Its a common misperception but the Chinese would not be able to call in all our debt at once.
...
Well, in general, can anybody (call in our debt)? :confused:

It's probably up to a certain percentage?

[yoMAMA]

I don't want to come off as an ashole since this is my first post, but umm, US treasuries are not callabe (or puttable from the borrower's perspective). Most of them have long maturities, some around 30 years. Its a common misperception but the Chinese would not be able to call in all our debt at once. The one thing they could do is to stop buying up all our debt, and so America would need to probably raise interest rates if nobody else stepped in and started financing our debt. But, our interest rates are already at historic lows.

You're right in that the Chinese wouldn't do this either, since they've linked the yuan to the dollar. When they buy our treasury bonds, it helps keep our interest rates low and helps us buy all their goods. If they didn't, you'd have massive amounts of instability and unemployment in China.

while, that's why China should not now [and not in the forseeable future] raise the exchange rate of the RMB.

China should only appreciate the yuan when its financial system is cleaned up, with the massive amount of bad debts to the state enterprises gotten rid of.

[haplesshobo]

while, that's why China should not now [and not in the forseeable future] raise the exchange rate of the RMB.

China should only appreciate the yuan when its financial system is cleaned up, with the massive amount of bad debts to the state enterprises gotten rid of.

No, China shouldn't try to manipulate the yuan like this. In the end, any fluctations in a currency are driven by the market in a self-correcting equilbrium. Look at what Soros did to the pound as an example. China should have invested this money into its infrastructure instead of trying to artifically manipulate the value of the yuan.

This is a bit simplistic, but basically what's happened is that the US dollar has fallen, due to our trade and budget defecits. However, the Chinese government has bought up many of our bonds to maintain the value of the yuan, since their policy is to peg the yuan to the dollar at a fixed exchange rate. They did this deliberately to lower the prices of Chinese goods overseas and therefore increase their exports. Otherwise, you'd have a situation like the euro-dollar, where the euro has appreciated in relation to the dollar, and this has caused european goods to be more expensive in the united states.

However, China cannot continue doing this without serious inflationary consequences, which would lead to serious social and political consequences.

Somehow, this thread is being sent to my e-mail. How do I stop this. Thanks.

[Faithless]

Unless I'm over simplifying the issue, Taiwan seeks to maintain its "liberty", and has been somewhat outspoken it. But does the US shout, "Raw, raw! Go! Taiwan Go!"?

No, rather:

The US State Department issued a statement on Monday evening defining US policy towards Taiwan and reminding Mr Chen that Washington "does not support Taiwan's independence and opposes unilateral changes to the status quo by either Taiwan or Beijing".

Taiwan president rebuked by US for China speech (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a3cbfa64-92c7-11da-a8ff-0000779e2340.html)


By Mac William Bishopin Taipei | Published: February 1 2006 02:00 | Last updated: February 1 2006 02:00

Washington has delivered an exceptional rebuke to Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian after a speech in which he proposed abolishing a unification council with China, as well as other hardline policies.

The US State Department issued a statement on Monday evening defining US policy towards Taiwan and reminding Mr Chen that Washington "does not support Taiwan's independence and opposes unilateral changes to the status quo by either Taiwan or Beijing".

"We certainly weren't expecting [Mr Chen's speech] and we weren't consulted about it," Adam Ereli, spokesman for the US State Department, told reporters at a regular briefing.

Mr Chen, who has been espousing a harder line towards China since an electoral defeat in December, proposed at the weekend abolishing the National Unification Council, a non-official advisory body whose responsibility is to co-ordinate unification with China.

Mr Chen also called for Taiwan to join the United Nations under the name "Taiwan" - instead of the country's official title, the "Republic of China" - and for the drafting of a new constitution by the end of the year.

Mr Chen's Democratic Progressive Party and many supporters of Taiwan's independence view the "Republic of China" title, flag and constitution as relics of the Kuomintang, Taiwan's once-authoritarian ruling party, now its main opposition.

"Most Taiwanese people want to see the country pursue national dignity and enhance its Taiwanese consciousness," Mr Chen said.

China considers Taiwan part of its territory even though the island has been ruled as a de facto independent state since 1949. China has threatened to invade if Taipei declares formal independence.

The US, which is obliged by law to offer Taiwan a means of self-defence if its security is threatened, was unhappy with Mr Chen's speech. "We are pointing out, once again, that the US policy towards Taiwan is governed by our 'one China' policy, the Taiwan Relations Act and the three US-China joint communiqués," said Mr Ereli.

"We're issuing this [statement] in the wake of some comments by President Chen in Taiwan that we don't want to be inflammatory or send the wrong signal, so we thought it useful to reiterate US policy."

[haplesshobo]

Although I think Taiwan will eventually be unified with the motherland, it's not gonna happen untill China becomes a democracy because people in Taiwan doesn't want to kow tow to Beijing and become a second HK.


Well, that's making the assumption that Taiwan would eventaully want to unite with China.

That may have have been true fifty years ago, twenty, and ten years ago. But, today, when I visit Taiwan, I see a change in the air where more and more people regard themselves as Taiwanese, instead of Chinese. There's a growing sense of independence, which would have been unthinkable fifty years ago and its only going to continue to grow.

When will China become a democracy? If it takes fifty years, then by then, it might be too late.

What reasons would Taiwan want to unite with China? There's the whole motherland argument, but that seems to grow weaker with time. If China can't use that anymore effectively, what other reasons would Taiwan want to unite with China?

[SunWuKong]

Unless I'm over simplifying the issue, Taiwan seeks to maintain its "liberty", and has been somewhat outspoken it. But does the US shout, "Raw, raw! Go! Taiwan Go!"?

the official term they use is "sovereignty". but yes, it basically means they want to maintain their de-facto independence.

in a sense you can say the US is being hypocritical that it maintains an official position that Taiwan is a part of China, yet at the same time sells arms to Taiwan. but really, it's just politics.

[Faithless]

In accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act --

U.S. to continue arms sales to Taiwan: Pentagon (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2007/12/23/135999/U.S.-to.htm)
Sunday, December 23, 2007
CNA

WASHINGTON -- The United States will continue its arms sales to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act to help Taiwan defend itself against China's military threat, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Friday.

Speaking during a news conference in response to a question about the recent developments in U.S.-China relations, Gates said that Chinese officials again raised the issue of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan during his recent visit to China.

"I was very explicit that our arms sales were consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and the joint statement and that as long as they continued to build up their forces on their side of the Taiwan Strait, we would continue to give Taiwan the resources necessary to defend itself," Gates said.
...
But does the US send mixed signals?

On the one hand, we're more than willing to sell arms to Taiwan to defend itself. But how do we feel about Taiwan being a member of the United Nations?

Taiwan Regrets US Opposition to Referendum Move (http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-12-22-voa11.cfm)
By VOA News | 22 December 2007

Taiwan's foreign minister expressed regret Saturday about remarks by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposing the island's referendum to join the United Nations.
...
My thought: If we can give Taiwan arms to possibly defend itself against Chinese aggression, why not give Taiwan a more peaceful means of defending itself through the UN?

[AngryABCGirl]

My thought: If we can give Taiwan arms to possibly defend itself against Chinese aggression, why not give Taiwan a more peaceful means of defending itself through the UN?

I don't think the US sells Taiwan arms to defend itself against Chinese aggression. The US needs markets for its defense manufacturers.

And the Taiwan government needs to stop with these idiotic UN bids and focus on things like the lagging economy and education system and be more responsible about serving the people than spending vying for support with resolutions that are doomed to failure.

[SunWuKong]

as a side-note: so who is seen as a "successor" to Ah Bian? now that Ma Ying Jeou has been acquitted even after appeal, Ah Bian's going-out-with-a-bang is losing steam.

[AngryABCGirl]

as a side-note: so who is seen as a "successor" to Ah Bian? now that Ma Ying Jeou has been acquitted even after appeal, Ah Bian's going-out-with-a-bang is losing steam.

謝長廷/Frank Hsieh: http://www.frankhsieh.com/

He's actually lot more moderate than A-Bian. I don't think it would be a disaster like A-Bian if he were elected and he has favored less hostile stances to the Mainland and wants better relations. He says a lot of the same party rhetoric, but he largely gives the impression he's a lot less 台獨 or pro-independent than Mr. Chen.

[Faithless]

I don't think the US sells Taiwan arms to defend itself against Chinese aggression. The US needs markets for its defense manufacturers.
I can believe that.

And the Taiwan government needs to stop with these idiotic UN bids and focus on things like the lagging economy and education system and be more responsible about serving the people than spending vying for support with resolutions that are doomed to failure.
Chen's new year's address (http://english.www.gov.tw/e-Gov/index.jsp?categid=176&recordid=104001). Talks again of the possible referendum and ideas on bettering certain aspects of his country.

[haplesshobo]

But does the US send mixed signals?


Of coures, its about sending mixed signals. The US doesn't want to show its hand- if it comes out and says it will protect Taiwan no matter what, then Taiwan would feel liberated to push for independence. Or, if the US comes out and says it won't protect Taiwan, then China could feel that it could threaten and invade Taiwan without US intervention. By sending mixed signals, neither Taiwan or China knows exactly what the US will do and thus cannot push its advantage.

[Faithless]

No, "mixed signals" as in purporting to support freedom everywhere, as Bush has often mentioned.

[haplesshobo]

No, "mixed signals" as in purporting to support freedom everywhere, as Bush has often mentioned.

So, let me get this straight...

You really don't give a shit about Taiwan, but instead are using this sensitive topic to take another cheapshot at Bush. :rolleyes:

[Faithless]

So, let me get this straight...

You really don't give a shit about Taiwan, but instead are using this sensitive topic to take another cheapshot at Bush. :rolleyes:
Of course I care.

You really are a flamer, aren't you?

[haplesshobo]

Of course I care.

Bullshit.

I answered what I thought was a legitimate question only to find out it was another weak, unrelated cheapshot at Bush that had nothing to do with Taiwan.


You really are a flamer, aren't you?

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

[yoMAMA]

Taiwan should stop wasting all those money on useless arm purchases.

[SunWuKong]

Taiwan should stop wasting all those money on useless arm purchases.

to be fair, China should stop stockpiling across the strait as well. both China and Taiwan can better spend that money by investing it back into their economies.

i think the Chinese government wants more economic integration with Taiwan, but the independence-minded Taiwanese fear economic dependence on China. in reality, any fool can see that the Chinese and Taiwanese economies have a co-dependent relationship. second to Hong Kong, Taiwan is mainland China's biggest investor by a longshot, and mainland China's economy is still driven by FDI at the moment.

[Faithless]

Bullshit.

I answered what I thought was a legitimate question only to find out it was another weak, unrelated cheapshot at Bush that had nothing to do with Taiwan.
...
Not a cheapshot, weirdo. Legitimate point.

Bush claims the reason that we're in Iraq is to secure Iraqi freedom. Yet, he doesn't feel Taiwan would be worth the same defense backing. He ought to be more consistent. But he can't because he's disengenuous.

You see, that's why I drop negative karma on you. You don't discuss things at YW. You look to cutdown people when they argue with your position.