Do you support Taiwan's independence?

[Jung Rhee]

Do you all support Taiwan's independence???? and why?


US dismay at China's Taiwan law http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4331443.stm

Wang Zhaoguo gave few details of the proposed law
The US has reacted with dismay to an anti-secession law that would allow China to use force against Taiwan.
The White House described the planned law as "unhelpful", while a military chief warned about what he termed China's "significant" military growth.

US legislation obliges it to resist any use of force by China against Taiwan, and provide a means of defence.

China sees Taiwan as its territory, and has threatened to use force if the island formally declares independence.

Chinese legislators said that force would only be used as a last resort, if peaceful reunification efforts failed.

'New tension'

In separate statements, White House spokesman Scott McClellan and state department official Richard Boucher criticised the law.

Both branded the proposed legislation "unhelpful".

"We oppose any attempts to determine the future of Taiwan by anything other than peaceful means," Mr McClellan told reporters.

TAIWAN-CHINA RELATIONS
Ruled by separate governments since end of Chinese civil war in 1949
China considers the island part of its territory
China has offered a "one country, two systems" solution, like Hong Kong
Most people in Taiwan support status quo


Beijing's Taiwan tribulations
Taiwan Flashpoint
China In Depth

Mr Boucher said the state department had made it clear to Chinese and Taiwanese officials that passing legislation "is not going to help solve the problem".

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is reported to be planning a visit to China later this month.

Earlier, Taiwanese lawmakers responded quickly and angrily to the proposed legislation, saying it was a pretext for attack.

"It has caused tension in the region," said Chiu Tai-shan, vice-chairman of Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council.

"Communist China tries to use this bill to deny the sovereignty of the Republic of China [Taiwan] and unilaterally change the status quo of the Taiwan Strait," he added.

'Anti-secession' bill

The draft law - known as the "anti-secession law" - is designed to spell out the legal steps required before China would take action against Taiwan.

The proposed law does not give details of what developments might trigger Chinese action.

Delegates to the National People's Congress were told on Tuesday that China "shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures" if hopes for peaceful reunification were "completely exhausted". Some analysts said China's emphasis on "non-peaceful" means appeared designed to include alternatives to military force, such as blockades or sanctions.

No sovereign state can tolerate secession, and every sovereign state has the right to use necessary means to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity

Wang Zhaoguo
Chinese legislator


Excerpts from statement

Announcing the bill, senior legislator Wang Zhaoguo argued that China's basic policy towards Taiwan remained the "one country, two systems" formula, as employed in Hong Kong.

Also on Tuesday Admiral William Fallon, head of the US Pacific Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington that ongoing Chinese military procurement was a "cause for concern".

China has concentrated on building up its maritime capabilities, acquiring submarines and aircraft from Russia, as well as building its own.

"It seems to be more than might be required for their defence," Reuters news agency reported Adm Fallon as saying.



E-mail this to a friend

[SunWuKong]

the CCP is really just putting down on paper what its current policy is anyway.

[Jung Rhee]

I believe the Bush/Condi neo cons are covertly pushing for Taiwan's independence, even though they act like they are against that on the surface. We will see it in the next 4 years.

[SunWuKong]

I believe the Bush/Condi neo cons are covertly pushing for Taiwan's independence, even though they act like they are against that on the surface. We will see it in the next 4 years.

no i think they just want the status quo. any upset to the balance will be bad for business for the US.

[Jung Rhee]

I think US business is a minor concern for the neo cons. World domination is their new thinking.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I think US business is a minor concern for the neo cons. World domination is their new thinking.

How can you dominate the world without keeping US business as a primary concern?~

[hooligan]

I'm out the door on this one. I think whether or not there is going to be Independence, there's going to be one hell of a ride to resolve this problem

[Jung Rhee]

How can you dominate the world without keeping US business as a primary concern?~

Trade and business with China are the last things in Neocon's mind, pre-emptive war and military might are the principles of their doctrine. Neo-con William Kristol has written that the US should
"work for the fall of the Communist Party oligarchy in China".

"Published on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 by Foreign Policy In Focus
Cornering the Dragon
by Conn Hallinan

When newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss recently warned that China’s modernization of its military posed a direct threat to the U.S., was it standard budget time scare tactics? Or did it signal the growing influence of hard-liners in the Bush administration who want to “contain” China and re-institute the Cold War in Asia?
A day later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld delivered a similar message to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Rumsfeld claimed that within a decade the Chinese navy could surpass the U.S. Navy, and that China was “increasingly moving their navy further from shore.”

The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review will reportedly take a similarly alarmist view of China’s military.

The CIA and Pentagon assessments offer nothing particularly new in their military analysis of China. However, both specifically excluded any mention of U.S.-China cooperation around North Korea or last year’s CIA analysis that growing economic ties between China and the U.S. made military conflict less likely.

“It is a little surprising,” James Steinberg, former national security advisor in the Clinton administration told the Financial Times, “that it [the CIA assessment] didn’t say anything about the enormous emphasis China places on a stable international environment and constructive relations with the U.S.”

But not so surprising if the long battle between those in the Republican Party who favor engagement with China has begun to tip in favor of those who advocate confrontation and encirclement.

As Nation defense correspondent and Hampshire College Professor Michael Klare pointed out back in 2001, this division in the GOP goes back to the earliest days of the Cold War. For some two decades the hard-liners, with their close ties to Chang Kai Sheck, dominated U.S.-China policy. But lured by the potential of China’s markets, and anxious to widen the Sino-Soviet division, the engagement wing of the party seized the initiative with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s trip to China in 1971, establishing relations with Peking.

The old confrontationist “China lobby” was hardly dead, however. Using the immense wealth of the Scalife, Olin, and Carthage foundations under the umbrella of the highly influential American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the “lobby” recruited a group of well-placed, powerful political figures.

AEI members include neoconservative icons like Lynne Cheney, Charles Murry, Michael Novak, Irving Kristol, Ben Wattenberg, Frank Gaffney, and Michael Ledeen.

The AEI is closely aligned with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the group that successfully lobbied for “regime change” in Iraq and argues that it is a strategic necessity for the U.S. to control the world’s oil supplies.

PNAC, the brainchild of AEI’s Kristol, includes among its members Vice President Dick Cheney, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former State Department officials Richard Armitage and John Bolton, and other leading administration figures like Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, and Zalmay Khalilzad, presently U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan.

The confrontationist’s goals are much the same as they were in the opening years of the Cold War: ring China with military bases, support Taiwanese independence, and, in Kristol’s words, “Work for the fall of the Communist Party oligarchy in China.”

In short: corner the dragon.

Recent events suggest that the confrontationist wing is back in the driver’s seat.

Containment Redux?

Goss’s and Rumsfeld’s characterization of China contradict last year’s conclusions of the administration’s Independent Task Force on Chinese Military Power headed up by former defense secretary Harold Brown and retired admiral Joseph Prueher. The panel found that while China is modernizing its military, it is 20 years behind the U.S., and that “the balance between the United States and China, both globally and in Asia, is likely to remain decisively in America’s favor beyond the next 20 years.”

China’s military budget is less than one tenth that of the U.S. and it does not have a massive arms industry, preferring to purchase submarines, destroyers, aircraft, and high performance anti-aircraft missiles from Russia and Israel. In spite of Rumsfeld’s grim forecast, the Chinese navy is designed for defending its territorial waters, not projecting force elsewhere. While the U.S. has a dozen aircraft carriers, China has one, and an old obsolete Soviet one at that.

While China has deployed large numbers of intermediate range ballistic missiles facing Taiwan, most observers see this more as an attempt to intimidate the Taiwanese than as a prelude to invasion or a threat to U.S. forces in the region. The missiles are far too inaccurate to pose a military threat, on top of which Taiwan has become so central to China’s economy that any actual attack on the island would be an act of economic suicide.

Jonathan Pollack, director of the Strategic Research Department of the U.S. Naval War College, told the New York Times that while China did have the largest standing army in the world and was in the process of modernizing, “I don’t see these capabilities as the leading edge of a more comprehensive, long-term plan to either supplement U.S. military power in the Western Pacific or challenge U.S. power on a global scale,” adding, “Let’s not make them out to be 10 feet tall.”

The Bush administration has always had a somewhat schizophrenic approach to China, with one faction preaching engagement, the other confrontation. Early in his first term, Bush warned that the U.S. would do “whatever it took” to defend Taiwan, changed the designation of China from “strategic partner” to “strategic competitor,” and initiated a campaign of aggressive military surveillance which ultimately led to the downing of a Navy EP-3E spy plane on Hainan Island.

On the other hand, the administration has encouraged trade, welcomed China to the World Trade Organization, and up to recently, muted its rhetoric on Taiwan. Late last year, then Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Taiwan not to seek independence and that U.S. policy favored its “peaceful reunification” with China.

Trade and Powell notwithstanding, however, any close examination of the administration’s actions vis-à-vis China suggests the engagement wing is in eclipse.

A central goal of the confrontations has been to deploy an anti-ballistic missile shield (ABM) in Asia, which the administration is now in the process of doing. So far it has enlisted Japan and Australia in this effort, and is wooing India as well. While the rationale for the ABM is alleged to be North Korea, the real target is China’s 20 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs).

The strategy of ringing China with U.S. military bases is also well underway. Besides its traditional bases in Japan and South Korea, Guam has become, according to Pacific Commander Admiral William Fargo, a “power projection hub,” that will play an increasing role in Asia, with “geo-strategic importance.” The island already hosts B-52s, fighter planes, nuclear attack submarines, and the high altitude spy drone, the Global Hawk. Since Guam is a U.S. colony acquired during the Spanish American war, the military does not need permission for the buildup, as it would in Japan or Korea.

The U.S. is also attempting to build bases in Southeast and South Asia. While Indonesian authorities deny the story, the Singapore Times reports that the U.S. is presently negotiating to open a naval base on Sulawesi Island. It is also strengthening military ties to Thailand, Singapore, India, Sri Lanka, and Malaya.

The encirclement has also spread to Central Asia, an important source of oil and gas for China. The U.S. presently has bases in Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan, and military ties with Uzbekistan, according to Rumsfeld, are “growing stronger by the month.”

Several of these countries border China.

The Chinese response has been to increase their military budget, particularly in response to the U.S. ABM system. “Once the United States believes it has a strong spear and a strong shield,” Sha Zukang, a leading Chinese arms expert told the New York Times, “it could lead them to conclude that no one can hurt the United States and they can harm anyone they like anywhere in the world.”

The Chinese currently have 20 CSS-4 ICBMs, but appear to be increasing that force to between 75 and 100 missiles, as well as upgrading the CSS-4’s guidance systems. It is also only a matter of time before China puts multiple warheads (MIRVs) on their missiles, a deeply destabilizing move. MIRVing is a cost-effective way to overwhelm an ABM system, but one that can also tempt an adversary to launch a first-strike attack.

China is also deploying missile-firing submarines to offset the U.S. buildup in the Taiwan Straits.

The “containment” policies of the hawks have not damaged the growing Chinese economy—now the world’s third largest—or shaken the grip of the Chinese Communist Party. But they have accelerated an arms race in the region, fueled growing nationalist movements in both China and Japan, and raised the stakes of any potential clash over Taiwan.

The last time the “China Lobby” tried to contain China, it was a country devastated by World War II and its own civil war. Today it is a nuclear-armed giant, whose economic growth has lifted economies from Tokyo to Rio de Janeiro. Americans need to ask themselves: Is it really a good idea to push that dragon into a corner?

Conn Hallinan is a foreign policy analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus, online at www.fpif.org, and a lecturer in journalism at the University of California, Santa Cruz."

It is a long article, I quote the following to get my point across.

"The confrontationist’s goals are much the same as they were in the opening years of the Cold War: ring China with military bases, support Taiwanese independence, and, in Kristol’s words, “Work for the fall of the Communist Party oligarchy in China.”

In short: corner the dragon. "

[yuuteya]

if its supported by the vast majority of taiwanese people and it helps them then sure, of course. but right now to do so would likely inflame the whole region, or in the least, cause accute instability, ie. china disapproving severely and making a severe reaction, and i think east asia does not need more instabilities. for example, those small islands (i wont name them out of respect for the other sides opinions) are next to taiwan and are defacto part of okinawa (sorry to say 'part' i dont mean to offend but thats how i see it). what happens in taiwan can easily affect okinawa... anyway asian people should do whatever they can to maintain and protect peaceful coexistence.

we are all interconnected these days, so what one state does unilaterally can easily affect others, its a big interconnected asian relationship web. very delicate. so taiwanese independence is happy and good when the regional context is ready for it. sorry, but the question is when? but are taiwanese ok about waiting a bit (or alot)? it might not be an acceptable 'solution' that makes everyone satisfied, but in the interests of all asian peoples peace and well being in the whole region...please consider at least

[SunWuKong]

i actually think the anti-succession law is a smart move on the part of the CCP. instead of saying they're going to attack, this time they're making a law. it's a more peaceful move.

[imturok]

We saw USSR split up, we saw European countries uniting.

To secede or not to secede is not the question. We should ask what is the most civilized solution the Taiwan population could find for themselves.

Not only do they have to consider what's best for themselves and their decendants, they have to consider what should be their responsibilities towards China, where they once belong and eventually their responsibilities to the world as a global community.

Some of you may disagree but the Chinese culture, at least in the past, cultivates selfishness. Chinese are like 'a pot of sand' while Japanese are compared to 'mud'. Breaking up, in-fighting is natural for Chinese.

As a consequence of population control in China, we can expect future generations in China to be closer to the state, compared to their 'clan' in the past. In contrast Taiwan would remain 'clanish'. Overcoming these and other obstacles would see both sides living happily withing a single frame-work.

I am for peaceful unification, not just China & Taiwn but for the global community.

[yoMAMA]

I'm against taiwan independence, and all for the eventuall peaceful reunification with the mainland.

china+taiwan=unbeatable future economic and military superpower.

[haplesshobo]

I don't know about others, but I get so sick of all the articles and talk surronding the sabre rattling of China against Taiwan, where it even appears in yahoo news and my local newspaper. If you just compare the military strength, nobody believes that China will be able to pull off the ambitious amphibious assault that such an invasion would require for at least another 7-8+ years. China has enough missles to destroy Taiwan, but there's no point in that if the objective is to reintegrate the island. We all know it won't happen soon, so why do they even bother to talk about it whenever there's some minor controversy.

This is my reasoning: to pull it off you'd need a clear superiority in the air and in the sea to pull it off, both numerically and technologically. Right now, China military is too big, and obsolete in some respects. Taiwan has always had access to America's military technology so they have the edge in this regard.

But, the balance is already starting to shift in China's favor, so in 10+ years, this probably won't be true anymore. China has started to rapidly upgrade its weapons, training, etc. with a budget of at least 26B (most analysts think its probably around 60-80B) compared to Taiwan's budget of 10B. And, Taiwan's econmy has stalled, so it doesn't have the money to keep up with the Chinese by purchasing all of the weapons America has offered to sell. China's growing economy gives it the ability to purchase and modernize its military forces.

But, untill then, let's not discuss it.

[Banana]

I don't think it's that big a deal either and it just seems the US is trying to overblow the situation in an effort to make China look threatening.

[SunWuKong]

I don't think it's that big a deal either and it just seems the US is trying to overblow the situation in an effort to make China look threatening.

well let's not forget, Taiwan has a lot of lobbying money in Washington, DC.

[loserbutt]

I'm for Taiwan independence if it can be done without war. It's odd, everyone harps about creating a "superpower" but whatever happened to freedom?

[yoMAMA]

I'm for Taiwan independence if it can be done without war. It's odd, everyone harps about creating a "superpower" but whatever happened to freedom?

Freedom is great.

That's why China will eventually reunify peacefully with Taiwan.....China will be a free, democratic superpower down the road.

[loserbutt]

maybe. but until then, hands off, mmmkay?

[AngryABCGirl]

If China didn't want to choke Taiwan to death, definitely. It already is independent in every way but paper. As corny American as this sounds, people have the right to choose what government they want to live under. Also for the people of Taiwan, they've had the opportunity to live under a freewheeling and prosperous society, nobody would want to give that up.

[yoMAMA]

If China didn't want to choke Taiwan to death, definitely. It already is independent in every way but paper. As corny American as this sounds, people have the right to choose what government they want to live under. Also for the people of Taiwan, they've had the opportunity to live under a freewheeling and prosperous society, nobody would want to give that up.

China and Taiwan are closer than ever, commerce wise.

Taiwan is one of the largest investors in mainland China, and economic integration between the two is ever increasing.

[SunWuKong]

China and Taiwan are closer than ever, commerce wise.

Taiwan is one of the largest investors in mainland China, and economic integration between the two is ever increasing.

make that the largest investor, if you do not count HK.

[AngryABCGirl]

China and Taiwan are closer than ever, commerce wise.

Taiwan is one of the largest investors in mainland China, and economic integration between the two is ever increasing.

Economic integration and commerce, while certainly important factors, ultimately are not reflectant of the lifestyles of people and what they want on different sides of the straits.

I'm a lot more sympathetic to the Taiwanese people considering how much higher their standard of living, opportunities, educational level, and individual freedoms is in comparsion to Mainland China and why they would not want to give those things up. It's like China can't friggin understand after people live under a democracy in a rich society, they really don't really feel not living under one anymore.

[yoMAMA]

Economic integration and commerce, while certainly important factors, ultimately are not reflectant of the lifestyles of people and what they want on different sides of the straits.

I'm a lot more sympathetic to the Taiwanese people considering how much higher their standard of living, opportunities, educational level, and individual freedoms is in comparsion to Mainland China and why they would not want to give those things up. It's like China can't friggin understand after people live under a democracy in a rich society, they really don't really feel not living under one anymore.

That's certainly true.

That's why the reunification will be a gradual affair, as long as both sides keep the dialouge open.

[iris]

Economic integration and commerce, while certainly important factors, ultimately are not reflectant of the lifestyles of people and what they want on different sides of the straits.

I'm a lot more sympathetic to the Taiwanese people considering how much higher their standard of living, opportunities, educational level, and individual freedoms is in comparsion to Mainland China and why they would not want to give those things up. It's like China can't friggin understand after people live under a democracy in a rich society, they really don't really feel not living under one anymore.


China would not want Taiwan to give up their lifestyle and capitalistic tendancies as you can see from the reunification of Hong Kong.

High GDP in a territory benefit the mainland too. Both HK and Taiwan are the largest investors in the development of China and without their capitalistic freedom, China would not have the influx of funds it needs to move into the 21st century.

China itself has open its doors wider to Western investment over the last ten years and is itself becoming more capitalistic. Lifestyle in Shanghai and parts of Beijing reflect those in HK or Taiwan.

I would not support a separation because Taiwan is unable to support/defend itself without the help of another country. Should that country be the US? I would think not. We should take care of domestic affairs before involving ourselves in imperialism however subtle.

The Taiwanese people are also split. It is not a great majority decision one way or another and to cause major rift in your own territory would give China an even stronger position than it has now. Without the support of a large majority of its own people and strong pressure from China means annexation issues have never officially come up to vote. This cannot be a 60/40 or even a 80/20 support. For something as important as tearing your country away from the Motherland, you better have nearly 100% support from your own people and they don't have it.

[bulldog]

maybe. but until then, hands off, mmmkay?

Interesting, you don't even live in Taiwan.

[yoMAMA]

China would not want Taiwan to give up their lifestyle and capitalistic tendancies as you can see from the reunification of Hong Kong.

High GDP in a territory benefit the mainland too. Both HK and Taiwan are the largest investors in the development of China and without their capitalistic freedom, China would not have the influx of funds it needs to move into the 21st century.

China itself has open its doors wider to Western investment over the last ten years and is itself becoming more capitalistic. Lifestyle in Shanghai and parts of Beijing reflect those in HK or Taiwan.

I would not support a separation because Taiwan is unable to support/defend itself without the help of another country. Should that country be the US? I would think not. We should take care of domestic affairs before involving ourselves in imperialism however subtle.

The Taiwanese people are also split. It is not a great majority decision one way or another and to cause major rift in your own territory would give China an even stronger position than it has now. Without the support of a large majority of its own people and strong pressure from China means annexation issues have never officially come up to vote. This cannot be a 60/40 or even a 80/20 support. For something as important as tearing your country away from the Motherland, you better have nearly 100% support from your own people and they don't have it.


Exactly!

:smile:

[AliBabaIncorporated]

I'm all in favour of reunification. That way I can take bets on how long it will be before the mainlanders get sick of the Taiwanese and throw them back out again.

[yoMAMA]

Actually back in the days of East Germany [DDR], the communist has always claimed that there was never a single Germany, and East Germany has always been a separate country from the West. I think they also said that “reunification with the West is impossible”.

Sounds like the reasoning Taiwan Independent proponents use right now.

[Jung Rhee]

I'm all in favour of reunification. That way I can take bets on how long it will be before the mainlanders get sick of the Taiwanese and throw them back out again.

Ouch! LOL does that come from your personal experience with the lovely Taiwanese people :rolleyes: ?

[Jung Rhee]

"Man, who does those Chinese think they are?

I mean, America gets to invade countries and topple regimes in the Middle East and China's talking about threatening a small island nation off its coast, to which the losing side in its civil war retreated several decades ago. Who do these people think they are?"

[yoMAMA]

"Man, who does those Chinese think they are?

I mean, America gets to invade countries and topple regimes in the Middle East and China's talking about threatening a small island nation off its coast, to which the losing side in its civil war retreated several decades ago. Who do these people think they are?"

seriously.....they don't know their place.

[AltimaGTR]

I'm all for independence so long as there's no war coming out of it. If not, I'm sure that YoMama's post about gradual reunification under a different China is defninitely feasible.

Here's my wierd-azz analogy to this situation: Taiwan is an island with a buncha houses, and China's got a plot of land set aside especially for Taiwan. The problem is, the plot of land that's set aside for Taiwan is still under construction and the houses are only half done, and they're telling the Taiwanese to move in immediately.

Oh, and before someone asks me: NO, I don't live in Taiwan, but with the exception of my parents and my bro, all my relatives are living there. I guess this post makes me out to be a greenie now.

[Jung Rhee]

I'm all for independence so long as there's no war coming out of it. If not, I'm sure that YoMama's post about gradual reunification under a different China is defninitely feasible.

Here's my wierd-azz analogy to this situation: Taiwan is an island with a buncha houses, and China's got a plot of land set aside especially for Taiwan. The problem is, the plot of land that's set aside for Taiwan is still under construction and the houses are only half done, and they're telling the Taiwanese to move in immediately.

Oh, and before someone asks me: NO, I don't live in Taiwan, but with the exception of my parents and my bro, all my relatives are living there. I guess this post makes me out to be a greenie now.

I like that "wierd-azz analogy"! :wink:

[BeTheReds]

Independence.

[Jung Rhee]

Independence.

Into the reds, I thought about that in Korean perspective before, if China and Taiwan are equal in size like South and North Korea. Should people still insist on Taiwan's independence, not reunification?
Does it imply that the two Koreas should become two different countries also?

I know everyone would choose democracy over dictatorship. If mainland China was a democracy, would Taiwan still want independence? :confused:

[yoMAMA]

Into the reds, I thought about that in Korean perspective before, if China and Taiwan are equal in size like South and North Korea. Should people still insist on Taiwan's independence, not reunification?
Does it imply that the two Koreas should become two different countries also?

I know everyone would choose democracy over dictatorship. If mainland China was a democracy, would Taiwan still want independence? :confused:

Some hardcore Taiwan independence supporters probably does not want to reunify with the mainland, no matter what.

But I think the majority wants to reunify with the mainland when China becomes a democracy.

[deez nuts]

i don't really care right now.

i just wanna focus on the two sides getting along first and then go from there.

[Faithless]

From Counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08112005.html) this quote:

Chinese general, Zhu Chenghu, said that if the US messes around with China or tries to interfere with China's reunification with Taiwan, China will nuke the US: "If the Americans are determined to interfere, then we will be determined to respond. We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."

China's nukes grow up (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2005/08/22/2003268758)

Beijing is upgrading its nuclear arsenal, and although its ability to menace the US with these weapons remains limited, some analysts say there is now a lot more to worry about

By Jonathan Adams * Monday, Aug 22, 2005,Page 9

When hawkish Chinese general Zhu Chenghu (朱成虎) said last month that Beijing might launch a nuclear attack against the US if the US attacked China, security experts dismissed the remarks as intimidation tactics. They said China wouldn't dare use its meager force of some 20 outdated ICBMs against the continental US, which would strike back with a massive arsenal that would wipe the Middle Kingdom off the map. More likely, China's force would be pulverized in its silos by US precision-guided weapons before it could be used.

True enough -- but such assessments are rapidly becoming obsolete. After some two decades of testing and development, China is on the verge of a major upgrade to its nuclear arsenal, a key part of its overall military modernization.

It's now believed to be deploying its next-generation ICBM, the Dong Feng 31 (DF-31), a mobile, solid-fueled missile with an estimated range of at least 7,250km -- capable of hitting Alaska. Within the next few years, China is expected to deploy the DF-31A, which will be able to strike Washington and New York. Within the next 10 years, it's expected to field new submarine-launched nuclear missiles. And while predictions of the size of China's new arsenal are at this point only wild guesses, experts believe it will boast easily double or triple the warheads of today's known force.

"This particular upgrade from silo-based missiles to mobile ICBMs is the most significant nuclear-force development in more than 20 years," says James Mulvenon of the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis in Washington.

That doesn't necessarily mean the US needs to go back to the days of "duck and cover" drills. China's new arsenal does not represent an aggressive threat to the US, analysts say. Rather, it reflects China's effort to keep pace with US military advances and protect its small force. But it's a coming of age for Beijing's nuclear program that will give it a far more credible deterrent against the US' advanced weaponry, and against the US intent to raise a missile-defense shield over North America. Where before China had a force of clunky ICBMs stuck in silos that made them sitting ducks for a lightning-quick preemptive strike, now it will have a sleek new arsenal on wheels and rail -- and later, hidden underwater.

DETERRENT

This force, like China's current one, will be targeted primarily at US population centers as a powerful deterrent to any rash US action, or if that fails, as desperate retaliation in a devastating nuclear showdown.

To be sure, based on how little is publicly known about China's nuclear program -- which Beijing shrouds in the utmost secrecy -- a healthy skepticism about its arsenal is in order.

"All of us are guessing, and the people who know aren't talking," says Jeffrey Lewis, a research fellow at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland in College Park.

In the past, reports of China's nuclear deployments have been greatly exaggerated. And even when it is fully deployed, the might of China's new arsenal shouldn't be overstated. While a major advance in the context of China's missile program, it still pales next to the arsenals mounted during the Cold War.

Says Evan Medeiros of the RAND Corp, a US think tank: "China finally deploying the DF-31 is kind of like China finally putting a man into space. It's like, `Congratulations, China, welcome to the 1960s.'"

Even if China keeps expanding its arsenal, it's not likely to match any time soon those of Russia or the US, which still bristle with thousands of warheads ready to lob at potential enemies.

So are concerns about China's new nukes alarmist? Not entirely, security experts say. No one would be paying much mind to China's buildup were it not for the possibility of a showdown over Taiwan. The island nation has been drifting slowly but steadily away from China, while Beijing has vowed to prevent a permanent break, by force if need be. The US is committed to sending its aircraft carriers to help defend Taiwan against an unprovoked attack. That adds up to a real, if remote, possibility for a three-way crisis that could play out in highly unpredictable ways.

Most ominously, such a conflict could lead to a Chinese nuclear threat. General Zhu's comments were made in the context of just such a nightmare scenario.

"Both China and the US are fully aware that Taiwan could be a trigger to escalate nuclear tension between the two powers," says Andrew Yang (楊念祖), secretary-general of the Chinese Council for Advanced Policy Studies in Taipei.

Moreover, while China publicly has a `no first use' nuclear policy, neither Chinese nor US analysts truly believe Beijing would honor that promise if push came to shove.

"No US military planner in their right mind would operate under the assumption that China in a time of warfare would hold to its `no first use' pledge," Medeiros says. "It's not irrational to expect China, in the dark days of a nasty conflict, to redefine the conditions under which its `no first use' pledge applies."

NOT CREDIBLE

One Chinese security expert who did not wish to be identified said Beijing should drop its `no first use' pledge because it simply isn't credible. Like General Zhu, the analyst thought that China should make clear that it would "retaliate with whatever means we have" if it felt its core national interests were threatened.

No wonder some experts are on edge.

"There are a lot of people who are worried about this," Mulvenon says. "We don't know nearly enough as we should about how this would play out in a crisis."

To be sure, such contemplations belong to the bleakest of doomsday scenarios. And analysts have pointed out that comments like Zhu's serve a useful psychological purpose: trying to make US planners believe China just might be crazy enough to nuke a US city.

In a crisis over Taiwan, most believe cool heads would prevail -- at least enough to keep a conflict conventional.

"Both the US and China would take very cautious steps, and be careful not to escalate the confrontation to a nuclear level," says Arthur Ding (丁樹範), a research fellow at National Chengchi University's Institute of International Relations in Taipei.

For that reason, security analysts tend to be more concerned about China's conventional buildup: its arsenal of short-range missiles on the coast across from Taiwan (now above 700 and counting), its growing submarine force and its mounting ability to wage asymmetrical warfare through cyberattacks and other means. In one line of thinking, China's new nuclear arsenal may even be a good thing, insofar as it makes Beijing feel more secure in its deterrent capabilities.

But for people paid to be pessimists, the possibility of tragic miscalculation, however slim, suggests a need for high-level, official US-China nuclear discussions and confidence-building measures, akin to those between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Too bad such talks don't appear to be happening. While defense officials from both sides meet regularly, nuclear issues aren't on the agenda, analysts say.

"There's no channel of dialogue on these issues between the US and China," Medeiros says. "And there needs to be."

According to Mulvenon, the Pentagon has on numerous occasions tried to engage Beijing in nuclear talks, but to no avail. That he chalks up to China's insecurity: For a country so outgunned by the US, Beijing sees little strategic interest in becoming more transparent. But with China putting the finishing touches on its new nuclear toys, and no solution to the Taiwan question in sight, a little more daylight could potentially go a long way.

.
The Taiwan newspaper article, having noted the China nuclear threat, would be ever so not-pleased to know this:

The US is okay with Westinghouse's plan to see two nuclear reactors to china... (http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=6921)

...
Meanwhile, the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced that the commission will approve Westinghouse's sale of two nuclear reactors to China.

Conservatives and Republicans think this is a good idea. Vice President Cheney has lobbied in behalf of the sale. It is good for private business. It means $2.4 billion in revenues for Westinghouse Electric Company.
...

[ahsingjai]

Another reason to not support Pan Green forces.

China has threaten Taiwan with nukes during the Pentagon reports that Taiwan could attack the Three Dam Gorge and kill millions of people.

China responded to this report and said if Taiwan were to attack the Three Dam Gorge, China will turn their skys black.

[kuilong]

The question is hard to address, since it's unclear exactly what "independence" and "reunification" mean. Over 70% of the Taiwanese already believe, for instance, that the ROC is an independent country.

I think some concrete steps that are possible right now are opening the Three Links (三通) and allowing the ROC to join the WHO.

[yoMAMA]

i have no problem with ROC taking over PRC, as long as it's one china, who takes over who doesn't matter.

[ahsingjai]

I rather have ROC and PRC switch places. Just I don't want Taiwan to become ROT.

[SunWuKong]

Chinese general, Zhu Chenghu, said that if the US messes around with China or tries to interfere with China's reunification with Taiwan, China will nuke the US: "If the Americans are determined to interfere, then we will be determined to respond. We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."

uhh..... speak for yourself.......

[John0101]

Taiwan is already independant there's really no doubt about that and to be honest I think Taiwanese nationalists just want to fight.

In my mind, Taiwan's independance is really about a clash of two superpowers. The up and coming China flexing it's muscle by its imperalist ways by threatening Taiwan, America's little ally and vital political and economic interest in the Far East.

[ahsingjai]

Taiwan is already independant there's really no doubt about that and to be honest I think Taiwanese nationalists just want to fight.

In my mind, Taiwan's independance is really about a clash of two superpowers. The up and coming China flexing it's muscle by its imperalist ways by threatening Taiwan, America's little ally and vital political and economic interest in the Far East.

The Nationalist, you mean KMT? It's only DPP that wants to promote Independence.

Taiwan is no way a superpower.

[Tao]

^ i think he meant the US is using taiwan as it's pawn. but then again, that's nothing new.

[ahsingjai]

^ i think he meant the US is using taiwan as it's pawn. but then again, that's nothing new.

Chen Shui-Bian is a U.S CIA puppet!

[deez nuts]

Chinese general, Zhu Chenghu, said that if the US messes around with China or tries to interfere with China's reunification with Taiwan, China will nuke the US: "If the Americans are determined to interfere, then we will be determined to respond. We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."


lol. the united states will fuck china up. though out of all the other countries china might stand the best chance against the united states in a war scenerio, it's still no contest.

[John0101]

The Nationalist, you mean KMT? It's only DPP that wants to promote Independence.

Taiwan is no way a superpower.

I ment a clash between the US and China.

[ahsingjai]

lol. the united states will fuck china up. though out of all the other countries china might stand the best chance against the united states in a war scenerio, it's still no contest.

Give China 10 years, after European Weapons Ban lifts and Israel/Russia sells more advance technology. I wouldn't think so.

By then, I'll be 30 years old and cannot be drafted. rofl.

[deez nuts]

Give China 10 years, after European Weapons Ban lifts and Israel/Russia sells more advance technology. I wouldn't think so.

By then, I'll be 30 years old and cannot be drafted. rofl.

i guess.

but, 10 years is a lot of catching up and the united states will be constantly improving and advancing too.

maybe the chinese can invent a time machine and stop time here in the united states.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Maybe they could just settle the matter with a Warcraft LAN tournament. The best US players fight the best Chinese players in a game of real-time strategy. The winner gets to determine the future of East Asia.

And to answer the original question, I support Taiwanese independence but recognize the political impracticality of it. I think economics make the joining of the two nations inevitable, but I don't see how it's desirable to throw away a fairly stable democracy just to appease the ego of a totalitarian state. I would prefer that Taiwan postpone and delay reunification as long as that means that the PRC/CCP will govern Taiwan the way it has suppressed self-determinaton in Hong Kong.

[ahsingjai]

i guess.

but, 10 years is a lot of catching up and the united states will be constantly improving and advancing too.

maybe the chinese can invent a time machine and stop time here in the united states.

China is dishing out 10 Ph.Ds for every U.S Ph.D.

China is speeding up and U.S is slowing down. The U.S educational system is going down hill. Tutition is rising like hell. Admission is lowing. A lot of UC rejections for Class of 2004 and 2005 from what I heard from people. U.S Deployment of their military is spread out thin while China is concentrated at home.

China revalued their yuan, making oil much cheaper for U.S

U.S is at a backward policy on regulating their Oil consumption. Part blame on the SUVs, since in the 90s, they only make up 5% of usage and now its 55%. Using up at a figure I've saw somewhere as high as 14% of our oil.

[Martino]

Give China 10 years, after European Weapons Ban lifts and Israel/Russia sells more advance technology. I wouldn't think so.

By then, I'll be 30 years old and cannot be drafted. rofl.

Uh ... if you're talking about an actual conflict, then surely you're saying you'll be 30 years old and on the receiving end of a Chinese superweapon of some sort?

Your last words will be something like "Rats, I didn't think of tha---"

[bluemonq]

i'm all in favor of waiting on this 'til a few years after 2047.

[ahsingjai]

Uh ... if you're talking about an actual conflict, then surely you're saying you'll be 30 years old and on the receiving end of a Chinese superweapon of some sort?

Your last words will be something like "Rats, I didn't think of tha---"

No, it would be. aiyah.

If it does become a nuclear war, the world will end. Or hopefully California will seperate from the U.S by then.

[yoMAMA]

lol. the united states will fuck china up. though out of all the other countries china might stand the best chance against the united states in a war scenerio, it's still no contest.

yep, but why should china fight a nuclear war with the U.S when it can keep sending cheap craps to walmart and adding more $$$$ to its huge money piles (now over 700B $)? :biggrin:

I think sun tzu said something like "the best way to defeat an enemy is to do it without using a single solider".

also, I suspect CCP will be playing a divide and conquer game in taiwan, using the KMT to fight the DDP and eventually peacefully unite Taiwan.

heck, I think PRC should change its name to ROC.

VＩＶＡ 中華民囯！

and name ah bian to a token post such as health minister ;)

[ahsingjai]

and name ah bian to a token post such as health minister ;)

Trash disposal.

[deez nuts]

China is dishing out 10 Ph.Ds for every U.S Ph.D.

China is speeding up and U.S is slowing down. The U.S educational system is going down hill. Tutition is rising like hell. Admission is lowing. A lot of UC rejections for Class of 2004 and 2005 from what I heard from people. U.S Deployment of their military is spread out thin while China is concentrated at home.

China revalued their yuan, making oil much cheaper for U.S

U.S is at a backward policy on regulating their Oil consumption. Part blame on the SUVs, since in the 90s, they only make up 5% of usage and now its 55%. Using up at a figure I've saw somewhere as high as 14% of our oil.

cool 10 Ph.D's for every one US Ph.D. that time machine is closer than i thought.

awesome.

[John0101]

There's never going to be a full scale war between China and the U.S. because the cost of a full scale war is just too great, China's and the U.S. relationship is mutually beneficial. Any conflict arises between the U.S. and China will be regional and isolated. And perhaps based on money and sphere of influence more then anything else.

Regardless if China is dishing out 10 Phds for every 1 Phd the U.S. is producing, capital inflow into manufactoring is whats driving China's economy. They are the low cost producers of the world which is driven by low cost workers not Phds.

[ahsingjai]

Regardless if China is dishing out 10 Phds for every 1 Phd the U.S. is producing, capital inflow into manufactoring is whats driving China's economy. They are the low cost producers of the world which is driven by low cost workers not Phds.

The future depends on China's research and development, not the increase of factory output.

[Faithless]

Scare tactic. Or credible?

Look it. If the US can dare go to war with Iraq. What's to say that China can't do the same against Taiwan?

The problem is -- how could China frame it such that the world would say, "Okay, we'll look the other way."

...
Initially, the plan (for China) was to conduct the (joint military) exercises (with Russia) in Zhejiang, which is across the straits from Taiwan, but China realized that this might be viewed as too confrontational.
...

Visiting Chinese Leader Preparing for War, Scholar Says (http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-8-31/31795.html)

By Gary Feuerberg * The Epoch Times, Washington DC Staff * Aug 31, 2005

A well-known Chinese dissident asserted that visiting Chinese leader Hu Jintao is preparing for a war with Taiwan.

Hu, who is the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party will be in the U.S. for a little more than a week, visit with President Bush at the White House on Sep 7, and address the United Nations on Sep 14th. A number of well-known Chinese figures spoke of their opinions of Hu at a Saturday forum, sponsored by the Washington Forum and The Epoch Times at the Montgomery County Council Office Building in Rockville.

Wei Jingsheng, Chairman of the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition and perhaps China’s most renowned dissident, spoke (via phone – due to illness, he could not attend the forum) of a number of actions Hu’s government was taking to prepare for war.

State-owned factories in southern China, which are virtually bankrupt, have been receiving orders for weapons production for the past two years. This military build-up is in step with the recent March law against Taiwan secession. Additionally, China has recently conducted joint military exercises with its old ally, Russia, on the Shandong Peninsula, an area similar and not too far from Taiwan.

Initially, the plan was to conduct the exercises in Zhejiang, which is across the straits from Taiwan, but China realized that this might be viewed as too confrontational.

In addition, Wei asserted, China is attempting to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe so as to prevent their united opposition to its invasion of Taiwan. For example, China is strongly opposed to Europe’s arms embargo on it and is trying to get the European Union to rescind the ban. Yet China’s foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing, admitted that China really didn’t want these weapons and didn’t have the money to buy them anyway! The reason for the China’s complaint, according to Wei, is to drive a wedge between the United States, which is upset with the European Union for considering lifting the ban, and its European allies.

Chen Kuide, Chief Editor of the internet magazine Observation and executive chairman of the Princeton China Initiative, explained how Hu Jintao has carefully worked his way to the top and is attempting to consolidate his power. Chen believes the Chinese Communist system has two reference points: Mao Zedong on the left, and Deng Xiaoping on the right. Chen thinks that the vision of any CCP leader is constrained by this left-right framework.

“For more than two decades, people see that when Mao’s leftist ruling leads to serious grievances and complaints from the people, Deng’s method will ensue,” said Chen, referring to a focus on economic development. “When corruption becomes rampant as a result of economic development, and...the rich-poor gap gets too wide, the CCP leaders return again to Maoism…The leadership keeps swinging between the two poles.”

Maoism leads to impoverishment, violence, the Cultural Revolution, China looking inward, ideology, and repression. Deng Xioaping’s policies, by contrast, are much less ideological and more practical, look more outward to the world, and were responsible for China’s economic boom. China’s communist history can be understood as its leaders swinging from one pole to the other.

Hu Jintao, who Chen believes is no more than an opportunist, wants to shift the country back to the Mao pole. This is due to the general social discontent in the country and the widening gap between the rich and poor.

“The right is much more vulnerable now,” said Chen. When Hu first took power, he made a pilgrimage to “holy” sites of Communist Party’s history. He tightened up the CCP’s media control, stating in an official speech how the Party can learn from the example of North Korea in terms of ideological control. He tightened up the cooling down of macro-economic overheating using political methods. He wants to arrest economic reforms. He continues the policies of his predecessor, Jiang Zemin, of the brutal persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.

Chen observed that the CCP leaders are unable to get beyond the two pole reference and “become integrated into the mainstream of the international political arena and bring a new order to China’s political scene.” This new order would go beyond Mao-Deng dichotomy and introduce democracy to the political landscape. As it is now, the country is nearly completely surrounded by democracies: Taiwan, Japan, and India. While democracy is generally accepted as the only legitimate form of government by developed nations, Deng Xiaoping wasn’t able to take this step and massacred the democracy activists in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Zhang Tianliang, a writer for the The Epoch Times (Chinese), told an interesting anecdote that he thought revealed something of Hu Jintao’s humanity. In September 1967, Deng Xiaoping family was forced out of the Zhongnanhai, the central government compound in Beijing. In September 1968, a group of red guards incarcerated Deng Xiaoping’s son, Deng Pufang, in a lab active with radioactive poisonous materials and closed the door. Deng Pufang knew that if he stayed too long in the room, he would die. So he tried to escape through the window. He fell to the ground from about 8 meters height, and his spine was severely damaged.

Zhang tells the story, “At that time, Hu Jintao borrowed a three-wheel bicycle with a loading deck and took Deng Pufang to the hospital. Hu did not say a word to Deng because at that time, Hu was also persecuted by the internal struggles of the CCP. He would bring himself more trouble if he said anything to Deng. However, Hu carried his ID with his name on his chest. Deng remembered the name. Hu saved Deng son’s life. When I heard this anecdote, I didn’t know whether it was true. But I found a similar story in the “Hong Kong Economic Journal” on January 30, 1994. Later on, Hu was promoted by Deng and became a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) at the age of 40. Also, at age 43, he became the youngest Provincial Secretary.”

From this story, we see Hu’s humanity, said Zhang. “He didn’t choose to ignore Deng because of internal struggles. Although he took a huge risk, he did what a human being should do.”

On April 25, 1999, more than 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners appealed to the National Appealing Bureau, which was the first mass appeal of Falun Gong and demonstrated its huge following. It was also the same date of a Tsinghua University alumni reunion where Hu and his wife met a Falun Gong practitioner, Zhang Mengye, who introduced Falun Gong to them. On the night of April 25, Hu saw the TV news about the appeal. Zhang described Hu calling Zhang Mengye to tell him “to take care of himself.” Zhang concluded that there is still a difference between Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin, and that the core evil in communism hadn’t yet penetrated Hu’s humanity.

[AltimaGTR]

War? Well, I could see the joint military exercises and weapons production as preparing for one, but I don't think any country is eager to jump into one.

[ahsingjai]

Interesting how the article said China didn't have the money to buy the european weapons. I know Hu Jintao isn't like the previous leaders, I heard he was "the man of the people" and looked at society's needs and worked towards them.

There was a article about Hu jintao's policies compared against Bush's. A big difference in leadership.

To me, I don't think Hu Jintao will let a war happen. But one person can't control a outcome, and I have no doubt he would be forced to go to war if Chen Shui-Bian is reckless. Also unfortunate if Bush interpets the TRA as a way for U.S to send military force to "self-defend" Taiwan.

Bush has flip flop on the issue of the U.S role in TRA, mainly because U.S doesn't want China to know the offical stance of the U.S involvement to keep China on their toes.

The Bush adminstration once said something simliar to this quote "If Taiwan believes that if they were to change the status quo and expect U.S to defend them, they are wrong."

China warns US over Taiwan arms
By Nick Childs
BBC World Affairs correspondent

A Chinese official has issued a new warning over US arms sales to Taiwan.

In a broad policy document on arms control, China also says it is against any government providing Taiwan with missile defences.

The statements comes ahead of Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to Washington next week, for talks with US President George W Bush.

The summit will be a very significant meeting, testing the diplomatic waters between the two nations.

On Thursday, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman again called on the US to stop selling advanced weapons to Taiwan.

Beijing has also come out with a broad policy document that looks like a direct answer to the recent drumbeat of warnings from Washington over China's military modernisation plans.

It insists Beijing is pursuing what it calls "moderate" increases in defence spending, reiterates a policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, and says essentially that the outside world has nothing to fear - China will never seek hegemony, as it puts it.

Warning

But here, too, there is a warning over Taiwan - that governments, again by implication the US, should not include it in any missile defence plans. Washington has justified its offer to upgrade Taiwan's defences, in part because of what it sees as a threatening build-up of missile forces on China's side of the Taiwan Straits.

And the Pentagon's latest report on China's military modernisation described it not only as a potential threat to Taiwan, but also as a threat to other major powers in the region, and the US presence there as well.

The military and strategic tensions between the two are, of course, just one element in what is a hugely complex, developing, and potentially antagonistic relationship between an emerging giant and the world's only current superpower - one which each side appears still to be grappling to contend with.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/4204612.stm

[yoMAMA]

epoch times is not exactly a very credible source......

[Faithless]

I always find it interesting how the issue of independence seems to be lost on Bush when talking about Taiwan.

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing meets in New York with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly yesterday and both agreed to further strengthen bilateral ties.

China, US agree to further strengthen bilateral ties (http://english.eastday.com/eastday/englishedition/node20676/userobject1ai2330528.html)

...
As to the Taiwan issue, Li Zhaoxing said that China appreciates the U.S. stance of maintaining the One-China policy and opposing Taiwan independence. China hopes that the United States will abide by its commitments and handle the Taiwan issue with caution, Li Zhaoxing said.
...

[Faithless]

A retired FSO's take (http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2006/0406/fsj/jue_onechina.html) on the One China policy.

Of course, this is looking back at the issue, but are they playing by these rules?

...
Pres. Bush recently told a questioner: “I am convinced the cross-strait issue can be solved peacefully. It is just going to take some time to do. And we will continue to work to see to it that it [is resolved].” Toward that end, there should not be any illusions or false expectations on our part. Over the next five years, the U.S. must remain vigilant while encouraging the two rivals to build trust. Although there is growing pressure within some circles for a higher level of U.S. engagement in cross-strait relations, there is no urgent need to do so or to micromanage the relationship. Our longstanding policy, based on caution, firmness and balance, as articulated and endorsed by seven administrations, is working, albeit not perfectly. The longer all three governments avoid taking precipitous action that could disrupt the status quo, the brighter the prospects of long-term peace and stability throughout the region.
Didn't know it was also consider the "cross-strait" issue.

[haplesshobo]

\
Look it. If the US can dare go to war with Iraq. What's to say that China can't do the same against Taiwan?

The problem is -- how could China frame it such that the world would say, "Okay, we'll look the other way."


China really doesn't have to frame it that much because the rest of the world will pretty much end up looking the other way anyways because they want to do business with China. Look at what happened with Iraq. Some countries ended up sending their troops because they wanted to strengthen or continue their strong relationship with the US. With Taiwan, its not like China is going to be asking other countries to send troops in. I guess you could even argue there was a backlash in those countries that mostly strongly opposed the US going into Iraq. In France and Germany, the last elections have produced more pro-American leaders.

[CBC guy]

The PRC can bluster all it wants, but for all practical reasons a war probably will not break out. Too many costs for both sides. (China and US).

As for Taiwan, I personally am fine with the status quo.

[raacluse]

coincidentally, I just ran across some interesting stuff about US "intervention" in Taiwan in the 70s, regarding nuclear research. (Makes you wonder about the limitations of US relations with Pakistan and Iran over nuclear processing development.)

U.S. Opposed Taiwanese Bomb during 1970s
Declassified documents show persistent U.S. intervention to discourage suspicious nuclear research. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/index.htm)

[huangalex]

I don't think it's as big a deal as the PRC claims; they're obviously playing up the issue to foster nationalistic sentiment. The PRC gov't is ineffective and corrupt.

But Taiwan is facing an economic setback and has no way to survive or prosper the next few decades unless it allies with the PRC. The government in Taiwan is a joke anyways; the congressmen are literally clowns. Christ they get up in costumes and throw snacks at each other.

I don't see what's the big fuss against being a province of China. Everyone speaks Mandarin, and even Taiwanese is just Min-Nan spoken also in Fujian. Taiwan's history and heritage are irrevocably tied with China. They should just accept their common roots.

[Thanol]

I don't think it's as big a deal as the PRC claims; they're obviously playing up the issue to foster nationalistic sentiment. The PRC gov't is ineffective and corrupt.

But Taiwan is facing an economic setback and has no way to survive or prosper the next few decades unless it allies with the PRC. The government in Taiwan is a joke anyways; the congressmen are literally clowns. Christ they get up in costumes and throw snacks at each other.

I don't see what's the big fuss against being a province of China. Everyone speaks Mandarin, and even Taiwanese is just Min-Nan spoken also in Fujian. Taiwan's history and heritage are irrevocably tied with China. They should just accept their common roots.

Ummm.... let's see... we don't really want your corrupt Communist leadership. We have our own elected ones. So what's next? Are you going to be gunning after Singapore, it is, after all, 70%+ Chinese.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

^ It's so cute to see young'uns so passionate yet naive about the whole Taiwanese independence issue. As you get older you will realize just how important it is to run back to daddy. xD

[AngryABCGirl]

Kay I think I might just be able to make a more educated comment about this since I actually live here. First it is an independent functioning country- just not officiated.

There's a lot of sides and definitions on goals for independence and why in Taiwan. I think this is an unrecognized important point in most discussions and it dissolves into simplistic blah blah blah.

There are people who want to keep democracy and more recognition and to join international bodies, but don't reject a Chinese identity, but feel that Taiwan can run Taiwan and wouldn't mind closer relations with China.

There are people who believe that this island stopped being Chinese a long time ago and that Taiwan is independent. But even with that, it wouldn't mind doing business and having closer ties and not be openly hostile- although this is tricky and requires political tiptoeing.

There are also people who believe Taiwan is independent and that people are Taiwanese and should pursue its own space in the world regardless of China and we need to stop doing business there.

There are many other manifestations.

I realize the current government policies are driving the economy down the shitter and xenophobia and protectionism is on the rise here and none of things boast a bright feature in a globalized Asia that needs more internationalism and freer markets- but there's more reasons to this than can be explained by simple issues of Taiwan independence and whatnot.

I support Taiwanese independence on the principal that I believe it can do better under the current democratic system and running its own affairs than say, being a SAR of the PRC. I do believe in some form of eventual democratic system all of greater China, but I'm not even sure if I will see it in my lifetime or if it's a good idea to be even enacted in my lifetime. I'm no Hokkien nationalist and not green by any means. I also don't think people will accept CCP rule and there are people, not the majority, but large numbers who are willing to die than see it happen. No one wins out on that one. A lot of people don't like HK SAR is being run here either and are wary of reunification for that reasonl. China's more laissez faire policies of late and destruction of the welfare state scares people too.

[Jin/晋]

In 20 years or so, PRC will be ready to become democratic. I will support the creation of People's Republic of Taiwan ruling all of China. It has a nice ring to it.

If ROC is reluctant then China will have to remain itself People's Republic of Taiwan. Then claim that it is the one and only Taiwan. :)

[huangalex]

Taiwan's government may be "democratic" but that doesn't make it any less retarded. Every time I'm there a news bit will talk about how congress is having a food fight or catfight or fist fight or sword fight. Then there was that whole debacle last year about president Chen and his wife's jewelry escapades, ignoring for a moment the decades of bai se kong bu and KMT cronyism.

I don't so much support unification as much as find it inevitable. There's not much to look forward to with a declining population, nonexistent birth rate, soaring unemployment, exporting of labor, and dying property values.

Obviously Taiwan finds pride in its local heritage as well as its preservation of artifacts, fan ti, the classic texts, and basic Chinese customs destroyed in the Cultural Revolution. But China has settled into a relative calm by now and unification is in Taiwan's best interest.

[AngryABCGirl]

Taiwan's government may be "democratic" but that doesn't make it any less retarded. Every time I'm there a news bit will talk about how congress is having a food fight or catfight or fist fight or sword fight. Then there was that whole debacle last year about president Chen and his wife's jewelry escapades, ignoring for a moment the decades of bai se kong bu and KMT cronyism.

I don't so much support unification as much as find it inevitable. There's not much to look forward to with a declining population, nonexistent birth rate, soaring unemployment, exporting of labor, and dying property values.

Obviously Taiwan finds pride in its local heritage as well as its preservation of artifacts, fan ti, the classic texts, and basic Chinese customs destroyed in the Cultural Revolution. But China has settled into a relative calm by now and unification is in Taiwan's best interest.

I wouldn't say China is in relative calm right now, considering there's thousands of "domestic disturbances" because of unfair land distribution and people unhappy they're not getting a piece of the prosperity pie. That's my whole issue with people talking about reunification, I don't think China, and China knows this, isn't ready to manage Taiwan anytime in the near future. China has enough problems already and plenty of people to be helped still. It's really more beneficial to both sides and realistic to maintain the status quo for now.

Despite the retarded fights in the executive yuan, a lot of good actually gets done for the people. And KMT cronyism gets called out more these days far more than anything DPP does. After the obvious jewelry debacle, 白色恐怖 and KMT cronyism were actually called out to prove why DPP was a-okay despite obvious crimes committed on part of 阿 and his crippled wife which totally had no relevance. I admit the political system is not perfect, but it is a young democracy and the main reasons for the problem unfortunately is a voting class that isn't educated enough to vote on economic and political grounds, but a lot of people are starting to wise up. Even the green candidate that will probably be in the next election isn't so very green.

Taiwan actually imports a lot of labor (I do see more workers from the mainland inevitably though, plenty working illegally already and there's a huge demand for them and more intermarrying as an inevitability) and property values have only gone down because people have building new developments like no tomorrow. Its birthrate patterns aren't much different from other industrialized nations and imports enough labor to make up for it. Most of the unemployment is in parts of the low end skill sector, but it's no different to the problem many developed countries are facing due to global restructuring of labor markets (ie low skilled jobs moved overseas) and there's a whole informal economy here as well that doesn't get recorded or factored into the statistics that people make good livings off of. There's plenty of expats working overseas managing business like every other area with a large Chinese population, I wouldn't consider it a braindrain because its still mostly based in Taiwan.

I would a lot of Taiwan's economic problems have to do with problems not being an independent state. But I think a lot of it has to do less with China and more Taiwan's protectionist laws and welfare state that people hold near and dear. Joining China isn't gonna really solve that problem.

I actually not against eventual reunification, because I find some form of inevitable as well. But that day is far far far in the future. Honestly, a whole generation in Taiwan and in China really need to die out to make it happen and make it work, which is why I find the clamorings for unification now rather laughable and unrealistic.

[CBC guy]

Nah, for the time being status quo is the way to go. I agree that a generation has to pass before true reunification will happen.

[Paradox]

I actually not against eventual reunification, because I find some form of inevitable as well. But that day is far far far in the future. Honestly, a whole generation in Taiwan and in China really need to die out to make it happen and make it work, which is why I find the clamorings for unification now rather laughable and unrealistic.
I'm predicting that future generations of Taiwanese will become more apathetic about the whole issue and reunification will happen gradually. This will be especially true if China continues its upward economic growth. After awhile there won't be a reason to oppose reunification once Taiwan's economy is weened on China's.

[yoMAMA]

Taiwan to press referendum on UN membership...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070700714.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR