None of those groups have anything close to a majority vote in any of the states they reside in. They are fringe groups. One other principle of democracy is that majority rules and since 99% of Americans would like to stay part of America, Hawaii and the Southwest stay part of America.
Quebec would be a better analogy.
I think most Taiwanese feel that yes, believe it or not it really is that simple. If you go looking for reasons you’ll find only rationalizations and excuses for what is basically a gut feeling, namely that “Taiwan belongs to us.” The root of the matter is emotion. Which is why words are so often wasted.
I suspect the root of the matter is far more sinister.
Generally speaking whenever you see a large scale situation that is beyond belief destructive and irrational and want to find the reason for that situation the most productive question to ask yourself is “Who is making money from it, or, who stands to make money from it?” In the case of this conflict between China and Taiwan the most obvious answer is, as in a great many of the conflicts around the world, arms manufacturers. Arms manufacturers who are free to hold political positions in the Chinese government or lobby Washington or wine and dine the Taiwanese bureaucracy.
The people in charge in China right now are the same people who are benefitting dispraportionately from the changes that are going on there. Formerly state owned enterprises are now privately owned by, guess who? The beuraucracy. Convenient isn’t it? These people have absolutely no interest in seeing positive changes in terms of environmental protection, workers rights, freedom of expression, human rights, democratic freedoms etc. And they have no interest in respecting the rights of their democratic neighbour Taiwan whoose influence on the Chinese people would be counterproductive to their interests.
The world should wake up and realize what sort of monster it has chosen to do business with.
Well, just look at what they did in HK on the democracy side and you will get the picture of what is waiting for Taiwan. Maybe they will make another SAR with a patriotic issue (meaning if you are not with the CCP you are a traitor). If you ask people in HK if they are better now, some will say yes some will say no. But one thing you can see clearly as soon as you land - the cost of the development will be sooner or later measured in people in the hospitals - you see HK now is a polution paradies - on a clear day, you get 30-80 points of polution.
Ah, and let us not forget that the future biggest economy in the world (for a minority) also is the country with the biggest Gini index (the difference between rich and poor). But me like others, only blame the Taiwanese for their own situation - they isolated themselves. Also, the incredible investment value of Taiwan in China (and China only, basically) made Taiwanese companies loose capability of growth - in 100 companies, 100 know how to biuld cheap, but only a few know how to biuld good. Basically, there is no diferenciation in products made in Taiwan or made in China - not the kind of diferenciation you see in products made in Japan or made in US/Europe. So in the end, the truth is that Taiwanese companies digged their own grave, by only going to the cost reduction path. The only route for Taiwan is to build up self pride and abandon their current bad practices of full investment in China, as DPP and many others allready quoted. And it is not by buying big loosing companies (like the case of Benq-Siemens) that you will get any further - the biggest investment of Japan is in The Netherlands. The Lenovo case is even more surprising, because they bought a seriously ill company just to get a better name. IBM is now showing above-expectations profits, specially on their chip business. So in the end, it all comes out of balance - and eventually, more and more big quality Taiwanese design centers will be bought by European and American companies. In the end, with all the things going to China, maybe you should stop blamming the government and start doing something to stop the unemployment and liven up the economy.
Bob,
If even half of what you said was reasonable, we’d have a pretty good conversation going here. Yes, there was a provincial vote in Quebec. But no, it wasn’t unilateral. The Canadian federal government insisted that it had a role to play in the secession process, right?
That’s also what Abraham Lincoln said in the early 1860s, by the way. If anyone’s interested, I’ll dig up that quote too. In his line of rhetoric, the issue wasn’t the “destruction of the Union”, per se… but the unilateral destruction of the Union is what he found “unacceptable”. It was the idea that the Southern States had (democratically, I might had) declared their independence without the acceptance of their former Northern brethren.
And as far as the theory that China is controlled by a grand industrial-military complex that needs to fight a war to support its budget… that’s a rather ignorant claim on several levels.
China has plenty of justification for building a military, independent of stirring conflict over Taiwan. Japan comes to mind.
Beijing has been consistent over Taiwan since 1949. For 55 years, Beijing has insisted on unification… even if it meant delaying Beijing’s entry into the international stage for 3 decades.
The Chinese military budget, even with 15%+ annual increases, is still a very small percentage of the national budget.
Reformulate the phrasing however you want. I don’t see how it makes a substantive difference… might as well argue that the Taiwan/China issue is really about “sovereign rights” and the United Nations charter. Hopefully we all understand that it’s not about those things… those are just the tools with which the lawyers and historians justify the real underlying issue.
Again, Lincoln speaks very well for himself, and I have no need to put words in his mouth. I would save the Union.
cctang, by Constitution, Japan is forbidden to declare war on another country and their military is basically a defense force.
Since 1949, Beijing has pulled the national flag whetever they could - even if they had no right to do so - just to explain people that to build a strong country and reclaim the surrounding territories, in a imperialistic attitude, they need to subdue all their rights. That has been done too many times in history to be proven wrong.
The Chinese military budget is huge when compared to Taiwan.
The biggest use of the PLA is to control their own population.
[quote=“mr_boogie”]
The Chinese military budget is huge when compared to Taiwan.
The biggest use of the PLA is to control their own population.[/quote]
Chinese borders and areas and cities are also a lot bigger than Taiwan’s. It’s also easier to defend an island. China shares borders with several countries.
That said, the US has the biggest military budget, more than the entire world combined. Who’s complaining?
Jack, China has no problems with most of all their neighbours (actually is more like the opposite). And for control of their own territory, normally you would use police. There are two known “terrorist” groups in China - East Turkistan Liberation Organization and the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), both located at the same place, the Xinjiang-Uygur Autonomous Region, so the worries on internal tumult are more about wrong doings than other factors.
[quote=“Levitator”]
I’ve always wondered why China insists on the one country, two systems model and rejects everything else, including the confederation model that used to be the good old Lien Chan’s favorite. I mean, the ROC and the PRC can exist side by side and they can build some kind of umbrella conferedation. Why is this idea so anathema to Beijing? I mean, even now Lien doesn’t dare utter the word Republic of China in his visit.
My rather limited understanding is that Beijing eventually wants to establish military control, and a confederation that recognizes the ROC basically makes it much more difficult to establish military control in the future.[/quote]I don’t think China has explicitly rejected the “confederation” model. I just don’t think Beijing wants to be throwing other political suggestions out there through the media… already had enough trouble with the 1C2S. Creating a new formula like this should be a serious matter, and I don’t think it makes sense to talk about it unilaterally… there needs to be decades of discussions to find a formula.
And I don’t think Lien Chan is necessarily “afraid” to mention the ROC. I think it’s just rude considering the context. If/when a senior member of the PRC/Communist Party is invited in a similar capacity to Taiwan, I personally would be disappointed/insulted if he kept mentioning the “People’s Republic of China”. Isn’t the point of these meetings to find points of shared interests and build trust, while saving the hard negotiation points for later discussions?
And on the “military control” side of things, Beijing has repeated ad nauseum that even with the rejected 1C2S solution, there would not have been a single PLA soldier + PRC official posted to Taiwan. Taiwan would retain its own distinct military forces. A “confederation” would only be looser than 1C2S, and there’s no doubt in my mind Taiwan would retain its military (and the right to purchase foreign arms) under any such settlement.
[quote=“billy budd”]
To paraphrase your answer above, “it is more a question of unity, not one of fear or threat. And if there has been a meaningful opportunity for reconciliation that ultimately fails, so be it. China will cut them loose.” No?[/quote]
By the way, in my rush to refute others… I forgot to respond positively even when I agree! Yep, billy, I think your paraphrase of my position is exactly what I meant to say.
Does this mean you are unaware that the Japanese government is seriously considering a revision of this clause of their Consitution?
mr_boogie,
You’re very ignorant about Chinese history, and I don’t think you should pretend otherwise. Maybe you should buy a history book, so you can understand that China was repeatedly invaded before 1949.
And after 1949, China faced off against two enemies that (publically) seeked the destruction of the People’s Republic of China.
for the '50s-'60s, this was the United States. Korea and Taiwan were both viewed as the first step towards an invasion by Western forces.
for the '60s-80s, this was the Soviet Union. I guess you aren’t aware China and the USSR fought several border clashes, and the majority of Soviet land forces weren’t deployed in Europe facing NATO… but rather in central Asia, facing China. China also fought a bloody war against Vietnam in the late '70s (after first fighting a bloody war with Vietnam, against the US), which at the time was a client state of the USSR.
You have absolutely no grounds to tell China that her neighbors and the international order couldn’t be a threat. It was only 5 years ago, before 9/11, when people wondered if China wouldn’t be part of the “Axis of Evil” along with Iraq and Iran.
Does this mean you are unaware that the Japanese government is seriously considering a revision of this clause of their Consitution?
mr_boogie,
You’re very ignorant about Chinese history, and I don’t think you should pretend otherwise. Maybe you should buy a history book, so you can understand that China was repeatedly invaded before 1949.
And after 1949, China faced off against two enemies that (publically) seeked the destruction of the People’s Republic of China.
for the '50s-'60s, this was the United States. Korea and Taiwan were both viewed as the first step towards an invasion by Western forces.
for the '60s-80s, this was the Soviet Union. I guess you aren’t aware China and the USSR fought several border clashes, and the majority of Soviet land forces weren’t deployed in Europe facing NATO… but rather in central Asia, facing China. China also fought a bloody war against Vietnam in the late '70s (after first fighting a bloody war with Vietnam, against the US), which at the time was a client state of the USSR.
You have absolutely no grounds to tell China that her neighbors and the international order couldn’t be a threat. It was only 5 years ago, before 9/11, when people wondered if China wouldn’t be part of the “Axis of Evil” along with Iraq and Iran.[/quote]
Mr. Boogie, you do realize that not every border is unguarded like the US-Canada border.
Even if China had great relations with all of her neighbours, given its domination and defeat by imperialist powers, do you seriously think China would ever not have a strong army again?
Actually, China still has border tensions with India and sometimes Russia. Certainly, it would want to guard its western borders given all the unrest there. And certainly, its borders with N. Korea cuz who knows what the nutcase is thinking in Pyongyang.
What exactly is your point? That China should not have a proportionately large armed forces? That we should be distrustful of its motives, at least more so than say the US or Russia or France or Germany or UK?
A rhetorical question could be asked… why do they have to even declare independence on a “state” level? There are several functioning communities in Hawaii that demand full independence, for example. Should they have it?
[quote=“cctang”][quote=“billy budd”]
To paraphrase your answer above, “it is more a question of unity, not one of fear or threat. And if there has been a meaningful opportunity for reconciliation that ultimately fails, so be it. China will cut them loose.” No?[/quote]
By the way, in my rush to refute others… I forgot to respond positively even when I agree! Yep, billy, I think your paraphrase of my position is exactly what I meant to say.[/quote]
Well, good. I just don’t believe it though.
I’m not saying you are lying. I think you are sincere. But I’ve seen pictures of how China goes about “unifying” . The mushed-up human flesh of students in Tiananmen. Tibet. Bullets in the back of the head for political prisoners (with their organs to be removed and sold soon after).
Whoops - there I go again with my self-righteous, hypocritical and ethnocentric views!!!
So if Taiwan ultimately does not feel like it falls under the supreme unity of mightly China, well, they’ll just cut 'em loose. Sure.
At least they ignored Lien completely, and Lien has now stopped talking about confederation altogether. Of course, Beijing haven’t openly said they reject it because this way Lien can say back in Taiwan that there is a consensus.
You are right. Lien is not necessarily afraid to mention the ROC. But you’ve got to see how they censor any mention of the ROC on their TV. Starting from Lien’s visit last year. It’s well known how James Soong got into problems for shouting ROC while in China. His voice was muted and he was taken off TV starting the next day, if I remember correctly. Beijing surely needs no kid gloves when it comes to handling rude guests.
Please note I said “eventually.” One country, two systems makes it “easier” to dismantle the ROC and eventually take over military control because it does not involve recognizing the ROC in the first place. It’s all relative.
[quote=“billy budd”]
I’m not saying you are lying. I think you are sincere. But I’ve seen pictures of how China goes about “unifying” . The mushed-up human flesh of students in Tiananmen. Tibet. Bullets in the back of the head for political prisoners (with their organs to be removed and sold soon after).
Whoops - there I go again with my self-righteous, hypocritical and ethnocentric views!!![/quote]
Well, you’re right about that last part at least…
You’ve proven you’re familiar with what happened at Tiananmen on 6/4, 1989. Are you equally familiar with what happened at Tiananmen back in 1966? How about in 1919?
Your post reminds me of a classic line from a classic movie.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter whether you buy it or not. You questioned the motivation for Chinese nationalism. I explained it to you. Your choice to not buy the explanation doesn’t mean Chinese nationalism goes away. It just means you willfully chose not to understand what motivates 20% of the world’s population. But in order to comfort yourself in this decision, you choose to focus on the negatives of Chinese Communist rule.
Let’s say for the argument that you’re right. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Beijing only stays in power because people are pulled off the streets and “disappeared”, that goose-stepping soldiers keep everyone in line, and that we’re all waiting for the jihadists of democracy to come and wake us up from this national nightmare. If that was the case, I don’t think you have much to worry about. Such a state will surely collapse, sooner or later… and an independent Taiwan is the last thing the Chinese need to be worried about.
However, let’s also consider the possibility that you’re wrong. Consider the possibility that China in the year 2006 is a hopeful nation with an at-times incompetent, and at-times heavy-handed government. Consider the possibility that 1.3 billion Chinese are working hard to better their lives, but that out of every busy day as we scramble to design your next car… we take a few minutes to think about the future of the Chinese nation, and how important it is that we watch out for our own interests, knowing that no one else ever will. Consider the possibility that 1.3 billion Chinese genuinely believe that we can only be respectful to the sacrifices of our forefathers, and that we can only be responsible to our descendents, if we devote our efforts to preserving our united nation. What then?
Does Taiwan really want to guess wrong on this point?
Lets argue this from a different standpoint…
Since China considers Taiwan to have been a part of China since Ancient Times… isnt a better analogy the American colonial war against the British for independence?
I mean at the time the British empire was huge, like China is today, and Taiwan or the American colonies were small. Yes, a lot of the “colonials” were British, and they fought for independence and eventually declared it.
Now if we submit to China’s ideals, should America be reunified with the British today? Shouldn’t we give up our Republic for a Constitutional Monarchy? Hail Prime Minister Blair?
Keep in mind, after the independence war was one, the idea that the British colonists were Americans came later.
Jack, I didn’t say that China doesn’t have threats - I just sayd that PLA should be posted in borders to secure national territories and the police should be put in the cities controlling the populace - basic rule. This leads to a much bigger number of police than of military forces, but in the case of China, the PLA is also used to control the populace (in any possible way). And don’t forget that companies can also call the riot police to resolve their own problems.
[quote=“cctang”]Bob,
If even half of what you said was reasonable, we’d have a pretty good conversation going here. Yes, there was a provincial vote in Quebec. But no, it wasn’t unilateral. The Canadian federal government insisted that it had a role to play in the secession process, right? [/quote]
Right but the democratic process was observed. Of course the Canadian government would have been involved in the seccession process. How could it not? There is however a big difference between that situation and the one here in that TAIWAN IS ALREADY AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY.
Sure, but again that had been a unified country.
[quote]And as far as the theory that China is controlled by a grand industrial-military complex that needs to fight a war to support its budget… that’s a rather ignorant claim on several levels.
China has plenty of justification for building a military, independent of stirring conflict over Taiwan. Japan comes to mind.
Beijing has been consistent over Taiwan since 1949. For 55 years, Beijing has insisted on unification… even if it meant delaying Beijing’s entry into the international stage for 3 decades.
The Chinese military budget, even with 15%+ annual increases, is still a very small percentage of the national budget.[/quote]
You call it ignorant, I call it common sense.
Do you honestly think that Japan possess a military threat to China? Anyway even if it does the whole game in the end only benefits the arms manufacturers. It is horrifyingly simple.
So what? Democracy is the highest ideal. The Chinese government doesn’t respect it.
It may or may not be a small percentage of the annual budget but it is certainly a concern to China’s neighbours who, in response, are turning around and spending more on military equipment themselves. That is an expenditure that could be better directed towards education, medical care, environmental protection etc.
The Chinese government wishes to maintain hostile relations with Taiwan because it makes a lot of money by doing so. If that was not true they would sweeten the pot and make unification actually appear attractive to the Taiwanese people.
In the meantime the rest of us pay the bill, reap no benefit and suffer the anxiety. Perhaps some day bombs will rain down on our heads. It is a shite state of affairs and the only explanation for it is that some dirty bastards somewhere are making bucket loads of money on it.