So let’s get this straight, the USA doesn’t support TI, the PRC doesn’t support TI, the ROC doesn’t support TI, and the KMT & PFP don’t support TI.
Shouldn’t the DPP and the TSU get the message from the majority of the world and drop the TI platform from their respective parties.
Do proponents of TI want to end up like FLG and become the laughing stock of the world?
It’s not exactly breaking news that Bush doesn’t support Taiwan independence. How do you come to the conclusion that “the ROC doesn’t support TI” ?
It makes my blood boil sometimes to watch the news. Often within the same hour Bush will talk about the freedom and democracy he has brought to Afganistan and Iraq and then to hear he supports Communists in their bid to take over a free country. I realize there is more involved politically and economically than I could ever understand but the open hypocrisy is too much to take sometimes.
With the TI goal of replacing ROC with whatever name of the day they come up with, it seems kind of obvious the ROC doesn’t support TI. If it did would there be an on going debate of this nature occuring on Taiwan.
The reason why the world usually hold very little sympathy for TI is because PRC is not oppressing the people of Taiwan in any way, shape or form. Besides TI exaggeration of the Strait situation to fit their political needs, it is hard to put the PRC in the same light as Afghanistan and Iraq.
PRC have sent no terrorist to knock down Taipei 101 and don’t control Taiwan’s education system to teach political idealogy over acedemic facts. The only party on Taiwan that does teach political idealogy over acedemic fact is the DPP and a their appoint administrators at the MOE.
Anyways Bush was quick to qualify his statement with “we disagree on many details” over Taiwan. Meaning, USA doesn’t support Taiwan Independence, however, it is more than happy to sell arms to Taiwan.
Taiwan only needs to strike oil big to see what is warp speed whiplash…
Bush didn’t say he opposes TI either. Of course this is calculated amiguity. Hardly worth a post.
What he ^ said.
Yawn.
This is no surprise. What else was he supposed to bloody say? I mean seriously, give it some bloody thought next time please.
Sure, Bush didn’t say he opposes TI. But he didn’t say he doesn’t oppose TI, either. Yet he did say he doesn’t support TI. So it’s not neutral ambiguity. He doesn’t support TI more than he doesn’t oppose it.
Wait if that’s the logic, Bush didn’t say he opposed re-unification either.
Too bad Hu likes to claim that Bush OPPOSES Taiwan independence when in reality he doesn’t support it.
What Bush does oppose is changes to the status quo.
If we’re going to play word games and believe all the news reports we read, how about this one:
“Mr Bush and Mr Hu agreed yesterday that Taiwan should remain in international limbo…” from
telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … /wus21.xml
Wow! Hu agrees that Taiwan should remain in international limbo! Not be reunified with China?!
Hu and the mainland policymakers believe Taiwan should be reunified EVENTUALLY. However, the operational stance has always been to build on first preserving the status quo; both these goals haven’t changed since the 1970s when Nixon was informed of them. Have you been on Mars?
Also, several times, administration officials, notably in the State Department at the spokesmen level, on up to Colin Powell at one point, have explicitly stated the US opposes Taiwan independence, that Taiwan is not an independent country, and that Taiwan is a part of China.
It is right to view these as mostly rhetoric, but I don’t see what there is to be happy about for TI/ers. Bush says he doesn’t support TI. In contrast, he never said he doesn’t support reunification, as AC pointed out.
Also, it isn’t just Bush who doesn’t support Taiwan independence.
mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn … 395284.htm
[quote]Feinstein insists U.S. not bound to protect Taiwan
By K. Oanh Ha
Mercury News
In remarks certain to please visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday told a gathering of Chinese-American business and cultural leaders in San Francisco that the United States has no obligation to defend Taiwan if it provokes China into a military confrontation.
Feinstein’s comments came on a day when Hu and President Bush sat down together in Washington to discuss a range of issues – including Taiwan, which China regards as the No. 1 issue in U.S.-China relations. Before his first U.S. visit this week, Hu urged Taiwanese leaders to resume talks with China and called actions toward independence a threat to the region.
``It is important to point out a common misconception – nowhere does the TRA explicitly require the U.S. to go to war with the mainland over Taiwan,’’ Feinstein said, referring to the Taiwan Relations Act, at the annual conference of the Committee of 100 in San Francisco. The group helps foster U.S.-China relations.
The act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1979, is the foundation of U.S.-Taiwan relations. Some supporters of Taiwan assume the United States is legally bound to defend the island, but the United States’ obligation to Taiwan has increasingly become a point of contention as Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian has promoted Taiwan independence. His provocations have irked the Bush administration and caused tensions in U.S.-Taiwan relations.
China claims Taiwan as part of its territory. Since 1979, the United States has acknowledged China’s ``one-China’’ policy and recognizes Beijing as the legitimate government of all China.
Feinstein isn’t the first U.S. official to assert that the United States isn’t legally bound to defend Taiwan, but her comments are certain to cause ripples. Bush had pledged in 2001 that the ``U.S. will do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan.’’
Feinstein’s comments surprised some at the conference.
It's a very important policy statement that clears the air and brings clarity to the issue,'' said George Koo, vice chair of the Committee of 100. I think it will greatly enhance the U.S.-China relationship.’’
Taiwanese-Americans who are pro-Taiwan were upset by Feinstein’s comments. I'm disappointed that a U.S. senator has misinterpreted the law,'' said Kuor Hsin Chang of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, which advocates for Taiwan's maintaining its independence.’’
A Taiwan official in San Francisco’s Taipei Economic and Cultural Office declined to comment on Feinstein’s remarks. We always want to maintain peace,'' said Yin Tsou Lin, division director of political affairs. We are not in a position to provoke anyone to go to war over us.’’
Lin pointed out that when China fired unarmed missiles across the Taiwan Strait in 1996, the United States sent warships to the island.[/quote]
The bolded part is laughable. If K H Chang thinks he has the right interpretation of the law, that Taiwan has a blank check to draw on redeemable in others’ lives, he will continue to be disappointed. His is the delusional mentality typical of TI/ers in America (so-called pro-Taiwan Taiwanese Americans) and the TI lobby of which FAPA is a part, and his ilk are the strongest supporters of TI because, guess what, they are safe, being an ocean away from conflict.
This is the phrase that should be hilighted in bold, zeugmite.
Of course, since China is increasingly interfering with Taiwan affairs and becoming more and more threatening to it’s 23 million people-- and since Taiwan is hardly threatening China in any way – I do believe the provocateur identity very much lies with the lawmakers in Beijing.
And I direct you to this quote from President Chuckle-nuts:
This is just retarded. Seriously, what else was he going to say? To say anything any more supportive of Taiwan would cause all kinds of economic and political shit - but mostly economic - for the US. It would be suicidal.
Given the fact that there are no more military weapons being fired into the Strait anymore could be interpreted as China reducing the tension in the Strait Issue.
Also the number of Taiwan tourist going to China, the number to students enrolled in the PRC, the number of Taiwan business people living in the PRC, and the dollar amount invest by Taiwan in PRC are all increasing. These benchmark counter your impression that Taiwanese find the PRC “threatening.”
Although many of these Taiwanese find the TI administration “threatening” by not acknowledging the PRC schools they study at and by throwing up “red tape” which prevent smooth transfer of money into the PRC for business.
I think it is more fair to say that the PRC and USA public policy is threatening TI supporters and their idealogy, however, it is a positive for the remaining 80% of Taiwan.
This statement was made by a US President that stated “Republic of Taiwan,” and is precieved to have instigated 2 wars based on his “gut” feelings. So I don’t believe this individual lacks the “courage” to impose his political idealogy on the rest of us.
However, what this incident clearly illustrated is that the PRC now has the political and economic capital to influence the last remaining superpower in their favor.
When was the last time the President of ROC got to haggle with the US States Dept. over an “official” or “State” meeting? No where in the foreseeable future can TI influence the President of the USA to say “we oppose the reunification of Taiwan and China.”
If the ROC had been given a blank check, they could have invaded the PRC to “recover the mainland.”
What they were supposed to have been given is freedom from coercion, something that is actually in short supply these days.
SECTION. 2. of the TRA in part:
“It is the policy of the United States–
to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means;
to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States;
to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and
to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”
Hmm. Peaceful means, resisting force or other forms of coercion. Yup, the PRC’s missiles were other than peaceful and a resort to force in 1996, and their 800 shiny, new missiles still are.
Any choice of the Taiwanese under threat is not really a choice. It’s a shotgun wedding that would end up in another divorce years later.
Try telling those students, tourists and businessmen that they are not able to return to Taiwan and you’ll see how “threatening” they find the PRC.
And your argument is truly laughable, AC. The KMT, like Bushco. in America, uses FEAR to gain votes. If the PRC was not “threatening”, the KMT would be in trouble, politically. How could they be the party of “peace”, now?
The DPP uses this fear, too – but at least they do not flip-flop like you with respect to the PRC being a threat.
I was seing the TV (my fiancee was making the translation) about a Taiwanese Association for Businessman who are victims in China - after hearing that there are around 3.000 cases, I would find most threatening…
In the guys own story, he went to China to make a clothing company and owned a company (60%) while a bank owned the rest. Then someone (didn’t catch if it was the bank or the government) stopped the cash coming in, the employees went on strike because there was no sallary and the company was sold for .3% of it’s value the next day to a taxi driver. All this also happen while he was out of town.
After this one (and 3000 others alike) can anyone explain me a good reason to invest in China???
And let us not forget, because we are talking about business, that Chinese must be the most cunning people on earth - when a country is governed based on connections (Guanxi, if I am not wrong) you can expect anything…
[quote=“mr_boogie”]I was seing the TV (my fiancee was making the translation) about a Taiwanese Association for Businessman who are victims in China - after hearing that there are around 3.000 cases, I would find most threatening…
In the guys own story, he went to China to make a clothing company and owned a company (60%) while a bank owned the rest. Then someone (didn’t catch if it was the bank or the government) stopped the cash coming in, the employees went on strike because there was no sallary and the company was sold for .3% of it’s value the next day to a taxi driver. All this also happen while he was out of town.
After this one (and 3000 others alike) can anyone explain me a good reason to invest in China???[/quote]
Didn’t the same thing happen in Taiwan to a foreigner that started a well-known buxiban chain starting with the letter H? The marriage fell apart and the Taiwanese spouse took over the whole thing once it gained success? Just curious if this is true or if it is cocktail-circuit gossip? 
Well, chewy, when it is a spouse is something different, don’t you think? It may just happen that the laws are stupid, but I don’t think that she was setting him up all the time…
But when a private company is sold by a 0.3% of it’s value to a taxi driver, and things like that, you get a different chill - the guy even told a story that a Taiwanese owned 40% of a company and invested some million NT on it, and after the investment was done, the bank who owned 60% of it decided to sell the company for some thousand RMB to another person, flunking all the investment done.
And don’t forget that the chinese government has a special bureau (according to people who have escaped) tracking all the business people from Taiwan, offering them whores and giving them advice on how to escape taxes, with the single purpose of making them spies later on (and we all know that whores and escaping taxes are amongst TW bizman favourites).
The only way that could happen is if Taiwan refuse to allow these individuals to re-enter Taiwan. PRC lets millions of Chinese leave their boarders every years.
[quote=“mr_boogie”]
In the guys own story, he went to China to make a clothing company and owned a company (60%) while a bank owned the rest. Then someone (didn’t catch if it was the bank or the government) stopped the cash coming in, the employees went on strike because there was no sallary and the company was sold for .3% of it’s value the next day to a taxi driver. All this also happen while he was out of town. [/quote]
Sorry, what was the point of your story? Don’t start a company if you don’t have a sure source of cash flow? Great idea anywhere in the world, if you ask me.
I don’t know if you really are a businessman, but you sure don’t talk like one. Banks don’t voluntarily take equity positions in businesses. By definition and design, they aren’t in the business of taking on risky assets that aren’t backed by collateral.
Second, I guess I’m a little stunned you believe that this clothing “company” was “sold the next day” to a passing taxi driver. Just what kind of a company are we talking about here? A retail outlet, or some sort of a manufacturing business? Why would this person be in a rush to sell “the next day” for 0.3% of its actual book value? Why didn’t he just say, say, wait 2 days and find try to someone willing to pay 0.4% of the actual book value? And for that matter, what kind of a taxi driver throws out money to buy a clothing “company” after less than a day of analysis of its business potential?
And third, why did this businessman borrow from Chinese banks at all? Why didn’t he tap international capital, either through Hong Kong or other markets? (I know why he didn’t tap Taiwanese banks: they aren’t available on the mainland.) If it was a cash-flow issue, why was he so highly leveraged that he’s dependent on a single source? And could be forced into bankrupcy by a single unilateral decision?
Fourth, please tell me where I can start a business, where the government will protect me from my idiocy? I’d be very interested in investing in any market where I can run out of cash, not pay my employees, and still be able to create a successful business.
And finally, who really cares whether you invest on the mainland? Seriously, who cares? There’s tens of billions of dollars flowing into the mainland on an annual basis, and far more sophisicated international businesses are making money hand over fist. Mainland China must be doing something right, wouldn’t you say? If you’re afraid of a market that you apparently know nothing about… well, will anyone even notice?