Ma is a centralist. He won’t state anything in the extremes to offend anyone. Unlike CSB who somehow believes making polar opposite statements evey other day gives him broad appeal.
Ma will continue on the position
ROC and PRC are seperate entities
The vast majority of ROC citizens support status quo
The 1992 consensus allows for ROC and PRC to have different interpretations of “One China”
If NUC and NUG are resurrected in the future by the KMT, they will be to further point 3. Not to mention the NUC and NUG are legacy of LTH, so you won’t see Ma bringing it back to life without adding his own influence to make it his legacy.
They are intergral to the Status Quo because it resolves around the “One China” paradigm, that all 3 sides have a different interpretation on. The balance has been maintained across the Strait because in short no ones interpretation of “One China” has offended the other party to the point of pursuing a non-peaceful resolution.
CSB has in effect broken the balance, because ROC will no longer be entertaining the discussion about “One China”. Not to mention the USA has never entertained Taiwan Independence as something they would support on ROC terms. And obviously the PRC with the ASL has only has one option left if ROC is no longer willing to discuss “One China”
At this rate CSB is ready to make Taiwan into the next hermit kingdom. So when’s the nuclear arms program on Taiwan going to be started. That’s one way to get the UN to pay attention to Taiwan.
Either CSB will be doing some backtracking in the next few days as Feiren mention, damn our crappy Chinglish interpreters. Or the endgame is near and we’d best brace ourselves for the fallout.
Good question. By pointing to a future resolution, the NUC and NUG contribute to the idea that Taiwan’s present political situation is incomplete or undecided.[/quote]
And I would argue that Ma, if elected, can bring back the NUC. Taiwan STILL has a pro-unification opposition. So, with that fact alone, Taiwan’s political situation is incomplete (or undecided).
[quote=“ac_dropout”]
They are intergral to the Status Quo because it resolves around the “One China” paradigm, that all 3 sides have a different interpretation on. The balance has been maintained across the Strait because in short no ones interpretation of “One China” has offended the other party to the point of pursuing a non-peaceful resolution.[/quote]
One million+ Taiwanese disagreed with that point (in bold) on the streets of Taipei on March 26. 2006. Where was Ma, by the way?
[quote]
Either CSB will be doing some backtracking in the next few days as Feiren mention, damn our crappy Chinglish interpreters. Or the endgame is near and we’d best brace ourselves for the fallout.[/quote]
It is Ma who will be backtracking – and he will be tracking back when the 2008 election campaign begins.
Good question. By pointing to a future resolution, the NUC and NUG contribute to the idea that Taiwan’s present political situation is incomplete or undecided.[/quote]
Wrong, Guangtou.
The goal of the “National Unification Council” is a resolution through eventual “unification.” It is not a body who just seeks a “resolution” alone. So in actuality, the National Unification Council assumes a unification will take place. Abolishing the council is a symbolic move to give Taiwanese a greater say in their future. Ma has said he supports giving the Taiwanese a say (although he will accept independence under no terms…a contradiction). So actually, he shouldn’t really care.
As for the Chinese side, they will undoubtedly be pissed. This move does rock the boat for them. But they would be fools to actually act on their anger at this time…besides releasing fiery rhetoric.
Whether or not the council is abolished, I do think that this is one of Chen’s shrewder moves. It forces Ma to take a side (one that he was not taking in order to gain political capital). It pokes the Chinese in the eye, although they won’t attack over something so foolish as the abolishment of a body that hasn’t met in years. And, it is not a move that the US seems to care strongly about. Yes, there have been rumors about the US leaning on Chen and so forth, but nothing nearly as strong as during his presidential campaign. And…he can’t exactly lose another election. And, the DPP can gain brownie points with its hard core.
Good question. By pointing to a future resolution, the NUC and NUG contribute to the idea that Taiwan’s present political situation is incomplete or undecided.[/quote]
And I would argue that Ma, if elected, can bring back the NUC. Taiwan STILL has a pro-unification opposition. So, with that fact alone, Taiwan’s political situation is incomplete (or undecided).[/quote]
Having a “pro-unification opposition” is not the same as having a document that states categorically Taiwan is unfinished business. We’re running out of these.
Just for the record SM, so we don’t start getting our lines crossed, I don’t like the final objective of the NUG any more than you do. The point is, however, the NUC and NUG raise the prospect that Taiwan’s current political status is undetermined. IMHO that is useful if it contributes to keeping the peace.
I’m pretty sure Chen doesn’t see things like this. Recent events suggest he actually wants a resolution on Taiwan’s political status sooner rather than later. We could debate the reasons, but this seems pretty much obvious. And that’s bad news for the status quo (cf. my original post on the definition of the status quo - which, by the way, noone has criticized/debated).
The deep greens are wrong in stating (as many of them do) that the status quo is a sovereign, independent Taiwan. Indeed, if this is really the case, why are they still making such a fuss about it? The truth, which they know as much as anyone else, is that the dejure (as opposed to defacto) status of Taiwan is still an open question.
A peaceful resolution to the Strait Issue needs to be accomplished with agreement from all three sides. ROC has just demostrated it no longer wishes to entertain such discussion. Notice CSB did not form another committee to takes it place, even if the goal of the committee is not reunification.
1 million is still a minority on Taiwan. And they hardly seem willing to goto war with the PRC. They wish to draw the USA to fight the war for them. Something the USA is not willing to do at this point.
Not to mention the rent a mob demonstration you are referring to last year, cost the rest of ROC tax payers a lot, whether they agreed with the pan-Green led event or not.
In the USA, the Republican held there National Convention in NYC last year. NYC is a Democratic city and doesn’t like most Republican platform. Just because a bunch of country bumpkins come to the big city, doesn’t mean the big city takes on the political idealogy of the country bumpkins.
I have no idea where Ma will be next month. Do you?
Good question. By pointing to a future resolution, the NUC and NUG contribute to the idea that Taiwan’s present political situation is incomplete or undecided.[/quote]
Wrong, Guangtou.
The goal of the “National Unification Council” is a resolution through eventual “unification.” It is not a body who just seeks a “resolution” alone. So in actuality, the National Unification Council assumes a unification will take place. Abolishing the council is a symbolic move to give Taiwanese a greater say in their future. Ma has said he supports giving the Taiwanese a say (although he will accept independence under no terms…a contradiction). So actually, he shouldn’t really care.
As for the Chinese side, they will undoubtedly be pissed. This move does rock the boat for them. But they would be fools to actually act on their anger at this time…besides releasing fiery rhetoric.
Whether or not the council is abolished, I do think that this is one of Chen’s shrewder moves. It forces Ma to take a side (one that he was not taking in order to gain political capital). It pokes the Chinese in the eye, although they won’t attack over something so foolish as the abolishment of a body that hasn’t met in years. And, it is not a move that the US seems to care strongly about. Yes, there have been rumors about the US leaning on Chen and so forth, but nothing nearly as strong as during his presidential campaign. And…he can’t exactly lose another election. And, the DPP can gain brownie points with its hard core.[/quote]
Wrong Tomtom. Or at least you misunderstood my point. By pointing to some future event when the political status of Taiwan will be decided (unification in this case), the NUC and NUG strongly indicate that the current status of Taiwan is not determined - it remains in flux, on the table, up for grabs, etc. This is a convenient idea (maybe even a convenient fiction) if it keeps the Mainland satisfied the place hasn’t officially declared independence, and the Americans happy that their “one China” policy isn’t a contradictory farce.
I reiterate again before I get written off as a blue hack here: I’m no fan of the ultimate goal of the NUG and NUC. Having that goal, however, has some highly important, if symbolic side effects. To deny this (e.g. say that the NUC and NUG were “already defunct” as Chen suggested in the CNY speech) is to completely misunderstand: (1) why some of us are indeed concerned about Chen’s latest initiative, and (2) why Chen himself has put such great emphasis on it.
[quote=“guangtou”]
Having a “pro-unification opposition” is not the same as having a document that states categorically Taiwan is unfinished business. We’re running out of these.[/quote]
And, similarily, having a document that legally obliges the Chinese military to take action at the whim of the PRC is a document that formalizes China’s stance against Taiwan and significantly decreases the “wiggle room” of both parties positions.
and the Anti-Secession law significantly damages the status-quo itself.
I will agree. Chen does want a resolution on Taiwan’s status sooner than later – and I agree with this agenda.
Standing by and doing nothing is to Taiwan’s detriment. Why? Because China is not abiding by the status quo itself – and has no intention to do so.
1 million is still a minority on Taiwan. And they hardly seem willing to goto war with the PRC. They wish to draw the USA to fight the war for them. Something the USA is not willing to do at this point.
Not to mention the rent a mob demonstration you are referring to last year, cost the rest of ROC tax payers a lot, whether they agreed with the pan-Green led event or not.[/quote]
You’re right, AC – there should have been 12 million people protesting in order for me to make a point.
Perhaps you missed it, but during a T.V. telethon (just before the march), a staggering amount was raised for this event (in a matter of hours). The outpouring of support for this event was phenomenal.
And for those who think the U.S. is “angered” by this move, think again.
[quote] The US was expected to respond positively to Chen’s action, seeing it as an acceptable compromise between outright abolition of the council and guidelines and the need for Chen to satisfy domestic political concerns, observers in Washington say.
The State Department began preparing a response within hours of Chen announcing his decision, but at press time the statement had not yet made the rounds of officials who must sign off such statements.
The department would accept Chen’s wording in exchange for a “convincing, authoritative” restating of the “four noes,” a source said.[/quote]
[quote]The recommendation made by the National Security Council to have the NUC “cease its function” and for the guidelines to “cease to apply” did not violate Chen’s pledge, nor did it touch upon issues of changing the status quo. This version was therefore deemed acceptable to both Taiwan and the US.
Mitchell said that Washington understood that the move by Chen was in reaction to Beijing’s refusal to begin a dialogue with him, and that in general Washington sympathizes with the Chen administration’s situation. He added that, in his view, Washington feels that Beijing should hold a dialogue with Chen without setting any preconditions.[/quote]
Talk about yellow journalism. TT is definitely an objective source of information to represent Washington’s position on the matter.
I think were better off with the Washington Post interpretation. If the NYT picks up on this story, that would be great too. Those two rags would probably give you a better indication of where the general US sentiment is heading on the matter.
Sorry the DDP coffers are not as deep as the Kajillion dollars the KMT have. They can’t rent that many people yet.
newsflash less than 15% of the ROC population support TI on any time scale. I believe the organizers also counted people’s pets in last years demonstration. The real number of people was pegged at only 500,000 - 700,000 by police estimates.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]Talk about yellow journalism. TT is definitely an objective source of information to represent Washington’s position on the matter.
I think were better off with the Washington Post interpretation. If the NYT picks up on this story, that would be great too. Those two rags would probably give you a better indication of where the general US sentiment is heading on the matter.
[/quote]
Fine. But you have not given us any insight with the link you provided.
I’ll put my money on TT’s coverage that the State Department will not be angered by this move. There was a compromise made it seems, afterall.
Why didn’t Chen created a “National Independence Council”, with no funds and no members, to be aside with the NUC?
What about a “I Don’t Care a Thing about Politics, give me a break Council” - guess this one would also represent a lot of Taiwanese.
[quote=“STOP_Ma”][quote=“guangtou”]
Having a “pro-unification opposition” is not the same as having a document that states categorically Taiwan is unfinished business. We’re running out of these.[/quote]
And, similarily, having a document that legally obliges the Chinese military to take action at the whim of the PRC is a document that formalizes China’s stance against Taiwan and significantly decreases the “wiggle room” of both parties positions.[/quote]
That’s a detour rather than an argument. Seems you agree with my substantive point. And I agree that the Anti-Suc Law is bad (indeed who, living here in Daiwan, could suggest otherwise?). The question is how you deal with it, and I’m not convinced that further upping the anti is the best way.
and the Anti-Secession law significantly damages the status-quo itself.
[/quote]
Yes, but again this is a detour.
[quote=“STOP_Ma”][quote]I’m pretty sure Chen doesn’t see things like this. Recent events suggest he actually wants a resolution on Taiwan’s political status sooner rather than later. We could debate the reasons, but this seems pretty much obvious. And that’s bad news for the status quo (cf. my original post on the definition of the status quo - which, by the way, noone has criticized/debated).
[/quote]
I will agree. Chen does want a resolution on Taiwan’s status sooner than later – and I agree with this agenda.
Standing by and doing nothing is to Taiwan’s detriment. Why? Because China is not abiding by the status quo itself – and has no intention to do so.[/quote]
Finding ways to reinforce the status quo is not only in Taiwan’s objective interests, it just happens to be what 70% or more of the population on this island actually want. The unenviable goal for Taiwanese leaders is to deliver this outcome in the face of Chinese aggression. That’s the job. Anything else is either ideology, political intrigue or stupidity. With all due respect SM, who cares what Chen Shui-bian and you want for this country?
A leader makes tough decisions and this is one of them. It appears that he has the support of the U.S. with the new wording, and he has, effectively, made Ma look like a hysterical fool with questionable patriotism.
Hey, AC – Is Voice of America.com a good enough a source for you?
[quote]At a news briefing here, State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli said the U.S. reading is that the council had been frozen not abolished and said that in the same announcement Mr. Chen reaffirmed his commitment to uphold the status quo with China:
“I would note today that President Chen reaffirmed his continuing commitment to the pledges he made in his 2000 inaugural address not to change the status-quo across the straits, and we continue to stress the need for Beijing to open a dialogue with the elected leadership in Taiwan,” said Adam Ereli. “On the question of the National Unification Council, it is our understanding that President Chen did not abolish it, and he reaffirmed Taiwan’s commitment to the status-quo. We attach great importance to that commitment.” [/quote]
[quote=“STOP_Ma”]
A leader makes tough decisions and this is one of them. It appears that he has the support of the U.S. with the new wording…[/quote]
In all seriousness, what has Chen Shui-bian “decided” with the new wording? The US State Department seems to believe CSB has changed nothing in reference to cross-strait relations. So… basically, the “tough decision” was to stand still and leave things where they were a few weeks ago?
I do want to make clear, however, that I do agree with you CSB has successfully saved face on all sides, and Ma doesn’t have much to stand on for an impeach/recall campaign aimed at CSB. Basically, the last two weeks have just been another wasted exercise in crisis handling for all involved.
EDIT: And on another note, for CSB and his ilk, 2/28 is their annual chance to beat on the KMT + pan-Blues for easy publicity. This time around, it seems like they wasted their ammo on a meaningless, meatless campaign which the US has forced them to step back from.
[quote=“mr_boogie”]What about a “I don’t Care a Thing about Politics, give me a break Council” - guess this one would also represent a lot of Taiwanese.[/quote]Now we’re on the same page, mr_boogie.
[quote=“cctang”][quote=“STOP_Ma”]
A leader makes tough decisions and this is one of them. It appears that he has the support of the U.S. with the new wording…[/quote]
In all seriousness, what has Chen Shui-bian “decided” with the new wording? The US State Department seems to believe CSB has changed nothing in reference to cross-strait relations. So… basically, the “tough decision” was to stand still and leave things where they were a few weeks ago?
I do want to make clear, however, that I do agree with you CSB has successfully saved face on all sides, and Ma doesn’t have much to stand on for an impeach/recall campaign aimed at CSB. Basically, the last two weeks have just been another wasted exercise in crisis handling for all involved.[/quote]
With his decision, he has:
Pissed off China, in a predictable way – which will rally and bring focus to the DPP base.
Established that this is an issue about “letting the people decide”
Has successfully negotiated a compromise with the U.S.
Has successfully baited Ma to directly contradict what he said on the BBC last week by making it an issue about “letting the people decide”.
This decision makes it an election issue in 2008 – which will be very heavy baggage for Ma.
Yes. This decision could have backfired on him (as a lot of people thought it would) – but he has successfully managed a slam dunk on this – and I, for one, recognize that.
