Chen and DPP influence waning, it's up to the Guomindang

I don’t see why to keep referring to Jiang’s 8 points as an offer? They are more like guidelines on how PRC wishes to approach the Strait Issue.

No where in Jiang’s 8 points are panda mentioned, but pandas were offered as a token of appreciation of Lien Chan’s visit.

If your contention is that point 2 of Jiang’s 8 points doesn’t allow PRC to ever entertain TI under any name, form or ambition, then the question becomes what can ROC offer PRC to expand the definition of point 2 for the semblance of political autonomy without offending their veiw of “One China.”

PRC is already doing a fine job of weeding out the political leadership they are willing to deal with in Taiwan’s oh so colorful political landscape.

The problem in Taiwan politics (as if there is only one problem in Taiwan politics) is that there is not even a consensus on how to approach the Strait Issue anymore. ROC use to have LTH 6 points and the 1992 consensus. But the current leadership has yet to come up with a solution that has popular support among the people on Taiwan, nor anything remotely acceptable by the PRC.

Basically this is the ultimate test for the political leadership on Taiwan, to engage the PRC and come up with a solution that everyone can live with.

I don’t see why to keep referring to Jiang’s 8 points as an offer? They are more like guidelines on how PRC wishes to approach the Strait Issue.

No where in Jiang’s 8 points are panda mentioned, but pandas were offered as a token of appreciation of Lien Chan’s visit.

If your contention is that point 2 of Jiang’s 8 points doesn’t allow PRC to ever entertain TI under any name, form or ambition, then the question becomes what can ROC offer PRC to expand the definition of point 2 for the semblance of political autonomy without offending their veiw of “One China.”

PRC is already doing a fine job of weeding out the political leadership they are willing to deal with In Taiwan’s oh so colorful political landscape.

The problem In Taiwan politics (as if there is only one problem In Taiwan politics) is that there is not even a consensus on how to approach the Strait Issue anymore. ROC use to have LTH 6 points and the 1992 consensus. But the current leadership has yet to come up with a solution that has popular support among the people on Taiwan, nor anything remotely acceptable by the PRC.

Basically this is the ultimate test for the political leadership on Taiwan, to engage the PRC and come up with a solution that everyone can live with.[/quote]

AC,

The focus on the Jiang Badian is reasonable as this is the closest thing the Chinese leadership has ever made re. a concrete ‘offer’ on reunification/future cross-strait ties. All the talk about ‘As long as you accept the one China principle, everything is open to negotiation’ is frankly just hot air. What would the PRC be willing to do with the Taiwan military under a reunification scenario? How about the MoFA? The Jiang Badian gives us a proximate answer to these questions and others, and it therefore makes perfect sense to commence discussion with it.

My sources in Peking tell me that Jiang’s decision not to include pandas in the Badian was a strategic oversight, and he sincerely regrets it… Nice attempt at humor AC, but just slightly off topic, don’t you think?

I seriously had no undeclared ‘contentions’ or subterranean agendas attached to my question, least of all anything about the role of TI in any cross-strait negotiation. I was simply looking for your opinion (and have been for a while now) re. what the Chinese leadership would be willing to offer Taiwan in a cross-strait political negotiation. I still don’t have that. Why is it such a difficult question for you to answer? I have given you my opinion, a sense of fair play in debate would dictate that you reply in kind.

Your post does, however, give us some small insight into your view on these matters - you seem to think the burden of adjustment in any future cross-strait political negotiation would inevitably fall on the Taiwan side. The Chinese leadership would, apriori, have the right to pick who they do business with. Last I heard, the job of determining leaders in Taiwan, even ones some people hate, belonged to registered RoC voters…

Finally, while I agree there may not be a consensus in Taiwan politics on how to approach the cross-strait issue ‘anymore’ (I’m skeptical there ever was - what Taiwan had before was a KMT policy dictate), there IS a solid social consensus out there. As you well know, 70%-plus of the population want what they already have - the status quo. We can debate the detail (‘status quo forever’ vs ‘status quo with independence down the track’ etc), but right now the status quo is the basic demand of the great bulk of the population. In this context, the ultimate test for the Taiwan leadership is therefore not to ‘engage the PRC and come up with a solution that everyone can live with,’ but to retain what already exists, for as long as the Taiwanese people want it. Surely?

guangtou:

While you made your points quite clearly, I think there is a fundamental issue you are confused about.

Jiang’s 8 points can be considered China’s starting offer for the 1C2S solution when reunification happens.

Reunification through negotiation being the mainland’s ultimate goal, it certainly would like to discuss Jiang’s 8 points and 1C2S when that is the topic. However, at the current time, reunification is not going to be the top topic for a negotiation that the mainland could have with Taiwan; the foundations are not there; it wasn’t discussed in 1992 and it isn’t going to be discussed the first thing now. That is a long term goal. That’s why Jiang’s 8 points is quite irrelevant at this time. As far as the mainland is concerned, as long as independence is checked and there is a possibility that reunification can happen (i.e not ruled out) down the road, it is satisified. It fundamentally believes time is on its side. This is all stated very clearly in the Anti-Secession Law. If this is not a statement that it is willing to tolerate the status quo, I don’t know what is. It is TI/er extremists in Taiwan that are fidgeting uncomfortably because they are dissatisfied with the status quo. I’m sorry, but that’s the truth.

There are many things to discuss between Taiwan and mainland China on the future of cross-straits ties that is perfectly compatible with the status quo and its prolonging, without having to delve into reunification/independence; one has to keep in mind we are still in an age when you must fly to Hong Kong to end up in Shanghai. This is, frankly, abnormal. Negotiations about normalizing the relationship within the ambiguity that the people of both sides can be happy with is what’s called for, not negotiation about the rights and responsibilities under an eventual reunification. I and many others can care less if extremists aren’t happy with such ambiguity. Not embracing what ambiguity there is that the people of both sides can live with but instead driving a wedge to derail any nascent process is exactly why CSB has made himself irrelevant to ameliorating the cross-straits relationship. It is in this context that even stilted politicians like Lien has room to maneuver.

So to have negotiations for normalizing the interim status quo between the two sides, it is very much the Taiwan government’s reponsibility to concede by embracing ambiguity – one that has been tried and has worked in the past to start talks toward normalizing the relationship, one that a majority in Taiwan can tolerate, and one that is the best hope for keeping the status quo.

On the other hand, if you hold the fundamentalist belief that you won’t enter any talks with mainland China because you presuppose only bad will come out of it, then there is no point for any further comment – and there is no possibility, by definition, for any long-term peace in the straits.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]guangtou,

The PRC will not negotiate with Taiwan Independence advocates. The PRC has demostrated it can negotiate with other nations over territorial disputes as demostrated with India, Russia, and Vietnam. In fact it has even demostrated the ability to take the lead in complex negotiations like the 6 nations talks of NK nuclear arms development.

History will judge CSB presidency. I for one don’t see much of a legacy for the guy, if he continues on this track.

If CSB is such a great political “balancer” how come he cannot balance the needs of TI supporters and the PRC leadership to come up with a comprehensive policy that can be accepted on both sides of the Strait?

Give me one example of CSB great negotiating skills in action.[/quote]

So you’re saying the PRC will only negotiate with those it sees fit rather than solving any problems by dialogue?

Kinda like Tianamen Square. Shoot the students, better than negotiating right?

I bet if you ran a business you’d certainly be adored by your customers and would make much profit, singling them out by their faults rather than their positive attributes.

guangtou,

PRC has made many offers to ROC citizens to show good faith. Taibaozhen visa, open investment opportunities, stipends to study in PRC universities.

If ROC even offered half of these opportunities to PRC citizens, it would be a step in the right direction in showing at least “good will.”

Currently, the situation between PRC and ROC is such that both sides are using proxy organizations just to talk past each other on key issues and to set the tone of the possible negotiations.

The “ball” is basically in ROC court to at least reciprocate “good will” to PRC citizens.

If the ROC government is ready to engage the PRC government in direct negotiations, that’s a matter that I believe ROC is not ready for yet, given ROC lack of focus on the matter.

PRC has already stated the Taiwan could keep an independent military and economy under the “One China” paradigm. Given how Taiwan military is quickly falling behind PRC military, PRC doesn’t care. I think the USA would be more concerned on that issue.

ShrimpCrackers,

Customer service is a one sided affair. Business dictate all aspect of the relationship. Customer have very few rights to begin with. You may wish to believe otherwise, stating the free market allows customers the choices in selecting another company to do business with.

But that’s the major flaw in your analysis, there is only one other party to negotiate with to resolve the Strait Issue. That’s the PRC. Walking away is not an option since you can’t really pick up Taiwan Island and move it next to Hawaii.

In a more accurate analogy PRC and ROC are a Merger and Acquistion issue of former competitors in the same market. Like the Chrysler
and Mercedes. The smaller Mercedes cannot believe the peasant brand Chrysler has become a dominant force and is able to buy it out in a hostile take over. But it has happened not matter how much more advance Mercedes is precieved to be than Chrysler.

Details like meshing of corporate cultures and realignment of executive responsibility are also issues similar to what ROC and PRC will have to face in the future when unification occurs.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]guangtou,

PRC has made many offers to ROC citizens to show good faith. Taibaozhen visa, open investment opportunities, stipends to study in PRC universities.

If ROC even offered half of these opportunities to PRC citizens, it would be a step in the right direction in showing at least “good will.”

Currently, the situation between PRC and ROC is such that both sides are using proxy organizations just to talk past each other on key issues and to set the tone of the possible negotiations.

The “ball” is basically in ROC court to at least reciprocate “good will” to PRC citizens.

If the ROC government is ready to engage the PRC government in direct negotiations, that’s a matter that I believe ROC is not ready for yet, given ROC lack of focus on the matter.

PRC has already stated the Taiwan could keep an independent military and economy under the “One China” paradigm. Given how Taiwan military is quickly falling behind PRC military, PRC doesn’t care. I think the USA would be more concerned on that issue.

ShrimpCrackers,

Customer service is a one sided affair. Business dictate all aspect of the relationship. Customer have very few rights to begin with. You may wish to believe otherwise, stating the free market allows customers the choices in selecting another company to do business with.

But that’s the major flaw in your analysis, there is only one other party to negotiate with to resolve the Strait Issue. That’s the PRC. Walking away is not an option since you can’t really pick up Taiwan Island and move it next to Hawaii.

In a more accurate analogy PRC and ROC are a Merger and Acquistion issue of former competitors in the same market. Like the Chrysler
and Mercedes. The smaller Mercedes cannot believe the peasant brand Chrysler has become a dominant force and is able to buy it out in a hostile take over. But it has happened not matter how much more advance Mercedes is precieved to be than Chrysler.

Details like meshing of corporate cultures and realignment of executive responsibility are also issues similar to what ROC and PRC will have to face in the future when unification occurs.[/quote]
Where does it say Taiwan MUST DEAL with the PRC politically? We can just wait on status quo until forever. As long as Taiwan shares western standards of democracy, civil liberties, and freedom, it looks morally reprehensible for China to invade or pressure. So in this instance China must change to fit Taiwan’s needs.

Its YOU who wants ME to be your countrymen, not the other way around. So you better bring on the goods or I’ll just ignore your constant pandering.

As for cheap labor, we go anywhere for that. Already China’s GDP is half that of Mexico. If it keeps growing at this rate we’ll have to move our production plants back to Thailand, Phillipines, or Malaysia. Xinhua did say that Taiwanese export companies make up 3.5% out of the 9% total GDP growth in China.

Shrimpcrackers,

That’s the kind of denial that causes the impasse.

If it was possible to open a factory in Africa or one of ROC South American allie countries, it would have been done long ago.

Even in the future where ROC moves its factory to the next economically favorable location, when PRC standard of living doesn’t make it feasible to do manufacturing there anymore, ROC will still have to deal with PRC on the Strait Issue.

Taiwan’s political system is heading the direction of Phillippines in terms of corruption if it doesn’t do wholesale reform soon. ROC democracy is comparable to it Banana Republic allies, doesn’t really give people much hope or warm fuzzy feelings. Especially considering the PRC is catching up and surpassing ROC in various areas of social development and reform.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]Shrimpcrackers,

That’s the kind of denial that causes the impasse.

If it was possible to open a factory in Africa or one of ROC South American allie countries, it would have been done long ago.

Even in the future where ROC moves its factory to the next economically favorable location, when PRC standard of living doesn’t make it feasible to do manufacturing there anymore, ROC will still have to deal with PRC on the Strait Issue.

Taiwan’s political system is heading the direction of Phillippines in terms of corruption if it doesn’t do wholesale reform soon. ROC democracy is comparable to it Banana Republic allies, doesn’t really give people much hope or warm fuzzy feelings. Especially considering the PRC is catching up and surpassing ROC in various areas of social development and reform.[/quote]

Man, people have been criticizing Taiwan since the start. It doesn’t change the fact that Taiwan enjoys a booming trade surplus with China and that its mostly due to the cheap labor.

Later on when the economic ties are over there will be even less reason to deal with China.

No, it’s because Taiwan bans any sort of investment from mainlanders.

When economic ties are “over,” it will be when Taiwan is the boondocks, has marginalized itself, and has become irrelevant due to a policy of self-castration. Mainland China certainly isn’t going back into its shell again – it did that for a while and that was how Taiwan built up its relative economic advantage in the first place. The good days are over. Wake up.

Source?

[quote=“zeugmite”]guangtou:

While you made your points quite clearly, I think there is a fundamental issue you are confused about.

Jiang’s 8 points can be considered China’s starting offer for the 1C2S solution when reunification happens.

Reunification through negotiation being the mainland’s ultimate goal, it certainly would like to discuss Jiang’s 8 points and 1C2S when that is the topic. However, at the current time, reunification is not going to be the top topic for a negotiation that the mainland could have with Taiwan; the foundations are not there; it wasn’t discussed in 1992 and it isn’t going to be discussed the first thing now. That is a long term goal. That’s why Jiang’s 8 points is quite irrelevant at this time. As far as the mainland is concerned, as long as independence is checked and there is a possibility that reunification can happen (i.e not ruled out) down the road, it is satisified. It fundamentally believes time is on its side. This is all stated very clearly in the Anti-Secession Law. If this is not a statement that it is willing to tolerate the status quo, I don’t know what is. It is TI/er extremists In Taiwan that are fidgeting uncomfortably because they are dissatisfied with the status quo. I’m sorry, but that’s the truth.

There are many things to discuss between Taiwan and mainland China on the future of cross-straits ties that is perfectly compatible with the status quo and its prolonging, without having to delve into reunification/independence; one has to keep in mind we are still in an age when you must fly to Hong Kong to end up in Shanghai. This is, frankly, abnormal. Negotiations about normalizing the relationship within the ambiguity that the people of both sides can be happy with is what’s called for, not negotiation about the rights and responsibilities under an eventual reunification. I and many others can care less if extremists aren’t happy with such ambiguity. Not embracing what ambiguity there is that the people of both sides can live with but instead driving a wedge to derail any nascent process is exactly why CSB has made himself irrelevant to ameliorating the cross-straits relationship. It is in this context that even stilted politicians like Lien has room to maneuver.

So to have negotiations for normalizing the interim status quo between the two sides, it is very much the Taiwan government’s reponsibility to concede by embracing ambiguity – one that has been tried and has worked in the past to start talks toward normalizing the relationship, one that a majority In Taiwan can tolerate, and one that is the best hope for keeping the status quo.

On the other hand, if you hold the fundamentalist belief that you won’t enter any talks with mainland China because you presuppose only bad will come out of it, then there is no point for any further comment – and there is no possibility, by definition, for any long-term peace in the straits.[/quote]

Excellent post Z; a lot of material in here, so allow me to cherry pick. Foregive me if I miss the totality of your ideas. I have a lot on my plate at the moment:

Let me recap your position: Jiang Badian constitutes a statement of what the PRC side would be looking for in the event that reunification were to occur. That is, it doesn’t constitute a starting position for negs, but an end result that the Chinese side would be willing to live with. In the meantime, the PRC leadership is willing to accept the SQ as long as it takes, because it has time on its side - because eventually Taiwan will be economically absorbed into ‘China’ anyhow, etc, etc. The only spanner in the works is TI. TI/ers are not happy with the status quo and want to force the issue on a reluctant PRC. Does that sound about right?

It’s a persuasive argument, but I have a similar problem with it as I did with AC’s last post - and that is the burden of adjustment issue, and with it, the issue of first-cause. Your position seems to be saying that if the TI movement pulled its head in, everything would be fine - the PRC leadership would be willing to accept the status quo WITH NO USE-BY DATE. I find this argument very difficult to accept, not least because the PRC leadership must be worried about its own use-by date. Look around the world - communist dictatorships are merely a handful these days, and there is only ONE advanced industrial society that is also an authoritarian country. Singapore is hardly a role model for a nation of a billion plus people. Ultimately political reform that compromises the position of the CCP, of whatever character, will have to be contemplated. If, however, ‘solving the Taiwan issue’ can delay the inevitable, wouldn’t the PRC leadership take a good hard look at it? I would argue that a good chunk of the TI followship in Taiwan is in fact motivated by this very concern - i.e. that one day the Chinese communists are going to lash-out at the island, because they are scared shitless of loosing power. In the meantime, they are also concerned about what the small ‘tokens of friendship’ mean when they are dangled about the place (scholarships for Taisheng kids, whatever). None of it appears genuine - regardless or not if it is - and the TI/ers are given added ammunition every time the PRC does something ‘nice.’ Jesus Christ, even the pandas are given a bad wrap!

In short, the PRC leadership’s position and intentions are driving the agenda here just as much as TI lobby in Taiwan. The ball isn’t just in Taiwan’s court. The challenge for the PRC leadership in this context, IMHO is to reassure Taiwan that it can deal in good faith. Ultimately this is going to be a hard sell, as after all, the PRC may very well be just another teetering communist state…

PS: I’m totally with you on cross-strait negs that encompass the myriad of practical stuff that should have been dealt-with a long time ago (the three links for example). With qualifications, I also agree with your thinking about ambiguity and cutting an intrim deal, but this is gonna have to wait for another post (thread?).

PPS: Thanks also to AC for your last post. I’ll get to it when I find a spare moment…

guangtou’s point about the PRC having a lot to prove echoes my earlier comments. Taiwan is given a hard time because it disagrees with China on matters that the PRC sees as unreasonable. However, with China’s refusal to entertain even the possibility of conflicting viewpoints for the sake of further discussion, the blame surely lies equally on both sides?

As I have said, I see insistence that ‘One China’ can never happen as foolish. However, the very, very, very important point that ac_dropout et al ignore is that normal relations should be conducted on the basis of mutual discussion; not dictated prerequisites by the stronger side. China’s number one issue is that it will not talk unless Taiwan accepts One China. Details are merely secondary. However, Taiwan’s number one issue is the detail of One China.

Taiwan’s current position is akin to the customer who is only permitted to examine the contract or take a test drive after she’s paid for the car.

Before I could say that China was offering genuine and useful goodwill and One China was thus worth discussing seriously, the following would need to happen:

  1. dismantling of missile systems currently targetted at Taiwan.
  2. a firm and irrevocable guarantee that in the event of unification, Taiwan would enjoy freedoms of self governing, border control, internal military etc. IN PERPETUITY. And I’m not talking HK-style pseudo governance but something serious and completely separate from Beijing.

Maybe the PRC should ask itself: ‘why does the Taiwanese majority so desparately want to avoid unification with China?’ In fact, maybe we should all ask ourselves this question - pro unification, pro TI or otherwise.

But this was the situation for Hong Kong and Macau. Any deviation from that practice (or principle, however you see it), would be considered a breach of principle by those who have already bought into one China.

[quote]a firm and irrevocable guarantee that in the event of unification, Taiwan would enjoy freedoms of self governing, border control, internal military etc. IN PERPETUITY. And I’m not talking HK-style pseudo governance but something serious and completely separate from Beijing.
[/quote]
Again, it seems to me that it would be difficult for Beijing to agree to such terms since they have up to now shown themselves unwilling to give Hong Kong or Macau anything close to what you describe. I’m not saying that it would be completely impossible for Beijing to find a way around it, but I think it would be difficult for them to both satisfy the Taiwanese and avoid pissing off Hong Kongers.

I’m going to play Zeugmite’s…I mean devil’s advocate here :wink: . Do the majority of Taiwanese so desperately want to avoid unification? I’d say that a majority are averse to the idea, but I wouldn’t say that a majority are desperate to avoid it. The word “desperate” in this context conjures images of Taiwanese keeping loaded weapons in their houses, electing politicians who will vote for military spending without a lunch box fight in the LY and four years delay and a noticeable number of the best and brightest opting to build careers in the military. I don’t see those things in Taiwan. I don’t see desperation. I see complacency and indecisiveness. When the mainlanders see that, it certainly doesn’t make them think of softening their position toward Taiwan.

Let me play TI/er’s advocate here; the one argument I know of against One China is that the sheer size difference (and all that stem from it) makes Taiwan too insignificant a candidate even if got its rightful share in the “China” claim game. I believe that idea comes from top TI/er LTH himself. (Before LTH, Taiwan fancied itself as the “Free China.”) If you follow that reasoning, you refuse “one China” at all costs.

That’s really the problem. Taiwan has little capital of its own to deal. Any perfectly fair negotiation or settlement would be “unfair,” so indeed even if the fear about PRC and its credibility is discounted,the PRC will still have a hard time satisfying Taiwanese insecurity and doubt.

If you follow this reasoning a little farther, you discover the ultimate truth behind all this: this is a geopolitical issue between the US and China; it’s that way because the US is and always has been the capital that Taiwan draws on.

PRC doesn’t care if Taiwan runs itself. I don’t see any rational need for the PRC to take over Taiwan and run it or to suppress anything in Taiwan even if it has every power to do so under reunification. Nobody has given a rational reason, either. The intentions can be seen from Deng’s quote “By following 1C2S, you don’t swallow me up, and neither I you.”

But, as long as there is no accord with Taiwan, the US can sell arms to Taiwan, can leverage Taiwan, can have a convenient outpost to control its Asian interests against China. If you look carefully at what the PRC does hold dear, it’s not suppressing the rights of Taiwan, it’s also not getting reunification tomorrow, it’s not attacking Taiwan to force reunification; it’s getting the US to stop selling arms to Taiwan, it’s getting Taiwan to recognize that the matter should be solved between the two sides however long it takes, it’s getting Taiwan to not declare formal independence and thereby completely internationalizing the issue. To skeptical Taiwanese, this may seem like a chicken-and-egg problem, but let’s just throw this out there: if the impossible happened, that Taiwan ruled out formal independence and refused third-party intervention or arms for the purpose of achieving independence, I believe the PRC would be only too glad to renounce use of force against Taiwan.

Let us not forget that the CCP, like the KMT, is nationalist more than ideological.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]guangtou,

PRC has made many offers to ROC citizens to show good faith. Taibaozhen visa, open investment opportunities, stipends to study in PRC universities.

If ROC even offered half of these opportunities to PRC citizens, it would be a step in the right direction in showing at least “good will.”

Currently, the situation between PRC and ROC is such that both sides are using proxy organizations just to talk past each other on key issues and to set the tone of the possible negotiations.

The “ball” is basically in ROC court to at least reciprocate “good will” to PRC citizens.

If the ROC government is ready to engage the PRC government in direct negotiations, that’s a matter that I believe ROC is not ready for yet, given ROC lack of focus on the matter.

PRC has already stated the Taiwan could keep an independent military and economy under the “One China” paradigm. Given how Taiwan military is quickly falling behind PRC military, PRC doesn’t care. I think the USA would be more concerned on that issue.
[/quote]

Sorry to take so long getting back to you on this AC - unfortunately contributing to Forumosa doesn’t pay very much :slight_smile:

I concur with your proposition that Taiwan/RoC doesn’t do enough to show goodwill to the Mainland - there is much that could be done, if only to convince the US and other countries that Taiwan is trying to make things work. There you go AC, we actually agree on something (if for totally different reasons)!

This said, the tennis analogy - i.e. that the ‘ball is in Taiwan’s court’ - is not appropriate here. It gives the impression that progress in cross-strait relations can be made if the two sides adopt a tit-for-tat strategy, rewarding small goodwill initiatives in kind. This can work where there is mutual recognition of (1) the right to exist, and (2) that both sides are entangled in the same mess. On both points, think US-Soviet relations after the Cuban missile crisis.

However, the PRC leadership has never recognized the legitimacy of the formally constituted government here. They have absolutely no intention of drawing a line in the sand on their diplomatic offensive against the RoC - negs between the Vatican and PRC for a switch in recognition are ongoing as we speak - and give no indication whatsoever that they would ever see representatives from Taiwan as anything more than provincial appointees.

Further, and this speaks to the second point, the PRC’s understanding of their contingent role in cross-strait tensions remains highly constricted. They have only just recently started to realize that if they saber-rattle before elections, the Taiwanese population tends to vote for green candidates (and I personally think the US was largely responsible for communicating this message prior to the Presidential election last year - otherwise they would have made noise and increased the vote for CSB).

Beyond this, they just don’t get the fact that, for better or worse, the PRC and Taiwan are two scorpions in a jar. This seems to stem from the most supreme arrogance - that somehow Taiwan is so morally and intellectually inferior to the PRC that it couldn’t possibly get pissed-off if, say, 700-odd missiles were aimed at it… Doh!

There can never be a virtuous circle of goodwill between Taiwan and the PRC, until the Chinese side takes Taiwan seriously. If I want to date a girl, my opening line cannot be ‘I think you’re stupid, but would you like to go out to dinner? C’mon! I’ll beat you up if you refuse…’

guangtou,

The reason why I use the term “ball in Taiwan’s court” is because over the past few years PRC has been doing a wonderful job at showing the world how generous they have been to ROC common citizen. Whereas, Taiwan is still stuck in the on “no pre-conditions prior to negotiations” and not to mention “how to break every human rights principle when it comes to PRC brides.”

So on the world stage people are questioning what kind of democracy and freedom is Taiwan alluding to whenever they make referrence to those principles.

As for the game theory analogy…the problem at this point is that PRC is able to redefine the game rules, the goals, and scope almost at will these days. What they are playing as a game to reach a common goal can easily be changed to a game of net-zero sum goals at their convenience as well.

The PRC recognizes that the ROC is the government on greater Taiwan. What they will not tolerate for much longer is ROC supporting USA sphere of influence in the region. Which is true for much of Japan, HK and SK.

So as long as one keeps in mind the larger goal of PRC is to remove USA direct influence in the area, then the goal of retaining ROC political autonomy is not that difficult.

I also have too disagree with you on your analogy of PRC sabre rattling and ROC presidential elections. Because in 1996 when a missle few over Taiwan people supported the KMT candidate LTH over the DPP candidate Peng Min Ming. If you remember Peng, his position was to cut off all ties with PRC. Especially economic ties. Not to mention he is bitter with the KMT over the lost of his arm. That is as Green as they come on Taiwan.

In 2000, pan-Blues garner most of the votes on Taiwan, but it was split between 3 blue candidates.

In 2004, racial overtones of BSR vs. WSR was the highlight of the campaign. Granted both candidate are by casual observation BSR. One was more “authentic Taiwanese” than the other.

As for your scopion analogy. It is more accurate to state ROC is but an ant. USA and PRC are scopions fighting for dominance. Both sides are threatening ROC to support their position over the other. 50 years ago the choice was obvious. However, today the choice is not that simple, perhaps there should be a new alliance to ensure ROC interests are preserved?

Sorry, I’m up the wall here and don’t have time to respond to the comments - but I’ll get around to it.

ac_dropout - I’m sorry, but what? ‘a wonderful job at showing the world how generous they have been to ROC common citizen’? This sounds like something straight out of a China Daily / People’s Daily combo attack. Are you mainland Chinese by any chance? Give me some examples of genuine goodwill from China that show genuine respect for Taiwanese citizens. Let me point some missiles at your house, make a law that legalises aggression against you, then go behind your back to make deals with your family, and see just how much goodwill you want to give me.

I would hazard that China cares much less about the livelihoods of a mere 23 million people when, as you say, there’s a grand opportunity to get rid of an American thorn and recover from the embarrassment of Shimonoseki.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to put your full weight of support behind China then start talking about human rights. I’d say that Taiwan currently has an equal - if not better - situation on this front than the UK and USA. Personally, I think restrictions on PRC - ROC affairs are foolish but restrictions on visas or naturalisation for citizens of an aggressor state are hardly breaking ‘every human rights principle’.

You do make a good point that the USA-Taiwan alliance seems to be doing Taiwan just as much harm as it is good right now. I maintain (albeit grudgingly) that Taiwan’s best bet right now is to channel resources spent on cross-strait defense and diplomatic pay-offs on establishing a proper agreement that makes Taiwan an effective self-governed state in perpetuity, albeit under the name ‘Taiwan, Province of China’. China has a pretty awful track record for such agreements and thus I also maintain that this is a very delicate matter not to be handled by those with personal interest in forming a treaty that favours the CPC. I won’t mince words… if the KMT is the sole agent for such a deal, Taiwan is screwed sideways.

[quote=“ac_dropout”][/quote]

llary,

Would it make you feel better if the KMT, PFP, New Party and a few moderates from the DPP lead the brokering of a new relationship with the CCP and PRC?

Why are the KMT so sad?

According to this blog:

Why are the KMT trying to weaking Taiwan’s government? After all those hard years of reform by the DPP to reduce corruption, the KMT are now trying to chip away anymore reform and keep their power basein the LY. I don’t know about evil communists, but I do know that a weak government will not defend itself from China

Could you please answer my questions raised above? Notably, what China has offered Taiwan in the way of goodwill as Chinese state news keeps spouting?

I would feel much better if any such deal was vetoed by referendum and/or a special NGO. Call me naive to expect this, but we’re talking about the future of 23 million people and generations to come; this isn’t something to be done over a cup of coffee between people who have a vested interest in pleasing the CPC. Taiwan is a completely different beast from HK and needs to be handled in a way that reflects Taiwan’s democratic process.

While this issue is so heavily politicised, I don’t trust the DPP, I don’t trust the TSU, nor the PFP, KMT or New Party. However, I especially distrust anyone with aforementioned vested interests. Do you really think James Soong, Lian Chan et al are really going to risk their nice little seat at the NPC and masonic power by proxy just to get Taiwan a square deal?

[quote=“ac_dropout”]llary,

Would it make you feel better if the KMT, PFP, New Party and a few moderates from the DPP lead the brokering of a new relationship with the CCP and PRC?[/quote]