One time back when I was living in Qingdao, I visited a KTV banquet there. When one of the Taiwanese guys got up and sang the popular song “Wo shi Zhongguo Ren” (I am Chinese), he practically got a standing ovation.
On the issue of what the people of Taiwan support: According to most opinion polls, many support no change in the status quo, which is to say that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a political sovereign and is not ruled by Beijing.
Should through a democratic mechanism such as a referendum Taiwan declare de jure independence – moving away from de facto independence – the US would have to respect that democratic decision, despite one of Clinton’s three no’s: No Taiwan independence.
(Again, allow me to note that there is no referendum law in place, and the draft versions of the law specifically exclude allowing Taiwanese voters to decide the matter).
Whether the US comes to Taiwan’s aid should China attack is up to the American public, and I don’t care to speculate whether there would be broad support should the cross-strait fight come to blows.
On the matter of what the people of the PRC support: This is a non-issue.
Taiwan has never been ruled by the PRC. This country’s future should be decided by its 23 million people, not by the communist leadership of a foreign country. I should also note that the communist leadership of China uses the Taiwan issue as a distraction from the massive internal problems facing China: a creaking state-run economy, a fragile banking system, growing unrest and economic disenfranchisement in rural areas and so on.
I said earlier that the cross-strait problem probably won’t be solved until China becomes a democracy. Let me first say that the status quo is a satisfactory solution to most of the people of Taiwan and much of the international community. It’s China that has the problem. Beijing has said that it will use force against Taiwan if it drags its heels on unification.
A democratic country can never be ruled by an undemocratic one, which is why I don’t think Taiwan will ever yield any of its sovereignty to China until the latter is democratic.
What’s more, no two democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other (and I don’t want to hear from the unschooled on this board claim that Nazi Germany was a democratic country).
Should China become a democratic country, the likelihood that it would ever attack Taiwan would be diminished. Keep in mind that what makes the cross-strait problem such a thorny issue is that China has vowed to unify with Taiwan – using force if necessary.
Of course, the shortcomings of China’s military also makes such an attack impractical, but that’s a different conversation.
quote:
Originally posted by : On the issue of what the people of Taiwan support: According to most opinion polls, many support no change in the status quo, which is to say that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a political sovereign and is not ruled by Beijing.Should through a democratic mechanism such as a referendum Taiwan declare de jure independence – moving away from de facto independence – the US would have to respect that democratic decision, despite one of Clinton’s three no’s: No Taiwan independence.
On the matter of what the people of the PRC support: This is a non-issue. Taiwan has never been ruled by the PRC. This country’s future should be decided by its 23 million people, not by the communist leadership of a foreign country.
On the issue of what the people of Taiwan support: According to most opinion polls, the overwhelming majority support no change in the status quo, which is to say that they would not support a formal declaration of independence.
The US should, theoretically, respect the decision of the people of a country, but that doesn’t mean that it will. If, as many say, the majority of people on mainland China support a policy which results in an attack on Taiwan, I don’t think the US would feel obligated to respect their will. Likewise, the US should not feel obligated to respect an action on Taiwan’s part which will likely result in a similar attack.
The matter of what people on the mainland support is an issue in that what the mainland thinks and does directly affects the situation of Taiwan. Simply calling it a non-issue won’t make China go away.
I’m not sure what your point is, if you’re making any.
We seem to agree that the public supports no change in the status quo, which is to say they support a Republic of China on Taiwan that is a political sovereign and not ruled by Beijing.
But you also seem to be saying that if Taiwan holds a democratic referendum on its sovereignty and if the international community doesn’t like the outcome, the US and its friends can simply disregard the result. A democracy doesn’t mean we keep the results we like and ignore the ones we don’t.
As to whether the US would come to Taiwan’s defense, that’s entirely up to the American public.
As to the future of Taiwan, the opinions of the communist leadership in China are irrelevant. The People’s Republic of China is, after all, a foreign country. Taiwan is a democracy and is politically sovereign. That means its citizens alone decide her future.
I am surprised I have to point this out to you.
quote:
Originally posted by : I'm not sure what your point is, if you
Let me remind you that the U.S. is not a Democracy, it’s a Republic. That is for the very reason that a total democracy is not ideal. That is why the Articles of Confederation, in which people had total power and the government practically none, was scrapped. It didn’t work.
Our forefathers set up our government as a Representative Republic instead of a democracy because it was felt that, while people’s basic rights and freedoms should be protected by the government, people should be represented by those educated and wise enough to make good decisions for them. That is, to say, that (as you probably know) the simple average person doesn’t always know what’s best for the country.
The electoral system was also set up (in the same manner as our representative system)so that all states would be fairly represented, and each would have a fair vote. This is to keep large populations concentrated in small areas from controlling the government, at the expense of other less populated states. If you saw the map based on votes by district, you’d find that Bush took most of the map, while Gore’s votes were all concentrated in small, but heavily populated, areas. This kind of situation was the very reason for the Virginia and New Jersey plans.
To conclude, I would agree that the American people themselves do not make these decisions, but our Representatives do. And that’s the way it was intended from the first day our Constitution was implemented.
quote[quote]Originally posted by dummy my poo poo:[/quote]quote[quote]Where exactly in China did you travel?[/quote]I lived in Wuhan and traveled through much of the country, other than Tibet (though I did go to Tibetan areas outside of modern Tibet proper) and the eastern seaboard. The longest trip I took was to Kashgar, in the far west. My butt is still recovering from that damn bus ride across the desert from Urumqi.
quote[quote]Please tell us more about the difference between the nationalism of Han Chinese to those who are not ethnically Han. Especially in regards to Taiwan.[/quote]I wouldn’t put myself forward as an expert on this. So just a few comments:
There is of course considerable separtist sentiment in Xinjiang. People there probably don’t care one way or another about Taiwan, because what has Taiwan ever done for them? The ROC gov’t wasn’t exactly their best friend before 1949 either.
Tibet is another matter. Many Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, resent Taiwan for still having a Tibetan and Mongolian Affairs Commission. Some had hoped that Chen would do away with that branch of the gummit; but he didn’t. But local links to Tibetan Buddhist groups could bring some benefits to the island, I believe. Tibet gets great press and Western sympathy. Taiwan would be fortunate to be able to harvest some of that for itself.
Elsewhere in China, the “national minorities” are smiled upon as long as they are colorful, happy, non-political people with their colorful, happy, non-political customs and their colorful native garb. Looks good in the travel brochures. I wish I could say that things are much better in that regard in Taiwan.
quote[quote]Did you already live in Taiwan, is that why you asked about Taiwan?[/quote]I had a Taiwanese girlfriend (now my wife) and had visited the island. Also, you might be surprised just how often Taiwan gets mentioned…
quote[quote]And, are you sure they weren't just barfing up the "right" answer for the "foreigner"...I mean, were they really candid with you?[/quote]In general, I think people were telling me the truth. Certainly my friends and students were candid.
quote[quote]Also, what was your feeling about their level of education in regards to their attitude, as far as the role it played in their viewpoint.[/quote]Regardless of their education or background, teenagers tended to be like, well, teenagers, in that they were often not particularly questioning of the party line. Undergrads were often not much better. Most people in the above groups, along with the relatively – and completely – uneducated, probably never gave the matter much thought, which is to say that their feelings were what they’d been told to think, rather than that they didn’t care much one way or another.
People with degrees were more of a mixed bunch.
Although this is an excellent debate, it seems that much of it is purely theortical.
There will never be a referendum on independence.
China will not invade Taiwan.
China will “own” Taiwan even though it has no right to so. Like HK, how much autonomy it will have will remain to be seen.
Taiwan is a democracy, but it is not a country.
The Taiwanese will “vote” on the One China Policy by continuing to do excactly what they are doing now - investing everything they have into mainland China.
You can see what’s going to happen. All the debates about democarcy and the US’s possible intervention or not don’t matter one iota. The US changed its allegiance to PRC a long time ago, after all that’s where most of the US company’s growth will come from over the next 5 years - not domestically or in Europe. A little like the Chinese, they’re just saving face.
On the issue of whether PRC could in fact invade Taiwan, the answer is no. But then we all saw what happened to the stock exhange when they fired a missile over the island. How long would the Taiwan economy last if there were a Chinese battle group off-shore or blockade of Taiwan?
China’s ability to launch a successful attack on Taiwan seems to be highly underestimated among all of you. I come from a military family, and I can assure you that China easily has the ability to launch a successful invasion on Taiwan. This has been played down, of course, to alay any fears which my cause investors problems, and for patriotic reasons. But we’re talking about the largest fighting force in the entire world, as well as a nuclear arsenal. If the U.S. were to intervene, that would be a different story, but plenty of damage could be done before this occurred.
I wouldn’t make second guesses about the probability of an invasion. Anything can happen, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be that significant to set things off! The economic circumstances coinciding with the situation over the strait would be overshadowed, were an issue that carried the burden of nationalism to anger one entity or the other. Don’t forget that nationalist pride takes precedence over everything else, in these two “nations”.
Point One: It is not Clinton’s fault … the blame rests solely on Taiwan.
Point Two: Whether or not China can launch a successful invasion of Taiwan is a moot point. If they wanted to conquer Taiwan by force, all they would have to do is bomb Taiwan into submission with the 300+ missles (they don’t even need the nukes) already pointed at Taiwan. Even this isn’t necessary … China has already won the most important war … the war of economics. It’s over … it’s only a matter of time until “jiefang” (liberation).
NFI: By just about any definition (common usage or political science) Taiwan is a country and a nation.
Cranky: I’ve always dbeen curious about that Department of Tibetan and Mongolian Affairs. What is it for and what does it do? You are very right about the advantages of being able to get closer to Tibet and reap some of the foreign sympathy that Tibet gets.
Bri
It’s really interesting to compare Taiwan’s current situation with that of it’s modern beginnings. Now Taiwan is a democratic country, while before it was under martial law controlled by the Kuomintang, really not that much of an improvement from the communists. Though, perhaps, it was the lesser of two evils, it was still a militant government capable of committing acts comparable to that of their communist counterparts.
But now things have changed. Things have changed a lot. Taiwan has since reaped many fruits, improvements and successes. It has also made many mistakes. But it is, in essence, a different nation now. But a struggle between the old and the new still exists, and there is much diversity of opinion. Yet, the Chinese nationalist roots still seem to hold people together with immense strength.
I don’t believe it’s fair to assign blame to any one particular group or person. There are many factors that have created the situation over the Taiwan strait. But each generation born in Taiwan is once removed from the “Chinese” nationalist roots, and re-aligned with their “Taiwanese” heritage. Whether the situation deteriorates or improves is largely dependant on how much the “Chinese” nationalism vs. the “Taiwanese” nationalism is preserved, or the latter is galvanized.
In conclusion, it’s too early to make declarations of any kind. Taiwan hasn’t “sold out” to China by any means. Don’t confuse “persuit of wealth” with diplomacy. It’s far better to be watchful and vigilant, as things are more volatile at this stage than many perceive.
Hey Dummies,
Don’t forget also that just because China has enought military might for an attack, that doesn’t mean they’re gonna do something that stupid. Anyone notice how much China’s changed over the last 20 years, too? Sure, it’s still this big dummy Communist poop, but it’s going forward, not backward. I’m simply saying it’s obvious China is concerned about the way it appears to the outside world (just look at how they spray painted grass green to impress the Olympic committee) and you’ll see that it would probably make a bad impression on other countries if they suddenly bombed the hell out of Taiwan.
So, don’t be too presumptuous about China acting stupid, either.
And, you guys need to be more suspicious of ALL governments…C’mon, there’s so much corruption in the Taiwanese national government and Chinese government…why do you think China likes Lee Tung Hui more than Chen Shui Bian? Because he was more like them (i.e. corrupt)…
PS…who erased my reply to Bu Lyin’? What did I say that you didn’t like?
Anyway, I’ll just write it here…Of course the government of China like Lee better than Chen…don’t you remember the threats when he took office? Don’t you remember the secret meetings between the KMT and the Communist government? Dummy.
poopsie.
China likes Lee Deng Hui more than Chen Shui Bian? What a load of bollocks. They detest and despise Lee, but Chen is just mildly loathed.
Bri
Contrary to what has been said on this board, the conventional wisdom of most military analysts, observers, commentators and policy wonks – though there are detractors – is that China will not have means to attack and occupy Taiwan for at least ten years.
This is so for several reasons. The primary reason is than an amphibious assault on the island would be very difficult to carry out. Fatality rates would be very high; China would lose too many ships crossing the Strait in an effort to land troops sufficient in number to control the island.
Yes, China does have 300 missiles pointed at the island, but armed with conventional weapons these are insufficient in number to have any strategic military value. Instead, their value is in their ability to terrorize Taiwan.
Where China could be successful is launching a blockade of the island to seek concessions. (This is why Taiwan wants to buy submarines from the US). Or it could terrorize the island by firing missiles at Taiwan.
For a 30-page summation of the argument that an amphibious assault on the island would be unsuccessful, see this link: http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/ohanlon/2000fall_IS.htm
Recently, a US analyst published a paper that argues that China does possess the capability now, and explains how such an attack could be carried out. Note that the author acknowledges that his paper is challenging the conventional wisdom that China does not now have the capability to attack Taiwan.
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/01autumn/Russell.htm
I’ve wondered before what would happen if a Chiense invasion of Taiwan succeeded to the point where they’d landed troops, taken over the main cities and got basic control of the air and sea.
Perhaps most likely is that Taiwan would at that point surrender to China, but what if enough people had the will to fight on? A guerilla war? It seems to me that a mountainous island like Taiwan would be able to fight a really long and possibly successful guerilla war. Look at Chechenya. It’s pretty small and the second biggest army in the world didn’t exactly have an easy time there, and that was without the rest oft he world giving a damn.
I’m not an amateur military buff or anything, so I can’t really speculate, but it seems to me that it would be good for Taiwan to train it’s conscripts in guerilla war and stash heaps of guerilla weapons around the island and make preparations ofr a guerilla network etc.
Any comments?
Bri
Cool!
That sounds like a great idea. Don’t know if it would fly though. It doesn’t seem to me that the estimation of the China threat, on behalf of the Taiwan government, is that serious. I definately agree that Taiwan’s terrain would be a great place for Guerilla warfare!
As far as the analysis of the possibility of a Chinese invasion, it seems to me that any possibility for success that exists ought to be considered. It would be suicide to assume that China couldn’t launch a successful attack, and to strategize accordingly. The assumption should be that China COULD launch a successful invasion, and that would further the means to counter such an invasion.
Nonetheless, 300 missiles pointed at little Taiwan makes me a little uncomfortable. The fact that countermeasures are in place doesn’t account for the possiblity of error.
Yes, guerilla warfare! What fun that would be? Of course, after such a conflict there wouldn’t be much left in Taiwan that anyone would want.
But that’s ok, because I’m sure you’d all be by my side, fighting the commies.
<<Nonetheless, 300 missiles pointed at little Taiwan makes me a little uncomfortable.>>
That’s exactly what they are supposed to do. But they don’t posses much strategic value. China wouldn’t be able to use them to reduce key military installations or the number of hardware in Taiwan or impair the nation’s fighting capability.
Remember when Iraq fired missiles into Tel Aviv, and that idiot reporter went live on CNN wearing a gas mask?
The missiles were useles from a strategic standpoint, but they did their job in make some people afraid.
quote:
What's more, no two democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other (and I don't want to hear from the unschooled on this board claim that Nazi Germany was a democratic country).
Tell that to Nicaragua/ Chile or any other number of Latin and South Americans whose lives are overshadowed by the Monroe Doctrine. Oh, I forgot those weren’t official wars. Maybe we should rephrase that nugget of conventional wisdom to- No two democratic countries have ever waged an official war with each other.