The Mind boggles: Ex-DPP chair for unification, admires Deng

That is true–the DL has no leverage except moral suasion, which the Chinese don’t care about. Few countries are willing to reduce their size voluntarily. Even autonomy arrangements can become controversial, nationalist sentiment being what is is. (The recent referendum in Macedonia is a good example.) This illustrates the great gulf between what is, and what ought to be.

For China to grow stronger and stronger is hardly inevitable. Something could happen to prevent that. Something could be MADE to happen to prevent that, so that China becomes carved up like Africa before it.

Anyway, for Taiwan to strike a deal with China could be foolhardy. China has not been very good about observing its treaties, let alone non-treaty agreements (like the 17-point Agreement with Tibet) which do not bind it under international law. The Chinese respect only power, not promises, or the best interests of the people.

As I said before, it is telling that China refuses Tibet (though Tibet deserves it more, culturally and historically speaking) the autonomous status which it offers Taiwan. This is because to them, all politics are power politics, with no moral element at all.

Naturally the communists have learned their lessons well. Considering the numerous “treaties” that China had been forced to sign in the last century and a half. One of Mao’s lessons remains firmly in place, “something every communist must know, all political power begins at the barrel of a gun”. Treaties are nothing more than the vestigial remnants of a contest of power, a tool with which to legitimize the rule of the strong over that of the weak.

Should politics have a moral element? Or is such a sign a self-defeating weakness?

Actually, carving up China would be rather difficult at present. Unlike pre-colonial Africa, China at the time of significant European contact was one state rather than a hodgepodge of kingdoms and tribes that formed Africa. Even today, nationalism is becoming a greater force in China than it has ever been and the pervasiveness of state media is absolute. It would be hard, nigh on impossible, to create separate political entities or political awareness out of the provinces and to attempt to forment revolt in the west would be difficult due to the strength of the military presence.

Oh, I’m optimistic. I think various elements within China, some of them regional, could very easily go at each other’s throats given the right circumstances. After that, separate identities would follow easily enough, just as they have on Taiwan. Remember, several sizeable regions of the present-day PRC already have a separate national consciousness, and historically China has been divided as often as it has been united.

Ought government to rule by the consent of the governed, or not? If the purpose of government is to serve the people, rather than to accumulate power for the benefit of its leaders, then it makes little sense for a government to forcibly insist on taking as much responsibility as possible, when decentralization or division would serve better for practical purposes. Of course this is only an ideal, but the experience of various civilized countries–Canada / Quebec, Scots and Welsh devolution, Trieste–suggests that power politics is not the last word.

And how come? Are Chinese less able to make judgements about their lives than westerners?

Do they need to be under repression in order to maintain social cohesion?

Are they less smart than westerners, since they can’t be trusted to elect their own leaders?

What you are saying is actually racist against Chinese(and Tibetans), implying that they are unable to govern their own lives and their own political future.

Since we are so bloody far off topic already, I guess that my transgression matters little.

[quote]Quote:
interests of Taiwan before the interests of China.

He never put ROC interest infront of PRC. He put is own interest infront of welfare of everyone on ROC.
[/quote]

This is what I mean abotu you being incapable of logic, ac.

I said Lee put the interests of Taiwan befopre the interests of China. To which you rebutted he put his own interests before the welfare of everyone on the ROC.

That is irrellevant. It is quite possible that he put his own interests first and still put the interests of Taiwan before the interests of China.

You are being evasive, because you have no rerasonable answer to my question:

How does putting the interests of Taiwan before the interests of China, equate to being a Japanese house-slave? (make an attempt to understand the question this time).

Brian

[quote=“ac_dropout”]The Tibetan government in exile is what ROC will be like in about 10 to 20 years, unless something drastic happens. ROC is slowly losing all political leverage to negotiate a compromise across the Strait.

I don’t want to be around when ROC is so weak that PRC is hand picking the provincial leader of Taiwan out of a hat. Hsu has the right idea. We must engage the PRC with a moderate voice, before ROC become irrelevant, and PRC dismisses any attempt by ROC. PRC has already dismissed CSB and LTH.[/quote]

The Communists are surely not going to play this one for short term advantage. If the ROC is becoming irrelevant, they will bide their time or press on any sign of weakness that is offered. I don’t see that “engaging them with a moderate voice” will be beneficial. They will not give us a better compromise now just because we are trying to be moderate when our position is weakening, in fact I would think the opposite to be far more likely.

Screaming Jesus,

I beg to differ. China has observed many treaties, including the grouping known as Unequal Treaties. PRC has also settle many territorial conflicts since its inception Russia, India, Vietnam, North Korea are just a few States China has been able to resolve territorial disputes with in past century.

ROC has also observed international treaties we have entered as well. I believe both side could come to a diplomatic compromise on the Strait Issue given the right environment and right participants.

Hsu paradigms are a step in the right direction.

Bu Lai En,

If you are intimately aware of LTH history can you honestly say the man has any greater goal in life than saving his own skin? Not to mention an insatiable greed for wealth and power.

To idealize LTH as some sort of Zhang Xue Liang (張學良) of ROC is quite a stretch.

LTH legacy will be he will bear the burden of causing the close demise of ROC to PRC when he single handedly instigated the missile launch in 1996. Since then ROC has never recovered from the political fallout he caused both at home and abroad.

If LTH had advocated the model Hsu is currently advocation, I believe the tension across the Strait would not be as bad as it is now.

Tempo Gain,

What weakness of the ROC is the PRC and the whole world not already aware of?

I would have to disagree, given various boarder agreements and economic agreements the PRC have ratified in the past 50 years with other States and International Bodies, I believe ROC and PRC can come to a compromise on the Strait Issue given the right leadership on both sides.

Hsu realistic assessment of ROC position is not a sign of weakness. On the contrary it is a sign knowing oneself and one’s oppenent before entering a conflict.

ac:

China has observed the treaties which were with countries stronger than it, and played fast and loose with the others.

Hong Kongers mostly feel that China has interpreted their accession treaty half to death, knowing that Britain can do nothing.

India lost a chunk of Kashmir (the Aksai Chin) because China wanted to build a road between Kashgar and Tibet, and found the existing borders inconvenient for this (and so changed them unilaterally). The Indian border is still not delimited (or redelimited) on either side–the two countries seemed on the verge of an agreement (along with China’s accepting Sikkim as a part of India, and India accepting Tibet as a part of China) but that fell through.

China’s respect for Vietnam’s border is perhaps related to the fact that they lost a war there, which by the way was aimed at changing the border.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, China has been very concerned to reconfirm the borders with Russia, because they are still afraid of Russia. (Russia is afraid of China, too, but that’s a different story.)

I fully expect China to try to take over North Korea at some point. The one thing they don’t want is a strong, united Korea.

My husband and I took a holiday in Vietnam a couple of years ago and we heard many Vietnamese complain bitterly about Beijing`s unfair border treaty with their country. I totally agree that the PRC only honours agreements with stronger states.

The DL has stated that Tibet needs to be connected to a larger country and all he seeks is to return to his nation. Beijing will still be free to destroy Tibets unique culture, make a killing off of selling cheesy Tibetan trinkets and Beijing can still use Tibet as part of its containment of India policy.

ac, your response to my post had nothing whatsoever to do with my post.

My question, which you continue to avoid (in the absence of having an answer) is:

How does putting the interests of Taiwan before the interests of China, equate to being a Japanese house-slave?

If you are incapable of answering, then stop making the accusation in the future.

Brian

You could not be more wrong about these two instances and seem to have everything topsy-turvy, particularly the 79 Sino-Vietnamese war. While the 1962 border war was directly about the Aksai Chin and less so about Arunachal Pradesh (though it was India, not China that was the belligerent), the Sino-Vietnamese war was not in the slightest about changing the border. It was more about Cold War machtpolitik and thumbing the Soviets.

Here is a site describing Sino-Vietnamese relations, including the war:

countrystudies.us/vietnam/60.htm

While the authors apportion blame for the war to both countries, the basic military fact is that China launched an invasion, which failed. As for the Soviet role, the reason they were involved at all was due to Vietnam’s fear of China, and consequent need for other allies who could defend them.

And here is a site which describes the Sino-Indian conflict:

hindustantimes.com/news/181_ … 370003.htm

Although an Indian site, I find this to be written fairly objectively. While the issue of which side actually began firing on the other is disputed, China’s unilateral seizure of Aksai Chin occurred much earlier.

Actually the real reason was that the USA was too busy with the Cuban Missile crisis to support India in a “Containment Policy” of China.

And the British was already too weak to do much of anything in those days.

The Sino-Vietnam conflict is extremely racist anti-Chinese motives behind it. From the invasion of Cambodia to the actual conflict with China.

Vietnamese often cite their Grandparents are Chinese, they got so scared by their own internal politics that they so confused. The USA didn’t help much here either.

Anyways the point is ROC is weaker than either Vietnam or India politically or militarily.

Time to negotiate like Hsu suggested.

AC, how much is Beijing paying you to distort history and spread racial bigotry against other races? India leaned toward Moscow`s corner back then and the only containment Washinton had in mind was the Soviet Union.

I agree its time to negotiate some form of limited American administration for a period of 30-50 years. No incremental moves towards annexation with Beijing during that time. If the PRC still wants Taipei at the end of that period then theyll have to offer a lot more than just missiles pointed at this island.

Taichungmafia,

Probably more than the pan-Greens are paying you given the obvious disparity in the quality of our post and witted barbs.

I counter with this footnote from a neutral third party.

[quote]Sino-Indian War

Nehru had relied on U.S. diplomatic support to maintain India’s claim in the area. However, in October, 1962, American attention was focused on the Cuban Missile Crisis with the Soviet Union.[/quote]

Sure if CSB can get a visa into the USA first.

No need, PRC lobby groups in the USA are better funded than ROC lobby groups.

I think if you look at all the international political bodies, i.e. WTO, UN, WHO, ASEAN etc. Not to mention ROC Taishang and ROC students in PRC. You will note the PRC has been engaging the Strait Issue on all fronts of conflict.

Are you going to post an independent candidate with Ronald Reagan’s head shot to counter Hsu?

[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Here is a site describing Sino-Vietnamese relations, including the war:

countrystudies.us/Vietnam/60.htm

While the authors apportion blame for the war to both countries, the basic military fact is that China launched an invasion, which failed. As for the Soviet role, the reason they were involved at all was due to Vietnam’s fear of China, and consequent need for other allies who could defend them.

And here is a site which describes the Sino-Indian conflict:

hindustantimes.com/news/181_ … 370003.htm

Although an Indian site, I find this to be written fairly objectively. While the issue of which side actually began firing on the other is disputed, China’s unilateral seizure of Aksai Chin occurred much earlier.[/quote]

Good points, but as your own article on Vietnam pointed out, the 1979 war wasn’t caused by any desire on the part of the Chinese to change the border. Did China and Vietnam have border disputes? Yes. Was it the cause that facilitated the 1979 invasion and was the invasion a premeditated attempt to seize land? No.

Interesting site Screaming Jesus, but unfortunately it takes one vital important fact for granted. That Aksai Chin belonged to India in the first place. This is quite debateable as the border is murky. That Aksai Chin has always been completly uninhabited (its a frozen barren wasteland), that India didn’t even realize that China had built a highway on it until years after the fact, nor had there ever been any sort of settlement involving all parties been reached prior to the 62’ war. Heres another article by an Indian flonnet.com/fl2123/stories/2 … 307500.htm that attributes the border problems to Nehru’s inability to reach a compromise. This sentiment is essentially echoed by the leading western scholar on the 62 S-I war, Neville Maxwell. Many Indians would dismiss the work of Maxwell, but he is argueably the most prominent in the field, having drawn extensively from Indian government documents of the time.

Which just shows the PRC can be trusted in territorial disputes.

The point of all this Vietnamese and Indian history is that China cannot be trusted, either as a neighbor or as a treaty partner. They didn’t like what Vietnam was doing, so they tried to invade it (and would have annexed it if they had been able, I think).

In India, yes, there was a border question but the Chinese took it upon themselves to pre-emptively settle it by force. The slogan of nonaligned solidarity, “hindi-chini bhai-bhai” (“Indians and Chinese are brothers”) thus took on the tasteless ring of Orwell’s “All animals are equal.”

Screaming Jesus,

How can you state the PRC not be trusted when they had stabilized disputed territory with NK, Russia, Vietnam, and India since their political creation.

The only territory left on the PRC list in our region is Diaoyutai, Taiwan, and Spratley Island chain.

It is better to diplomatically reach a solution with PRC over this territories than try to enter an armed conflict with them. The PRC has shown the ability to overwhelm most nations in the region when it came to territorial disputes.