[quote=“ac_dropout”]Tempo Gain,
I mean by 2008 we might have a pan-Blue in the executive office and tension between the Strait might lessen without much USA direct intervention.[/quote]
I think there might be a pan-blue in office (not even the cards can tell at the moment), but as election after election shows, the traditional pan-blue support is eroding bit by bit. Probably no Taiwan president, blue or green would be acceptable to China unless he openly kowtows to emperor Hu and empress Wen. Why? Because the support is not there to take the stance towards unification that China wants. It is true that surveys say that Taiwanese don’t want war over the independence issue. It is also true that the same surveys say that they don’t want to be a part of China.
Any candidate will have to be convincing to enough people. And, you never know…while the president might be Blue or Green, the legislature might be Blue or Green. Taiwan might be deadlocked for some time. I almost (well, not quite)…I half pity the pan-Blue president who finds himself with a Green legislature.
And don’t forget…there are no plans to scrap a hard-line unification law even after the pan-Blue “victory” (loss of seats) in the legislative election. Pan-Blue doesn’t equal Beijing bedfellow.
What does Taiwan independence have to do with it?
That is a “trigger” condition, only. The mainland could simply come to the end of its tether. The “Taiwan issue” is one that the mainland has wanted to solve for 55 years. Are they willing to wait another 55 years even if an administration in the future is China-friendly? Given the precedent of the nationwide referendum, Taiwan’s public will not give up the status quo (i.e., to accept the “one country, two systems” or the “confederation model”) without having a say.
If the cart is stuck in the mud, it could stand to reason that eventually the Chinese will give it a shove. It could come initially in the form of economic warfare, like nationalizing all of the investments from the brothers in Taiwan on the mainland.
The US has to be very crafty here. Self-interest is the great motivator and although GW Bush speaks of creating a democratic seed country in the Middle East, it is reasonable to assume that should Taiwan be in really dire straits (militarily), the US will not continue with its attempt to be a global philanthropist (if indeed that was ever truly the case).
So independence on Taiwan could have nothing to do with it
At this particular moment, people are preoccupied with Iraq. Within a few years, Iraq will move to the back pages of the newspaper regardless of the outcome there.
In a way, Iraq has eclipsed China for the time being. That is hardly a permanent situation. Now it seems the US and Japan will jointly be declaring next year a statement fingering China as a threat to regional security.
Iraq is a distraction. I don’t doubt for a second that the upper muckety mucks of American defense have lost track of China. [/quote]
I have a completely orthogonal view. The US is trying to control the worlds oil by invading Iraq. That oil will give them leverage over China. I still cant’ figure out how our oil under their sand, but the oil is not going away, the US is not leaving Iraq. Yes, the US has a long term eye on China, but in fact that is precisely why they are in Iraq and the Middle East to stay.
Oh yeah, it’s amazing how low the US will go. It’s a good thing Taiwan has the rest of the world to count on! The unselfish concern and support that has been shown here is something to behold. Imagine if something serious actually happened. You would see nations all over the world acting like little children running from an oncoming freight train. Then they will find a way to moan and blame everything on the bad old USA. This pathetic, lame, transparent whining will also be reflected on internet boards.
Worse still, they might blame Taiwan for being too uppity. Defending your country from an autocracy with a bankrupt ideology just because you’re a democracy
I was referring to the conflict that requires the U.S. to keep the bulk of its active military and military resources occupied. I am not so naive as to believe that they will just say…bye bye Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other country in which they have taken such a vested interest. U.S. and Iraq will be intertwined for quite a while still. The important thing though is that the resources and manpower be available and in the right position to provide support. And I seriously doubt U.S. troop levels will stay at this number in Iraq forever.
One more thing. The U.S. doesnt have its hand on the oil spigot for China. China is doing a good enough job of securing its own supply without the need for Iraq by dealing with third party nations that have bad reputations themselves (such as Iran and certain African nations) . Iraq doesnt hold ALL of the world’s oil.
What do you mean? Explain please. I think I’m not interpreting this right. Today, women will be raped, children will die like stray dogs, families will be thorn appart and I’ll be eating turkey while thousands are starving! That’s serious. No?
This may be difficult for people like you to fathom, but Taiwan - unlike your precious PRC - has imported a concept commonly referred to as democracy. For the president to declare independence, he needs the approval of the voters and legislature first.[/quote]
This is an entirely philosophical question. I think it has been demostrated throught history the masses can be convinced to believe in almost anything: Going to war with another country, drinking one sweet carbonated beverage over another, teaching evolution is not a proper theory, etc.
The question is, are the people willing to pursue a less violent solution and allow the right leadership to help guide the Strait Issue to a peaceful resolution.