Thoughtful post Bill.

April 9, 2007 @ 10:40 am | Comment

A lesson for Bill Stimson.

The reason for the existence of an independent Dutch state today is because of an almost innumerable number of wars fought over the low countries due to its strategic position and wealth. Much of the Netherlands was once part of the Holy Roman empire and in effect Germany. At one point or another, the area was controlled by the Spanish Hapsburgs, the Austrian Hapsburgs, Revolutionary France, and local lords great and small. That the Netherlands (and by extension Belgium and Luxemburg) exists as an independent polity is because the major powers of Europe essentially have been trying to screw one another for the past five hundred years or so. The Germans and Spanish essentially lost control of the Netherlands following the peace of Westphalia due in so small part to the machinations of Mazarin. The French themselves would go on to gain it briefly and then lose it during the war of the sixth coalition.

If there is any lesson to be drawn from the example of the Netherlands, it is that other states acting in their own perceived geopolitical interest will attempt to “contain” or weaken China by preventing her from gaining Taiwan. A island which for both historical and and strategic reasons must be secured by China in order to insure its position as hegemon in the western Pacific.

p.s. Richard I don’t know who you are trying to fool with that silly pretense you call a disclaimer.

April 9, 2007 @ 12:05 pm | Comment

“it is that other states acting in their own perceived geopolitical interest will attempt to “contain” or weaken China by preventing her from gaining Taiwan. A island which for both historical and and strategic reasons must be secured by China in order to insure its position as hegemon in the western Pacific”

Yes, that is why China must not be allowed to have Taiwan. Google “Green water chains”, that is CHina’s long term strategy.

April 9, 2007 @ 1:36 pm | Comment

Jing, you obviously haven’t been reading this site very long. I have always been cautious on this topic, and have said many times I don’t expect the Taiwan independence movement to succeed, and that sticking to the status quo was probably the most pragmatic solution. I have never come out for or against independence for Taiwan, as I feel, as I’ve admitted here many times, ambivalent on the subject.

Please don’t use hostile language like that toward me in future comments. Thanks.

April 9, 2007 @ 2:11 pm | Comment

Jing,

I think you know too little about strategic interests. Taiwan is of course important to PRC for historical and nationalistic considerations, but it is not a pre-requisite for the PRC to annex Taiwan in order to achieve hegemony.

With ICBMs, nuclear subs and even anti-SAT tech, the PRC is definitely on its way to military primacy in the East Asian Theatre. Taiwan is not significant at all to contain its might and power projection. In fact, Taiwan becomes increasingly tied to the mainland economically. As PRC becomes the fourth largest economy in the world, the PRC is going to utilize dollar diplomacy to increase its influence. Before Chen Shui-Bian became president, Taiwan had 29 diplomatic allies, now there are only 24 left.

And look at history. The PRC unleashed its military against India, supplied the Vietnamese and the North Koreans during the Vietnam and Korean wars. And they supplied the Pakistanis and Mujahideen in Afghanistan aginst the Soviets. And to note, at that time, Taiwan was firmly under the KMT regime. So Taiwan is not part of the equation when it comes to establishing Chinese hegemony.

April 9, 2007 @ 2:51 pm | Comment

I think he was rather hostile towards your language and not you personally, richard. Perhaps it was a little direct, but I happen to think the standard for intellectual courtesy towards competing ideology on this site has already been set very low by many others.

On the post itself… the theory that Europe’s political status is worthy of emulation is a highly questionable one. Certainly, western Europe’s economic achievements of the early 21st century are to be admired. Given the option, many Chinese would probably trade in their PRC passports for a Dutch one for that reason alone.

But the 21st century is just a snapshot in time. What does Europe look like when we take a longer view? During in the past 3 centuries (or heck… 20 centuries), how many years has the European continent been entirely at peace? Is this really a lesson for China?

And if we take a look at future trends, what has much of Europe been moving towards? Slowly but surely… much of Europe is being dragged kicking and screaming moving towards a shared currency/economy, shared commercial/technology development, shared foreign policy. Seems to me China already has that part of the puzzle figured out.

And as far as it being “better to be free than big”… then surely the homeland of those who worship Ganesha must be paradise on earth? It, after all, is both free *and* big. I wonder, indeed, why the author found the Netherlands a more convincing model for “freedom” than India.

April 9, 2007 @ 2:55 pm | Comment

Sometimes I wonder what China would be like if China had split apart at some point, like the Roman Empire slowly evolving into the mix of large and small European states of today.

Would the competition amongst different regions of what is now China resulted in innovations and journeys of discovery that would’ve given Han people a fighting chance to equal or best the scientific and economic advances of the West? Did China’s past prosperity doom it to it’s crash in the late Qing? Perhaps it took the Dark Ages in Europe to create the Renaissance, and perhaps, it took the horrors of the the 19th and 20th centuries to usher China into emerging power it is today.

April 9, 2007 @ 2:56 pm | Comment

And regarding this post… The author, William, seems to live in Taiwan but failed to grasp the harsh reality of politics.

He claimed that “One China” should be discarded. Yes, do it William. Discarding “One China” and you would discard the lives and security of Taiwan’s 23 million people.

While “One China” seems to be more of a anomaly that was a relic of the Chinese Civil War, it nevertheless preserved the peace in the Taiwan Straits. Because Chiang still claimed that his ROC govt in Taipei to be the legitimate govt in China, he received foreign recognition and the US Seventh Fleet was sent to protect Taiwan and its anti-communist KMT regime. The ROC title preserved Taiwan’s de facto independence from the CCP. Mao’s successors also had reservations in attacking Taiwan unilaterally without provocation, lest they might be singled out as the culprits of leading “Chinese killing Chinese”.

In 1992, the two sides agree that they would abide by “One China”, meaning that both the mainland and Taiwan belongs to one Chinese nation. But which China, PRC or ROC, is up to interpretation of each side. That preserved the peace.

To discard One China is as good as starting a fire in the kitchen when one is bored.

April 9, 2007 @ 3:07 pm | Comment

I think he was rather hostile towards your language

What language did I use that he should be hostile toward? Do tell.

April 9, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Comment

CCT,

“And if we take a look at future trends, what has much of Europe been moving towards? Slowly but surely… much of Europe is being dragged kicking and screaming moving towards a shared currency/economy, shared commercial/technology development, shared foreign policy. Seems to me China already has that part of the puzzle figured out.”

I think you only look at things on the surface. The EU works on referendums and consensus building, of course making decisions democratically is more difficult than having one totalitarian regime to decide everything. How difficult can it be for Qin Shihuang to unify China? Just use brute force, of course.

While there seems to be serious divisions in the EU, China, despite being a unitary centralised state, is far from being harmonious and cohesive. The provincial officials are little warlords and emperors in their own turfs. The central government in Beijing had much difficulties in controlling faraway provinces, for instance, in collecting revenue from the provinical authorities. There is this old Chinese saying “The mountains are high and the Emperor is faraway”. I don’t think you understand China very much when you make this kind of naive statements.

April 9, 2007 @ 3:21 pm | Comment

And CCT, just an additional question for you:

While the PRC is a unitary state with a one strong central government, why do Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan desire to detach themselves fromit?

On the other hand, while people in several countries in Europe became disenchanted with the EU, none of them thought of giving up their membership in the Union.

Just look at Britain. There were so many Eurosceptics in the earlier days. De Gaulle vetoed their admission twice, yet London still want to be admitted. Thatcher made alot of noise, but did not even take Britain out of the EEC.

Look at the PRC. Even if you give other states free membership to be incorporated into PRC, none would ever consider it.

April 9, 2007 @ 3:46 pm | Comment

Very interest post considering he is using Germanic culture. I will recommend all readers to read alittle bit about German history and tell me which German is stronger (not necessary good since it started two World Wars), the united modern German since 1871 or the loose German confederation of 39 states.

sp: To counter your point about states joining into a greater union. It is unlikely for US to admit any more states because it could seriously tip the balance of our congress. How long have we been talking about Peruto Rico to join the statehood. Also, for Canada, in the US Articles of Confederation, we have pretty much allowed Canada to join the union. More than two hundred years has passed, and Canada is in no hurry of joining us, the greatest nation on earth (haha).

April 9, 2007 @ 5:07 pm | Comment

Arty,

I could be wrong, but whether Puerto Rico becomes a state has NEVER been about the US allowing it, but rather whether the people themselves wanted to by democratic vote. If I understand correctly, there have been several referandums for statehood/independence/status quo, and so far the people have chosen to not join the US. Canada, that’s another story. I’m just glad they chose not to split. THat’s the last thing America needs, a France on our roof.

April 9, 2007 @ 5:34 pm | Comment

Netherland is first powerful before it is small. It is situated upon the strategic water ways of Europe and was able to accrued tremendous wealth and power as a result, enough to compete against other larger states such as England.

Therefore the analogy is not particularly appropriate. Netherland is not just some “small” country. Make no mistakes Netherland was the mover and shaker of the world commerce before the British Empire. It was so powerful that it need not to be big to compete against other powers such as England.

April 9, 2007 @ 6:13 pm | Comment

“Just look at Britain. There were so many Eurosceptics in the earlier days. De Gaulle vetoed their admission twice, yet London still want to be admitted. Thatcher made alot of noise, but did not even take Britain out of the EEC.”

Britain and EEC? Ha, the only thing Britain wants to do is to disunite Europe. See what British did in the history. They fought with Dutch against the Spanish(the Dutch rebellion against Philip II of Spain), with the Germans against the French(Napoleonic Wars), with French and Italians against Gremans(1st World War), and with French against Germans and Italians (2nd world war).

The Britain’s EU policy is simple: divide and rule. But breaking it up from outside didn’t work. So they chose to get in and tried to break it fron inside.

April 10, 2007 @ 1:05 am | Comment

sp,

You exaggerate cerntain things. Provincial officials might not work as a computer or robot. When central government gives orders, sometimes the orders cannot be implemented perfectly and smoothly as they should be. But local officials are far from warlords and emperors.

And Xinjiang, Tibet? I know some people want these two areas separated from China. But how do you get the conclusion that “they desire to detach themselves fromit”? Any figure to support your argument?

April 10, 2007 @ 1:17 am | Comment

“Any figure to support your argument?”

@fatbrick
don’t you think it’s a little cynical to ask for figures in an environment like tibet or xinjiang. Can be dangerous to speak your mind there.

April 10, 2007 @ 2:56 am | Comment

^_^Self-absorption works both ways 🙂

April 10, 2007 @ 3:10 am | Comment

RE: Puerto Rican statehood:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_status_referenda

As you can see from the results from the most recent referendum in 1998, very few Puerto Ricans want independence or a continuation of the commonwealth status quo. Puerto Rico’s per capita income is about half of the poorest states in the US. Puerto Ricans complain that the island’s government is corrupt and that oligopolistic business structures have held back economic development on the island and Puerto Ricans are voting for statehood with their feet, coming to the mainland in increasing numbers in order to have a better life.

April 10, 2007 @ 4:18 am | Comment

“While the PRC is a unitary state with a one strong central government, why do Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan desire to detach themselves fromit?”

Even the Dalai Lama recently said he doesn’t want independence, because he knows China will develop Tibet economically. The various human rights violations in Tibet are tragic but it’s similar to the stuff everyone in China is hampered by.

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/tibetans-dont-independence-dalai/37905-2.html

Taiwan wishes to detach itself? 80% of Taiwanese support the status quo. 6% want reunification. 14% want independence. Apparently 80% of Taiwanese are pretty smart, god knows why they voted for Ah Bian.

The writer makes a very vague point that can be reworked and cobbled into a semi-meaningful statement; i.e yes Taiwan is important for a lot of reasons, but is overstated when mentioned as some kind of key place in global politics. They have money, tech, and a good workforce and that alone of course is worth quite a lot, but most pragmatic people can see beneath CCP/DPP extremist theatrics. A lot of the cultural and economic issues are being reconciled (as Taiwan and China trade quite a bit and Taiwanese people invest a lot of money in China)

“Would the competition amongst different regions of what is now China resulted in innovations and journeys of discovery that would’ve given Han people a fighting chance to equal or best the scientific and economic advances of the West?”

It would be a crap shoot, imo. It’s possible that internecine warfare would have ushered in some kind of breakthrough weapon, but it’s possible they would have just been utterly crushed by outsiders. I think the two driving negative forces that crippled China were the occasional irresponsible, authoritarian government making bad decisions and the Mongols.

That, and they didn’t conquer and colonize people to steal labor and resources to immorally inflate their socioeconomic standing, for whatever reason.

“perhaps, it took the horrors of the the 19th and 20th centuries to usher China into emerging power it is today.”

If you ask me the time period between 1949 and 1978 was largely wasted time and essentially self-mutilation.

April 10, 2007 @ 5:56 am | Comment

@sp,

I think it’s pretty obvious from your posts that you’re a Chinese nationalist of the Taiwanese flavor, probably still believing that Chiang deserves credit for trying to save China from Soviet influence. I believe you probably have insights on Taiwan, but your insights about modern mainland China is (imo) pretty weak.

Provincial governors and party secretaries are rotated on a regular basis. Very rare to find senior officials who serve more than 5 years in any single location. Beijing has difficulty making sure her policies are implemented fully because there are many layers between the central and local governments… but it’s silly to suggest this is due to any kind of cultural/social difference between different provinces or regions.

The new party secretary of Shanghai was born in Shaanxi and spent most of his career in Fujian. The major of Beijing is a Shanxi native, and was formerly head of Hainan province.

What regional divisions are you talking about? How can you possibly compare the European continent with China in this way? When’s the last time Germany was managed by someone of Italian birth who had worked previously in Sweden?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove with Tibet and Xinjiang examples. There are minority/majority conflicts in basically every country that I can name; China is no exception. Regardless of what *some* in those regions might be striving for, the point remains, China remains committed to being united, to sharing our resources/successes/failures between all Chinese.

April 10, 2007 @ 8:48 am | Comment

@CCT

What are you smoking? The minority/ majority conflicts in America, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Sweden and Monaco don’t have armed troops keeping the peace.

April 10, 2007 @ 9:55 am | Comment

kenzhu,

I don’t know about other countries. But yhe minority/ majority conflicts in America?

On April 29th, 1992, The Black Rebellion in Los Angeles took the federal army, the national guard and police from throughout the country three days to restore order.

So, what do you think? You really should do some research.

April 10, 2007 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

No other states sent police or guardsman to LA and the US army was invited in at the request of the governor of california because that is the law.

You should really do some research, fatbrick.

Gulja massacre, look it up.

April 10, 2007 @ 1:26 pm | Comment

@CCT aka the pot

Let me spell it for you. Currently, there are no Federal troops permanently stationed in Watts to keep law and order. There are Red Army troops stationed in Tibet to keep law and order. I know because I did research. Can you explain Tibet has Chinese troops stationed in Tibet and large sections of the province are out of bounds for foreigners and why it is illegal to show pictures of the Dali Lama? I’m waiting for your research.

Oh, what’s the Black Rebellion in Los Angeles? I’ve never heard about that.

April 10, 2007 @ 1:47 pm | Comment

Fatbrick,

“The Britain’s EU policy is simple: divide and rule. But breaking it up from outside didn’t work. So they chose to get in and tried to break it fron inside.”

The British were desperate to get into the EEC in 1963 because they were lagging behind continental Europe economically. The EEC’s external common tariff was hurting them because they were outside and they did not have access to the enlarged European market. Breaking up the single market would be disastrous for Britain because it would mean the loss of tariff-free market of some 300 million people in the Eurozone. I am sure London is not so stupid to committ economic and political suicide by doing such a thing.

The EU was born out of the awareness among the Europeans that fighting among themselves do them no good. Instead, they have to cooperate in the post war era to prosper. Ironically, it was British PM Winston Churchill who first came up with the idea of a “United States of Europe”.

So please go back to elementary history before you make so much noise here.

April 10, 2007 @ 2:10 pm | Comment

To fatbrick who is very ignorant of China:

“You exaggerate certain things. Provincial officials might not work as a computer or robot. When central government gives orders, sometimes the orders cannot be implemented perfectly and smoothly as they should be. But local officials are far from warlords and emperors.”

Really? Then how do you explain the violence in Guangdong in 2005 when the farmers resisted the local officials after those corrupt local emperors seized their land? And the riots in Henan by farmers after the local village chiefs forcibly evicted them from their land and turned them over to developers?

Stop reading just the People’s Daily. That’s for frogs in the well, not for humans

April 10, 2007 @ 2:22 pm | Comment

Fatbrick

“And Xinjiang, Tibet? I know some people want these two areas separated from China. But how do you get the conclusion that “they desire to detach themselves fromit”? Any figure to support your argument?”

Shulan summed it up very well. After all, when reporters ask Beijing residents how they feel about Tiananmen Incident, most of them just quickly walk away as if they have seen a ghost.

Figures? I don’t support separatism. But if the CCP is so confident about its rule, i dare them to carry out an open and fair referendum under the supervision of the UN on whether the people favor CCP rule. Dare to take the challenge?

April 10, 2007 @ 2:26 pm | Comment

CCT

“I think it’s pretty obvious from your posts that you’re a Chinese nationalist of the Taiwanese flavor, probably still believing that Chiang deserves credit for trying to save China from Soviet influence.”

Don’t misrepresent or label me. You are not my spokesperson. I only believed in Dr Sun Yat-sen and his Three People’s Principle and the ROC consitution drafted by him in 1912. I am no fan of Chiang but at least he did have so merit in clearing out the warlords. Other than that, he was dictatorial. But Mao was the worse of all. So don’t you dare label me as a Chiang loyalist.

April 10, 2007 @ 2:33 pm | Comment

CCT,

“Provincial governors and party secretaries are rotated on a regular basis. Very rare to find senior officials who serve more than 5 years in any single location. Beijing has difficulty making sure her policies are implemented fully because there are many layers between the central and local governments… but it’s silly to suggest this is due to any kind of cultural/social difference between different provinces or regions.

The new party secretary of Shanghai was born in Shaanxi and spent most of his career in Fujian. The major of Beijing is a Shanxi native, and was formerly head of Hainan province. ”

You seem to think you understand the PRC alot, but honestly, you don’t. If that’s true, how do you explain former PRC President Jiang Zemin’s “Shanghai Clique”? (上海帮）. Obviously, local party chiefs and mayors are very powerful in their local power base. Jiang himself built his own power base in his years as Mayor of Shanghai. Chen Liangyu, the disgraced Shanghai party chief, engaged in long corruption and was caught only recently because Hu wanted to consolidate his power. And Chen Xitong, the former mayor of Beijing, was caught for his crimes only when Jiang decided to purge him because he was a potential rival.

Please back your arguments with concrete stuff. Otherwise, your arguments will only become some silly pontification.

April 10, 2007 @ 2:42 pm | Comment

sp,

Come on. I am working on elementary history here. Braitin got in EFTA, which was founded in 1960 but left in 1972. Out of fear of a united EU, Braitin used every opportunity to work with U.S to break it up.

Winston Churchill? He might a pro-EU. He was also good at handling war. But he lost his job even when the war was still on. So much of Braitin’s support to his policy. It seems elementary history is not that easy, isn’t it?

April 10, 2007 @ 2:53 pm | Comment

CCT

“When’s the last time Germany was managed by someone of Italian birth who had worked previously in Sweden?”

Another naive and ignorant statement. Obviously, you are not well-versed in European affairs. Yes, indeed, that has not happened. But that’s not important. why? Because, EU laws has precedence over the domestic laws of each member in the EU. Similarly, the European Central Bank is so indepedent that no national leaders in any member states can do to influence the policies made by the ECB. Any citizen within the Union can sue their governemnts in areas under the jurisdiction of EU law.

Look the PRC. Article 35 of the 1982 State Constitution proclaims that “citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech”. Look at Jiang Yanyong, who was put under house arrest for whistling blowing on SARS in 2003.

CCT, you and fatbrick would do yourself justice by stop getting your info just from CCTV and Xinhua.

April 10, 2007 @ 2:57 pm | Comment

fatbrick,

“Come on. I am working on elementary history here. Braitin got in EFTA, which was founded in 1960 but left in 1972. Out of fear of a united EU, Braitin used every opportunity to work with U.S to break it up.”

of course. But EFTA failed eventually. Britain had to beg itself into the EEC. And to expose your ignorance, Britain was made to contribute more revenue to the EU budget which essentially goes to supporting French farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy. And ultimately, within the EU, it was Germany and France which dominated decision making. It would be imbecile to think that London can subvert the Union from within.

And you have been keeping quiet about why Britain want to commit economic and political suicide by breaking up the EU? Its a 300 million tariff free market for them.

Besides elementary history, you lack basic logic as well, period.

April 10, 2007 @ 3:04 pm | Comment

fatbrick

“But he lost his job even when the war was still on”

This shows why you need lessons on elementary history. You can’t even get simple dates right. WWII in Europe lasted from 1939-1945 (to be exact may 7 1945, VE Day). Winston Churchill lost the election in July 1945.

So, that shows how credible you are in history. Maybe geography suits you better.

April 10, 2007 @ 3:12 pm | Comment

Didn’t I say that Britain has to get in EEC to break it up? why? Didn’t you just say it? It is because Germany and France made all the decisions. Britain has a history to fight with one of these two countries and against the other.

Economic interest? Ha, it seems that you forgot that Britain rejected an EU currency and Schengen Visa. Enough said.

April 10, 2007 @ 3:23 pm | Comment

“WWII in Europe lasted from 1939-1945 (to be exact may 7 1945, VE Day). Winston Churchill lost the election in July 1945.”

Talk about history and geography. There is also a war in Asia during ww2. I think it is a part of ww2. When did that end? Correct me if I am wrong. Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945.

Did Britain fight against Japan in Asia? I guess so. Done.

April 10, 2007 @ 3:30 pm | Comment

fatbrick

“Didn’t I say that Britain has to get in EEC to break it up? why? Didn’t you just say it? It is because Germany and France made all the decisions. Britain has a history to fight with one of these two countries and against the other.

Economic interest? Ha, it seems that you forgot that Britain rejected an EU currency and Schengen Visa. Enough said.”

If Britain really think that they can sabotage the EEC from within, thats really stupid. I have said why it was stupid: Because even if Britain got in, it was Paris and Berlin which collaborated and dominate all the decision making in the EEC. To break it up, Britain have to have authority within the EEC, right?Obviously, the power lies in France and Germany. So it is stupid and ludicrous to think that London applied for membership to get in to sabotage the EEC.

And the British have unrestricted access to the European markets. They rejected the Euro because they fear losing control of their monetary policy. The Bank of England would have to submit itself to the European Central Bank. What the British was concerned in their membership was trade. Trade with the British Commonwealth was on a decline and London need a vast market. The answer only lies in the EEC.

I just realised that you are not only ignorant in history, but economics as well. The result of years of Maoist education is indeed very harmful to the workings of the human brain.

April 10, 2007 @ 3:41 pm | Comment

fatbrick

“Talk about history and geography. There is also a war in Asia during ww2. I think it is a part of ww2. When did that end? Correct me if I am wrong. Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945.

Did Britain fight against Japan in Asia? I guess so. Done.”

But what was significant to the people of Britain then? Of course it was the defeat of Hitler’s Third Reich. That was declared on May 7 1945 on VE Day. It was the Germans who bombed London, not the zero fighters.

To the British people who endured years of German bombing, the war was effectively over with the defeat of the Nazis.

And we are talking about this in the context of Europe. Maoists just like shifting the goalposts when they are losing…..

April 10, 2007 @ 3:49 pm | Comment

Fatbrick,

I have observed that you are pretty quiet in our discussion over China… Its unusual to see Mao apologists being so quiet..

April 10, 2007 @ 3:53 pm | Comment

@kenzhu,

I take it you don’t know about the LA riots of 1992? Aka “Rodney King” riots? What about the 75 years of low-grade war which the US Cavalry waged in order to conquer the American West from the original native American inhabitants?

So, we know you’re not American. What ethnicity are you? Help us understand what society, apparently devoid of racial tensions, you happen to be from?

I don’t think the Chinese have much to learn from the United States when it comes to Tibet… after all, other than opening casinos, what effective solutions have the Americans come up with to its minority/majority conflicts?

April 10, 2007 @ 3:53 pm | Comment

fatbrick

“Winston Churchill? He might a pro-EU. He was also good at handling war. But he lost his job even when the war was still on. So much of Braitin’s support to his policy. It seems elementary history is not that easy, isn’t it?”

Just one more point on your stupidity. If the war was still on in the perception of the British people, they would not have carried out an election in July 1945 since all elections were suspended since the war started in 1939. Once the war was over in Europe, its time for the British government to get a new mandate.

Do you need history tuition? I can give lessons for a discount fee since i pitied the Maoists.

April 10, 2007 @ 4:00 pm | Comment

sp,

You don’t know anything about modern China. You’re out of touch, period. I don’t know if you think of yourself as being Chinese, but I seriously doubt you’ve spent any significant time in China at any point in the past 2 decades. You should really get reacquainted.

When reporters ask people in Beijing about Tiananmen, they just “quickly walk away”? You obviously don’t live in the 21st century. I’ve never had problems discussing Tiananmen with Beijing shiming ranging from taxi drivers to college students. I’ve also seen numerous quotes from the foreign press asking for current opinions about 6/4.

Your comments about shanghai bang and other regional cliques are out-dated, and clearly pulled straight from English-language foreign press.. probably your only exposure to China within recent years? You might want to look up what clique Hu Jintao belongs to. Pray tell, what “geographic” region does he associate with?

There are indeed factions in Chinese politics, just as there are factions in any political party of more than 3 individuals in any country on this planet. But these factions are very rarely formed on a geographic/regional basis. Mao Zedong was from where? Deng Xiaoping was from where? Jiang Zemin was from where…?

Yes, in *some* cases EU law does over-ride local law. Seems to me European nations are moving in the right direction, towards a type of legal unity that China has enjoyed for millenia.

April 10, 2007 @ 4:01 pm | Comment

CCT,

I am surprised. Just who are you to question me whether i think i am Chinese? Maoists and Communists like you who are apologists for the Cultural Revolution and Mao are Chinese traitors. You are blind to the deaths of 30 million of 华夏子弟。

Talking about Tiananmen. Did current leaders even mention it by name? Did People’s Daily comment on it? Did CCTV talk about it? They are still so afraid to talk about Zhao Ziyang when he died. You are just a Maoist who is 千古罪人! You deserved to die for being a traitor!

When i point out to you about Shanghai Clique and stuff, i am telling you how people can be so powerful in their capacity as local officials. Many local officials take law into their own hands. Central Govt? Haha, where is it? 1000 miles away. The riots in the provinces goes to show Beijing can do little to control the local officials. When National People’s Congress talk about “xiaokang” and protecting the environment in Beijing, the local officials are busy seizing lands from farmers and turn a blind eye to pollution by huge industries, probably because they were bribed. You are just too blind and read only the People’s Daily.

EU law overrides domestic law in cases where there is a clash, not in some as you put it.

EU is moving towards integration, and at least it is based on rule of law. In the PRC, law is returned, but they are just pieces of paper because corrupt officials see law as 粪土。

You understand China. I began to suspect you are doing this for the Public Security Bureau. 汉奸！

April 10, 2007 @ 4:17 pm | Comment

But Taiwan did not legalize IT. How can you compare Taiwan and the Netherlands?

I am not so sure if I am very happy with the EU moving towards the type of legal unity China enjoyed for millennia.
A son of heaven in Brussels sound even scary to my EU friendly German ears. Don’t let that hear the British.

April 10, 2007 @ 5:44 pm | Comment

@CCT

Where do you read your history? And why do you fall back to simplistic name calling when I asked you some simple questions.

1) Why is the Chinese Red Army stationed in Tibet?

2) Why are certain areas of Tibet off-limits for foreigners?

As for the Indians, yes the US waged a low level war against the Indians for many years. This same war has taken place in every single country in the world, including China. I do agree that China should not take lesson from the US on how to deal with minorities because the vast majority of minorities have chosen to come to America. The vast majority of minorities in China have been invaded by the Chinese.

Now you, as a non-native English speaker, may be expected to make some mistakes. Riots is a different from rebellion. No one in the US calls the ’92 riots “The Black Rebellion”. Here’s a free lesson for you.

re·bel·lion /rɪˈbɛlyən/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-bel-yuhn] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. open, organized, and armed resistance to one’s government or ruler.
2. resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.
3. the act of rebelling.
[Origin: 1300–50; ME rebellioun @CCT

Where do you read your history? And why do you fall back to simplistic name calling when I asked you some simple questions.

1) Why is the Chinese Red Army stationed in Tibet?

2) Why are certain areas of Tibet off-limits for foreigners?

As for the Indians, yes the US waged a low level war against the Indians for many years. This same war has taken place in every single country in the world, including China. I do agree that China should not take lesson from the US on how to deal with minorities because the vast majority of minorities have chosen to come to America. The vast majority of minorities in China have been invaded by the Chinese.

Now you, as a non-native English speaker, may be expected to make some mistakes. Riots is a different from rebellion. No one in the US calls the ’92 riots “The Black Rebellion”. Here’s a free lesson for you.

re·bel·lion /rɪˈbɛlyən/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-bel-yuhn] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. open, organized, and armed resistance to one’s government or ruler.
2. resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.
3. the act of rebelling.
[Origin: 1300–50; ME rebellioun < OF < L rebelliōn- (s. of rebelliō), equiv. to rebell(āre) to rebel + -iōn- -ion] ri·ot /ˈraɪət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rahy-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets. 2. Law. a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes. 3. violent or wild disorder or confusion. 4. a brilliant display: a riot of color. 5. something or someone hilariously funny: You were a riot at the party. 6. unrestrained revelry. 7. an unbridled outbreak, as of emotions, passions, etc. 8. Archaic. loose, wanton living; profligacy. –verb (used without object) 9. to take part in a riot or disorderly public outbreak. 10. to live in a loose or wanton manner; indulge in unrestrained revelry: Many of the Roman emperors rioted notoriously. 11. Hunting. (of a hound or pack) to pursue an animal other than the intended quarry. 12. to indulge unrestrainedly; run riot. –verb (used with object) 13. to spend (money, time, etc.) in riotous living (usually fol. by away or out). That's why we call what happened in '92 riots not a rebellion. Before you accuse me not knowing anything about America, tell me where you got that term from because we, in the US, don't use it.

April 10, 2007 @ 7:21 pm | Comment

CCT and fatbrick

I also observed that you Maoists remain dead quiet about the plight of the peasants as local offcials bullied them ans seized their lands. So much of all your trumpeting about legal unity in China. You two should be ashamed of yourselves as Chinese. Keep defending the communist regime and his whole bunch of corrupt officials. You two share the same historical legacy as Yuan Shi kai, Wang Jingwei and Jiang Qing! 汉贼！Your show as the running dogs for the communists is no different from the crimes of those Japanese Class A War Criminals!

April 10, 2007 @ 7:59 pm | Comment

CCT, as richard asked – where did he use hostile language?

If you made a mistake why not just admit that and apologise?

April 10, 2007 @ 9:13 pm | Comment

When people get misunderstood, they get upset.

When they get upset, they stop reasoning and start spit fighting.

And that’s when things get really exciting and fun. And that’s when they forget why, on this beautiful earth, they came to this forum the first place.

Say what~?! I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you when I’m talking! You will have to shut up and listen, so I can understand you!

LOL

April 10, 2007 @ 11:20 pm | Comment

sp

You are so kind and subtle. LoL

Does your comment sound familiar? Oh yes, it is the cultural revolution language, isn’t it? It is funny to see some people who lebal themselves as pro-democracy still enjoy using language of so called evil regime in debate.

April 11, 2007 @ 2:35 am | Comment

fatbrick,

Finally, you have shown your true colours. Despite my total rebuke of you, you never deny that you and CCT are die-hard CCP members who would defend Mao, the killer of 30million tongbao, till your last breadth. And you said “so-called” evil regime, which means that you deny that Mao’s regime is evil. Totally without conscience.

To people like you, i don’t see the need to be civil. After all, when Dr Sun launched the Second Revolution against national scums like Yuan Shi-kai, the father of modern China, wasn’t being civil in his language either.

I wonder how you can sleep well at night when you act as a mouthpiece for a scumbag like Mao who killed so many of his own people.

They may jolly well reserve a place for at Yasukuni Shrine when your time on Earth is up.

April 11, 2007 @ 3:24 am | Comment

Fatbrick,

We have yet to see why a noisy Maoist like you still try to escape like a coward when i talked about the plight of the peasants who were bullied by the corrupt officials in the provinces. Aren’t you and CCT “China experts”? Say something, stop hiding around in your rat hole, national scums. Aren’t you guys all very patriotic? Don’t you all love the Chinese people? When i mentioned about their suffering under your political masters, you just keep quiet? Don’t you all love defending killers and oppressors of the Chinese people?

April 11, 2007 @ 3:31 am | Comment

CCT asked,

“I don’t think the Chinese have much to learn from the United States when it comes to Tibet… after all, other than opening casinos, what effective solutions have the Americans come up with to its minority/majority conflicts? “

You’re asking the wrong question. It’s not about “Americans coming up with solutions” but rather people empowering themselves and using the laws and the courts to protect their rights. The lasting gains of the Civil Rights movement were achieved through Court decisions based on the US Constitution. Native Americans have filed lawsuits to prevent the US government or private developers from encroaching upon sacred land or to defend fishing and hunting rights. Native Americans have also used to courts to revive old, broken treaties. Sometimes the tribe is victorious and sometimes not. Unlike Tibetans and Uyghurs, Native Americans are free to organize themselves and fight for their rights rather than relying on the mercy of the government. Below is one example:

http://www.narf.org/

April 11, 2007 @ 7:07 am | Comment

What a bunch of crap! But I expected nothing less from this poo pond.

Taiwan is important because US and other western countries can use it as a thorn in China’s back. To stick it to the man, so to speak. If it isn’t for Mainland China, Taiwan will be as important as Madagascar or Iceland.

April 11, 2007 @ 7:30 am | Comment

If it isn’t for Mainland China, Taiwan will be as important as Madagascar or Iceland.

Wouldn’t that be nice? Then we could organize our own lives like Madagascar and Iceland do.

April 11, 2007 @ 8:04 am | Comment

So many red herrings, so little time. I find the original comparison of Taiwan to the Netherlands interesting, particularly in light of the fact that the struggle for Dutch independence was the longest such war in European history, lasting 80 years, and involving all major neighboring powers. When it started, as a revolt of the seven northern (and Protestant) provinces against Spain’s attempt to place their commerce under total Spanish mercantilist control, Spain had the most powerful army in Europe, and as the first modern army was virtually invincible on land. This the Seven United Provinces developed into a sea power, operating against the Spanish in a sphere in which they were highly vulnerable. Indeed, Dutch attacks against both Puerto Rico, in the Caribbean, and against the Spanish in Formosa, were roughly contemporary to the seige of Breda (which later pertained to the “Spanish Netherlands”). Outclassed by the Spanish armies, the Dutch could hit back at sea, targeting both Spanish sea lines of communication (especially those of the treasure fleets) and in her colonies. So I find Mr. Stimson’s comparison prescient. There are too many common points to list here, but one element stands out. In the Dutch-Spanish equation, the Spanish were restricted in naval movements by the closure of English ports to Spanish shipping, and thus required to develop an overland route for their armies up through Northern Italy and the German states into the Netherlands. Taiwan has no such advantage. The Chinese are presently unable to launch and sustain their power across the Taiwan straight, but they are working on that, and growing more capable with every passing year. The only state that Taiwan can realistically call upon to support her in such a contingency is the United States, which is obligated to Taiwan by treaty. As all parties know, a treaty is only as good as the willingness of all parties to honor it at the time it purpose is called into being. The Dutch had the advantage of a Catholic France willing to oppose Spanish aggrandizement for its own purposes. I see no parallel in the China – Taiwan – USA equation. Furthermore, as the Chinese navy develops into a Blue Water Navy, the maritime force projection capabilities of the American Navy in east asian waters will be reduced accordingly. Barring a change of heart (or regime) in China, Taiwan is living on borrowed time.

April 11, 2007 @ 12:05 pm | Comment

Mike,

Please do not forget there are also islands such as Ireland and Cyprus. Taiwan’s luck seems to be more on that side than anything like the wonderful asylums of the self-conceit you just mentioned. Yes I agree that freedom of not being bothered should be respected to some extent, but the geopolitical, economic, ethnic and cultural reality has made this more or less a dream for those in Taiwan who will not waste any moment crying for self-determination. Sorry, there is no such Taiwanese �self� to speak of. My take on this principal is that if there is any vote on the sovereignty of Taiwan, votes should be counted village by village, neighborhood by neighborhood. Accordingly, the mainlander neighborhoods in Southern Taiwan should be granted the right to freely choose whether they want to stay in Republic of China, unite with mainland China or join a new Taiwanese nation. Those closely knit neighborhoods certainly have a much more definable collective �self� than any notion of the imaginary island-wide �self�. Beijing will make clear that they have all the economic, political and diplomatic leverages in disposal as to punish the separatist counties and reward the cities and counties that vote to remain in the Republic of China. If the Chinese on mainland should have no say on Taiwan�s future, by the same principle southern counties clamoring for independence should not coerce the northerners in a plebiscite by their advantage in voting power.

This is the most peaceful scenario I can think of, but please do not dream for a moment that Beijing will settle down on this one without a fight and give up the claim that Taiwan is just a piece of unfinished business of the Chinese Civil War and Taiwan has no unilateral right whatsoever to go for independence.

April 11, 2007 @ 12:21 pm | Comment

lirelou,

The PRC in indeed getting stronger militarily day by day and that Taipei’s choices seems to be limited.

However, as we discuss the relative military strengths of both sides, we may have overlooked the political factors involved. To put it simply, neither the CCP nor the DPP nor the Americans want war. The notion of reunification and independence are just political pawns played up but politicians on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. The CCP leaders knew that even if they have developed the capability to annex Taiwan, they would not do so unless Taipei formally declares independence. Without such declaration, it will be hard to justify military actions especially when the whole Chinese world would see it as an internal fight that should be avoided at all costs. There is a political price with it. And the DPP knew that so long as they push the envelope while stopping short of declaring independence, nothing will happen to them.

As for the US, their obligations to Taiwan is not on the basis of a treaty but by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. I do not think Washington would sit on its hands if the PRC launched a surprise and sudden attack on Taiwan without provocation from Taiwan (ie declaring de jure independence). To allow a potential rival to act militarily without constraints in the Pacific Theatre will be both a military and political challenge to the supremacy of the US in the region. Moreover, US allies would start questioning whether Washington would abide by other treaty/quasi treaty obligations. By sitting on its hands while the PRC attacked Taiwan unprovoked, the US’s position would not only be undermined regionally but globally, in which no Administration, Democrat or Republican, would tolerate.

April 11, 2007 @ 1:17 pm | Comment

Brgyags,

The problem here is that the communist regime, the PRC in Beijing, refuses to even recognise the existence of the Republic of China. They banned the ROC’s flag and anthem on the mainland. Tha’s why the CCP and DPP ironically shared a common characteristic: Both of them hated the Republic of China and want to see it destroyed. I sometimes wonder why the CCP officials cried foul over de-Sinicization by the DPP when the CCP themselves banned the ROC’s anthem and its flag.

April 11, 2007 @ 1:29 pm | Comment

why why why why why…… should the point of view between German and Holland be modle that China has to follow?????? Get your own life, widen your mind, “remember”,…!!! that is our business.

April 11, 2007 @ 10:32 pm | Comment

sp,

That’s why China will only invade Taiwan if there is a provocation from Taiwan (ie declaring de jure independence). I think PRC is at least satisfied with the current Taiwan situation.

Arty

April 12, 2007 @ 6:31 am | Comment

@Arty

I think the PRC is satisfied with the current situation but that they’re using it to stoke nationalist feelings. Just look at some of the comments in this blog. What worries me is what happens in twenty years when the current teenagers grow up and start filling leadership positions.

April 12, 2007 @ 8:05 am | Comment

The only state that Taiwan can realistically call upon to support her in such a contingency is the United States, which is obligated to Taiwan by treaty.

Both of these statements are wrong, in that Japan is also a realistic ally of Taiwan in the future, and the US is nowhere obligated by treaty to defend the island.

Michael

April 12, 2007 @ 10:05 am | Comment

If the Chinese on mainland should have no say on Taiwan�s future, by the same principle southern counties clamoring for independence should not coerce the northerners in a plebiscite by their advantage in voting power.

What? Chinese in China are in a different country that has never owned Taiwan, and of course have no right to a say in Taiwan’s future, any more than Japan or Russia or the Netherlands does. There’s no analogy there at all.

And a plebescite is a DEMOCRATIC institution, the very opposite of coercion. There’s nothing to stop individuals in Taiwan who identify with China from moving there. And if they think Taiwan is their home, perhaps they should start acting like it, eh?

Michael

April 12, 2007 @ 10:12 am | Comment

I sometimes wonder why the CCP officials cried foul over de-Sinicization by the DPP when the CCP themselves banned the ROC’s anthem and its flag.

Exactly. What will happen when they come over? All those flags, names, and monuments will disappear or be renamed. The ROC is a virtual state living on borrowed time.

Michael

April 12, 2007 @ 10:18 am | Comment

Michael Turton
What? Chinese in China are in a different country that has never owned Taiwan, and of course have no right to a say in Taiwan’s future, any more than Japan or Russia or the Netherlands does. There’s no analogy there at all.

……. give me a break

April 12, 2007 @ 10:30 am | Comment

Mike said “And if they think Taiwan is their home, perhaps they should start acting like it”.

Are you saying in a democracy the majority gets to tell how the minority should behave? You very nicely summarized the essence of Taiwan’s ethnic clash that people like you advertise as democracy.

I am in no mood to quibble over the legal niceties of Taiwan’s sovereignty issues lest everybody gets bored. Get real, pleeeeeeeeease. China may not be able to dupe Taiwan into its orbit by pulling strings, but do not underestimate its capability in taking advantage of Taiwan’s ethnic troubles. Even if China miraculously backs down, which you seem to preach, Taiwan won’t be your Iceland. China will have a complete repertoire of measures to make Taiwan a total mess for as long as they please.

April 12, 2007 @ 2:07 pm | Comment

kenzhu,

If they are looking at this blog and commeting on things, I guess it is better than not looking at it and not commenting at all. Indifference is far worse than differences in opinions.

Jk and Brygyags,

Michael is basing on his argument on Manchurians are not Chinese, hence Chinese never owned Taiwan. Taiwan was tactically ruled only by Manchurians. Personally, if you look at the definition of Chinese, you can see Chinese is not an ethnic term just like Americans. However, since Manchuria and Manchurians are part of Chinese culture. Logically speaking, I think Michael’s argument is weak. I could be wrong though.

April 12, 2007 @ 2:21 pm | Comment

Michael,

“Both of these statements are wrong, in that Japan is also a realistic ally of Taiwan in the future, and the US is nowhere obligated by treaty to defend the island.”

I think to pull in Japan in the cross-straits conflict is very dangerous. It would only boost the chance of war. The PLA may pressure the Party to act with Japanese involvement. That’s why Japan knew this, and they were very cautious and reserved about Taiwan although we know that they have a hidden agenda. You will only force the CCP’s hand by getting Japan into the equation, considering the nationalist sentiments in China.

April 12, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Comment

Michael,

“What? Chinese in China are in a different country that has never owned Taiwan, and of course have no right to a say in Taiwan’s future, any more than Japan or Russia or the Netherlands does. There’s no analogy there at all.”

Your point about Manchurians and not Chinese owning Taiwan is not accurate. That has been parroted many times by the pan-Green. The Manchus never saw themselves as an alien govt. They claim to be the Chinese govt and Manchus had assimilated themselves into the Chinese culture. Most Manchu officials and even Dowager Tzu Hsi use the word “Chunghwa” to describe themselves relative to the “yang ren”.

Before in Manchu Dynasty subdued Taiwan, Taiwan had been under Ming China. Koxinga has claimed it for the Ming Dynasty. This was recognised by the Dutch who surrendered control to him in a treaty.

The Cairo Declaration stated very clearly that Taiwan and other outlying islands would be restored to the Republic of China. The fact that Taiwan is part of the ROC is undeniable. It is an internationally recognised fact that Taiwan is not independent by itself but exist as part of the legal entity of the Republic of China.

April 12, 2007 @ 3:23 pm | Comment

Michael,

“The ROC is a virtual state living on borrowed time.”

I don’t quite like this statement. In fact, the DPP is living on time that they had borrowed using the ROC’s name. Taiwan’s peace was borrowed under the ROC. If the ROC had not moved its goverment there in 1949, Mao would have gobbled it up like Tibet. Look at the Battle of Kuningtou, the PLA was totally routed by the Nationalist Army on Kinmen, ending any ambitions of CCP invading the “free” areas of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu of the ROC.

April 12, 2007 @ 3:29 pm | Comment

Michael,

Just an additional point. You are living in Taiwan, but its pretty obvious that your sympathies lie with the Pan-Green. Then, answer a few questions.

If DPP is so brave and love Taiwan and keep undermining the ROC, why do they not ditched the name entirely? I am sure Chen Shui Bian and Annette Lu would be so patriotic to be prepared to become martyrs.

“And a plebescite is a DEMOCRATIC institution, the very opposite of coercion. There’s nothing to stop individuals in Taiwan who identify with China from moving there. And if they think Taiwan is their home, perhaps they should start acting like it, eh?”

There is no need for those who identify with China (be clear, not with PRC, but ROC) to move to mainland China. Taiwan is part of ROC, why should they have to move? Most Taiwanese with mainland roots are descendants of the millions of KMT troops who sacrificed their lives defending Taiwan against communist agressions. Many died in the process. I am sure they deserve their say in Taiwan more than anyone else.

And can you explain the Taiwan Solidarity Union chairman’s visit to Yasukuni Shrine? You mean that’s love for Taiwan? So many Taiwanese women were forced to become comfort women. And the Japanese had killed so many aboriginals. Aborigine legislator Kao Chin Su-mei led her constituents to protest against it. Looks like the independence movement likes to remake Taiwan into a Japanese colony and protectorate rather than an indepedent state.

April 12, 2007 @ 6:32 pm | Comment

Michael,

“Exactly. What will happen when they come over? All those flags, names, and monuments will disappear or be renamed. The ROC is a virtual state living on borrowed time.”

In case you mistaken me as condoning de-Sinization efforts on the part of the DPP, i don’t. To me de-Sinization is blatant genocide, period. And they trying to be revisionists who want to tamper with historical facts to advance their own political aims.

When they make Chiang Kai-shek a political issue, nobody can react strongly because Chiang was dictatorial.

But if Taiwan is not part of China, why do they still call Dr Sun the “Guo-fu”? Why did Chen still pay his respects to Dr Sun? Might as well ditch Dr Sun’s potrait in his office as well if he want to de-Sinize everything.

And i fail to see the point why people with pan-Green sympathies feel that the DPP are true Taiwan patriots? How? By embezzling funds, engage in insider-trading or engage in corruption for just a few Sogo vouchers? I don’t know you can love Taiwan by doing all this cheap despicable stuff.

April 12, 2007 @ 6:56 pm | Comment

Are you saying in a democracy the majority gets to tell how the minority should behave? You very nicely summarized the essence of Taiwan’s ethnic clash that people like you advertise as democracy.

How did you get that out of what I said? A plebiscite is a democratic process in which policies are debated and then voted on. How this becomes “the majority telling the minority how to behave” is simply a product of some fevered imagining of your own.

April 12, 2007 @ 9:43 pm | Comment

China may not be able to dupe Taiwan into its orbit by pulling strings, but do not underestimate its capability in taking advantage of Taiwan’s ethnic troubles.

Oh, I don’t underestimate the ability of the Chinese to use identity politics to screw things up — they are, after all, a Chinese invention.

But I think it is important to realize that as time goes by more and more people identify with Taiwan, not China. The identity issue seems urgent now, and the next election cycle will see some very bitter identity politics. But it will fade over time, especially if the Deep Blue ideologues take over the KMT, which I increasingly see. When the Deep Blues take over the KMT, they will effective take themselves out of the mainstream of the island’s politics (remember what happened to the New Party? And the what is happening to the PFP?).

The KMT stays relevant to the extent it stays Taiwanese. The current KMT rules, as Wang Jin-pyng never tires of pointing out, favor the Deep Blue mainlander core of the party, and its favorite son, Ma Ying-jeou. The central conflict for the KMT is this conflict between the Party as the Vehicle for the mainlander identity, and the Party as a political entity. In other words, it must both maintain an identity, and get its people elected. The more it adheres to that core identity, the less chance it has of getting its people elected, especially at the national level. The DPP’s campaign to restore the right names to things is a brilliant tactic that is forcing the KMT to tie itself to the Chiang legacy — and Chiang is despised in Taiwan for being a murderous dictator and incompetent. The Taiwanese KMTers are grumbling, Wang wants to leave….because the KMT can’t decide whether it is a Holy Cause or a political party.

At the moment, sure, identity politics is an issue. But as Taiwan becomes Taiwanese, it will fade over time. The real China threat isn’t identity mischief, but concrete and real threats, military, economic, and political. And of course, the vast number of people in the world, who, for some obscure reason, seem to enjoy the thought of making others suffer under authoritarian rule.

Michael

April 12, 2007 @ 9:58 pm | Comment

Michael,

The renaming campaign is not a brilliant tactic. Many mainstream voters are already tired of the political games whipped up by the DPP. It was a desperate attempt for the DPP to stay relevant, after its inability to deliver as a competent government. Chen Shui Bian and his administration has almost achieved nothing.

As much as the renaming campaign and de-Chiangization may reflect the conflict within the KMT, it also reflects the insecurity and vulnerability of the DPP as the ruling party. It need to have an issue to capitalize on because it had nothing to show on its governing record.

Many Taiwanese people already see all this renaming campaigns as nothing more than political ploys and a waste of public money. They have lost all confidence in politicians and are tired of the mud-slinging and in fighting.

April 12, 2007 @ 10:12 pm | Comment

Michael.

Regarding the fate of the New Party and the PFP, i think it has got to do with the fact that Taiwan is moving to a two party situation like the US. The reformed Legislative Yuan will have fewer seats and this will put a tight squeeze on minor parties. Look at TSU, by putting itself at the other extreme of the spectrum, it will also suffer the fate of the NP and the PFP. Moreover, the PFP is a non-starter to begin with. It was a personal political machine for James Soong. With Soong’s retirement, it’s decline is not surprising at all.

April 12, 2007 @ 10:17 pm | Comment

Michael, you said

What? Chinese in China are in a different country that has never owned Taiwan, and of course have no right to a say in Taiwan’s future, any more than Japan or Russia or the Netherlands does. There’s no analogy there at all.

I’m very much interested in reading your OWN explanation of your view point here. Please, Michael, do expand this topic a little and tell us how you’ve come to this conclusion.

April 12, 2007 @ 11:24 pm | Comment

When it comes to independence, it’s nothing about rights but everything about strength. If you or your protector is strong enough, go ahead and have your freedom, otherwise shut up and don’t provoke.

April 13, 2007 @ 3:10 am | Comment

@Bing

If Taiwan took your advice, they’d declare independence now since they can fight off a PRC invasion.

April 13, 2007 @ 9:46 am | Comment

@Bing

If the Taiwanese took your advice, they’d declare independence since they can fight off any PRC invasion.

April 13, 2007 @ 9:48 am | Comment

Sorry for the double post. My bad.

April 13, 2007 @ 9:49 am | Comment

I’m very much interested in reading your OWN explanation of your view point here. Please, Michael, do expand this topic a little and tell us how you’ve come to this conclusion.

Sushi, what is it you want me to explain? China never owned Taiwan. Neither did Canada. Or France. Or Brazil. So China has just as much right to a say in Taiwan’s future as those countries.

The first nation to control the whole island of Taiwan was Japan, in the 1930s after the supression of the last aboriginal revolts. The Qing Dynasty was an empire centered around China but including many other states. Arguing that China should own Taiwan because the Qing controlled the lowlands is like arguing that Belgium should own Poland because Germany once owned them both.

SP: wrote: As much as the renaming campaign and de-Chiangization may reflect the conflict within the KMT, it also reflects the insecurity and vulnerability of the DPP as the ruling party. It need to have an issue to capitalize on because it had nothing to show on its governing record.

SP, you’ve misunderstood the whole restoration of “Taiwan” to where it once was. The DPP is moving on this because it is confident that it will win in ’08 — as I now think it will — and so the name changes will not be rolled back. We supporters of democratization in Taiwan have been wanting to see Chiang wiped off Taiwan, just as Franco is gone from Spain, Mussolini from Italy, and Hitler from Germany. Few in Taiwan, and few Chinese in general, realize how weird it is to have a major monument to a dead mass murderer in the nation’s capital, something no other democratic nation has. So the DPP’s going forward with this is a good sign.

I don’t see much point in responding to the KMT propaganda about DPP failure.

Many Taiwanese people already see all this renaming campaigns as nothing more than political ploys and a waste of public money. They have lost all confidence in politicians and are tired of the mud-slinging and in fighting.

Yes, so the Taiwanese people claim if you ask them. But they vote straight identity politics in national elections, so the politicians play that game. The public can end this any time simply by voting in good people — but I note the vast number of hugely corrupt politicians in office, and the consistent refusal of the public to vote them out — see Hsu Tai-li elected mayor of Keelung while on his way to being convicted, Yen Ching-piao, elected from jail, and the recent county chief election in Taitung — and I conclude that the public in Taiwan likes the deadlock and the corruption, since money flows out of the central government into many pockets under those conditions. Isn’t it time you stopped paying attention to what people say and instead watched what they do when the test (election) comes? Taiwan is a high context society where what comes out of people’s mouths is what they think they ought to be saying, not what they are thinking.

Michael

April 14, 2007 @ 12:04 am | Comment

kenzhu

“If the Taiwanese took your advice, they’d declare independence since they can fight off any PRC invasion.”

That’s right. They should have done it if they were really capable. It’s time to end this farce once and for all. It seems to me everybody else is a winner except PRC and Taiwan, both of which squandering fortunes on petty countries, grovelling before others, engaging themselves in ridiculous propaganda, and purging their own culture&tradition, just to make their absurd points heard&seen by their fanatic&pigheaded subjects and uninterested foreign spectators.

There has never been and will never be a status quo with both sides changing at all times. Trying to keep one will only make things worse. Just look at the present situation compared to that of 5 years ago.

So why not just declare your independence, so that we can put an end to this stupidity by either having an ultimate war or having either party backing off.

April 14, 2007 @ 6:29 am | Comment

“The first nation to control the whole island of Taiwan was Japan, in the 1930s after the supression of the last aboriginal revolts. The Qing Dynasty was an empire centered around China but including many other states.”

Your argument is really confusing. Are you saying Taiwan was only a remote state under the rule of Qing, but an integral part of Imperial Japan? Was Qing not ruling effectively the whole Taiwan? Was Taiwan only a protectorate of Qing dynasty?

Assuming you are right at Qing being an empire centred around China, does that necessarily mean Taiwan was not part of that China at the time?

Even assuming you are right that China never owned Taiwan, which I doubt, don’t you understand that whether owning (the kind of owning in your definition) it or not in history is only one of many reasons China has to claim the right to this territory?

I’m not a big fan of PRC in terms of its handling of Taiwan and have lots of doubts in the one China policy. But your claim “China has just as much right to a say in Taiwan’s future as those countries” really made me laugh.

April 14, 2007 @ 7:33 am | Comment

Michael,

“SP, you’ve misunderstood the whole restoration of “Taiwan” to where it once was. The DPP is moving on this because it is confident that it will win in ’08 — as I now think it will — and so the name changes will not be rolled back. We supporters of democratization in Taiwan have been wanting to see Chiang wiped off Taiwan, just as Franco is gone from Spain, Mussolini from Italy, and Hitler from Germany. Few in Taiwan, and few Chinese in general, realize how weird it is to have a major monument to a dead mass murderer in the nation’s capital, something no other democratic nation has. So the DPP’s going forward with this is a good sign.

I don’t see much point in responding to the KMT propaganda about DPP failure.”

If the DPP was so confident, they would have build their platfform on clean and efficient government and a vibrant economy. But were they competent as the ruling party? Corruption, nepotism were some of the things that President Chen did during his tenure in office, the same evils that he accused of the old KMT regime had done in the past. How about swift relief for the victims of the 921 Earthquake? Or VP Annette Lu’s no-brain comments on Taiwan’s Aboriginals shows much tolerance the DPP has in a democracy.

What all the DPP was capable of was shouting slogans and despicable electioneering, Other than that, they have little to show. The only capable thing they know about democracy is trying to look out the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan from the chamber. So much about democracy.

In fact, the DPP will be the biggest loser if Taiwan becomes independent. The independent card is their trump card. If Taiwan really becomes independent, they would lose their relevance.

I see it as just a series of their political game. Especially the De-Sinicization renaming and re-writing history, why don’t you tell us more about that? Its was pure historical revisionism that was politically motivated. It is cultural genocide, period.

Chiang’s legacy was indeed a negative one. I would not drop a tear for the removal of his statues. But i think anyone who sincerely believes that the DPP does it as pure “democratization” ought to have their brain examined. At best, they are naive; at worst they are just politically imbecile.

April 15, 2007 @ 2:48 am | Comment

Michael,

“Yes, so the Taiwanese people claim if you ask them. But they vote straight identity politics in national elections, so the politicians play that game. The public can end this any time simply by voting in good people — but I note the vast number of hugely corrupt politicians in office, and the consistent refusal of the public to vote them out — see Hsu Tai-li elected mayor of Keelung while on his way to being convicted, Yen Ching-piao, elected from jail, and the recent county chief election in Taitung — and I conclude that the public in Taiwan likes the deadlock and the corruption, since money flows out of the central government into many pockets under those conditions. Isn’t it time you stopped paying attention to what people say and instead watched what they do when the test (election) comes? Taiwan is a high context society where what comes out of people’s mouths is what they think they ought to be saying, not what they are thinking.”

I would honestly tell you why i think the DPP suck. If the KMT’s shit for Taiwan was blackgold politics, then the DPP’s shit for Taiwan was identity politics. As a result of the DPP’s identity electioneering, they tore Taiwan’s society apart and intensified antagonism between those who had mainland descent and those whose ancestors settled in Taiwan much earlier. DPP’s identity politics totally divided and polarized Taiwanese societies and thats the last thing any young democracy would want to see. If they really had Taiwan society’s interests at heart, they would not be doing at these. Flying the “democratic” flag, they were just selfish opportunists themselves. To associate them with democratization is to taint the notion of democracy itself.

I didn’t create this “propaganda”, former leading dissidents like Hsu Hsin Liang and Shih Mingteh were so disgruntled with the DPP, and both were forefathers of the Tangwai movement and founders of the DPP.

And the best part was that some DPP members become so annoyed with Shih’s anti-Chen drive that they wished that President Chiang Ching-kuo had Shih killed during his days as a dissident. Wow, the DPP was indeed a democratic party!

With the Chao Chien Ming, Chen Che Nan and Sogo scandals, it seems that Chen has surrounded himself with corrupt yes-men, just like Chiang Kai-shek had done years ago.

April 15, 2007 @ 3:06 am | Comment

What’s the point of talking about whether China has a historical claim on Taiwan? Why does it matter? International politics is not about legality and morality, it’s about who has a bigger fist. At this point, China has a pretty big fist, but not yet as big as the US. That’s why the Taiwan problem is in stalement.

I’d say give it another 50 years, when China’s DF missiles can guarantee the elimination of all US military bases on Okinawa, when China’s naval submarines can freely patrol the coast of California… when China’s economy overtakes both the US and Japan combined. Then the Taiwan problem will no longer be a problem. Then it’s time to think about Vietnam, about the Phillipines, about Singapore…..

The world is a jungle, get used to it.

April 15, 2007 @ 11:33 am | Comment

Michael, i have more questions for you..

How do you explain the DPP’s shameless revisionism of history? Changing the term of “Japanese Occupation in Taiwan” , “日據時期” to “Japanese Aministration of Taiwan” or “日治時期” in high school textbooks? So that’s your righteous renaming campaign? Instead of shedding your colonial past, you honor your colonial master Japan by giving its occupation a euphemistic name? wow, double standards?

And why did the DPP remain slient when TSU chairman Su Chin Chiang paid tribute to the Class A war criminals who had Taiwanese blood on their hands and raped thousands of Taiwanese women? Why are they so selective in their “righteous” revisionist campaigns? I long suspected that a group within the Green Camp are running dogs for the Japanese militarists and right wing politicians. Abd textbooks fail to mention about the Naking Massacre. Looks like you got lots to answer about the DPP’s own attitude towards history.

And if you are so righteous and determined with your renaming campaigns and historical revisionism, President Chen and the DPP should also demolish the Presidential Office in which they are currently occupying. After all, its the residence of the Japanese Governor-Generals during the colonial period, and its a symbol of Japanese rule on Taiwan, why don’t they dynamite it as well?

I am afraid not only the DPP’s renaming campaign is politically motivated, but also paying tribute and honouring Japanese militarism and imperialism. There is a group that seems to be more interested in making Taiwan a Japanese colony again and lets revisit what you have said in light of these tibutes to Japanese militarism.

April 15, 2007 @ 6:00 pm | Comment

Michael,

“P, you’ve misunderstood the whole restoration of “Taiwan” to where it once was. The DPP is moving on this because it is confident that it will win in ’08 — as I now think it will — and so the name changes will not be rolled back. We supporters of democratization in Taiwan have been wanting to see Chiang wiped off Taiwan, just as Franco is gone from Spain, Mussolini from Italy, and Hitler from Germany. Few in Taiwan, and few Chinese in general, realize how weird it is to have a major monument to a dead mass murderer in the nation’s capital, something no other democratic nation has. So the DPP’s going forward with this is a good sign.”

As you have claimed, they have moved Chiang, just like Spain had removed Farnco, Italy removing Mussolini and Germany removing Hitler. But with the DPP’s euphemistic renaming of “Japanese Occuaption in Taiwan” to “Japanese Administration in Taiwan” in high school textbooks, did they remove Hideki Tojo as well? So you are trying to tell us that they are moving in the right direction and it cannot be rolled back in their quest in removing Chiang and honouring Japanese militarism?

I thin you pan-Greens would do yourself some good by stop pontificating about historical righteous when so many of you guys are spineless apologists for Japanese militarism just because Japanese right-wing politicians are giving you support.

April 15, 2007 @ 6:08 pm | Comment

Michael,

And you have yet give us a satisfactory answer why the DPP are not delaring that they have a clean and efficient government in their seven years of ruling Taiwan. After all, they came to power with the promise to end KMT’s “blackgold” politics. If they are not insecure of their own track record in governing, why are they not championing that they are clean and efficient in their elections campaigns? Why only identity politics and “renaming campaigns”? Unless they have nothing else to show as government other than those stuff?

Maybe you should can tell us what a clean and honest DPP government had done for the people? Like in the aftermath of the 921 earthquake and how “efficient” they were in saving the victimes at 八掌溪 or Pa-Chang River as victims stood helplessly for hours without help before they were finally swept away by the water? If the DPP had only exercised the same efficiency in their “renaming campaigns” in these area…. well.

These are facts and not propaganda. Maybe a slef-righteous democrat like you should account for these and face it squarely. Accountability is the central pillar of democracy. Stop preaching about democratization if you are a lowly escapist.

April 15, 2007 @ 6:26 pm | Comment

I guess (just guess) most Taiwanese would prefer being ruled by Japanese to either Chiang’s KMT or CCP, if independence were not an option.

And I doubt Nanjing massacre has ever been a real concern to many aboriginal Taiwanese. Many of them were loyal to the Japanese emperor and even fought alongside Japanese soldiers in Nanjing.

April 16, 2007 @ 2:52 am | Comment