Mr Promfret is wrong on this. On the issue of territory integrity, being firm and uncompromising is the best strategy for China. Didn’t the Dalai Lama just say that he was giving up his struggle? Once you show your determination and strength, you will eventually prevail. It’s like the Old Man Moves a Mountain story.

November 4, 2008 @ 8:47 am | Comment

You can be”firm and uncompromising,” but you can also give an inch (like pretending not to notice Ma is called “president”). There is firm, and there’s dogmatic. You don’t necessarily have to be both.

November 4, 2008 @ 9:09 am | Comment

Taiwanese officials do not call Hu Jintao President Hu either. On the other they can address each other by their titles in their political parties, like General Secretary Hu, and Chairman Ma. I am not sure if Ma is still the Chairman of KMT though.

Anyway don’t waste your time worrying about this.

November 4, 2008 @ 9:22 am | Comment

Recently came back to Taiwan, and you know what’s sad? The only newspaper that I would consider “balanced” is the tabliod Apple Daily. All the other newspapers are just endless spins and part of the whole zero-sum media war between KMT and DPP. It’s nauseating.

November 4, 2008 @ 9:25 am | Comment

Serve, I don’t worry about it. I just wonder about it. As Falen says, the polarization level is absolutely absurd. What a waste of everyone’s time and energy (on both sides). I wish the CCP would be the adult and make the first move. As Pomfret says, they just have to show Taiwan “a little face.” But the mutual intransigence, the unwillingness to budge even an inch, ensure that everyone gets fucked.

November 4, 2008 @ 9:35 am | Comment

Yes, agree with Richard and Falen about Taiwan politics.

Back to the US election. Obama’s grandmother died this morning
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/03/obamas_grandmother_dies.html?hpid=topnews
So sad. One day before her grandson becomes the President of United States…

November 4, 2008 @ 9:42 am | Comment

Why should the mainland compromise when it can afford not to compromise? You only need to compromise if you are in a weaker position, and the opponent has more cards to play than you do. In this case, it is the Taiwan side that is in a weaker position. Makes no sense to compromise from power dynamics point of view.

If I am a giant, and I am “negotiating” with an ant. Do I need to make any compromise? Why should I? I can achieve all my objectives anyway. Same with negotiation with Dalai Lama, did CCP make any compromise? Everytime CCP “negotiates” with Dalai, CCP simply says “Renounce Tibetan independence, otherwise there’s nothing to talk about” Where’s the Tibetan independence movement now? Any sound, any noise? After Dalai dies, what is left? Totally disintegrated.

Taiwan problem is not a problem. As time goes on, it’ll become even less and less of a problem. These green camps, where is there future?

Mao said it right: “The Taiwan problem, it can wait 100 years, don’t worry about it.”

I am not worried about it at all.

November 4, 2008 @ 9:52 am | Comment

Same with negotiation for Hong KOng with Britain in the late 80’s. The British’s Thatcher (Iron lady) thought she could get the CCP to make some compromise, and the UK gov’t offered several “schemes”, such as ”

At the preliminary stage of the talks, the British government refused to budge, insisting on an exchange of sovereignty for administration and the implementation of a British administration post-handover. The PRC government refused, contending that the notions of sovereignty and administration were inseparable.

Deng Xiaoping basically said to Thatcher, “Whether you guys like it or not, Hong Kong must be returned to China both in administration and sovereignty. There’s no room for compromise” After that meeting, Thather came out of the People’s Hall in Beijing, and fell down while walking down the steps, very symbolic.

Finally:

Britain formally conceded its intentions of either maintaining a British administration in Hong Kong or seeking some form of co-administration with the PRC, and showed its sincerity in discussing PRC’s proposal on the 1997 issue. Obstacles were cleared.

According to your logic, the CCP should have compromised, and accepted some deal. But CCP got everything it wanted without a single compromise. According to your logic, CCP would not have gotten Hong Kong without making any compromise.

November 4, 2008 @ 9:58 am | Comment

Red Star, do us all a favor and think before you post. China did indeed compromise in taking back Hong Kong; remember the “One Country, Two Systems” agreement? The CCP, like all governments, compromises all the time. Meanwhile, the only specific compromise discussed in my post is letting Ma be referred to as “president” without going ballistic. Anyone with a hint of negotiating experience knows you concede on some smaller issues to obtain your ultimate goal. And the PRC delegation is there to negotiate. I.e., to compromise.

November 4, 2008 @ 10:09 am | Comment

Same with negotiation with Dalai Lama, did CCP make any compromise? Everytime CCP “negotiates” with Dalai, CCP simply says “Renounce Tibetan independence, otherwise there’s nothing to talk about” Where’s the Tibetan independence movement now? Any sound, any noise? After Dalai dies, what is left? Totally disintegrated.

Groups such as the Tibetan Youth Congress who never really expected peaceful negotiation to work will still be around. Perhaps they are also waiting for the Dalai Lama to die so that his “Middle Way” can be discredited.

November 4, 2008 @ 10:18 am | Comment

Stop joking me.

“One country two systems” is a compromise to the UK? Deng created this concept to allow Hongkong (and maybe in the future Taiwan) to be a “window to the West”. So that these places can act as a “pivot” or a “joint” between China and the advanced West. This way, China can take advantage of the business/investment/contacts with the West, but still keep political control in the mainland. Two birds with one stone. Hong kong is a valuable and rich, is the CCP so stupid to destroy all that accumulation of market and resource and reputation inside HK, to drive away all the investments from the West, all the good will from the West? Of course not. This is why HK must remain as a window to the West. And “One country two systems” is a framework to allow this window to be kept open, at least in the near future. It is simply not in CCP’s interest to make Hongkong red.

You are too simple, sometimes naive.

November 4, 2008 @ 10:58 am | Comment

Looks like Ma Ying-jeou has many Taiwanese worried over his policies of engagement with the Mainland.

November 4, 2008 @ 11:04 am | Comment

Taipei Times = Liberty Times = DPP aligned

November 4, 2008 @ 11:58 am | Comment

Red Star, you’re trying my patience again. Of course one country two systems was a compromise, and the Million Man March brought more compromise. Remember? China is not invulnerable to compromise. China would have loved the slogan to be One Country, One System, but they were shrewd enough to recognize that would scare the shit out of much of the world and drive all the bankers over to Singapore.

Falen, about the Taipei Times: what you said, in spades. Sometimes I think they’re a good paper, and a lot of times I think they’re run by the same publishers as Epoch Times.

November 4, 2008 @ 12:00 pm | Comment

Richard, Pomfret’s writing on the DPP and on the Greens consists almost entirely of Beijing talking points, par for the course for reporters who have spent long periods in Beijing. There’s nothing “sclerotic” about having large protests when a man whose job description is “snuff out your country’s existence” shows up in your capital to negotiate with your President. That’s the nature of democracy. Would you and Pomfret prefer that they threw grenades? Or what? Please concretely explain what the non-sclerotic alternatives would be.

The weirdness of your position and Pomfret’s is that when 100K people show up to support Obama, they are energized and passionate and anti-Bush. Let 600K show up to protest the ongoing slide into China’s arms, and they are “sclerotic.” Of course Tsai uses this to promote the DPP and the Green cause — that’s good politics. The fact that she did so does not impugn the fundamental rightness of her side. I can’t recall you criticizing the Dems for benefiting from Bush’s nightmarish mismanagement of the United States. So why is it suddenly cool to do hack on Tsai when the DPP criticizes Ma’s total mismanagement of Taiwan over the last six months? Again, what would the non-sclerotic alternative be?

Another curious thing is Ma is professing positions on Taiwan that were rendered obsolete twenty years ago. The KMT is currently pursuing what is increasingly looking like a judicial vendetta against the DPP, with another mayor taken in for questioning at 6 AM this morning. The KMT has also brought the Party back into the military, something the DPP struggled to civilianize, as well as moved against the Taiwan-centric education and testing system to reinstitute martial-law era educational and testing practices. But the DPP is “sclerotic.”

Let’s face it: Pomfret knows his China — I agree with his analysis of China’s unwillingness to grant concessions. But he has no understanding of Taiwan, its relationship with China, and its local politics.

Michael Turton

November 4, 2008 @ 12:17 pm | Comment

@Michael Turton,

All Ma is doing, big 3-tong or small 3-tong, or whatever, was designed and detailed by DPP, even Ma himself acknowledges so. DPP wanted this thing badyly for 8 yrs, the only reason they didnt get it is that CCP hated Chen and wanted to save it for KMT. If CPP would grant the same deal they are giving to Ma during the past 8yrs, Chen shui-bian would have waken up in dreams smiling and jumped all over his bed, he would have gotten on the next flight to Peking to sign the deal, even if CCP will him comrade Chen.

DPP and pan green people are understandably so pissed now, not because they believe Chen yun-lin ‘s visit is disasterous for Taiwan, not because they believe Ma is selling out Taiwan, not because they believe the deal in making is bad for Taiwan’s future. They are pissed ONLY because they are not the one who’s getting it done, they paved the road and waited the holly grail for 8 yrs and got nothing, now Ma’s there for 5 months and the thing dropped off from sky. Basically they are like a jealous kid banging his head against wall. My hearts and thought go out for them but lets be honest, anybody with a double digit IQ can see through this.

November 4, 2008 @ 2:17 pm | Comment

“judicial vendetta”??

Ohnos!!! I organized a mob to beat up someone, knocking him down and jumped on his vehicle in front of TV camera then getting indicted within 9 days is clearly evidence of “judicial vendetta”!!!

November 4, 2008 @ 2:46 pm | Comment

For DPP, the only thing that is important to them is to wrestle with a driver so the whole car runs off a cliff.

November 4, 2008 @ 2:49 pm | Comment

Yes, according to that Michael Turton: publicly assaulting a person, jumping on top of his car and smashing it, in front of all the cameras, by a person (not just a random crazy guy, but associated with a political group), and backed by many “onlookers” also associated with the DPP. Yes this act is totally justified because the “victim” deserved it, simply because he represents the CCP and said many bad things about Taiwan. Anyone who criticize the beating of this old man is just playing politics, must be brainwashed by CCP and KMT.

This is the psychological state of today’s DPP, and the so called Green camp. You will be good friends with the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.

Green guards and Red guards, natural born twins.

No wonder people say that today’s Green camp is running a mini-Cultural revolution in Taiwan.

November 4, 2008 @ 3:00 pm | Comment

The only way for the PRC to in any way positively impress the people of Taiwan regarding cross Strait relations would be to remove the missiles pointed at Taiwan and renounce the use of force.

Anything less is meaningless.

However, any PRC leader who did so would have to be so secure in his position – on the order of a Mao or a Deng – that it is highly unlikely we will see such a rational decision in our lifetimes.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Serve the People,

Actually, the Taiwan media do use the term “president” to refer to Hu Jintao: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/07/20/2003417941. What gave you the impression they didn’t?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Michael Turton,

I agree with your assessment of journalists who spend a long time in Beijing and then go to Taiwan. Not one of them ever considers what the Taiwanese PEOPLE might prefer, just the politics and military angles.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Coldblooded3,
“If CPP would grant the same deal they are giving to Ma during the past 8yrs, Chen Shui-bian would have waken up in dreams smiling and jumped all over his bed, he would have gotten on the next flight to Peking to sign the deal, even if CCP will him comrade Chen.”

Your understanding of Taiwan politics is curious. What part of the Taiwanese political system do you think would tolerate such a deal? The armed forces? The legislature? The voters? Any part?

November 4, 2008 @ 3:12 pm | Comment

“…what the Taiwanese PEOPLE might prefer…”

Such as, DPP got overwhelmingly voted out of power?

November 4, 2008 @ 4:07 pm | Comment

Michael: Richard, Pomfret’s writing on the DPP and on the Greens consists almost entirely of Beijing talking points, par for the course for reporters who have spent long periods in Beijing

Sorry, but that’s false. Pomfret never repeated CCP talking points. To his very last day in China, through today, he is deeply anti-CCP and has always been eager to stick a finger in the Party’s eye. For you to say that this is symptomatic of most reporters who are here for a long time is pretty brave. Maybe reporters here for a long time begin to understand how the country works (imagine that), but that doesn’t lead to regurgitating the party line. Let’s look at these correspondents past and present – Gady Epstein, Jonathan Watts, Pomfret, Philip Pan, Edward Cody, Joseph Khan, Adrian Geiges, Jonathan Yardley, etc., etc., etc. None matches with your description. Absolutely none.

As for me, I got tired of the Green cause while I was still in Taiwan. It was their partisanship and at times holier-than-thou attitude that bugged me, the constant creation of new noise, but no visible interest in actually getting Taiwan out of its hole and coming to a practical solution. And no, practical solution doesn’t mean enslavement by the CCP.

Falen, nice come-back.

November 4, 2008 @ 4:27 pm | Comment

It’s tough being a responsible voter trying to get informed because there is just so much noise. Just finished eating dinner and the evening news is all about some random DPP dude shouting on the top of his lung about something something, then the news switch topic to some inane stuff about size of the police force guarding the Chinese delegate, number of flag displayed outside etc etc etc….

I mean for God sakes just tell me the details of the damn Pact so I can get back to watching Obama getting elected already.

November 4, 2008 @ 7:23 pm | Comment

To his very last day in China, through today, he is deeply anti-CCP

Michael shouldn’t imply that he is siding with the CCP/speaking for them, but that doesn’t stop Pomfret from saying similar things that the Chinese media do in relation to the DPP, and it doesn’t stop him from being ill-informed.

It was their partisanship and at times holier-than-thou attitude that bugged me, the constant creation of new noise, but no visible interest in actually getting Taiwan out of its hole and coming to a practical solution.

Again, richard, that’s not true. The DPP was open to talks from the start, but China demanded that the DPP give in on key issues as to its founding principles. China wouldn’t even allow for the two sides to agree to disagree and to find ground that they could move ahead on. The KMT also helped undermine it by going to China and holding its own talks – in the view of Michael and many others it deliberately encouraged China not to change its position and await a KMT government.

But that didn’t stop Chen lifting restrictions on investment in China, tourism, transport and the like. Something like US$150-200 billion was invested by Taiwan in China by the end of his last term. Those restrictions all things brought in under the KMT. While he was president there were also talks on exactly what has been happening recently. Do you really think that all this has happened since Ma became president? No. Much of it was discussed before, but agreements weren’t signed because China didn’t want to give Chen the credit for them – possibly under KMT pressure, who knows?

Sure, the DPP is flawed, but do you think the KMT is better? Do you think that their near-coup attempt after the 2004 election was a sign of a party that had the best interests of Taiwan at heart? Do you think that repeated KMT praise of the anti-freedom Singapore PAP and references of trying to emulate it is nothing to worry about? Do you think that the vast amount of stolen money that the KMT refuses to return to the Taiwanese people and uses to help win office isn’t a problem in ensuring free and fair elections?

I think that it is fair to say that Taiwanese democracy continued to be strengthened under the DPP. What would you prefer Taiwan were like – as it is now, or richer like Singapore but with less freedom? That might be an arbitrary comparison, but it is important to remember that wealth without freedom is not pleasant.

Also, was Taiwan in a hole? Perhaps the situation with China wasn’t improved visibly, but the economy was better than people gave it credit for. Could it have been better? Maybe but it’s difficult to say under what circumstances. Ma has already ditched his 6-3-3 pledge. Even without the global crisis would things have been much better than the previous 4-8 years? The stock market kept going down after the election even before the current problems started. And, one last point on the economy, even if Taiwan’s growth rate could be boosted to 6% would that be a good idea if it meant being virtually 100% reliant on China’s economy? Perhaps it’s better to have a bit less growth and a more diverse trade profile.

Falen, nice come-back.

Except that Ma’s rock-bottom approval ratings are worse (I believe) than Bush’s. The DPP may not be hugely popular at the moment (I honestly don’t know because there are no elections until next year and I haven’t seen polls on the DPP), but there is huge suspicion over Ma and how he has conducted cross-Strait policies. Pomfret’s problem is that he alleges the DPP do not want better relations with China. That is complete nonsense. What they don’t want is making Taiwan subservient to what China wants just to get things which are in China’s interests as well.

Now you may not consider this an issue, but just imagine the following. America was trying to negotiate with another country that either claims it as being part of its territory and/or threatens to destroy it (and has the capability to do so). During the visit, the American flag is taken down from buildings so that the visiting dignitary won’t see them. American flags are taken out of the hands of anyone in the immediate area, but the flags of the other country are held by people supportive of the visit.

How would you feel about a Republican government doing something like that and comments made by someone like Pomfret towards a party that was opposing the pandering to Chinese whims (or even worse what China would be thought to want)?

November 4, 2008 @ 10:07 pm | Comment

Oy.

November 4, 2008 @ 10:24 pm | Comment

Can I expect a more substantive reply, or does “oy” mean you agree I may have a point? Just curious.

November 4, 2008 @ 10:37 pm | Comment

“judicial vendetta”??

Ohnos!!! I organized a mob to beat up someone, knocking him down and jumped on his vehicle in front of TV camera then getting indicted within 9 days is clearly evidence of “judicial vendetta”!!!

Falen, the situation here has become so serious that US-based academics are already circulating a letter on it, which should be coming out soon. The “judicial vendetta” refers to the pattern of DPP politicians being taken in for questioning or held incommunicado on “corruption” charges, not to the case of Wang in particular. As a matter of fact, 9 days is some kind of record; the speed was obviously political. I know it is weird to bother with facts when snappy comebacks are so much simpler, but nobody organized a mob to beat up anyone, the person who allegedly knocked Zhang down is not the person who jumped on the car, etc. It might be good idea to familiarize yourself with what is actually going on. Just a suggestion, ya know.

Sorry, but that’s false. Pomfret never repeated CCP talking points.

Sorry, but Pomfret’s readings of the DPP are vintage CCP talking points. On more than one occasion. The very first time I wrote to WaPo about Pomfret was when he called James Soong a democratic reformer in the 2000 election.

To his very last day in China, through today, he is deeply anti-CCP and has always been eager to stick a finger in the Party’s eye. For you to say that this is symptomatic of most reporters who are here for a long time is pretty brave. Maybe reporters here for a long time begin to understand how the country works (imagine that), but that doesn’t lead to regurgitating the party line.

Richard, people who live in Beijing tend to suck up CCP talking points on Taiwan. It doesn’t matter whether they are pro or anti CCP. It seems almost inevitable.It is just the way things are. It’s not bravery, but reality.

Let’s look at these correspondents past and present – Gady Epstein, Jonathan Watts, Pomfret, Philip Pan, Edward Cody, Joseph Khan, Adrian Geiges, Jonathan Yardley, etc., etc., etc. None matches with your description. Absolutely none.

You have no idea what you are talking about, since you have never spent even a single minute looking at their work on Taiwan to study its point of view and its factual constructions.

Actually, I have documented examples for many of them when it comes to Taiwan (I am not aware of any Taiwan reporting from Khan, Pan, or Epstein or Geiges). Watts’
work is invariably awful, simply search his name on my blog for many ridiculous claims (like this one in which he says Chen survived a recall vote by one mp (the actual number was 28). Watts is, to put it kindly, clueless about Taiwan. Several of us wrote in on that one. As for Yardley, Johnny Neihu and I had a lot of fun with this clueless piece. You left out Ford, who claimed that Chen ratcheted tensions up with Beijing whenever he got in trouble — purely a beijing talking point with no basis in fact. Being able to report on China does not qualify one to report on Taiwan. Living in Beijing just doesn’t offer the right perspective.

Cody I have no problems with. But on the whole reporters from Beijing tend to speak patronizingly of Taiwan’s democracy movement, present Taiwan as the party doing the injuries, repeat KMT and CCP talking points as statements of fact, fail to properly contextualize, etc etc etc.

As for me, I got tired of the Green cause while I was still in Taiwan. It was their partisanship and at times holier-than-thou attitude that bugged me, the constant creation of new noise, but no visible interest in actually getting Taiwan out of its hole and coming to a practical solution. And no, practical solution doesn’t mean enslavement by the CCP.

You’re entitled to your opinion, even if it does mirror the Taipei conventional wisdom in the same way that the Beijing media reps mirror the Beijing CW. 😉

Michael

November 4, 2008 @ 10:47 pm | Comment

No, that’s all I’m saying. I don’t want to get into another tug of war. Just remember: I’m right. There are two very emotional sides to the story. I have transcended emotions to offer an objective and unassailable truth. Take it or leave it. And I’m not saying one side is right or wrong, just that I saw the unappealing side of the green movement with my own eyes, and I reject their strategies. I have never sided with the blues, however and never said they were any better.

November 4, 2008 @ 10:48 pm | Comment

I have transcended emotions to offer an objective and unassailable truth.

With all due respect, I don’t see it as an unassailable truth – nor would Michael. If you don’t want to discuss it then fine, but I was making a response to your points. Rather than say “oy” (which I do not understand) you could have said something like:

“Raj, that’s a very detailed post. Thanks for your time, but I don’t think I can respond to all of that without initiating a discussion that would take up too much of our time and deprive others of the opportunity to comment. But I would say that I certainly don’t see the KMT as being better than the DPP – I’m just disappointed with the latter.”

November 4, 2008 @ 11:09 pm | Comment

Thanks for the advice, Raj. As I said, “take it or leave it.” I can’t deal with dour, sour curmudgeonly ideologues today.

November 4, 2008 @ 11:17 pm | Comment

First to DOR, I claim that the Taiwanese government does not call Hu Jintao President Hu. What
Taipei Times does I don’t care.

Second, the fact that during Chen’s visit the ROC flag was not visible should be considered together with the fact that the PRC flag was also absent. It was a compromise by both sides.

Instead of wasting time on titles and flags, why don’t we talk about the deep impacts of these agreements: direct trade links, direct flights, banks operating on both sides of the Taiwan straight.

November 5, 2008 @ 12:14 am | Comment

Here, here, Serve.

Michael, you may be able to point to an article by the likes of Jim Yardley or Jonathan Watts that you think is biased or clueless. You cannot, however, say that reporters such as these who live in Beijing for a long time adopt CCP talking points. That is what I was referring to in my earlier comment, and your accusation is patently false. Maybe they see Taiwan differently than you, maybe you feel they should have done more “contextualization,” etc. But they are hardly shills. Did you see Yardley’s stories on China’s environment prior to the Games? Have you seen Watts’ calling out China time and again for its human rights violations? I realize it’s getting increasingly lonely on the pro-Chen limb that some of us are on, but let’s be careful with the generalities. These reporters are not reading off the CCP playbook. They have strong track records of defying and exposing the party. But somehow, in the view of the Greens, nobody is telling the Taiwan story in a fair and balanced way. Only the Taipei Times.

Michael, I really respect your intelligence and have always considered you a friend. And as I said, maybe they really did screw up on some stories about Taiwan. But please, be reasonable. These are excellent reporters who have gone way out of their way to blast the CCP. Pomfret was thrown out of China in ’89 for aiding abetting the students (or at least that’s how the CCP perceived it) and you can’t find a reporter more outspokenly critical of the Party than he is.

November 5, 2008 @ 12:32 am | Comment

I can’t deal with dour, sour curmudgeonly ideologues today.

You don’t have to, because I’m not one.

Second, the fact that during Chen’s visit the ROC flag was not visible should be considered together with the fact that the PRC flag was also absent. It was a compromise by both sides.

Serve, if that is the case then that is fair enough. But I have read stories that said people were prohibited from holding ROC flags but some bystanders did hold PRC flags. Are you quite sure that all flags were prohibited both from buildings and bystanders? You may not find it a big deal, but I would like to hear what the case is.

You cannot, however, say that reporters such as these who live in Beijing for a long time adopt CCP talking points.

I don’t think that Michael is talking about all CCP talking points, just CCP and KMT talking points over the DPP. When someone like Pomfret lives in China he can see that the CCP is talking nonsense on Chinese matters. But if one is remote from a place then it becomes more difficult to judge what the situation is. I wouldn’t accuse Pomfret of deliberately sucking up CCP views, but a lot of the Chinese and HK press is hostile to the DPP and pro-KMT. So unless he makes a certified effort to ignore all the publications that are irrationally hostile towards the DPP/pro-KMT it isn’t easy to have a non-partisan view.

November 5, 2008 @ 1:04 am | Comment

Like Serve I think that it is good that talks are happening, but I cannot comment on how good the net result is because the details have not (I think) been published.

I found some interesting views on all of this on the BBC website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7707768.stm

November 5, 2008 @ 1:43 am | Comment

Like Serve I think talks are a very important thing and increased interaction is a good thing in principle, depending on the details.

There are some viewpoints on this on the BBC website if anyone is interested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7707768.stm

November 5, 2008 @ 2:00 am | Comment

Tick tick tick, connecting the dots again…

Oab says, it’s now time to look at the mirror side of the big picture.

The Quiz question today is: What these three countries have in common – Iraq, Georgia, Taiwan?

November 5, 2008 @ 2:17 am | Comment

I had a dream, in 2000…Err, I meant 2008…

“This combination of slower Asian growth and an accelerated commercial shakeout would oddly be somewhat beneficial for many Western firms interested in Asia’s markets.”

November 5, 2008 @ 2:29 am | Comment

I had a dream, in 2000…Err, I meant 2008…

Sorry for the spam, but this HTTP coding is making me dizzy… I’ll write a book soon about how to post punchy lines on blogs and end up looking like a clown for doing so…

November 5, 2008 @ 2:36 am | Comment

One more thing people waste their time on is the mainland missiles. Modern missiles are highly mobile. China can put them anywhere anytime. Whether they are in Fujian pointing at Taiwan or in some warehouse in Henan makes little military difference. The DPP politicians make a big issue out of this clearly to score political points.

Raj, I was not in Taiwan during Chen’s visit. If you know that some people held PRC flags during Chen’s visit, please share your sources with us. I know the Taiwanese are warming up to Mainland. But holding the communist bandits’ flag?

November 5, 2008 @ 5:22 am | Comment

One more thing people waste their time on is the mainland missiles. Modern missiles are highly mobile. China can put them anywhere anytime. Whether they are in Fujian pointing at Taiwan or in some warehouse in Henan makes little military difference.

In that case, they could get kudos by putting their missiles away and not looking like thugs, while still retaining the ability to kill millions of “tongbao” any time they want to.

November 5, 2008 @ 5:46 am | Comment

it’s all about compromise and leverage…Clearly, the mainland is winning. There is no point of return.

November 5, 2008 @ 6:01 am | Comment

China can put them anywhere anytime. Whether they are in Fujian pointing at Taiwan or in some warehouse in Henan makes little military difference.

Very true, but that’s why many people are now saying the issue of where they are “pointed” is irrelevant and Ma should demand that they are decommissioned – perhaps at the same time as Taiwan could shut down production of/destroy its own surface-to-surface missiles. Most of the missiles in China’s arsenal are short-ranged and can only reach Taiwan/would only be useful in attacking Taiwan.

On the flag issue, it looks like I came across it on a website that allows people to submit their own news stories without being fact-checked. There’s a video on a blog where someone was holding the PRC flag, but I’m not quite sure what was going on.

http://ironsnow.pixnet.net/blog/post/23023533

But I think whether or not people were holding the PRC flag was a bit of a red-herring. That the Police seem to have been harrassing people for holding the ROC flag and/or minding their own business is more concerning.

http://tinyurl.com/6hmxmx

http://tinyurl.com/6cwxc5

http://tinyurl.com/594ml6

Yes, I know the last two publications are pro-DPP but there aren’t (m)any English language publications in Taiwan that I know of that are properly non-partisan. Plus I don’t think you would say they faked the references to complaints from the non political groups.

November 5, 2008 @ 6:02 am | Comment

In that case, they could get kudos by putting their missiles away and not looking like thugs, while still retaining the ability to kill millions of “tongbao” any time they want to.

Get “Kudos” from who? People like Raj and Michael Turton? If CCP removes all missiles and moves them to a warehouse tomorrow, Raj and Michael Turton will make a post here and praise the CCP? Stop joking me. The hardline Green camp will not change their position because of missile being removed, and CCP does not care to win over them. If CCP removes missiles tomorrow, they will just say “This is just a political move, they can still strike Taiwan at any moment. This means nothing”.

Win “kudos”, stop joking me. You think this is in kintergarten? Oh I made a painting today, it’ll get me kudos from my teacher! And she will give me another cookie!

Stop joking me.

November 5, 2008 @ 6:37 am | Comment

Oh, and I’m not suggesting this is necessarily a return to the old KMT days. But it is worth mentioning – I’d certainly be pissed off if it happened in the UK.

November 5, 2008 @ 7:01 am | Comment

In that case, they could get kudos by putting their missiles away and not looking like thugs, while still retaining the ability to kill millions of “tongbao” any time they want to.

In the end all it means is that the CCP is full of old psychopaths who love rhetoric and would be willing to blow a few people up for the sake of it. Kinda like the DPP.. and neocons, but er.. back on topic.

Groups such as the Tibetan Youth Congress who never really expected peaceful negotiation to work will still be around.

And they will be mercilessly routed. Especially considering they have neither the support of the vast majority of the Tibetan population and even less from foreign governments previously hellbent on waging war against the people of China.

The “TYC” is nothing more than a bunch of spoon-fed hippies of Tibetan descent armed with nothing more than teenage angst and foolish idealism.

November 5, 2008 @ 7:47 am | Comment

The hardline Green camp will not change their position because of missile being removed, and CCP does not care to win over them. If CCP removes missiles tomorrow, they will just say “This is just a political move, they can still strike Taiwan at any moment. This means nothing”.

It might be a better look for China to have its gun in its holster than waving it in Taiwan’s face, even if everybody knows the gun can still come out again. You’re correct that there isn’t anything China can do to appeal to people who have already made their minds up they don’t want to be ruled by China.

And they will be mercilessly routed. Especially considering they have neither the support of the vast majority of the Tibetan population and even less from foreign governments previously hellbent on waging war against the people of China.

No one doubts that the CCP can be ruthless and crush anyone who stands in its way. That is a brand that they have established for themselves very well, but it probably isn’t what Chinese people want their country to be known for. If the CCP thinks that only strength matters and the opinion of the rest of the world is irrelevant, then why did they hold the Olympics?

November 5, 2008 @ 10:01 am | Comment

If the CCP thinks that only strength matters and the opinion of the rest of the world is irrelevant, then why did they hold the Olympics?

More than anything else, it was held for their own people, for China. That’s why they didn’t care when their inane visa policies drove away tourists, helping to lead to many empty seats. They didn’t care a bit. Because more than anything else, this was a rallying cry to all Chinese citizens, energized and proud, shouting Zhonguo jia you and waving red flags and uniting behind a common cause. It was about consolidation of power and domestic harmony and unity. Sure, it was also the platform to unveil the shiny New & Improved version of China to the world, but that was secondary. That’s why the Party made such a big thing out of the attacks during the torch relay – it brought the Chinese people together and reinforced their sense of nationalism and pride.

November 5, 2008 @ 10:11 am | Comment

You have a point Richard, and it did seem a little strange the way Chinese people sometimes said that they felt the Olympics showed China’s “strength”. But China really does seem to crave respect from the rest of the world and you can’t get that simply by being strong.

November 5, 2008 @ 11:22 am | Comment

It might be a better look for China to have its gun in its holster than waving it in Taiwan’s face, even if everybody knows the gun can still come out again. You’re correct that there isn’t anything China can do to appeal to people who have already made their minds up they don’t want to be ruled by China.

Better look for China in whose eyes? You said that the Green camp will not care. So better in whose eyes? In whose eyes? In the eyes of Americans? In the eyes of Mainlanders? The CNN/BBC/NBC will shout about missiles now, but once they are removed, they wont say “Oh, look, China removed their missiles, good for China.”. They will just move on and pretend that did not happen. As there’s not any pro-CCP media in today’s globe other than CCTV, there’s no way the CCP can achieve the objective of “making it look better” by removing the missiles, because people hate the CCP for its name, not because it has missiles aimed at Taiwan.

It is dishonest for DPP to suggest that CCP remove the missiles: they themselves would be happy that CCP keeps them aimed, because it gives the DPP a way to use this as the “threat”. It is naive for the CCP to remove them so they can hope for some “kudos”.

So tell me again, what does the CCP have to gain by removing the missiles?

And for “compromise”, compromise is only good when both sides are evenly matched, or one side has some very big threat and very big cards he can play. For example, if a gunman is holding children hostage, then maybe the police negotiator needs to compromise, at least temporarily. But if a crazy person without any weapon or any hostage just walks to the street and demand things from the police, does it make sense for the police to compromise? What can’t the police achieve without compromise?

Mainland and Taiwan today are not evenly matched. Does a dragon need to compromise for a bug in the sewers?

November 5, 2008 @ 11:23 am | Comment

Well I guess it depends on what the CCP actually wants, Hong Xing. If they want to bully the Taiwanese peopole into becoming a part of the very young and undeveloped country that is the PRC then maybe pointing loads of missiles at the island is a good idea. If they want to win hearts and minds then it probably isn’t a good idea.

November 5, 2008 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

Better look for China in whose eyes? You said that the Green camp will not care. So better in whose eyes? In whose eyes?

Calm down Red Star before you have a stroke. Most people in the world don’t hate China. Most Americans don’t even hate China. Even the ones who are ill-disposed can still change their opinion if they have a good reason to.

And for “compromise”, compromise is only good when both sides are evenly matched, or one side has some very big threat and very big cards he can play. For example, if a gunman is holding children hostage, then maybe the police negotiator needs to compromise, at least temporarily. But if a crazy person without any weapon or any hostage just walks to the street and demand things from the police, does it make sense for the police to compromise? What can’t the police achieve without compromise?

Mainland and Taiwan today are not evenly matched. Does a dragon need to compromise for a bug in the sewers?

If Mainland Chinese think of Taiwan as a bug in the sewers or an inferior to be dictated to, then it’s no wonder that so many people are against reunification. If China’s attitude were to be like this before reunification has even taken place, what would it be like afterwards?

Do you really think the only time it’s worth compromising is if someone has an overpowering advantage over you? You must be a very difficult person to get along with.

November 5, 2008 @ 1:23 pm | Comment

How the hell do you point a missile at somebody? You mean like how you point a gun at somebody? Are u sure it is not pointed at South Korea or Japan?

I have no idea why people would blow this missile pointing thing out of proportion. Even if the CCP would put away their missiles, it would only take minutes to re-arm the missiles to fire at any place within the said missile’s range.

November 5, 2008 @ 2:59 pm | Comment

@RAJ

Very true, but that’s why many people are now saying the issue of where they are “pointed” is irrelevant and Ma should demand that they are decommissioned

You gotta be kidding me, next thing they want is to decommission the entire Chinese army. Putting couple missiles away doesn’t mean China will cease to become a invasion threat to Taiwan. The simple fact that China has the largest army in the world and a military budget that increases at a double digit pace annually would dwarf those measly missiles. This whole missile thing is simply blown out of proportion by the Green politician.

November 5, 2008 @ 3:06 pm | Comment

You gotta be kidding me, next thing they want is to decommission the entire Chinese army.

The Chinese Army can be turned against any country. On the other hand these missiles have little use against any country other than Taiwan because of their short-range. So it’s not unfair to say that China could decommission at some of them/stop enlargening that arsenal as a starting point.

November 5, 2008 @ 3:16 pm | Comment

“How the hell do you point a missile at somebody? You mean like how you point a gun at somebody? Are u sure it is not pointed at South Korea or Japan?”

Possibly the most nonsensical comment of the day. Of course China is not pointing missiles at Taiwan. It must be Korea and Japan. How silly of us.

November 5, 2008 @ 3:17 pm | Comment

@Rhys

What I meant is missiles can be re-programmed at any time to point at anybody within its range. Missiles are vastly different than point-and-shoot guns, you can’t point it at someone. In America, we say we have enough nuclear capability to destroy the world ten times over, and our nuclear missiles are not pointed at anyone specifically.

Like Raj said, people should ask for decommissioning of those missiles. But how are you going to decommission a missiles? Remove the internal battery only to put back on a later date? Surely you can’t ask them to scrap metal it.

The missiles are to stay. In reality, Taiwan won’t be any safer if the missiles are removed or more dangerous if more missiles are added.

November 5, 2008 @ 3:50 pm | Comment

Like Raj said, people should ask for decommissioning of those missiles. But how are you going to decommission a missiles? Remove the internal battery only to put back on a later date? Surely you can’t ask them to scrap metal it.

I believe that decommissioning normally constitutes the total scrapping of the weapon, not just being deactivated. That’s what Taiwanese would want and what officially Ma has demanded, though his comments have at other times been wooly.

In reality, Taiwan won’t be any safer if the missiles are removed or more dangerous if more missiles are added.

So don’t add new missiles. Make it part of a mutual decommissioning of short-ranged surface-to-surface weapons and weapon projects.

November 5, 2008 @ 3:59 pm | Comment

“The missiles are to stay. In reality, Taiwan won’t be any safer if the missiles are removed or more dangerous if more missiles are added.”

I agree with that. But this is not purely a matter of the military, it’s a matter of international diplomacy, and missiles along the China side of the straits are a very aggressive verb in the conversation. In effect they say “You better fucking do what we say or we’re going to blow the living shit out of you (our dear, misguided compatriots who have been an integral part of our country since the Chang Dynasty 5 million years ago)’

Instead they could remove the missiles, and the verb becomes a whole lot less aggressive. It says “You are an integral part of our territory, as legally recognised by every almost government of the world and bound to us by reasons of common history and culture, let’s move forward for the greater good of us both (but we are holding a military card in our other hand in case things don’t go smoothly.)

It a different emphasis.

November 5, 2008 @ 4:05 pm | Comment

@Hongxing

Stop joking me.

You are not asking us to take you seriously, are you?

@Ferin

The “TYC” is nothing more than a bunch of spoon-fed hippies of Tibetan descent armed with nothing more than teenage angst and foolish idealism.

Sounds like you would fit in perfectly. Have you signed up for membership yet?

November 5, 2008 @ 7:00 pm | Comment

From a pure power calculation perspective, these short-range missiles, along with the rest of China’s missiles, its Su fighters, its nuclear weapons, its large fleet of submarines, its double digit military spending, etc. These things are exactly what is keeping Taiwan from declaring independence, is it not? Even Raj and Michael Turton agree that those things are what and perhaps the only thing, that is keeping Taiwan from declaring independence. That is, the credible threat of force.

Imagine that China did not invest in its military all these decades. So that today, the entire Chinese missiles arsenal is made up of 100 stinger shoulder mounted missiles like those used by Iraqi Insurgents, its entire navy is 3 diesal submarines and 1 destroyer bought from Russia in the 60’s, and its entire airforce is 30 bombers that may or may not be operational. And no nuclear weapon whatsoever. That is, today’s Chinese Army is on the same level as the army of Myanmar, or Laos.

Now, if you are Taiwanese politician, what is stopping you from declaring independence? The Chinese has no ability at all to take the island: no missiles, no navy, no airforce. So there’s no real card the Mainland can play if I declare independence tomorrow. Then, do you not agree that Taiwan would have easily and without any worry declared independence like maybe in the mid 80’s or mid 90’s.

So is it not true that the fact that the China invested heavily in its military, specifically with the goal of increasing its combat strength regarding Taiwan (short term missiles, submarines, airborne reconnaissance, Su Fighters, etc), that forced this into a stale-mate today? Otherwise, what is stopping Taiwan from declaring independence? Why doesn’t it declare tomorrow?

November 6, 2008 @ 1:19 am | Comment

“Otherwise, what is stopping Taiwan from declaring independence? Why doesn’t it declare tomorrow?”

The US…

Why do you think they just sold 6 billions weapons to Taiwan ? Coincidence ?

Why are you not mentioning the real ideological force being Taiwan Red Star ? The rest doesn’t matter, not even an iota.

November 6, 2008 @ 1:27 am | Comment

China VS US, this is the real game, at least on the masquerade front…

November 6, 2008 @ 1:35 am | Comment

From a pure power calculation perspective, these short-range missiles, along with the rest of China’s missiles, its Su fighters, its nuclear weapons, its large fleet of submarines, its double digit military spending, etc. These things are exactly what is keeping Taiwan from declaring independence, is it not? Even Raj and Michael Turton agree that those things are what and perhaps the only thing, that is keeping Taiwan from declaring independence. That is, the credible threat of force.

That shows the limitations of pure power calculation, because it sounds to me like a concession that Mainland Chinese rule over Taiwan would have no legitimacy.

Presumably when Japan occupied Taiwan the only thing preventing Taiwan from returning to China (or declaring independence) was the Imperial Japanese Army. Isn’t that simply another way of saying that the IJA had no right to be there in the first place?

November 6, 2008 @ 3:03 am | Comment

Hong Xing

I have a question for you. Are you are saying that (in your opinion) the control of Taiwan is purely a power issue? Whether the Taiwanese want it or not is not important? Or not?

November 6, 2008 @ 9:57 am | Comment

Hong Xing

I have a question for you. Are you are saying that (in your opinion) the control of Taiwan is purely a power issue? Whether the Taiwanese want it or not is not important? Or not?

Of course “whether the Taiwanese want it or not” is also important, if the public opinion in Taiwan is pro-unification, then of course it’ll make CCP’s job much easier.

The reality today is that the public opinion in Taiwan is NOT pro-unification due to

1) economic difference between Taiwan and Mainland, which of course is quickly closing.

2) So-called “ideological” difference, which is will not be an issue once the economic gap closes

In other words, those 2 points will go away as time progresses. So time is on CCP’s side, not on Green’s side. However, at this stage, before those 2 points go away, maintaining a credible threat of force is an essential ingredient to keeping the independence movement in check. Going back to my earlier point, if today’s China’s military was on the same level as Laos and Cambodia, then Taiwan would have gone independent a long long time ago. Do you not agree? If you agree, then how can you argue that CCP should abandon its military investment and remove its missiles, assuming that hypothetically that CCP’s short term objective is to prevent Taiwanese independence, and long term objective is peaceful reunification?

You want CCP to remove missiles and dismantle its military, yet you acknowledge that the only thing keeping the Taiwanese from declaring independence is the CCP’s military. So why should CCP take your advice?

That’s like a doctor saying to a patient “You should stop taking these pills!”. The patient says “Won’t I die if I stop taking these pills?”. Then doctor then admits: “Well, yes”.

Explain your logic please.

November 6, 2008 @ 10:37 am | Comment

You want CCP to remove missiles and dismantle its military, yet you acknowledge that the only thing keeping the Taiwanese from declaring independence is the CCP’s military. So why should CCP take your advice?

I didn’t say dismantle the military. That is a fantasy. I said (in effect if I was managing PR for the CCP) that in order to win hearts and minds remove the missiles that are pointed across the strait. I don’t know who you’re talking to.

As has been mentioned previously by several posters, even without the missiles there, they havn;’t disappeared. The option is still on the table, and everyone knows it.

Or the PRC could just acknowledge that as a very young country with a very short history and many of their own problems their effort spent on expansionaism across the strait is probably a waste of time. But I don’t see that happening soon either.

November 6, 2008 @ 10:55 am | Comment

I didn’t say dismantle the military. That is a fantasy. I said (in effect if I was managing PR for the CCP) that in order to win hearts and minds remove the missiles that are pointed across the strait. I don’t know who you’re talking to.

As I explained before, removing the missiles will fail to win the hearts and minds of anyone. And I think you agreed with me on that point already. If it will fail to win any one’s hearts and minds, why should the CCP remove it? For what purpose? Even though there’s no meaningful difference to the speed of deployment whether the missiles are aimed or stored elsewhere, there is still some difference, maybe one hour of difference. And one hour of difference is still a lot, you could still kill a few hundred separatists in an hour, and one more separatist killed is one better. I certainly don’t want Chen Suibian or Michael Turton to get away within that one hour.

November 6, 2008 @ 11:34 am | Comment

The reality today is that the public opinion in Taiwan is NOT pro-unification due to

2) So-called “ideological” difference, which is will not be an issue once the economic gap closes

What I would like to know is, is there:
3) genuine nationalism.

If so, how significant is it a factor in opposition to reunification?

Will economic development be enough to win such people over, and if not what else does China have to offer?

November 6, 2008 @ 11:39 am | Comment

Well i think your assertion is far from a certainty. And your comments about “separitists” are pretty disgusting. But I’ll leave it at that.

November 6, 2008 @ 11:41 am | Comment

Taiwanese already enjoy de facto independence and greater freedom than Hongkongers.

November 6, 2008 @ 3:02 pm | Comment

The missiles argument is getting totally stilly now. China’s missiles and Taiwan’s extreme pan green camp is a chicken and egg issue. Asking China to dismantle those missiles unconditionally is naive, ignorant, even insincere.

November 6, 2008 @ 3:32 pm | Comment