Rather than hopefully pointing out examples of Taiwanese who are desperate to see the CCP running their country, how about showing some backbone and saying “Taiwan’s future should be decided by Taiwanese alone”?

Show a little backbone rather than writing like a jellyfish.

The way 99% of people pussy foot around the Taiwan issue disgusts me.

October 13, 2008 @ 2:22 am | Comment

Having lived in Taiwan for several months, I know several less than delightful sides of the island. The irrational hatred of KMT expressed by many pro-independence people, including several on this blog, is one. This is not the kind of behavior we see in a genuine democracy. If you lose an election, learn to live with the other side. Be a loyal opposition. The other side loves Taiwan as much as you do.

October 13, 2008 @ 2:44 am | Comment

imho, Taiwan is what it is not because that’s “how it is” but because no one wants to upset the crybaby that is China’s government (think Olympics?). Just imagine the US saying that they believe that Taiwan should be formally independent (to reflect the reality on the ground)? China would go nuts.
But what would they actually do? Start a war? Seems doubtful. Kick all American businesses out of the mainland? Even less likely.
But no one wants a confrontation, even if it’s the right thing to do.

what we really need are politicians with the cojones of stephen colbert. unfortunately, few such people exist.

October 13, 2008 @ 3:56 am | Comment

Taiwan is a “de facto” if not “de jure” independent country. With the current political system in China any “reunification” could only be done by force.

If the PRC want to solve that problem, there is only another way, and is far away of piling up missiles at mainland’s coast. Strange way of thinking, they considerer the Taiwanese their own people but under some circumstances would like to shower them with missiles.
But well, there was that incident in T-Square with students and tanks not long ago…

Will the PRC fall victim of the Malvinas/Falkland syndrome. Use it as a diversion in a future crisis? Or create the conditions for a “real” reunification?

October 13, 2008 @ 4:36 am | Comment

Serve the People,

First up I’d say your comments apply to both sides. It is just daft to try and pretend that irrational hatred of the other side and refusal to accept election results is purely a DPP problem. The KMT (and the CCP) are champions in this department.

I’d also say that passions run high in Taiwan largely because of external interference. Meddling from China (lobbing missiles before elections, negotiating party-to-party rather than government-to-government, and so on) contributes significantly to making Taiwanese democracy what it is.

I’d like to stop all foreign meddling. I’d like to create a fairer political environment (the KMT still retains big advantages through the huge amounts of illegally obtained money it controls, meanwhile a lack of resources and bad strategy has led to the DPP being practically non-existent outside of national level politics). After that I’d like to find out what the Taiwanese people want and let them have it.

October 13, 2008 @ 5:46 am | Comment

Some Common Myths About a Chinese Attack on Taiwan

This post wants to discuss some common “myth” about China attacking Taiwan. Of course it does not mean that China will attack Taiwan for sure, in fact, it’s entirely possible that there could be a peaceful reunification within the next 15 years.

First Myth: “If China wants to attack Taiwan, it must be sure that it can win, otherwise it should not attack Taiwan”.

In fact, it’s totally possible that China may lose to Taiwan, and may lose very shamefully. But winning and losing are both common in warfare, even if you lose, you should continue to fight. When the North fought the South in America’s Civil War, the North kept losing in the beginning, but Lincoln did not care and continued the war, and eventually the North won. In China’s Qing Dynasty, they lost the Opium War largely because they chose to give up when they lost some battles, instead of keep fighting and keep fighting until the other side gets tired. Even if the Western powers sunk every single one of China’s ships, it still should not surrender and sign a treaty, it should keep fighting with. As long as you refuse to surrender, then even if you lose all your battles, the other side will eventually have no choice but to give up.

Therefore, China should not avoid fighting Taiwan simply because it may lose. In fact, fighting a war with Taiwan is simply a way to accumulate real battle experiences for the Chinese army, and only when you have real battle experiences can you improve yourself. So even if China’s fleets and airplanes were all destroyed by the Taiwanese military, it should keep sending more fleets and more airplanes and keep making more fleets and more airplanes. I remember that there’s a “100-year-war” between England and France in ancient times, well I very much like the concept of “100-year-war”, and perhaps China should make it a “200-year-war” with Taiwan. That is, for the next 200 years, China should stay in military mode, keep making new airplanes, new ships, new missiles, and ask the entire Chinese population to become an army and encourage people to have 5 or 6 babies, so that every single day there’ll be waves and waves of attacks on Taiwan for 200 years, until Taiwan cannot take it anymore.

Second Myth: A War Will Make China’s Economy Fall Behind 20 Years.

How do we check if a country is “advanced” or “behind”? Well, all you need to look at is what “things” can this country make? Can it only make radios? Or can it make TV’s as well? Can it only make regular TV’s, or can it make “HDTV”‘s. Can it only make car engines, or can it make airplane engines as well? Can it make mainframe computers, or can it make supercomputers as well? The more “advanced stuff” a country can make, the more “advanced” that country is.

Now you may say “Math, you are wrong!, we should look at GDP per capita!”. Well, I thinkn GDP is totally meaningless. Some country has high GDP per capita because it has natural resources, like the Oil-rich nations in Middle East, can you say that those nations are “advanced”? I certainly do not think so.

The only measure for a nation’s advancedness is the technological productive force of that nation. If a nation can extract 300 tons of wheat from a square kilmeter of land, and another nation can extract 1000 tons from the same land, then the second nation is more advanced. Even if the second nation is bombed into ruins, but as long as it has that technological productive capability, it can quickly recover, and still be considered a modern nation. When WW2 ended, Germany and Japan and China are all in ruins. But those ruins are different. Even though Germany and Japan were in ruins, they had the knowledge of building advanced ships and weaponry and industrial infrastructure, so they quickly rose from the ruins and are still first-class nations today. But China back then could not even build a nail properly, not to mention any advanced stuff. So China was unable to catch up as quickly, and is still considered a “developing nation” today. So can you say that WW2 made Germany and Japan fall behind 20 years? Of course you cannot.

Third Myth: “War will cause deaths, and deaths are bad”

We know that if you want to achieve things, you need to make sacrifices, and deaths are common occurrences. The reason we think that deaths are bad is a result of Western thoughts. Westerners have difficulties breeding massively, and their populations are almost “shrinking”, so of course one dead person means one less person for them. But Asians and Blacks and Muslims can breed as massively as pigs, and population shrinking is not a concern. If you have 100 children every day, do you care if you lose a few, of course you do not. And sometimes there’s even population explosion, so perhaps sometimes famine and wars are good ways to prevent population explosions.

Chinese, especially, have large breeding powers, so death is not too big a deal.

If you look at ancient Civilizations, most of them have died, or almost died off. And the Chinese civilization is also slowly declining in the last hundreds of years. Why is that? Well, I think that as any civilization develops to a certain degree, there’ll exist a phenomenon of “gentleness and kindness”, and excessive kindness and gentleness will only cause that civilization be devoured by another less advanced civilization. In fact, almost all ancient civilizations died at the hands of a more ferocious and less developed civilization. When Christopher Columbus was writing his diary about Native Indians, he wrote “They were the most kind and gentle people on earth, and that is the reason they were so easily defeated.”

So if China wants to rise, it must not emphasize gentleness and kindness too much, but should instead always calculate its own interests, and to advance its interests, massive deaths is not a big deal at all.

Now you may ask, “What if everyone in China dies”? That of course is impossible. In fact, it’s more likely that wars may make everyone in the West die, because Caucasians’ breeding powers are very limited compared to the Chinese. Even if USA drops a nuclear bomb on China, China will still have many survivors. Even if they don’t survive, there’ll be Chinese descent from neighboring countries like Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc, and those people will continue the civilization. Now, you may ask again, “What about Nuclear Winters!”. Well, I do not believe in Nuclear Winters, I think it is a strategic scare tactic by Americans. Well even if the nuclear winter theory is true, then the worst that can happen is that 99% of the people on earth will die, and 1% will survive. Given the breeding powers and population of Chinese on this earth, that 1% will contain many Chinese people, so they can start the human civilization on earth once again. It is like when I’m playing chess and I feel that I’m losing, I would often violently flip the whole board onto the ground, and force the opponent to start over, and maybe in the new game, I’ll win. If I’m losing again in the new game, I’ll flip the board again and wipe every piece to the ground again, and force him to start over the game again…

October 13, 2008 @ 8:22 am | Comment

Stormtroop, Taiwan’s destiny should be decided by the Taiwanese people alone. I don’t think it will be, however – at least not entirely. I think there will be a compromise at some point similar to what we see in Hong Kong, and that it will happen very slowly. We are on the way there now, I believe. My comments were not about what I would like. I would like someone else to be president of the United States other than the two who are running, and I would like actions taken to repair the financial mess other than what’s actually being done. For me to say so is not a matter of backbone. In fact, I’ve said those things before, just as I’ve said many times that in an ideal world Taiwan would be free and independent (have you been a regular reader here? If so you’d know that.) It has nothing to do with backbone, but about reality.

I truly respect Bill’s belief here and I agree with his vision, that seeing Taiwan be free and independent and free of meddling greedy politicians. My belief is that it’s not possible and that it’s not necessarily what the Taiwanese want – almost entirely for economic reasons. And unfortunately, economic reasons tend to be the strongest motivations for voters. I think the best we can hope for is a keeping of the status quo, in which Taiwan is independent but in many ways and to many other nations a “non-country.” If there is any shift, it will be more toward reconciliation than complete separation. That shift is already in place, whether we like it or not.

By the way, I really don’t like your handle. Why did you choose it?

October 13, 2008 @ 8:46 am | Comment

The only reason why Hong Kong was able to be taken “back” by China is because they never had democracy, hence never had the choice of whether or not to reunite. Taiwan is fundamentally different from pre-1997 Hong Kong, and any comparison to the two is inappropriate. Those who say that reunification with China will only come by war are absolutely correct, because China would never allow a referandum that would be necessary to truly verify if people wanted reunion or not. Hence, China will be forced to either attack Taiwan or be democratic first. Even then, the vote might still go for independence.

We’re all affected by whom we meet, and hence we might get the wrong impression. Richard, you lived in Taibei and you’re friend in China is a “taibao”, both groups of which are very pro-reunification. I lived in Taoyuan and Kaoxiong, and voices there are a bit different. So I’ll admit the impression I’m getting is skewed to the independence side. What really matters is numbers, and the vast number of Taiwanese want the status quo, which really means they want to be independent if it weren’t for the threat of missile death from Fujian.

And yes, “reality” seems so difficult to change. But change happens, and the “reality” for the American colonies and Estonia was a much stronger nation nearby that seemed impossible to break away from, and just as impossible to fight back against. But obviously this “reality” wasn’t true later on, right?

October 13, 2008 @ 9:59 am | Comment

How about we split Taiwan to two pieces? The northern half joins PRC and the southern half stays the way it is.

October 13, 2008 @ 10:09 am | Comment

Yes Chip, a lot of notions that appear to be fantasy actually happen – Apartheid really could be ended, the Berlin Wall really could be torn down. And that’s one of the great things about being alive, to see the impossible become possible.

Like you, I’ve heard a lot from “the other side” – the pro-independence Taiwanese; I actually know many more of those than the pro-unification Taiwanese. I agree there will never be a coming together in which Taiwan becomes a colony under CCP rule except by force. But what can happen is a gradual coming together and an agreement similar to HK’s, which, as I’ve said, is where I see it heading right now. This may not happen and we may be left with the status quo. But we will not see it go in the other direction, toward full independence with a seat in the United Nations and full recognition by other countries. Could there be some miracle that allows this to happen? I suppose there could, but I don’t see it. Maybe, as Bill once humorously suggested in another piece on this blog, the CCP will offer unification and step down and hand all the power to the Taiwanese government, recognizing the success of the Taiwan model would be better for the people than CCP authoritarianism. Unfortunately, I don’t see this happening.

I often say on this blog what I believe will happen, not what I want to happen. I said a year ago, for example, where I thought we’d be with the economy. Same with Taiwan; I’ve stated here what I think will happen, not what I want to happen. The only way we can have a Berlin Wall-style miracle in regard to Taiwan is if the CCP crashes and burns. And that isn’t in the cards, at least not as of this moment.

October 13, 2008 @ 10:21 am | Comment

“It think there will be a compromise at some point similar to what we see in Hong Kong”

I think a common misunderstanding on the mainland is that Taiwan would ‘belong’ to the PRC in a ‘one country, two systems’ deal. That idea is anathema to the Taiwanese, who would only consider a true reunification that embraced elements of both political cultures.

In other words, it’s not going to happen peacefully without both the KMT and DPP (and possibly others) being offered a seat at Beijing’s governing table. Taiwan will reject any kind of a deal that effectively gives control of their country to the CCP.

After all, the KMT existed before the CCP did and have survived the rigours of democracy. A ‘takeover’ is out of the question. On that note, I’ve often wondered what would happen to the name of a ‘unified’ China. I’m pretty sure that Taiwan would also baulk at being a province of the PRC. That in turn raises the question of which flag to use…

October 13, 2008 @ 10:34 am | Comment

Stuart, I agree.

October 13, 2008 @ 10:40 am | Comment

In Taiwan, the concept of “Taiwanese” appear to arise out of two types of people: 1. people with a genuine fear of CCP; 2. people with a short sighted focus on the present. It is the second group that irks me (as a native Taiwanese) the most.

They are the snobby self-centered types who will go down in history as too selfish to want to make any contributions to the good of the Chinese people as a whole. For them it’s all about what’s in it for them – or rhetorically at least for the people in Taiwan. These people play into the geopolitical hands of the West and will have a voice as long as Taiwan can appear to gain more benefit under the umbrella of America rather than China.

What these short-sighted people don’t understand is that the Taiwanese people is missing out on a golden opportunity to help lead the development of the Mainland, and go down in Chinese history gloriously as “comrades” who played key roles in helping China modernize. Instead we now appear as squabblers (a la Empress Dowager) who care only about what we get, not about what is good for the country.

I just hope we Taiwanese will not go down in history as shallow people who identify with China only out of convenience. If that’s the case, when China gets strong, at best, Taiwan will just be another province … at worst, we’ll be just considered second class citizens in a prosperous China…

October 13, 2008 @ 11:18 am | Comment

I really enjoyed reading all these different viewpoints. I think all are valid, each in its own way. What astonishes me is the superior level of discourse that exists on this site from what I saw here a few years back. Richard, you’ve done a good job in making a website where a sensible exchange of ideas can occur, an exchange that includes the whole range of perspectives. What ultimately comes about in this matter of Taiwan may be quite different from any of our visions. Yet how important it is for us each to be able to honesty put forth our hopes and feelings so that this outcome might have a better chance to evolve in a truer way.

The great failure of the Communist Party in China is that it does not allow free discussion or the open dissemination of news or information. The democracy we see in Taiwan today, with its overblown animosity between political parties, its systemic corruption, and its puerile antics in the legislature, is not a shining example of democracy but it is nevertheless a democracy. Taiwan is a free country. People can say whatever they want here, and think whatever they want. In Taiwan a man won’t be in prison for trying to save a polluted lake. In Taiwan a lawyer won’t be behind bars for trying to protect the disadvantaged. In Taiwan a writer won’t be in jail for speaking up against injustice. In Taiwan, Chinese culture has taken a huge step forward by embracing openness, democracy, and freedom. The young people down here in central Taiwan where I live see a huge difference between themselves and the separate Chinese nation on the mainland. They see themselves as Taiwanese, not as Chinese, and are proud of their freedoms.

If China really wants to attract Taiwan into its orbit, and bring the “renegade province” home, it had best dismantle its missiles, release the dissidents from jail, and become a free, open, and democratic country like Taiwan. This is the real issue. But, of course, this is the very issue that cannot be aired in China.

October 13, 2008 @ 11:48 am | Comment

I tend to agree with Richard that annexation of Taiwan to China is more or less inevitable, though not because the Taiwanese want it but because they are becoming resigned to it (Taiwanese are politically passive), and more importantly, because of changes in the way the US and Europe view Taiwan. The US foreign policy establishment has reached a consensus that Taiwan should shut up and accept this. For years Taiwan’s freedom has been underpinned by the US establishment feeling that Taiwan was worth protecting. This is not the case anymore; China has acquired an almost astonishing moral dominance over US policymaking. Same in Europe, where a delegation of pro-Taiwan academics found that in Western Europe they were told repeatedly to shut up so everyone can get down to the serious business of making money (the eastern europeans told them they sympathized with Taiwan based on their experiences with Russia; they knew exactly what was going on). China’s influence would be astonishing, if it weren’t true that so many US policymakers and elites were one way or another doing business in China. And then the US is now a shambles after the catastrophic effects of eight years of republican rule, which is the major factor. This weakness, coupled with the KMT now holding both the executive and the legislature, and Ma’s apparent drive to annex the island to China as rapidly as possible, I think not even the legendary KMT incompetence can save the island. Too many bad things happening all at once.

Many taiwanese view the economic growth of China as with an almost mystical faith that is completely resistant to facts, and their thinking is not helped by the Golden Retriever media here.

I tend to agree with Richard that what we’ll see is some kind of loose affiliation, at first. Taiwanese may be politically passive but they have a streak of stubborn resistance, and there is a vast hatred for China among many Taiwanese, seldom publicly expressed. China will find that a difficult problem to solve and it will take time to tamp that down. The major role of KMT rule, which I think will extend for many years from now on, is to reduce this Taiwanese propensity to resist. For those of us on the Taiwan side, the trick is to keep Taiwan free while this difficult period passes. I am pessimistic about that possibility at the moment. Am open to suggestions, though!

Serve the People, I am sure you know that the hatred of the KMT here is not “irrational” but a totally rational contempt for a party that murdered and looted its way into wealth and power, suppresses local identities, and exacerbated ethnic conflicts to hold on to power, and has erected a corrupt construction-industrial complex that has permanently impaired Taiwan’s ability to engage in progressive, people-centric politics and badly corrupted the island’s politicians of all parties.

In an ideal world Taiwan would be independent. Unfortunately, we live in a world where Taiwan is just one piece in a larger expansionist drive by China.

Michael

October 13, 2008 @ 11:53 am | Comment

It is quite possible that the future democratic and unified China will have a KMT-CCP two party system. To compete against CCP, KMT can propose Annexation of Outer Mongolia. After all KMT does not accept Mongolia as an independent nation. KMT’s China includes Outer Mongolia. The way to beat CCP in the ballot box is to establish yourself as a more nationalistic party.

October 13, 2008 @ 11:59 am | Comment

Math: Thanks for the realist screed. Now, perhaps you can go back to your textbooks and read past the introductions.

P.S. The only measure for a nation’s advancedness is the technological productive force of that nation.

I suggest that there are probably quite a few measures of a state’s “advancedness” other than it’s level of technology e.g. Do it’s milk products kill babies, does it consider it’s citizens educated and mature enough for democracy.

October 13, 2008 @ 12:23 pm | Comment

I’m consistently amused by how vocal Michael Turton is on all issues “Taiwan.” Many of his comments demonizing the KMT/blues in Taiwan and enshrouding the indigenous population as some sort of mystic “goodness” remind me of the hordes of “Free-Tibet activists” who subscribe to the notion not out of any real understanding of facts but because it is the “hip” thing to think. It reminds me of the legions of kids who enroll into Berkeley each year becoming “hippies” not because they believe in any of the underpinning ideals but simply because that’s the “scene” no different from the glam of kids entering UCLA.

I’m not saying Turton is as stupid as sheep-like students in Berkeley or the majority of “Free Tibet activists,” but I am saying his comments are dominated by agenda instead of realistic appraisal of the situation and rational thought. On the other hand, I very much applaud Richard’s approach by emphasizing “what is” even if I do not necessarily agree with everything Richard believes to be inevitable.

All of us have prescriptive ideas of “what should be” or “what should happen.” But it is refreshing when people can set aside their selfish or self-important proclamations to really grapple with the most probable outcomes and options available. The facts are:

– Taiwan is indeed a de facto independent country whose population has voluntarily engaged in entangling commerce with the mainland.

– Pursuing a good life and the money that can help make that happen is an undeniable primary need for people from anywhere.

– Taiwan is populated by a substantial population of people who have some meaningful and undeniable relationship with the people across the Strait.

– There is a nagging uncertainty about the China-Taiwan relationship and the fact is that there are damn good and very understandable arguments for both sides.

– Taiwan does have some measure of control of their future and they can indeed fight for what they want.

– Sometimes you can fight and still lose.

I understand that efforts and appeals to portray the situation as different from this, such as “the KMT is selling-out the country to China” and “China will enslave us all” as inflammatory rhetoric designed to scare people into doing one thing or another…but damn, it is annoying. I guess such politicking is part of the mechanism of democracy…but damn…

Neither pure democracy nor pure communism/socialism is tenable and that much is evident in the real world where both ideals (guaranteeing freedom and guaranteeing survival) are in flux, balanced against each other by the people in the middle.

The single largest problem with taking Michael Turton seriously from any non-political perspective is him wearing his agenda on his sleeve. Part of me accepts that he plays a part in the grand scheme of things, but part of me is sad how he co-opts and is co-opted by those willing to distort reality and employ less than intellectually honest means in pursuit of their ends.

That said, it is his opinion, just as The Peking Duck is Richard’s soap-box, and this comment is mine. Cheers.

October 13, 2008 @ 1:00 pm | Comment

Richard,

Against your Taiwanese friends who study in China and would like their country to be “reunified” with the “motherland” as soon as possible, I could put dozens of Taiwanese who think in the exact opposite direction. It is entirely inaccurate to paint the mindset of the Taiwanese people the way you do.

I was a student at the Dept. of Political Science of National Taiwan University in Taipei not so long ago, and I can tell you that the consensus over there was pretty much in the complete opposite direction of what you describe here. Remember that NTU is the university where the best and brightest Taiwanese students come together (both current and previous presidents graduated from NTU), and these people will be the future leaders of their country.

October 13, 2008 @ 5:03 pm | Comment

E., I guess you missed the part of my comment above where I say that most of my friends are from the pro-independence side. I know there are two sharply divided schools of thought in Taiwan. I believe there is a trend in which more and more are leaning toward what Michael Turton refers to as “resignation” that this is what’s going to happen. Of course, no discussion about this topic can ever take place without emotions being stirred and feathers ruffled. Echoing what Bill said, I’m glad the conversation has been generally civil, at least thus far.

October 13, 2008 @ 6:28 pm | Comment

Richard, as stuart points out the “one country, two systems” method of intergration has been rejected repeatedly. I don’t know where you got the idea that Taiwanese are eager for it – polls show the reverse. People want reconciliation with China, but on their terms.

My friend is tired of the unemployment

Yeah, at around 4% that must really suck. He should go to China where it’s….

….even higher….

Michael touches on this when he talks about expectations being lowered. The pro-KMT media has talked Taiwan down so much in the last eight years to get Lien/Ma into power that it has made Taiwanese themselves feel negative. Look at the change from those parts of the media in the last few months. Now it’s all:

“Taiwan is great!”
“Taiwan is moving forwards!”
“The world thinks Taiwan is pragmatic!”

As if they think they can undo nearly a decade of negative press with a few headlines. Perhaps they’ll realise that in a democracy, talking things down so much will have negative consequences well into when your guy gets elected. Or maybe when the DPP regains power in 2012 or 2016 they’ll revert to type and help start destroying Taiwanese confidence all over again.

Countries that cooperate with and embrace China are thriving.

You sort of left out the part where countries like Japan and Singapore were doing fine without China as well. Of course it’s always good to have positive relations with China. But if no one challenges China when it’s being unreasonable then one day they’ll be on the receiving end of “want sweeties – gimme now or I throw a temper tantrum!” If you don’t stand up to a growing China, with a developed one you can give in or try a messy confrontation (diplomatic, economic or even military).

Unification, as China sees it (the one country, two systems method as Richard mentions), will probably only arise after a war because the Taiwanese constitution is so difficult to change (and any agreements between governments that affected it could be ignored subsequently). A settlement is possible where China gets a piece of paper it can waive in the Chinese people’s faces to say Taiwan is part of “China” or some much, and Taiwan can get on as it does now but without being repressed on the international stage. Whether Beijing can swallow its pride and accept the latter remainds to be seen.

October 13, 2008 @ 6:32 pm | Comment

Raj, you have your worldview and I have mine. China and Taiwan are moving toward one another, not away, and that trend will continue and many people in Taiwan are relieved by it, though none wants Taiwan to be ruled by the CCP. You also thought McCain would be a great candidate for president and that Palin was a worthy choice for VP who would “grow into the job.” Whatever. Repeat: China and Taiwan are growing closer and will in time experience some form of unification, most likely along the lines of something similar to the HK model, but I can’t predict what the exact arrangement will look like. And I repeat: this is not necessarily what I want for Taiwan, it is simply what is so.

October 13, 2008 @ 7:00 pm | Comment

On a slightly different topic, it will be interesting to see whether Obama will change US policy on Taiwan. It might be too much to ask that the State Department’s barmy restrictions on official contact with Taiwan be lifted, but here’s hoping. How exactly does Washington expect to efficiently communicate with Taipei if it wants all communications to go through middle-men?

A free trade agreement or at least further investment/trade “agreements” would be good for both parties and encourage other countries to bring in similar pacts with Taiwan. If the US follows on free trade with Taiwan, others will follow and China will not be able to do anything about it.

More predictable arms supplies would also help. I don’t expect Obama to shut them off, but again, it would be a good idea to consider them fairly and then move ahead normally, rather than try to look for the non-existent “best moment” when China won’t be offended (given Beijing often chooses to take offence, there’s little point trying). Again, if the US bows to China over arms sales to Taiwan, who’s next? Japan? South Korea? ASEAN states? I’m sure the US wouldn’t accept Chinese demands for an arms freeze, but objection to high-technology transfers like sales in past years of the Aegis system could be opposed by China due to “adversely affecting the balance of naval power in Asia”.

Would the White House credibly be able to accept an arms freeze on Taiwan but refuse a request from Beijing to prohibit sales of advanced equipment to its neighbours? The fact that Taiwan’s de jure independence is disputed would be a rather weak excuse. If China presses the US, it will have a choice of subservience on certain topics or “confrontation”. Better not to set the precedent, because even if the US would draw the line at Taiwan, countries like Japan and South Korea might decide they’d be potential sacrifices and pay less attention to what the US says.

Japan especially should be a point of concern. My view is that if Taiwan is cast adrift by an America eager to seek favours from China, or pressed into unification through threats/force, Japan will boost that relatively small 1% of GDP it spends on defence into 3+%. Think aircraft carriers for a start. Constitutional law would supposedly prohibit such military development, but technically it forbids the JSDF. So the defence forces’ existence shows how constitutional “interpretation” can bypass restrictions on the military if the government is willing.

There would then be an increased chance of confrontation between Asia’s major powers. The US could sit back and let its chief Asian ally look after itself, thereby undermining its influence with other “allies” (what would be the point in allying with the US if it never helped you?), or get dragged into a war with China.

A very pessimistic outlook indeed, which I do not expect to pass. But certainly it’s worth remembering that taking the path of less resistance at one point can lead to much greater challenges in the future.

October 13, 2008 @ 7:02 pm | Comment

Ughh. I can’t stand the thought pattern that says an unjust outcome is ‘inevitable’ before it’s even happened, simply because one side is strong and the other is weak. Is Taiwan becoming a part of China likely, in some fashion, in the long term? Probably. Does that mean we should simply resign ourselves to seeing it happen? God no. Taiwan’s situation looks precarious now, but things can change, and the task of anyone who genuinely cares about allowing the Taiwanese a voice in their own destiny is at the very least not to undercut them while they’re in an ugly situation by suggesting what seems to be happening is a foregone conclusion.

More than Taiwan, I worry what message will be sent to China if their current tactics pay off. ‘Threaten, bully and isolate them enough and they will cave’; not exactly the formula for a long-term version of ‘中国和平崛起’.

October 13, 2008 @ 7:04 pm | Comment

Raj, just relax and say to yourself, “Whatever Obama does is right.” You’ll feel better. He’s not the candidate who would get us into wars.

October 13, 2008 @ 7:06 pm | Comment

China and Taiwan are moving toward one another, not away, and that trend will continue and many people in Taiwan are relieved by it, though none wants Taiwan to be ruled by the CCP.

Yeah, economically and hopefully in regards to reconciliation. But I do not believe that leads to unification under the one country, two systems or anything else that restricts Taiwan’s independence. There is still plenty to play for.

You also thought McCain would be a great candidate for president and that Palin was a worthy choice for VP who would “grow into the job.

I still think that McCain would be a good president – or no worse than Obama, which is probably more to the truth now. And if you’re going to keep reciting that comment I made about Palin to try to “prove” my arguments are bad, then I’ll remind you that you predicted an easy Kerry victory in 2004 and Clinton winning the nomination. So your judgement is no better than mine when it comes to US politics. But I wouldn’t try to link that towards your views on China or anything else.

October 13, 2008 @ 7:07 pm | Comment

He’s not the candidate who would get us into wars.

1. Then he really should drop the “I’m not a whimp, I promise” routine in mentioning military action in Pakistan.

2. Sadly, sometimes war is necessary. Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t examples – think Kosovo, the first Gulf War, etc. If you want the US to avoid all conflict, you won’t find anyone helping you out when you really need it.

October 13, 2008 @ 7:09 pm | Comment

I’m consistently amused by how vocal Michael Turton is on all issues “Taiwan.” Many of his comments demonizing the KMT/blues in Taiwan and enshrouding the indigenous population as some sort of mystic “goodness” remind me of the hordes of “Free-Tibet activists” who subscribe to the notion not out of any real understanding of facts but because it is the “hip” thing to think. It reminds me of the legions of kids who enroll into Berkeley each year becoming “hippies” not because they believe in any of the underpinning ideals but simply because that’s the “scene” no different from the glam of kids entering UCLA.

Ah yes, the old “I’m soooo serious and sophisticated” put down. I’m Serious; you’re a hippie goon, followed, of course, by argument and evidence free claims. I guess when you are sophisticated like you, Kai, it isn’t necessary to reference reality when writing. If you have any examples of me “enshrouding the indigenous population as some sort of mystic goodness” please adduce them. But somehow I can’t imagine you having even a single one.

What’s “amazing” about discussing the place where you live? Or about participating in the discussion? Or about getting heard?

I understand that efforts and appeals to portray the situation as different from this, such as “the KMT is selling-out the country to China” and “China will enslave us all” as inflammatory rhetoric designed to scare people into doing one thing or another…but damn, it is annoying. I guess such politicking is part of the mechanism of democracy…but damn…

It’s funny but we see exactly the same situation, except, of course, that China has no legitimate claim to Taiwan. The Chinese “claim” is post-1940 and is based entirely on its willingness to kill to obtain it. If there were no military threat, Taiwan would already have claimed its independence. We both know that, so why are you pretending otherwise?

And yes, it IS part of the “mechanism of democracy” for people to comment on the situation as it is occurring. What’s weird is people who think that Serious People don’t comment on reality as it is being shaped. I can’t help it if you view life like a spectator at a ballet, Kai, but I would prefer to be part of the dance rather than coughing into myself handkerchief, politely clapping, and viewing expressions of opinion as plebian.

Michael

October 13, 2008 @ 7:13 pm | Comment

Further to 27, I recognise you may have been thinking more of “unnecessary conflict”, but the point in 27.2 is worth remembering.

October 13, 2008 @ 7:15 pm | Comment

Hong X., I don’t say we should resign ourselves to it. I believe it’s actually what many in Taiwan want, and that’s why we are now seeing them moving closer together, a trend that will continue. A major factor will be the Taiwanese people’s choice. Not necessarily in favor of “unification,” but of a mutual cooperation and a way for both sides to enter a reconciliation without losing face.

Please don’t misunderstand and think I am saying the Taiwanese want to be ruled by the CCP. They absolutely do not. That isn’t in the cards, at least not in our lifetimes.

October 13, 2008 @ 7:16 pm | Comment

On a slightly different topic, it will be interesting to see whether Obama will change US policy on Taiwan. It might be too much to ask that the State Department’s barmy restrictions on official contact with Taiwan be lifted, but here’s hoping. How exactly does Washington expect to efficiently communicate with Taipei if it wants all communications to go through middle-men?

I was on a conference call with the Obama Asia people last week but didn’t get a chance to ask that very question. I’m extremely pessimistic on the Obama score, but a lot depends on who gets what positions after the administration takes power. Obama’s China guy is Jeff Bader, btw. Look him up to get a better view of what his thinking is.

I’m not sure a McCain administration will be any better. Fundamental realities, like the US decline, China’s rise, the MA Administration’s position on Taiwan, and other things, will be dictating events. Much will depend on how quickly the next Administration can repair the economy. And again, just who has McCain’s ear on Taiwan and China. If it is someone like Haig or Kissinger, one of the “realists” (how I love that word that describes a half century of foreign policy error and ineptitude), forget it. If Randall Schriver has the Taiwan advisor position, then we might see good things.

But let me suggest this: the next big foreign policy issue with China isn’t going to be Taiwan or Trade, but all those coal-fired thermal plants it is putting in now. Greenhouse gas output actually rose last year, and we have only a short window to change things.

Michael

October 13, 2008 @ 7:23 pm | Comment

The single largest problem with taking Michael Turton seriously from any non-political perspective is him wearing his agenda on his sleeve. Part of me accepts that he plays a part in the grand scheme of things, but part of me is sad how he co-opts and is co-opted by those willing to distort reality and employ less than intellectually honest means in pursuit of their ends.

Yes, I suppose it would be much better if I concealed my agenda. That would be both ethical and reasonable….Serious People do that. Oh, if only I were a Serious Person like Kai!

….who have I ever co-opted? What a laugh!

If you’re disappointed in me Kai, there’s an easy remedy. Stop reading what I write! But I thank you for your readership.

Michael

October 13, 2008 @ 7:28 pm | Comment

Michael, I found some interesting comments/views Bader has on Sino-Japanese relations (quit blocking its entry into the USNC and stoking anger in China against it). I know you didn’t like his comments on the Taiwan article you posted on your blog. I haven’t found much else that he has said about Taiwan.

October 13, 2008 @ 7:43 pm | Comment

Richard, given that this is now a thread about Taiwan, could you perhaps let me know what you think Obama would do that might be different from Bush in regards to policy – or would he keep to the same path? And do you have any hopes as to how his policy would be different?

October 13, 2008 @ 7:48 pm | Comment

I find Bader extremely reasonable on almost everything but Taiwan, Raj. I can’t comment on the contents of the conference call publicly, it involved people from all over Asia, but everything that he said was very reasonable and totally resonated with me. I just think the political establishment has gone very wrong on China/Taiwan.

Michael

October 13, 2008 @ 7:57 pm | Comment

Well one can only hope that if he were an advisor to Obama his “reasonable streak” would include Taiwan.

October 13, 2008 @ 8:03 pm | Comment

I know most people here can’t be bothered to read Math’s lengthy essays full of BS, and those who do read them regard mostly think of them as some sort of entertainment, but for all it’s worth I would like to direct everybody’s attention to this paragraph in Math’s post above just for a few seconds:

“Third Myth: “War will cause deaths, and deaths are bad”

We know that if you want to achieve things, you need to make sacrifices, and deaths are common occurrences. The reason we think that deaths are bad is a result of Western thoughts. Westerners have difficulties breeding massively, and their populations are almost “shrinking”, so of course one dead person means one less person for them. But Asians and Blacks and Muslims can breed as massively as pigs, and population shrinking is not a concern. If you have 100 children every day, do you care if you lose a few, of course you do not. And sometimes there’s even population explosion, so perhaps sometimes famine and wars are good ways to prevent population explosions.

Chinese, especially, have large breeding powers, so death is not too big a deal. ”

Now where are all those politically correct China defenders who used to cry foul every time kebab boy hurt their feelings with one of his “racist” comments? If the admin of this site can’t be bothered to read Math’s comments, why not ban him for good for disregard of human lives? Or maybe the above comment isn’t rude enough?

P.S.: On topic, I think Hong Xiuquan’s comment is spot on.

October 13, 2008 @ 8:27 pm | Comment

mor, good point. It’s up to richard, but I would say that Math should at least be given a formal warning – and if he doesn’t acknowledge it then he should be suspended.

October 13, 2008 @ 8:30 pm | Comment

Mor, very nice to see you back.

Don’t worry, I’ve let Math know. That comment was pretty gross (I hadn’t read it). I let Math post because he is a case study in fen qing derangement. Thanks for pointing out how particularly vile this last post was.

October 13, 2008 @ 8:42 pm | Comment

I’m not so sure, if Math is a real fenqing. I sometimes have the feeling that he considers himself some sort of satirist. The problem is that most of the time he’s not funny at all and sometimes his comments get really nasty like the one I quoted.

October 14, 2008 @ 1:08 am | Comment

Allen, Taiwanese have already been considered second-class Chinese. That’s how they were treated when the KMT colonized them. Glad to see you expect the CCP to deal out the same treatment.

October 14, 2008 @ 1:34 am | Comment

A critical article of Ma, but has an interesting quote nonetheless.

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=762240

Ma’s statement clashes with the overwhelming mainstream position of actual Taiwanese, confirmed in poll after poll even in pro-KMT media, that Taiwan is an independent democratic state and that they do not favor unification with the PRC.

For example, a survey of 1,002 Taiwan adults by the “Global Views” monthly in mid-September showed that 66.3% said there is no need to unify with China even if the PRC’s economic, social and political conditions become similar to those of Taiwan, a figure that is up from 51.3 percent in February 2006.

October 14, 2008 @ 4:28 am | Comment

Etaiwannews. Heh. Good googling.

I think there’s a problem of semantics in that “poll.” Of course every Taiwanese today will tell you they are against unification wherein Taiwan becomes a colony or province of China and the CCP rules their lives. What many of them do want, which was key to Ma’s victory, is a reconciliation of some sort , moving closer together, abandoning the tough-talking confrontational tone of the pro-independence faction, strengthening ties while retaining Taiwan’s democratic system. That’s where they’re now heading, and many if not most Taiwanese are glad it’s going in that direction. And I repeat, they are glad to the strengthening ties and reconciliation, not about a plan for becoming a colony under CCP rule. The main reason for their enthusiasm is economic, pure and simple. Call it greed, call it practicality, but there it is.

October 14, 2008 @ 8:15 am | Comment

E.

I spent one semester at National Taiwan University a year ago. My observation was completely opposite to yours. Every kid I talked to wanted to get a job in Shanghai after graduation. There was so much envy and admiration for the mainland that many of them wanted to get advanced degrees at the mainland universities. They all hated the DPP government for not recognizing mainland degrees.

October 14, 2008 @ 12:01 pm | Comment

I’m not going to say it’s nearly as black and white as ServeT.P. would have it. But I did hear plenty of resentment from Taiwanese when i was there about the Chen government’s dogmatic approach to China. Most of those I spoke with said Taiwan would never, ever accept the CCP as their rulers. And most said they wanted improved relations with China and some form of reconciliation that, again, would allow each side to save face and would help open some of the long-closed doors Taiwanese graduates have been facing for years.Some went as far as saying a solution similar to HK’s would be best for the country. This was not a scientific poll, but I heard enough points of view to give me a pretty good idea of the political mood there, at least in 2005-6.

October 14, 2008 @ 12:39 pm | Comment

I don’t think most Taiwan are very happy with how things are going. Errr. . . Ma’s abysmal popularity ratings anyone?

Also why do people talk about ‘Chen’s dogmatic approach to China’ while ignoring China’s hard-line approach to Taiwan? Did Chen ever test fire missiles at China to terrorize the population? Were Chinese ever literally fleeing their own country because of Chen’s violent threats? Are the Taiwanese who are so utterly graceless and dogmatic they cannot even bring themselves to use the word ‘President’ when addressing a national leader?

No. Didn’t think so.

Why do people blame Chen for every problem Taiwan has suffered during the past 8 years? Why are KMT and CCP obstructionism and meddling never part of the picture?

Its going to be a long, grim 21st century.

October 14, 2008 @ 2:13 pm | Comment

@Serve the people: Interesting.. I spent 1.5 years at the college of management (finance), the college of social science (political science) and at the NTU language centre. I do remember that in the college of management quite a lot of people dreamt of working in the “mainland” one day. They were not very interested in politics and mainly saw it as an obstacle to realizing their goals. So from that perspective you are correct. For the students in the department of political science, quite the opposite was true.

I guess the conclusion should be that students in such a large university – shockingly – hold lots of different opinions 😉 But from my own experience I do very much feel that there is not a consensus in (northern) Taiwan that unification is desirable and/or good for Taiwan, and that their opinion is much more in line with what Raj just quoted from Etaiwannews than it is with how Richard described it in the opening post.

October 14, 2008 @ 4:54 pm | Comment

Bill, as with your wonderful essay from nearly three years ago, I greatly enjoyed the Estonia piece and would love to see the solutions you propose in each come to be. I admit, being a pragmatist and seeing how skillfully China has boxed Taiwan in, I feel forced to be skeptical, but I sure would love to see it happen. China’s claims to Taiwan infuriate me, as do so many other things about China. Judging by the actions of past US presidents and other world leaders, I can’t be enthusiastic that what you prescribe will happen, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t still strive for it.

October 14, 2008 @ 5:55 pm | Comment

Stormy

Why do people blame Chen for every problem Taiwan has suffered during the past 8 years?

Because it’s easier to blame one politician than a big country like China who people want to get on with, or the US which seeks to shift blame from itself to another party.

As for the KMT, they were the only party that China was willing to work with so if they’re blamed then you only have the DPP, which China will refuse to work with so you get an indefinite stand-off that international business and America finds “inconvenient”.

At least that is how some people see things.

My view is that Chen was unlucky in coming to power too early, i.e. before he could get a legislative majority. If he had been elected in 2004 chances are that he would have swept a majority too and been able to do some of the things he actually promised.

However, he also seemed to avoid talking about bread-and-butter issues often enough because the KMT stole the “good for business” platform and focused too much on Taiwanese independence. He put too much effort into matters like renaming memorials or closing defunct committees. That made people think that he was governed by ideology rather than making people better off. Criticising the KMT for planning to “sell Taiwan out to China” was a bad strategy, as scaremongering rarely works even if it comes true later.

October 14, 2008 @ 7:36 pm | Comment

He also appeared to be quite corrupt (unheard of in politicians, I know). I was there when Chen was in power and at the time I was actually a big supporter – for a while. E. and Bill may disagree, but Chen knew how to divide the country and polarize the various factions in a way that would have made Karl Rove proud. It turned me from supporter to skeptic. I found the hard-core Greens increasingly deafened by their own echo chamber and would have been amazed had they not been voted out in the last election. Chen redefined grandstanding – even if the cause of Taiwan independence is a noble one, as I believe it is.

October 14, 2008 @ 8:49 pm | Comment

Good post Raj.

I hope the DPP can come back as a political force. The odds are stacked more heavily against them now (redrawing of electoral districts has favored the KMT even more), but it may not be impossible. They have been too focused on winning presidential elections and have neglected legislative yuan and local elections. Far more dull grassroots work to break up the existing the KMT patronage networks is what is needed.

And along with that less emphasis on Minnan culture at the expense of the rest of the electorate. They need to define ‘Taiwanese’ more inclusively.

It looks like Taiwan is going to go the way of Singapore. It will end up a profoundly anti-democratic ‘democracy’, the type of place to get even the CCP chuckling enthusiastically. However, maybe Ma will infuriate people enough that things can really be turned back before it is all too late.

October 15, 2008 @ 2:04 am | Comment

Having dated several Taiwanese girls ( like it gives me the authority to talk about Taiwan issue, I know, it does ) and hanging out with quite a few Taiwanese guys, I have the feeling that DPP is a lot like the Republicans and their fan base is the rednecks of Taiwan. the DPP is utterly incompetent and the only thing they know of is playing the ideology card.

Dreams of Taiwan, my ass, most of the Taiwanese just want to keep their relative wealthy life style compared to the Mainlanders so they can feel a little better about themselves.

October 15, 2008 @ 2:40 am | Comment

[quote]
However, he also seemed to avoid talking about bread-and-butter issues often enough because the KMT stole the “good for business” platform and focused too much on Taiwanese independence. He put too much effort into matters like renaming memorials or closing defunct committees. That made people think that he was governed by ideology rather than making people better off. Criticising the KMT for planning to “sell Taiwan out to China” was a bad strategy, as scaremongering rarely works even if it comes true later. [/quote]

Ah yes, his error was merely avoiding talking about the bread and butter issues, had he talked more about it, it would’ve been OK even if he still did not spend time dealing with them.

He merely put too much effort on renaming memorials, not actually wasting time on renaming memorials. It merely made people “think” he was governed by ideology, so he should’ve been smarter by making people think he was not governed by ideology, but still be governed by ideology in reality.

Criticizing KMT for selling Taiwan was merely a bad strategy, but not bad in itself.

I think I have heard of that before. Where? Oh right:

I think President Bush merely did a bad job of selling the war to the US, he merely avoided talking about the economy so people thought he did not focus on the economy. He put too much effort in firing attorneys he did not agree with, so people thought he was governed by ideology. He was unlucky to have lost the GOP majority. So everything was just an error in political tactic or a lack of luck, otherwise he’s a fine president.

Chen Shuibian is the George Bush of Taiwan and the the DPP is the GOP of Taiwan – exploiting the most base and primitive feelings of xenophobia amongst certain segments of the population. They are masters of electoral politics, but absolute disaster in actual governance.

McCain supporters recently yelled “Arab! Traitor!” in reference to Obama during many of his rallies. In a similar fashion, DPP supporters also yell “Traitor! Mainlander scumbag!” in reference to any politician/actor/musician who dare said they wanted reconciliation and closer relations with China.

And Raj is one of them. Blinded by reality and clinging to ideology.

October 15, 2008 @ 3:47 am | Comment

Chen Shuibian is the George Bush of Taiwan and the the DPP is the GOP of Taiwan – exploiting the most base and primitive feelings of xenophobia amongst certain segments of the population. They are masters of electoral politics, but absolute disaster in actual governance.

Absolutely right.

As for the article, I think we should sing for little Georgia too. If little Estonia can do it, why can’t little Georgia? We are all little ones, equally sheltered in the warmth and love of Republican America’s bosom. New Cold War! Tianamen 2.0! Bring it on! Just wait for me to catch my little plane back to little Estonia.

Too bad he wasn’t around in 1989, singing would surely have protected them from CCP bullets.

What Taiwan’s youth need now is pragmatism and a sense of purpose, not nursery rhymes and Starbucks activism imported from third-rate American demogogues.

October 15, 2008 @ 4:27 am | Comment

demagogue*

October 15, 2008 @ 4:27 am | Comment

no chance that he might be a misunderstood genius?:

October 15, 2008 @ 4:39 am | Comment

I have the feeling that DPP is a lot like the Republicans and their fan base is the rednecks of Taiwan.

Tree, I know some KMT supporters call DPP backers “red necks” but that’s because they think themselves better than poorer Taiwanese, who I think (Michael Turton might help on this) traditionally back the DPP more.

At the last election Ma won enough of them over with his promises of economic success, but he has already ditched his 6-3-3 promise.

So what promises is he going to keep before 2012?

October 15, 2008 @ 5:18 am | Comment

Raj

Just for the record, Green or Blue, most of TW people think the mainlanders are poor farmers.

Ma is selling off Taiwan, Ma is selling off Taiwan.. Go cry a river

October 15, 2008 @ 5:26 am | Comment

Just for the record, Green or Blue, most of TW people think the mainlanders are poor farmers.

I’m not sure how that’s relevant to the assumption that DPP voters are rednecks.

Ma is selling off Taiwan, Ma is selling off Taiwan

Why would you say that? I don’t believe it – not yet, anyway.

October 15, 2008 @ 5:29 am | Comment

Raj,

my first line is totally random.. but it’s sadly true. Chinese people are often snobbish, it’s in the culture.

Ma is pro-unification, just look at his policies. Using Pinyin, are you kidding me? But I think he’s got bigger dreams, like, a democratic China?

And why is that a bad thing?

October 15, 2008 @ 5:34 am | Comment

Ma is pro-unification, just look at his policies.

That doesn’t mean he is selling Taiwan out, nor that he could enact unification without the voters consent. We shall see over the next four years.

But I think he’s got bigger dreams, like, a democratic China?

And why is that a bad thing?

If it happened, it would be good. But I don’t see the CCP sharing power anytime soon – certainly not before Ma would finish a 2nd term in office (assuming he got it).

Also I’m not sure how a really democratic China would arise from Ma betraying the Taiwanese voters, as he promised there’d be no unification under his term in office. A political party like that would not willingly allow mechanisms to have them ejected from power.

October 15, 2008 @ 5:44 am | Comment

Raj,

exactly, how is that selling Taiwan out? But according to those green rednecks, he’s a traitor of the beauuuutiful island.

CCP sharing power is not going to happen in 20 years, that’s why I said it’s in his DREAMS.. wet dreams

October 15, 2008 @ 5:50 am | Comment

If I controlled China, I wouldn’t place so much emphasis on taking back Taiwan. The problem is that CCP has created the belief in everyone in China that Taiwan is a part of China and it will come back to the motherland no matter the cost (whether it is or not is very subjective, and frankly I don’t want to go there and flame the fire). They placed so much emphasis on taking back Taiwan that it has created a pedestal which it can’t step off. If right now China ‘magically’ transformed into a democracy overnight, I think the democratic government of China would force to take back Taiwan at all cost by popular opinion. They if they fail then they would be replaced by the opposition party and have another crack at Taiwan.

I agree with Richard on the direction that the likely direction cross strait relation will take, but for it to happen China needs to substantially increase its political, social and economic reform. That will take a long long time, maybe another 4-5 generations. I think the best thing to do now is continue the current situation but form stronger cross straight communication and exchange. Even if Taiwan is not part of China, a socially and economically interlinked Taiwan and China will ensure no missile are fired across straight for a long time to come.

October 15, 2008 @ 9:13 am | Comment

[…] Bei der Peking Duck fand ich einen Artikel, den Richard von Bill Stimpson zitiert – Dreams of Taiwan. Dort wird der Vergleich aus der Überschrift gemacht. Das ist Stoff für Utopien. Lesenswert ist […]

October 17, 2008 @ 5:33 am | Pingback

But according to those green rednecks, he’s a traitor of the beauuuutiful island.

As I said, it’s rather arrogant to call those who are concerned about cross-Strait relations “red necks”.

As for Ma, it doesn’t help when he talks about Taiwan as being a region of China and that (I forget the exact words) that their mission is to benefit the whole of China denmocractically or some such.

Given politicans normally have their speeches scripted, you would have thought he’d avoid making it seem like he thinks Taiwan is subservient to/less important than China. For Christ sake he’s been elected less than a year and he’s already making major gaffs about the country he was elected to represent!

He either needs to fire his speech writers or start paying attention to the pieces of paper put in front of him!

October 17, 2008 @ 7:04 am | Comment

As I said, it’s rather arrogant to call those who are concerned about cross-Strait relations “red necks”.

They generally are moronic populists. The poor tend not to support the DPP unless they are Minnan supremacists or suffering from some other ridiculous DPP-created identity issues. They seem to get off on being less poor than China’s poor.

their mission is to benefit the whole of China denmocractically or some such

I don’t see anything wrong with this. Taiwan can recognize the obvious cultural ties without lowering itself to China’s political condition. As long as Taiwan’s economy and military are strong, there won’t be reunification on the CCP’s terms.

For Christ sake he’s been elected less than a year and he’s already making major gaffs

If only people paid more attention to policy than rhetoric. I doubt the DPP would win many elections.

October 17, 2008 @ 8:40 am | Comment

Just wanna quickly say, I think it’s impossible to say for sure that “reconciliation” will lead to anything resembling “reunification”. If economic problems continue, Ma may well lose the presidential race in 2012, ; it’s also possible that Ma may decide to slow things down himself.
Taiwan isn’t simple, and it’s impossible to tell what Taiwanese will think 4 years from now, or how the situation will change.

October 17, 2008 @ 5:12 pm | Comment

[…] Genauso gibt es auch viele Taiwaner, die in China primär eine Möglichkeit sehen, Geld zu verdienen. Und die finden es gut, dass ihr Präsident einen Kurs fährt, den westliche Medien immer wieder gerne unkritisch und verkürzend als “pragmatisch” bezeichnen. Abschließend dazu noch diese pessimistischen Überlegungen: […]

November 8, 2008 @ 6:18 am | Pingback

Britta sagt:I studied in Taiwan for one year and talolty agree! When I studied Chinese in the library, a bunch of Taiwanese just came to take their nap there. Of course I also took a picture of it. So funny: One line of sleeping Taiwanese students. After a few weeks of resistance I tried this phenomenon by myself so called field studies ;0). First it happened accidentally on the MRT. 45minutes from Taipei city to Danshuei and when I woke up and looked around, I realised that no one was laughing or taking pictures of me! So it became a habit :0) The only people who were laughing about me: My German friends who came to visit me in Taiwan after a while. Therefore, I suggest everyone to give it a try. During your studies it is refreshing and on the MRT it brings you faster to your destination ;0) Fortunately Danshuei was the final station though It is hard to abandon this habit when your back in your country so be careful!

March 22, 2012 @ 10:06 pm | Comment