Discussion on the future of China (including discussions on Taiwan)

Don't tell me it's different. Tell the seperatists in those other regions. They're not likely to listen to matters of historical entitlement. I think China's less worried about Hong Kong and Macau than they are about radicals in the 3 other regions.

BTW, I think SingKiang, Tibet and Inner Mongolia have far more right to independence based on the culture argument.

And why is there no debate with regards to their sovereignty? Could it be because in this case Might really equals Right? Taiwan has a fighting chance where as those other regions don't?

 

Perhaps, perhaps not. I mean, that is indeed a very good point and one to which I haven't admittedly invested much thought.

I mean, my first reaction for "Free Tibet" is from Family Guy: "Free Tibet? I'll take it! <dials phone> China? I may have something you want..."

But seriously, you have a good point. My only answer on the Taiwanese front is that Taiwan functions as a state in every aspect of the Montevideo Conference save for recognition which really is a phyrric victory for China since they agree not in fact or principle, but in self-interest.

As you know, I've been taking Chinese lessons and my Mandarin is coming along well - it's 10hrs a week, and we cover alot of ground (but being immersed in Chinese culture means you get to practise). I was asking the Chinese teachers at my busheban, "Ni shi neiguo ren?" (If I try and upload the tones for Chinese pinyin you get boxes and other gibberish - and for you others who are not Chinese speakers; that's "You are what nationality?"). Whilst my teacher at the Chinese language class would say, "Wo shi Zhongguo ren" (I am Chinese), the teachers at the busheban say, "Wo shi Taiwan ren." Interesting, no?

E_S

 

But it does still bring us back to who ever has the biggest and best guns and willing to use them is right.

The important point is do a lot of Taiwanese really want to risk a full scale war for the right to have their own country? I would have thought the overwhelming majority would want independence but "bugger independence" if it means fighting a war with China. A war that won't be half a world away, it will be in their homes and their cities.

 

You do make a good point and I'd be surprised if many Taiwanese, deep down, ultimately are content to have this status quo maintained.

But, what I'm getting at I guess is that it should be Taiwan's call, not Beijing's since the two never really split from each other, "technically"...

Would anyone object if I renamed this thread: Asian Politics Discussion, to broaden the scope and the user base?

E_S

 

China contemplates Change

China contemplates change
Oct 13th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

As China forecasts another year of GDP growth above 9% and America?s treasury secretary tries again to persuade Beijing to revalue the yuan, China's government does seem to be preparing to change its approach to economic growth. However, its main concern is not American policymakers but China's poor.

[image=http://www.economist.com/images/ga/2005w42/CGA661.gif]

ONE could practically hear the teeth gnashing and the garments being rent in Washington and Brussels. On Tuesday October 11th, China?s planning agency announced that GDP had grown at an annual rate of 9.4% in the first nine months of 2005, causing it to raise its forecast for the full year to 9.2%, from 8.8%. The agency also predicted a record trade surplus of $79 billion for this year, more than twice last year?s, even though the export growth rate has slowed somewhat. With workers in the West already up in arms about low-wage competition from China, news that the peril to the east is growing even faster than expected is the last thing politicians in the developed world wanted to hear.

In recent months, those politicians have been battling assiduously to keep China?s good fortune from spilling too far into their domestic markets. The European Union has only recently resolved the ?Bra Wars? contretemps, in which Chinese-made clothes piled up at European customs points thanks to import quotas imposed at the beginning of the summer, and retailers facing empty shelves howled for relief. The United States, too, has been pressuring China over textiles. This week, as John Snow, the American treasury secretary, visited Beijing, negotiators sought to reach an agreement on Chinese textiles. American manufacturers have been pushing for the kind of comprehensive quota agreement that the EU reached with China. But on Thursday, the American negotiators reported that they had once again failed to reach a deal on the touchy issue.

Americans are also pressuring China because of its currency, which some on Capitol Hill claim is undervalued against the dollar by as much as 40%. This makes China?s goods irresistibly attractive to American consumers, who have been on a buying binge thanks to low interest rates (in turn helped by China?s stockpiling of US Treasuries), running down savings and taking on debt to finance their spending. Figures released on Thursday showed that surging shipments of clothing and textiles pushed America's imports from China to a record $22.4 billion in August.

Mr Snow is using his visit to press the case for a looser currency peg. Though China revalued the yuan in July, pegging it to a basket of currencies rather than only the dollar, it has moved only a couple of percentage points against the American currency, far too little to hold back the flood of imports into the United States. On Tuesday, Mr Snow said that while he applauds steps towards a more liberal currency regime, America wanted to encourage China to ?move forward? on the issue. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, China's finance minister, Jin Renqing, rebuffed Mr Snow's demands: ?Using revaluation of the renminbi [yuan] to resolve global imbalances, particularly the imbalances of certain countries, is impossible and also unnecessary,? he said.

Mr Snow is treading reasonably cautiously for now. He said last week that he did not want to threaten China with trade sanctions over the issue, and the Treasury has delayed its bi-annual report, which will contain its assessment of China?s currency situation, until this week?s meetings are concluded. But many in Congress are pushing for bolder action. Last week Chuck Schumer, a New York senator, told Mr Snow that he would expect the report to label China a ?currency manipulator? unless the yuan is allowed to fluctuate more. Mr Schumer is also co-sponsoring a bill to slap tariffs of 27.5% on Chinese imports unless China revalues

 

First Chinese paper on Democracy

And the result, surprisingly is that keeping power in the hands of the CCP, who wrote the report. I love how they argue democracy doesn't work when they've spent a lot of time shooting democratic dissidents, and the "democratic dictatorship" sounds wonderfully Leninist. Though they really should just drop the socialist rhetoric, as it's not fooling anyone.

Rumsfeld's comments were fairly restrained, too.

Hong Kong reform package released

I'm not sure who's going to be terribly interested in this; it's a very insular issue to many (despite the sheer amount of capital going through HK each day) and HK's hardly been democratic either. However, Beijing recognises, I'm sure, the value of HK as a financial centre (and the gweilo who run it) and so they're eager to allow the "One country, two systems" rule to be fluid as per the demands of the SAR.

(Seems markets are reacting well to the news)

We are "The Republic of China", Lee says

Mr Lee, in Washington, said that Taiwan should change it's name from "The Republic of China" to the "Republic of Taiwan". Given, however, Mr Chen's reticence to commit the necessary funds to the defense budget (instead, I assume, expecting the US to cover Taiwan should the need arise), this haughty public claim by Mr Lee might be ill-opportune.

Opinions?

E_S

 

Would anyone object if I renamed this thread: Asian Politics Discussion, to broaden the scope and the user base?

Not at all. I would welcome it.

Regarding the "Republic of Taiwan" article: There is never a "perfect" time to declare one's independence. It brings to mind the American Revolution. However, if China follows through on its threats, then the U.S. will be in the unenviable position of having to choose sides. Defend the ideals of freedom as represented by Taiwan? Or continue the lucrative (for China mainly) trade?

 

Well, the issue of independence isn't a unified one here, and there's no indication that Taiwan would be better off staying as is. It should be Taiwan's call, but ultimately there's a plethora of issues to consider.

Plus, the US is getting annoyed with CSB over his "forgetting" to allocate funds for arms purchases...

E_S

 

Only a third of American colonists at the time were pro-independence. But yes, ultimately it is up to Taiwan.

 

Ultimately, that analogy won't work. You simply cannot, and should not, try and compare Chinese history/culture/events to anyone elses.

E_S

 

But it's not Taiwan's choice unless they're strong enough to back it up You've made it painfully obvious with the comment about the arms purchasing budget.

Did anyone ask Iraqi citizen's whether they want to be invaded by the U.S.? Shouldn't it be their choice? Maybe it should but no one asked because they weren't strong enough. I contend it's difficult to make a moral arguement on who's wrong or who's right. Much easier to decide who has bigger guns.

And E_S

With your previous comment about Taiwan never having been a part of the PRC, it meet with the same problem. Tibet was at one time not part of the PRC, but it was conquered. So are we saying it's your's if you conquer it? All comes back to guns doesn't it?

 

Since E_S has proposed to rename this thread Asian politics, I thought this might be an appropriate place to post this article which I find interesting:

Japan ruling party proposes "real military"

IMO Japan has proven itself a worthy ally and should expand its military. Times have obviously changed since WWII, and I don't see a problem with them amending their constitution. They will still remain a pacifist nation, after all.

 

Sorry, I hadn't seen your reply to this or I would have posted sooner.

Most people would agree with me when we say 2008 is the year China stops worrying about what the world thinks, once the Olympics are wrapped up.

You agree, or not?

That's the point at which the Taiwan issue will be resolved. I think we both realise it will end up being reunification; but the reason I say it's Taiwan's call or at least they should have an overwhelming say in it is that they have the most to lose, as well as gain. For China, it's nothing; a drop in the ocean, almost. For Taiwan, it's an issue of giving up everything they've worked for since 1949 and forgetting some very important aspects of their culture.

Such as the writing we've discussed. What will happen to classical Chinese characters?

Furthermore, Taiwan doesn't need guns to back it up; if China wasn't of the false assumption the rest of the world cared about face, they'd negotiate. China sees the Taiwan question in terms of face, and how great a loss of face it would be to the rest of the world for Taiwan to defy it. Yet nobody else thinks in terms of face, so it's really redundant.

Why on earth would they bother, if not for face?

And as an aside; do you pronounce words like, say, "a little" as "yidian" or "yidiar"?

cal, the expansion of the Japanese military has two immediate benefits you didn't touch on. Firstly; it lifts some of the burden off the US in terms of the number of troops stationed here (and the responsibilities inherent therein). Secondly, it offers a solid bulwark to Chinese dominance in that area, especially considering the defence ties Japan, Australia and the US would endoubtedly build.

Though of course with a history of Sino-Japanese tension, I can understand Beijing not at all liking this; curiously, the Taiwanese are very pro-Japanese. Not just because Japan sticks up for them against China; but because the period at which this island was Japanese (1895 to 1945) is generally thought of in favourable, positive terms.

E_S

 

1. Olympics? Sure it's like an initiation into the world community. And a huge income earner if you do it right. But really, is it that important? Does China intend to stop doing business with the world once it's over? I don't think so. So I disagree. China wants to be a superpower. It needs to be a member of the international community and they will care what the world thinks even after the olympics. Otherwise they hurt in their pockets. The world isn't going to say, they've had the olympics, they're part of us now so they can do anything.

2. I don't think it will be that big a deal for Taiwan. I doubt re-unification will mean full re-intergration. It will be more like Hong Kong. And they haven't lost their culture or the classical Chinese characters. The CCP will even let Taiwanese vote for their leader. It'll be rigged to allow who ever the CCP nominates to win, but that's only a small step from faking your own assassination on the eve of the election and then deciding not to investigate or bring charges after you win.

3. I don't think it's all about face. I've listed practical reasons before about 5 other special territories that might get restless if they let Taiwan go. And about the U.S. having an unsinkable aircraft carrier on China's door step. So I do believe there are other very real considerations.

4. I say yi dian. I'm not from BeiJing or the north. But that's not really an issue. Texans and New Yorkers speak English very differently. Doesn't mean they can't be part of the same country.

5. Taiwan's attitude towards Japan isn't that curious. Do you mean in comparison to mainlanders' attitudes? It because Japanese didn't hold contests to cut off 100 Taiwanese heads as quickly as possible. And they didn't mow down people in an alley with machine guns. That kind of **** tends to rub the locals the wrong way.

 

The "yi dian" was an aside, as I said; since I'm learning from a book geared towards the Taiwanese pronunciation but I got some Pinsler Mandarin audio stuff which says, "yi diar", "xianpiar", "shang ger" etc. Nothing to do with the debate.

I'd agree that Taiwan'd likely end up an SAR, but I still believe it ought be China's choice.

And the Olympics? The main threat is from FDI, and by 2008 they'll be less reliant on FDI than they are now so it'll come to a point where China can afford to piss a little FDI away.

E_S

 

I just read this article from Japan Today and was wondering what are your thoughts.

Saturday, November 5, 2005 at 07:57 JST
WASHINGTON ¡ª Tokyo Gov Shintaro Ishihara used a speech in the U.S. capital Thursday to convey his views on China, arguing that economic containment is the best strategy because the United States would "certainly" lose a war with China, which he said would not hesitate to sacrifice its people on a massive scale when fighting against an enemy.

"In any case, if tension between the United States and China heightens, if each side pulls the trigger, though it may not be stretched to nuclear weapons, and the wider hostilities expand, I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives," Ishihara said in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that was primarily focused on China.

The governor, an outspoken politician known for his nationalistic views, also said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent."

"Therefore, we need to consider other means to counter China," he said. "The step we should be taking against China, I believe, is economic containment."

Ishihara said while China would begin a war without hesitation at the cost of massive human casualties, the United States has found that the deaths of only 2,000 troops in Iraq has created major domestic problems.

"I believe we are placed in a high degree of tension that poses greater danger than the Cold War structure between the United States and Russia posed," he said.

Ishihara said China would be unlikely to use the conventional nuclear tactic of pinpointing attacks on nuclear facilities instead of cities out of fear of retaliatory strikes.

China would attack major cities even at the cost of retaliatory U.S. nuclear strikes on such cities as Shanghai, which would entail a huge loss of civilian lives, Ishihara said.

Noting some American politicians believe China will move toward democracy and that some people say there will be elections in the near future, Ishihara said, "I believe such predictions are totally wrong."

As for Japan building up its own defense capability, Ishihara said the United States is the country most opposed to such a move, while China is next in opposition.

Ishihara also said the security treaty between Japan and the United States is "so undependable."

Later in the day, Ishihara held talks with U.S. Defense Deputy Undersecretary for Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Lawless to discuss the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan.

The governor has been calling for civilian use of Yokota Air Base in Tokyo.

Ishihara, who arrived in Washington on Wednesday, will move to New York on Friday to watch Sunday's New York City Marathon to prepare for a large-scale marathon in Tokyo in February 2007.

I had to scratch my head after reading this and wonder "is he serious?" Who in their right mind would think that China would readily sacrifice their infrastructure (Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, etc) in order to attack US cities? Also why insult the US military, especially now with support for Iraq waning? Does anyone know of any situations/groups within Tokyo or Japan that Ishihara is appealing to with these comments?

 

Well he probably thinks he is, but he's also not one of the key players int he Japanese government so his comments are no different to your overage overzealous Chinese General.

Personally, I don't see this happening at all, but that's just me.

E_S

 

Can you beam me over some Peking Duck, E_S? I love that stuff...

hehe

--

I saw a report that there are ever increasing numbers of Chinese millionaires and even billionaires. They would be wise not to screw up by increasing their militarism.

Given enough time, there will be pressure enough for change to occur from within. I definitely don't want the United States to get involved in heightening military tensions between our nations, even if that means that Taiwan is invaded.

Unless the Chinese hit us in a fashion reminiscent of Pearl Harbor, we should stay out of it.

 

DM:

Peking (Beijing) is northern China.

I'm in Taiwan, which has southern food, mostly and has been described as the backside of Asian cuisine. We don't get the good Sezchuan or Gondong food, just offal and stinky tofu.

Besides, I can read bugger all characters so I can't read a menu for you. Django, T65, how woudl you say "Peking Duck"? Pe king ya ci?



E_S

 

Beijing duck = bei jing kao ya

I know Ishihara has no authority over the situation and that is why I'm assuming he's making these statements to appeal to an audience at home. He gets to look like he's standing up to China & the US. However in the US I don't think anyone would really care much about his statements, whereas in China this has the chance to be news. So I'm wondering just who are these statements for?

 

I must disagree. Taiwan is way too good of a location to just give up. It's close proximity to Japan makes it a good counter-balance to China for cheap labour for both Japanese companies and US corperations. A good air force base there would have a hand on every throat in East and South Asia. It is a honestly friendly country to the US, something that, even I must admit, is in shorter supply each day. It is a good customer base that buys American products and the beef industry here is on edge everytime Taiwan is discussed.

 

Wow, Joe, I must be thinking of a different Taiwan to you.

Last I checked, Taiwan's "cheap labour" had diversified into specialised electronics, as the cheap labour force had adapted given the focus on China as a cheap manufacturing base.

As for beef - mostly it's New Zealand or Australian beef, with American beef being the low end percentage of the foreign beef market. Though most of the beef is of what we'd call a different quality, as it's cut to local tastes.

E_S

 

Well, It is still cheaper then trying to build a digital camera in Japan and the US,plus there simply way too many cattle growers here. Even the thin silce we send to Taiwan can spell the differnce to a US rancher in this satured market. And my airbase comment holds.

 

It's good to see you read what I said, Joe, and got it.

Airbase, you say? Where abouts is the US airbase in Taiwan? I've been in Taiwan for a year and I've never heard about it.

And when I shop, most of the beef is from NZ or AU, not the US...

Hmmm...

E_S

 

I am going to take that remark at face value. Anybody who builds an airbase there would have a hand on every throat in East and south east Asia. If we abandon Taiwan to China, we will never get it. And while don't we send much beef to you, We still send about, I think the last count was, about five hundred head. That is five hundred cows that ate themselves out of overgrazed pasture in East Texas. They, in turn, make about three bucks a pound. I think you see where I am going.