One-China policy or not, it's definitely refreshing to hear the US at least acknowledge the elections in Taiwan.
Actually, Beijing has changed a lot in the way it refers to Taiwan. Just a few years ago the official press would refer to "elections" in Taiwan, but now they generally drop the quote marks.
I don't think, however, that we'll be hearing them refer to Chen as "President" (with or without quotes) anytime soon.
Damn, George doesn't give a rat's ass who he pisses off anymore. Left Powell looking out of the loop again though. That sucks. But what the hell, this WAS long overdue.
Just a small snark though (can't resist). How many more ICBM's do you think China has than North Korea?
I imagine they have dozens more at least, Mark. I don't even understand what's supposed to be snarky about that. Unless you're proposing to invade China? I'd love to hear your plans for forcibly changing any regime with nuclear weapons. Let me guess: a strongly-worded U.N. Security Council resolution?
"Just a small snark though (can't resist). How many more ICBM's do you think China has than North Korea?"
Considering that the U.S. almost certainly has first-strike capacity against the People's Republic of China (unless they've got some missile subs I haven't heard about), they're going to be *really* reluctant to hint loudly about the possibility of nuking L.A. based on events that the United States doesn't have completely under its control (such as Taiwanese aspirations for independence based on democratic decisionmaking processes)--that's the kind of thing that would make *any* president seriously consider the unthinkable. If L.A. *was* actually nuked by an ICBM from China, of course, the PRC would rather quickly become a historical artifact. The leaders there know this, of course, and they have a lot more to lose these days than they did forty years ago. I suspect that cooler heads will prevail, aside from occasional rhetoric.
I suspect this Chinese saber-rattling is not so much serious as it is intended to "save face" within Chinese domestic politicial circles. The PRC leadership has been steadily and slowly losing face among the populace because of official corruption and various scandals. Thus, they are playing the "Wag the Dog" angle.
Of course, the Chinese leadership are not stupid. They know there is no way militarily they match up against the US, in any dimension. They know they are just a banana republic writ large. The US's performance in taking out Saddam in 3 weeks with a tiny force seriously shocked them and showed that their large military would be useless in any non-nuclear engagement against US forces. Any escalation to nuclear weapons would then lead to the destruction of China. Even hinting at using nuclear weapons will lead to the US green-lighting Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea going nuclear.
So they deploy the only thing they have left: hot air.
Samuel Tai: Yeah, you just pretty much described the PRC position in regards to Taiwan for the last 30 years, I'd say. Heh.
Mark Adams: You are supposed to take the medicine every day at the same time. Take ALL the medicine EVERY DAY, Mark, you can't skip doses and then catch up by doubling up. ;-)
Just to my two cents in, I have no problem if all three that Samuel Tai mentioned went nuclear right now. Maybe even Hillary could appreciate that form of multilateralism. :^)
Samuel, you are probably quite correct about the positioning and posturing of the PRC. Personally, I think that they have always suspected that "their large military would be useless in any non-nuclear engagement against US forces".
Yes, Bush pissed off the Chinese for defending Taiwan's sovereignty. Terrible, indeed! Sort of similar to how Britain pissed off the Germany for defending Poland or how we pissed off Iraq for defending Kuwait. Do you think it makes up for not defending Tibet or Hungry a number of years ago?
I still do not like how the Iraq issue was handled, but I am careful to be critical where I believe he is wrong, not merely bitch about all Bush does (There is plenty to bitch about!), lumping everything into one indistinguishable mass. Not good policy, and one soon forgets why one was irked to begin with, and what one's principles were.
I hope, Dean, you do not change your views just because I appear to be on the same side on this matter! I will try to see to it that I do not make that mistake too often! ;^)
That's good! Stand up to the Communist butchers -- finally. Keep Free China Free. It's about time. I'm for going back to the old strategy that our Presidents, from Truman to Johnson, followed: deny all aid, trade, or diplomatic recognition to the Communists. I agree with what the John Birch Society was saying back then: "Give 'Red' China a seat in the U.N.? Sure. Give them _our_ seat." And if the Communists nuke L.A. or any other Western city: dead, dead Commies, dead, dead, dead.
China isn’t really communist anymore. They haven’t been since the ...
The thing is, Taiwan being part of china is so deeply engrained into the concept of Chinese Nationalism that I don’t know if they can ever force themselves to believe that they won’t get it back again...
My question is: What does Taiwan do when the Mainland endorses (and actually means) a policy of respect for civil rights? Because China is heading that way. And once China is there, Taiwan’s last rational reason for opposing reunification crumbles...
If (and this is a big if) China were to become a representative federal republic, then I am fairly certain Taiwan would not object to joining, just like Texas joined the Union.
At the moment, this is not the case. China is not a pure communist government anymore. What they are is a mixture of rule by bureaucracy (the traditional form of Chinese government, no matter who was on top) and oligarchy (the Party is the titular head at the moment). Rather like the Imperial days, where the Emperor ruled with the help of the aristocracy and the bureaucracy, except nowadays, the aristocracy/oligarchy annoints an emperor/premier. The philosophical grease in the gears of this system was the Confucian ideals of filial piety and state loyalty, under the theory that the government was just the family writ large; however, the Communists did extensive damage to the respect with which the Chinese traditionally accorded these ideals, and the current grease in the gears is just plain Tammany Hall corruption.
The Taiwanese may not object to rejoining an extended family, but have no wish to enter a gangster's paradise.
It's not a bad thing to occasionally remind the PRC that it's an oligarchic-collectivist mafioso state, and that there is a REAL Chinese republic around. Nobody except a few aging Maoists on the Left, and a few greedy sweatshop industrialists on the Right actually likes dealing with the PRC. People and states deal with it because they have to.
One-China policy or not, it's definitely refreshing to hear the US at least acknowledge the elections in Taiwan.
Actually, Beijing has changed a lot in the way it refers to Taiwan. Just a few years ago the official press would refer to "elections" in Taiwan, but now they generally drop the quote marks.
I don't think, however, that we'll be hearing them refer to Chen as "President" (with or without quotes) anytime soon.
Damn, George doesn't give a rat's ass who he pisses off anymore. Left Powell looking out of the loop again though. That sucks. But what the hell, this WAS long overdue.
Just a small snark though (can't resist). How many more ICBM's do you think China has than North Korea?
I imagine they have dozens more at least, Mark. I don't even understand what's supposed to be snarky about that. Unless you're proposing to invade China? I'd love to hear your plans for forcibly changing any regime with nuclear weapons. Let me guess: a strongly-worded U.N. Security Council resolution?
"Just a small snark though (can't resist). How many more ICBM's do you think China has than North Korea?"
Considering that the U.S. almost certainly has first-strike capacity against the People's Republic of China (unless they've got some missile subs I haven't heard about), they're going to be *really* reluctant to hint loudly about the possibility of nuking L.A. based on events that the United States doesn't have completely under its control (such as Taiwanese aspirations for independence based on democratic decisionmaking processes)--that's the kind of thing that would make *any* president seriously consider the unthinkable. If L.A. *was* actually nuked by an ICBM from China, of course, the PRC would rather quickly become a historical artifact. The leaders there know this, of course, and they have a lot more to lose these days than they did forty years ago. I suspect that cooler heads will prevail, aside from occasional rhetoric.
I suspect this Chinese saber-rattling is not so much serious as it is intended to "save face" within Chinese domestic politicial circles. The PRC leadership has been steadily and slowly losing face among the populace because of official corruption and various scandals. Thus, they are playing the "Wag the Dog" angle.
Of course, the Chinese leadership are not stupid. They know there is no way militarily they match up against the US, in any dimension. They know they are just a banana republic writ large. The US's performance in taking out Saddam in 3 weeks with a tiny force seriously shocked them and showed that their large military would be useless in any non-nuclear engagement against US forces. Any escalation to nuclear weapons would then lead to the destruction of China. Even hinting at using nuclear weapons will lead to the US green-lighting Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea going nuclear.
So they deploy the only thing they have left: hot air.
And just like that, Abracadabra, Shazam....there's your plan. :-)
Samuel Tai: Yeah, you just pretty much described the PRC position in regards to Taiwan for the last 30 years, I'd say. Heh.
Mark Adams: You are supposed to take the medicine every day at the same time. Take ALL the medicine EVERY DAY, Mark, you can't skip doses and then catch up by doubling up. ;-)
Just to my two cents in, I have no problem if all three that Samuel Tai mentioned went nuclear right now. Maybe even Hillary could appreciate that form of multilateralism. :^)
Samuel, you are probably quite correct about the positioning and posturing of the PRC. Personally, I think that they have always suspected that "their large military would be useless in any non-nuclear engagement against US forces".
Yes, Bush pissed off the Chinese for defending Taiwan's sovereignty. Terrible, indeed! Sort of similar to how Britain pissed off the Germany for defending Poland or how we pissed off Iraq for defending Kuwait. Do you think it makes up for not defending Tibet or Hungry a number of years ago?
I still do not like how the Iraq issue was handled, but I am careful to be critical where I believe he is wrong, not merely bitch about all Bush does (There is plenty to bitch about!), lumping everything into one indistinguishable mass. Not good policy, and one soon forgets why one was irked to begin with, and what one's principles were.
I hope, Dean, you do not change your views just because I appear to be on the same side on this matter! I will try to see to it that I do not make that mistake too often! ;^)
I'm not sure, Libertarian. My faith has been shaken. My world is crumbling. I may need to seek psychiatric care.
Hey, good news! I found my medication. Now, do I take that with one or two glasses of Kool-Aide?
That's good! Stand up to the Communist butchers -- finally. Keep Free China Free. It's about time. I'm for going back to the old strategy that our Presidents, from Truman to Johnson, followed: deny all aid, trade, or diplomatic recognition to the Communists. I agree with what the John Birch Society was saying back then: "Give 'Red' China a seat in the U.N.? Sure. Give them _our_ seat." And if the Communists nuke L.A. or any other Western city: dead, dead Commies, dead, dead, dead.
China isn’t really communist anymore. They haven’t been since the ...
The thing is, Taiwan being part of china is so deeply engrained into the concept of Chinese Nationalism that I don’t know if they can ever force themselves to believe that they won’t get it back again...
My question is: What does Taiwan do when the Mainland endorses (and actually means) a policy of respect for civil rights? Because China is heading that way. And once China is there, Taiwan’s last rational reason for opposing reunification crumbles...
If (and this is a big if) China were to become a representative federal republic, then I am fairly certain Taiwan would not object to joining, just like Texas joined the Union.
At the moment, this is not the case. China is not a pure communist government anymore. What they are is a mixture of rule by bureaucracy (the traditional form of Chinese government, no matter who was on top) and oligarchy (the Party is the titular head at the moment). Rather like the Imperial days, where the Emperor ruled with the help of the aristocracy and the bureaucracy, except nowadays, the aristocracy/oligarchy annoints an emperor/premier. The philosophical grease in the gears of this system was the Confucian ideals of filial piety and state loyalty, under the theory that the government was just the family writ large; however, the Communists did extensive damage to the respect with which the Chinese traditionally accorded these ideals, and the current grease in the gears is just plain Tammany Hall corruption.
The Taiwanese may not object to rejoining an extended family, but have no wish to enter a gangster's paradise.
It's not a bad thing to occasionally remind the PRC that it's an oligarchic-collectivist mafioso state, and that there is a REAL Chinese republic around. Nobody except a few aging Maoists on the Left, and a few greedy sweatshop industrialists on the Right actually likes dealing with the PRC. People and states deal with it because they have to.