What Taiwan Wants!

Well, if the size of Taiwan doesn't matter. How about giving the Isrealis a piece of land the size of Taiwan from the USA to help them out? They are getting pretty disliked in the middle east. How about just give Hawaii to Japan in WWII 'cuz it's about the size of Taiwan?

Slavery or not is like anti-abortion or pro-choice, it was a pure domestic issue. The nature of the US is interesting, but since there wasn't a withdrawal clause in the constitution, and no terminating date of the unity, then it follows, to my understanding, that an contract without an end or escape clause is a permanent one. The nature of being one country is thus established since the birth of United States, not really a meaningful difference in this comparison.

The importance of the principle of self preservation far more outweighs Taiwan economical importance,size and stragetic importance to China.

The damage of the 9.11 has not let down to a huge breakdown of the US as a country, and frankly, there is more people getting killed each year by cars or drugs than 9.11. Yet the US did a right thing taking out Afganistan, fighting wars for self protection.

You might say that it's different for loss of human lives is involved in 9.11, yet only loss of property rights is involved in China's case. However, disregarding the loss of property rights often lead to the loss of personal safety. For example, a thief may steal 50 dollars, which seems insignificant, but it's a universal practice to risk human lives, say, the cops' lives in order to recover that 50 dollars. For if such "trivial" crimes are let go, then eventually no order can exist and personal safety will not exist as well. If an individual, a society and country don't stand up to fight for the principle of self preservation, I think such entity will not prosper.

Limiting reunification to only by way of direct use of force is not the case, China is now like a cop holding guns outside a hijacked bank. As long as those hijackers don't break out, there won't be violence. The choice to go for peace or not is actually in the hands of the hijackers. Containment by force isn't wars itself. Nor does it always led to it. In fact, when the hijackers are bleeding, it works better to contain them by force, at the same time let them die out. This is China's strategy right now. Given enough time, there will be peaceful reunification with the progress of China, socially, economically and politically.

Also, everyone's value is different, it's up to you if you think it doesn't worth to stand up and fight for your rights, well, sorry you don't represent Chinese.

 

You raised a pretty good question. There is many reasons why China would fight a war to maintain her territory.

The driving engine of Taiwan seperatism is what I call regionalism. Normally, cultural traits, nationality, and blood ties are the criteria of defining an ethnic indentity. In case of Taiwan seperatism, since they are mainly Chinese themselves, they could not distinguish themselves with the normal criteria. They choose region, instead, to be the criteria of defining their racial indentity, namely, the Taiwanese. It's common for people to refer themselves with geographical modifiers.
such as New Yorkers or Houstonians. However, to portray the New Yorkers as an ethnic group is certainly stretching it. Regionalism is to divide people into different groups according to their geographical locations and pit them against each other. It's quite a dangerous force when it becomes the default angle of interpretation towards events. Do you alway care a person's regional location dealing with them? What if everything is looked through the regional glasses? For instance, if every wrongdoings of New Yorkers against Houstonians are reported with emphasis on the New York vs. Houston part, it will make New York, New Yorker and New York culture look bad. Imagine everyday the Houston Chronical headlines runs like "A New Yoker raped a Houstonian yersterday." or "A New York drug dealer is arrested in Houston", or "A New York terrorists set off bomb in the Houston Enron Field". In short, regionalism is a form of discriminative profiling that's divisive to the unity society and country. If Taiwan gets independant following this route, then it's not only a tragedy to China, but also to the world. Encouraging divisiveness puts China in a position to face a trend of growing regionalism and seperatism within herself because China is still a developing country with many internal conflicts and contradictions. These conflicts are the fire, and regionalism is the fuel. In fact, some people that do not wish seeing China get stronger is said to be working on spreading regionalism in China. It's rumored among the Chinese net surfers that there is spies on the net who pits Chinese from different regions against each other. For example, whenever Yao has a good game, there will be posters that praise the Shanghaiese, then dog Beijingese for Wang Zhi Zhi's "national treason". Yes, Chinese always have strong regional pride, but to have a go at each other is only a recent trend. I don't know if there is net spies, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Taiwan seperatists are behind it. After all, the more divided China is, the better their chance is. Therefore, to maintain the overall unity of China's society and territory, China feel the need to put a damping on regionalism even at the cost of wars.

Is it moral to pit the Southerners against the Northerners after the Civil War? Is it moral to pit Taiwan residents against Mainland residents and cause conflicts? Yes the Taiwan seperatists are democratic, but are they moral?

It's not only China's obligation to stop the Taiwan seperatists because her people has the universally acknowledged right over Taiwan, but also because it's morally just to stop the spread of discriminative profiling in the form of regionalism. Not to mention Taiwan and Taiwan straits are important for China's national defense and trades.

If China doesn't defend her universally aknowledged rights over her territory, then China doesn't deserve to be a country.

 

Ever considered that there are those who support the DDP because of the fifty years of martial law the KMT held over Taiwan? Those foreigners had unopposed control over the government while spending critical resourses on a decided civil war. Their rampant corruption has made the KMT the richest political party in the world.

A lot of those brainwashed seperatists will prefer the status quo over revolution, but they will oppose the KMT by virtue of having a choice with their votes.

It's a largely successful tool to unify the 1.3 billion Chinese living in an authoritarian government. The economic benefits is a bonus, but China has and will do fine economically without Taiwan. Probably every non-Western country has kept their stories of imperialism and colonialism from the Middle East to S. America, but it wasn't supposed to happen to the Middle Kingdom. Even if Taiwan, Maccau and Hong Kong were considered port cities opened for the foreigners at the time, they were still humiliations when China was forced to give them away. That runt Japan took Taiwan, but in those wars they also extorted, raped, and stole from the Chinese. This spills beyond a civil war.

The very idea of Chinese people declaring independence would open a can of worms even if China is growing more prosperous as we speak. Instead being treated as brothers as they have claimed before, the Taiwanese are portrayed as infantile brats by the CCP. Undertones of Taiwanese inferiority and unearned wealth go hand in hand with the sacrifice the Chinese have toiled and the fruits they reap today. Either you're with us or you're against us, and that goes for all Chinese. In retrospect, the CCP had no choice. Lobbing missles didn't influence the voters outside, so they had to influence from within.

Taiwan is a symbolic prop to rally the masses. It's been percieved as another Manifest Destiny, but it's intended use is to maintain order over the people they already control. The Taiwanese don't have a party line to follow. The status quo is benefitting both sides. Taiwanese travel restrictions to China grow looser by demand. Hong Kong's autonomy region is enough of a work in progress to realistically think about the word autonomy. Just as much as Chen Sui Ben has been attacked for using independence for political gain, the same could be said for the CCP.

 

Pathetic!You take yourself as a Chinese?But you will not be admitted by your "motherland" and me!!!

 

"If Taiwan gets independant following this route, then it's not only a tragedy to China, but also to the world. Encouraging divisiveness puts China in a position to face a trend of growing regionalism and seperatism within herself because China is still a developing country with many internal conflicts and contradictions."

That is some weak bulsh*t. The era of manifest destiny is past. The laws of entropy say that more diverse systems are more stable systems. All over the Earth nations will be giving self rule to smaller and smaller entities of like minded people. Small countries rarely make war on their neighbors. What would China lose in giving autonomy to Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan? If a government has to impose it's will upon it's people it is not legitimate.

The only real functions of large confederations is protection from outside forces (does anyone threaten to conquer China militarily?) And, legitimately, to ensure the rights of minorities.

 

Pardon me, but your arguments don't hold an ounce of water. Physically speaking, the more molecules there is in a given space, the more violent their clashes and movement will be. I don't want to live in a world with 2000 countries. Also, where did you get the idea of small countries rarely make war on their neighbors? Look at the Nazi Germany invading the world and Japan invading the Asia and USA.

Regarding giving autonomy to Tibet, HK and Taiwan, yes sir, China should be open to give autonomy to HK and Taiwan and in fact, that's what the one country two system is for. As for Tibet, it's part of mainland that has to wait for the democratization of China to happen. There is already democratization experiment on the village level and hopefully with China's economy going fast so will its political reform.

The key here is not about what the government of China wants, but what does her 1.3 billion people want, including the 20 million Chinese Taiwanese. Even if the Chinese government doesn't want to take the Taiwan province back but the people do, the claim is still valid IMO.

I'm not sure if China is a large confederation, that sounds strange to me. China is a country with the responsibility to maintain her unity and stabilty. As for protecting the rights of minorities, last time I checked, bypassing the rights of the majority isn't one of the rights for minorities.
Have you ever give consideration to the rights of 1.3 billion mainlanders? I hope you do.

 

It wasn't only the Southerners that owned the South. Just because you were born and grew up in a house doesn't mean you are the sole owner of the house. Take a long damn look in the mirror and you will know what I mean. The Taiwan province's democracy is found undisputably on China's land, all Chinese have a say in the future of the province. Furthermore, in the strictest sense you guys don't have a real democracy, you have an oligarchy under which only 2% of the owners of the Taiwan province is allowed to vote on Taiwan's fate, leaving 1.3 billion owners left stranded behind.

Sorry, You don't know what's it about to have a country when you say it's a fool's gamble for a country to protect her territorial rights.

All Chinese citizens and only Chinese citizens have the right to define China, as the rightuous owner of it. You can have your say, and I will have mine. Understood and accepted.

China doesn't need to fight the Taiwan seperatists to take the province back. And when she chooses to there's no chance for Taiwan to last more than 3 months by herself. You are lending too much credit to the corrupt and impotent DDP.

Hitler is your mentor who can teach you about dividing people and make them hate each other.

And when the world acknowledges the Taiwan province as part of China, it will indeed be manifest destiny for Taiwan to go back to her motherland, in the literal sense of the term.

 

Yes, in the beginning there was monoply of political power by the KMT, however, KMT made the doors open later on by absorbing the average Taiwanese. The former KMT chairman Lee Teng Hui was born in Taiwan, worked for the Japanese army in world war II, and was still given a chance to rise to the top in the KMT.

As for KMT's rampant corruption, I'm not sure if KMT's corruption is worse than the DDP. Recently a Taiwan businessman confessed to the press that he gave a lot of illegal campaign money to the DDP leader Chen Shui Bien. Also, KMT is the party that developed the Taiwan province into a world class economy. KMT has their faults, but the Chinese Taiwanese should credit the KMT for the high living standard they enjoy today.

The insistence of Taiwan's reunification has to do with exercising the Chinese rights and maintain China's territories. It has nothing to do with helping the CCP dictate China. Wether CCP is authoritarian or democratic, it has to take back the Taiwan province because that's what a ruling party is for. It has no choice.

Agreed. As my previous post has concurred.

I don't agree with that CCP portrays the Chinese Taiwanese as infantile brats. The correct way, IMHO, is to say the CCP portrays the Taiwan seperatists as infantile brats, and they are.

Also, we Chinese don't have the George Bush "you are either with or against us" mindset, no, far from it. I myself, as a Chinese, don't view that countries or individuals with different oppinions as either my friend or enemy. It depends. To depict Chinese as living in a world that's either black or white is over stereotyping.

The CCP isn't using Taiwan to rally the masses, as I said above, the CCP is cautious about the Taiwan situation. The Taiwan issue weakens the CCP as a dictatorship for the CCP must allow democracy and autonomy in HK and Taiwan to be in a position to propose peaceful renification, which it did.

The CCP also doesn't want the mainlanders to know the true anti-Chinese ugly face of the Taiwan seperatists, in that way they'll probably get pissed off and all tight, and rightfully so. The CCP never wants the average Chinese forcing their hands. If the average Chinese are determined to take back Taiwan as soon as possible, the CCP will face mass pressure and lose some of its flexibility over the issue, which is something it doesn't want.

Keeping status quo is what CCP wants, but the priority is to get the Taiwan province back. To say the CCP is using independence for political gain sounds far fetched. Actually, the CCP wants the issue to end as quickly as possible, of course, in a peaceful and mutually beneficial way.

The CCP is concentrating on developing the economy, its rise or fall is contingent on its ability in the economic sector. The Taiwan issue is a distraction for the CCP compared to its economic priority. Saying CCP is using Taiwan's seperatism movement for political gain doesn't match up with China's status quo.

 

Well, it disappoints me that you still view my whole stance in a nationalistic/patriotic way. Maybe it's my lack of communication skills. Anyway, I have to say my stance is based on individualism more than patriotism. Although I love China, I'm basing my stance on my individual needs. In other words, I would still adopt the same stance even if I have no special feeling towards China. For I, myself, as a man with an identity as Chinese, are born with rights and fulfilling those rights fall on the shoulder of me. Whether I love China or not means little to me in this case, in other words, I would not want to bend over and gets screwed out of my rights.

I believe a moral man is someone with the utmost sincerity to even doubt and examine the most basic premise in his mind and life, it's the only way of avoiding living a misguided life.

You know, it just shouldn't have come to all of this.

 

This point shows you have little understanding of US Constutional law or the Constitutional issues surrounding the Civil War and also contract law.

Just a little primer for your understanding.

The Constitution as originally written lays out constraints on the US Federal Government and since the 14th Ammendment also constraints on state governments. If something is not in the Constitution then that doesn't mean that it can't be acted on in fact the opposite. That is why there is a major question regarding Gay marriages in the US and why some people want a Constitutional Ammendment outlawing it because constitutionally the government cannot ban gay marriages without exceeding the constitutional equal protection clause.

In the case of the US Constitution prior to the Civil War there really was a question about whether states could withdraw from the Union since this wasn't addressed in the Constitution.

 

Again you've missed the point here. The relavence of this distinction is to show how ridiculous the KMT position is on reunification, probably even more than the PRC's. Its also mainly to show that comparing the US Civil War with the Taiwan Chinese reunification is also mistaken because the issues are very different.

 

I find this very hard to believe when you have been spouting things like

So what you are saying is that in your heart you really believe that Taiwanese seperatists are "infantile brats" and all of your please for understanding and such is really a facade to cover over your real patriotic/nationalistic urges to reunify Taiwan even forcefully if peaceful methods don't work.

Also

This quote basically shows that you are totally incapable of considering anything beyond your own narrow POV or even questioning your beliefs. That you are totally incable of understanding why not every Taiwanese and I'll add Tibetan and Uighar, wants to be part of a greater China.

This also leads to another issue of maybe why there are so many Taiwanese who don't want to rejoin mainland China when you and others like you will make comments like this for daring to criticise your cause or Chinese

A view like that is the you're either "with us or against us view"

If this is what you think it means to be Chinese then don't count me in.

Finally.

Once again shows me your innate bias and inability to consider another view beyond your own since you also say.

Apparently its OK for Chinese to harbor resentment over the Japanese occupation of parts of Taiwan and parts of mainland China but the Vietnamese reaction should be "well its just history."

This tells me that you don't know everything about Asian history either since even has recently as the 80's the PRC fought the Vietnamese and even supported the Khmer Rouge in the 70's to counter Vietnamese power in SE Asia. This is anything but speculation since I know many Vietnamese and also something about their history and culture. Much of their history has been marked by reaction and resistence against to Chinese hegemony.

Anyway I'm sure this will be lost on you because you have no problem with Chinese hegemony and anyone who disagrees with you are either bigotted against the Chinese if they aren't ethnically Chinese or infantile brats if they are.

 

That's chopping off a better part of the 50 year history isn't it? You tried to describe the framework of the natives vs. outsiders. Those Mainlanders assumed control of land and imposed their brand of justice while silencing opposition. Those Mainlanders created the classist mentality by giving select positions to their own. The Taiwanese dialect was banned and considered inferior. When you say in the beginning, that beginning was 25 years of Chang Kei Shek's tight rein. This wasn't some slanderous conspiracy against the Mainlanders to divide the population.

Lee Teng Hui's assension was opposed by the hardliners. It's impossible to tell there if have been a popular uprising if opposition parties weren't allowed, but the political climate was beginning to shift that way with the formation of more unofficial parties.

The Taiwanese should credit the KMT for prosperity and disregard the lowpoints just like the Chinese have done with the CCP, correct? The parallel ended when the Taiwanese were given a choice. The KMT modernized Taiwan's infrastructure, but so did the Japanese. Then the Taiwanese should also hail the Japanese for their contributions and forget the rape, exploitation and oppression.

Maybe it's hard to understand when you're living in a country where the media isn't allowed to report the corruption of a party official until it gets blatant to the point where it can't be ignored. Or where you're allowed to have an opinion that doesn't follow the ruling party line and you have the right to follow another party. Acknowleging the KMT for Taiwan's modernization is one thing, but that isn't the reason that they can't be publically faulted for their shortcomings. The government is not your father. If the government steals your money and send you to jail, you should be able to do something about it. To the typical Taiwanese wanting the status quo, joining Communist China would be like returning to the 1950's KMT, possibly worse because the people who make the real decisions don't live there.

Just like how Chiang Kai-shek still controlled China while on Taiwan and held China's UN seat? I wonder had Taiwan officially declared independence in the 50's or 60's if there would be such a strong statement in the party line....

Anyways, the CCP has always had a choice to take Taiwan by force. The foolishness of such a decision made it a no-brainer, but the CCP never lost grip of its power nor did it draw the ire of the supposed Chinese masses yearning to take back what is theirs.

Historically, China never had an interest with Taiwan, prefering to relegate it as a foreign trading post or a haven for pirates and criminals. The Mainlanders didn't seem to know there were people living in Taiwan.

This interest came from nationalistic desires stoked by the CCP in order to unify a one-party system. In incidents with the CCP like Japanese conspiracies or a downed American spy plane, the government was quick to portray it as an attack on China. Taiwan is another tool to give pride of Mother China for people who don't really have a choice of who's in power.

Given that the CCP is the only party in China, what would you think of those who want another form of government? Aren't they the same as the Tibetan seperatists? Are they still infantile brats? Or do you see Taiwan as a wholly provincial issue and disregard the personal issues of the actual people living in that province?

You don't have to be their enemy. The government deals with their enemies. You only have to be indifferent with how the enemies are dealt.

It would weaken them more if there was a lengthy war or there was actual independence where they'd have no influence over. China is bargaining with a region where they don't have soldiers, currency or beurocracy in place for more than a century. Some concession....

Yet you seem to know the black and white stereotypes/inferences of the anti-Chinese quite well. Well, a good chunk of the American public seems to link Saddam with Osama without any admission from the White House.

You won't know either way unless you've spent some good time in Taiwan. Then can you tell if it's anti-CCP or anti-Chinese.

You think the Chinese people has been the cause to drive the CCP into dealing with Taiwan. I've stated that it's the opposite. Taiwan has lasted for almost 60 years without influence from the Mainland. If there was such a strong demand by the Mainlanders to take it back in that time, the Populist government presumably would've made a better effort.

The CCP has created a control issue they can deal with. They won't declare war and ruin its relations with countries and trading partners. They have enough influence to challenge the legitimacy of an independent Taiwan. It also addresses the personal question by dissidents and non-Han Chinese of "why can't I seperate"?

Taiwanese independence is an issue to the Mainlanders because the CCP have made it an issue. The way they have played it is that the will of the people is making them have no choice. That hasn't been the case historically, and I'm sure that at the end of the day the people's will have greater concerns on their mind like increasing equality, freedoms and income.

 

Actually, I wrote that....

 

I think you're missing the point here. I didn't say there wasn't a question raised among Americans regarding withdrawal of the states during or before the Civil War, due to the absence of addressing it in the constitution, nor that something missing in the constitution can not be acted upon.

My point was IMO, the nature of the USA being a country was determined by the structure of the constitution since its birth, for the lack of withdrawal clause and an ending date. People can raise different interpretations afterwards, but the point remains intact. One can doubt if he was really the blood child of his parent, but that doesn't change the fact that he is when he is. Obviously you missed this in your reply.

Now let's go back to your original point, that the question among Americans of whether US was a country or not prior to the Civil War is a meaningful difference, which makes the comparison between the Civil War and China's reunification invalid. However, you didn't explain why in your original post or posts thereafter. My point is that, since it's clear to me that the nature of the USA was established since its birth with the implication of the structure of the constitution - there is any logical leeway to argue against a contract without withdrawal clause and ending date being a permanent one- then, it follows that the Americans arguing about the nature of the USA after its establishment is a moot point during or prior to the Civil War. When such a question was a moot point in that period, then the presence of such question doesn't make the comparison between the Civil War and China's reunification invalid.

 

No I didn't miss your point, the fact is you have had no real point in raising this distinction.

You are saying "Again you've missed the point here. The relavence of this distinction is to show how ridiculous the KMT position is on reunification, probably even more than the PRC's. Its also mainly to show that comparing the US Civil War with the Taiwan Chinese reunification is also mistaken because the issues are very different."

This difference you raised has no bearing on the comparison at all. An involved party has a ridiculous position on reunification does not make the comparison invalid unless you can prove how does this position makes a meaningful difference that sets China's reunification and the Civil war fundamentally different, and send the case into the realm of non related issues.

It's like saying a short black guy from Congo can't be compared to a tall white guy from America because they are very different. LOL.

Maybe you should instead say that they can't be compared because China is China and the USA is USA. That would at least make your point more transparent.

Is that all you've got?

The Civil War and China's reunification has fundamental resemblances and meaningless or irrelevant differences so far as some posters in this thread is concerned, unless you come up with some VALID distinctions, to which I'll applaud your effort.