Hu does he think he is fooling?

Hu Jintao made a long speech today (Monday) – about two and a half hours – dealing with many topics. “Democracy” was mentioned many times, though I think Hu still doesn’t understand what it really means – if he does, he doesn’t like it as the CCP’s insistence on retaining control through thick and thin is hardly democratic.

In any case, one matter picked up on was a call for a “peace agreement” with Taiwan.

“On the basis of the one-China principle, let us discuss a formal end to the state of hostility between the two sides, reach a peace agreement, construct a framework for peaceful development of cross-strait relations and thus usher in a new phase of peaceful development.”

On the basis of the one-China principle. I.e. Taiwan should agree to unify without receiving any promises first. Stop me if I’m wrong, but why should the island give up its sovereignty for talks to merely happen? You may say Taiwan could back out of the 1CP if talks failed, but it would damage its credibility if Taiwanese independence was seen to be a flight of fancy rather than something it really believed in.

Taiwan has rightly rejected this “offer”.

Chinese President Hu Jintao on Monday offered talks on a formal peace accord with Taiwan, but Taiwan rejected the call, saying it is an independent country whose future must be decided by the Taiwan people. “We cannot discuss peaceful reunification with a regime that suppresses Tibet, shoots its own people and backs Myanmar’s military government,” Government Information Office Minister Shieh Jhy-wey told reporters.

“Taiwan’s founding principles are human rights and democracy. If Hu Jintao really places hope on the Taiwan people, as he said, he should listen to the Taiwan people’s voice. Although the Chinese Communist Party rules China, it does not represent the Chinese people,” Shieh said.

The thing is that what Hu said today is nothing new. China has proposed talks for years if the 1CP was followed by Taiwan’s government. Each time the response from Taipei has been “we would love talks – let’s drop the conditions”. And each time Beijing has insisted it can set whatever red lines it likes, whereas Taiwan can set none.

This is not unlike Hu’s entire approach to government. He sets the agenda. He says what goes and when. Everyone else has to accept any scraps thrown to them from the table. If they ask for a chair to sit at the table, a better cut of meat, a plate or whatever, no scraps will be given and they may get a beating into the bargain for daring to talk back. This rather mean approach to government cannot be veiled with an absence of overt threats towards a place like Taiwan, though I’m sure some naive/self-serving commentators will call it significant he didn’t threaten to invade the island for wanting to be independent from an oppressive autocracy like China.

Hu does he think he is fooling?

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 76 Comments

Unfortunately, he seems to have fooled the US, if this report is accurate:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpE3WJD2prsLSACQzjYjrktsBHiw

Unbelievable!

October 16, 2007 @ 7:17 am | Comment

Heres something about Burma

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=253734287578732261&q=john +pilger+burma&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

and something about Rupert Murdoch and total media corruption….

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5005752483917353600&q=john
+pilger&total=195&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9

October 16, 2007 @ 8:32 am | Comment

Of course no one expects the Taiwan president to suddenly accept this deal, are you a moron? You think the advisory team to Hu Jintao drafted this passage hoping that Chen Shuibian would call Hu that night and accept?

This is called political gesturing, political language, political tai-chi, political chess, political symbolism. Only very naive people would take these passages at face value. You have the political maturity of a 5-year-old.

October 16, 2007 @ 9:42 am | Comment

@Phillip,

That is the US’s Goldman Sucks foreign policy at work. Wall St. cares about millions of dollars regardless of how many millions of lives it costs.

Taiwan is clearly superior to China in every way.

October 16, 2007 @ 11:41 am | Comment

It is a little rich for Taiwan to say democracy and human rights are “founding” principles for the island, considering that Taiwan was a repressive police state itself until (relatively) recently.

October 16, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Comment

“This is called political gesturing, political language, political tai-chi, political chess, political symbolism. Only very naive people would take these passages at face value.”

Of course. Only naive people would take anything the Chinese Communists Party says at face value.
In other words, they’re pathological liars who can never be trusted. Which was kind of the point of Raj’s post.

October 16, 2007 @ 3:57 pm | Comment

Matt

You’re thinking of the Republic of China. For many Taiwanese their home became “Taiwan” when it became a democracy, even if its name is still officially the RoC.

Philip

It is the general opinion on this blog that there is a general lack of wisdom in the White House – you’re not going to try to claim that has suddenly changed, are you? :)

Number 13

Hu’s been making this “gesture” for years, despite the fact he gets the same response. He knows (if he has a fully-functioning set of brain cells) that the offer will be rejected because of the pre-conditions.

If he wants to make a gesture for peace he could start by removing some of the missiles pointed at the island, rather than keep adding to them. When is he going to stop? 1,000? 2,000? 5,000? Talking of peace whilst continuing the military build-up is not being sincere.

October 16, 2007 @ 4:00 pm | Comment

China’s state-run news agency, Xinhua, drew attention to his mention of the word “democracy” more than 60 times. But had it performed a similar calculation for the equivalent speech delivered by Mr Jiang five years ago the count would have been much the same.

link

October 16, 2007 @ 7:35 pm | Comment

I cannot believe Raj is still naive at these issues after many years of discussion. Maybe it is good to be pure and simple.

October 16, 2007 @ 11:22 pm | Comment

So what? U are expecting Hu to say publicly to 1,3 billion unsatisfied chinese that he is willing to give up one-china policy like: He, we are gonna let TW go, i will piss u off, but i am sure i can still hold on to my job and will not get lynched by the public. Yo, look at me, i am the yellow superman.
He is not saying more s*t stuff than the “there are chemical wappons in u-know-where” from u-know-who. Politicians talk s*t, a common fact around the world.

October 16, 2007 @ 11:33 pm | Comment

Sure, people advocating independence won’t like what Hu has said. But if the KMT party comes to power next year, what Hu said may just make senses.

Raj, as for the weapons pointing at Taiwan. It is called peace through strength. It is naive to think that Taiwan is not pointing its weapons to China. As long as Taiwan doesn’t declare independence, those Chinese missiles are basically sitting there useless.

October 17, 2007 @ 12:48 am | Comment

Raj

There is a legal precedent for covert and overt force, propaganda, and other direct action to restore territorial control; the U.S. Civil War, Chechnya, the UK in N. Ireland.

In both cases, a region is attempting to break away from the center; and in both cases the center does not wish it so (although it could be argued that Britain really doesn’t care about Ireland and Scotland, but I would be very surprised if the UK was not actively trying to covertly sabotage the independence movements there.)

Also, what Hu is proposing is significant, even if it’s a bit hypocritical. The Taiwan issue for China is a lot like the illegal immigration issue for the United States; in a pure de jure sense, they could be resolved easily, but in reality, the hardline position emanating from the political center would simply not work.

What China needs to do is hide all its missiles, and hide all its military forces on the other side of the island; preserve its capacity to act directly while beginning an overt drawdown of the most obsolescent forces. The pan-Greens can hem and haw all they want about the remaining weapons, but the all China has to say is something to the effect of “there’s an island with 17% of it’s male population in its military reserves sitting 200 miles off our coasts… what do you want us to do, sit on our ass and let it refuse any peace talks with us?”

The final question is, of course, would Chinese rule for Taiwan be so bad?

Would China interfere in Taiwan’s internal affairs? Probably not, as it would piss the island off. All China wants is probably military suzerainty and the geopolitical location of the island as well as trade. If China acquires those two things, would that make it more threatening to the U.S.? Yes. But is that a bad thing? No…

I’m quite sure that China really wouldn’t roll back Taiwan’s democracy; maybe all it would do is slow its democratic growth. Is that too high a price to pay for increased trade and a reversal of the “war premium” on the entire market capitalization/insurance costs of the island?

I ask these questions because me (and many of my colleagues, including many from Taiwan) really don’t get why a change of control that really won’t affect the island’s citizenry is really that bad, especially given that China has no incentive to suppress the island population and when the PRC has so much to offer in terms of trade and peace.

Finally, to remove the missiles the PRC has placed next to the ROC: maybe the island could agree to talks, with the condition that if certain milestones are met, there would be conditional drawdowns of military forces on both sides. That’s how you build trust in international relations, and it puzzles me as to why the islanders aren’t taking the peace-building initiative from the mainlanders with such a proposal.

October 17, 2007 @ 1:18 am | Comment

“The thing is that what Hu said today is nothing new”

What you’re saying is nothing new…there’s nothing new under the sun

October 17, 2007 @ 1:24 am | Comment

Wesley, yes I noticed that. The CCP is very good at talking – very bad at putting political reform into action.

October 17, 2007 @ 2:30 am | Comment

Raj,

“Even if the KMT does that doesn’t mean anything substantial will happen. Ma drew his own red-lines about removing the missiles before certain talks could happen. And if the KMT doesn’t win the presidential election it means another 4 years of Taiwanese drifting away from China in terms of identity and political aims.”

Whoever wins next year, KMT or DPP, I think it is hard to imagine the relationship can be worse than it is now; who wants to be in the sorry state of Chen Shui-bian? Of course, nothing substantial will likely to happen until China changes too; but if both sides can start talking, that’s good enough for the three parties involved.

“Taiwan doesn’t have close to 1,000 ballistic missiles pointing at China. It may have a small number of short-ranged missiles, but nothing that could cause real trouble. The point is that China could cause severe damage to Taiwan (at least the civilian areas), whilst Taiwan could do little in return. It’s like me pointing a shotgun and you, while you only have a slingshot.”

So, you did admit that Taiwan is pointing its weapons at China too, although with fewer number of missiles. Sure, that’s why it is nice to be a big guy, like the US and China.

“Except there is no independent international committee to decide if Taiwan has declared anything. China gets to decide, so if China wants to go to war on Friday it will say Taiwan has declared independence by doing or saying whatever on Thursday evening.”

You sound right. But China is not doing that; it has indicated clearly what steps from Taiwan it considers a move to independence.

October 17, 2007 @ 2:59 am | Comment

“I think it is hard to imagine the relationship can be worse than it is now”

A new president may address matters differently, but it won’t automatically mean talks will occur. If anything a new president may show the real differences between China and Taiwan. It’s easy to demonise Chen just as it was easy to demonise Junichiro Koizumi. You can’t do that with every leader. It might be easier to find a compromise position to begin talks, but equally it might show that China rather than the Taiwanese government is part of the problem rather than the solution.

“So, you did admit that Taiwan is pointing its weapons at China too, although with fewer number of missiles.”

I said that it may have a small number of missiles. But you can’t compare Taiwan’s offensive capabilities to China’s. Yes large countries often have large militaries, but that doesn’t require them to station all their missiles within striking distance of just one neighbour. If China wants to have 1000 short-ranged missiles, fair enough. But stationing them all on the coast within striking distance of Taiwan is ridiculously provocative.

“But China is not doing that; it has indicated clearly what steps from Taiwan it considers a move to independence.”

No it hasn’t. It just talks about crap like “any secessionist steps”. Yes it has clarified some things that could be relevant, but it has not LIMITED the “qualifying actions” to the specified scenarios. China is free to decide when it can go to war and what over.

Let’s take a look at what China’s “law” says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4347555.stm

In the event that the “Taiwan independence” secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan’s secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan’s secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful re-unification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Where are any of the terms such as “cause the fact of Taiwan’s secession from China” defined? They aren’t. That’s the entire point. President Chen (and other leading politicians) have said that Taiwan is an independent sovereign state on multiple occasions. There is nothing to stop China one day saying “ok, that means war” after he or his successor does the same thing.

October 17, 2007 @ 5:28 am | Comment

I think it’s noteworthy that the Republic of China acknowledged in this article that “the Chinese Communist Party rules China.”
I notice of the Chinese reaction to the Dalai Lama’s award in the US; when THEY’RE being occupied and overrun it’s vital the world gets involved, but when they’re doing it to one of the most vulnerable, isolated countries on earth we should all ignore it.
And why do all articles say that out of deferednce to Chinese sensitivities (almost said sensibilities) no pics would be taken of Bush and the Dalai Lama when I’ve seen at least two of them?

October 17, 2007 @ 7:23 am | Comment

Where are any of the terms such as “cause the fact of Taiwan’s secession from China” defined? They aren’t. That’s the entire point. President Chen (and other leading politicians) have said that Taiwan is an independent sovereign state on multiple occasions. There is nothing to stop China one day saying “ok, that means war” after he or his successor does the same thing.

Again, how idiotic can you be? Why would you state clearly your terms in such a document? To hand over your tail to the other side? Ever heard of the term strategic ambiguity?

The lack of specifics is there precisely such that China would have the strategic upper hand should a future scenario calls for the invocation of this anti-secession document. To moan and cry about why China didn’t provide specifics is truly childish and shows a complete lack in strategic thoughts.

“On the basis of the one-China principle, let us discuss a formal end to the state of hostility between the two sides, reach a peace agreement, construct a framework for peaceful development of cross-strait relations and thus usher in a new phase of peaceful development.”

Let me spell this out for you. To put what Hu said in layman’s terms: “I’ll give you once more chance to talk, otherwise, you’ll hear from our missiles.”

Of course, like I said, CCP knows that the DPP will not accept any talk with the one China Principle as a pre-condition. So the CCP will make an offer, DPP will reject, then CCP can say, “All right, I tried, now you are gonna get it.” This is a commonly used strategy.

October 17, 2007 @ 10:36 am | Comment

Sigh, don’t we all get tired of Hu’s “场面話” at the ren-da?

October 17, 2007 @ 10:54 am | Comment

I saw a funny picture on the Web in which Chairman Hua (the one right after Chairman Mao) took a nap when Hu spoke, sign.

October 17, 2007 @ 11:42 am | Comment

“China has no incentive to suppress the island population and when the PRC has so much to offer in terms of trade and peace.”

Yeah. The angels of peace have absolutely no intention of seeking retribution for years of perceived disobedience, or imposing their own brand of ‘democracy’ on the island.

Wake up, t _co. Unless the people of Taiwan were to kowtow, apologise, and give a ton of face to the CCP, it would be a bloodbath.

October 17, 2007 @ 12:22 pm | Comment

Wow, Danwei said you guys were dead, but you still seem pretty alive to me.

Look, with regard to Taiwan, the worst-case scenario is that Taiwan goes independent, China invades, and China starts spending lives and money to occupy urban terrain held by US-funded guerillas. Or it can just let go and watch a fearful military build-up on the other side of the straits, with de-Sinification and a convenient base for nanheyangrouchuan et al. to operate out of.

But the missiles solve everything. As long as the PLA has a near-favorable balance on their side of the strait, the Taiwanese electorate will be too scared of winning and losing the war; it’ll be likely that the ROCA backed by the United States can emerge triumphant, but Taiwan’s infrastructure and people will take losses. If you were living in a newly-developed country with a declining birthrate, how willing would you be to have your conscripted son get shot up by the PLA? Alternatively, you can sustain the status quo and enjoy living in a mostly democratic society (see the failed “assassination” of CSB”) with a rising standard of living.

With regard to Hu’s emphasis on democracy, well, you know how bad the corruption problem is in China. While there may be other ways to solve this (and don’t ask me, they’ve tried; five thousand years of global authoritarian/totalitarian rule have always resulted in the enfeeblement of the government and its eventual collapse), Hu seems to think that democratic oversight is necessary at least in the short term to maintain organizational vitality.

October 17, 2007 @ 1:54 pm | Comment

@ “13th brother etc:

“Ever heard of the term strategic ambiguity?”

Yes but what’s really going on here is called “lying.” Hitler was good at it, and it’s appropriate only for war, not diplomacy.

October 17, 2007 @ 3:39 pm | Comment

This reminds me of that post where Richard TPD invokes Godwin’s Law in the first post.

So how do you reconcile being a neo-con with supporting the murder of Anna Poli-God-Russian-Names-Are-Even-Harder-To-Remember-Than-Chinese-Names?

October 17, 2007 @ 5:15 pm | Comment

13th moron

Again, how idiotic can you be? Why would you state clearly your terms in such a document? To hand over your tail to the other side? Ever heard of the term strategic ambiguity?

Is there something wrong with your brain, your English or both? I’ve made it quite clear that China has deliberately ensured it can find a justification for war whenever it wants. It was z that said China had clearly set the grounds. I was disagreeing with him.

——

Inst

Alternatively, you can sustain the status quo and enjoy living in a mostly democratic society (see the failed “assassination” of CSB”) with a rising standard of living.

The problem is that people such as 13th will imply the status-quo is not a long-term solution that China will accept. Maybe you think it can last, but there’s no guarantee China won’t one day find war convenient. Give it a decade and Beijing might have a stick crammed so far up its arse it thinks a Taiwan war would be a cakewalk and a useful tool to deflect rising discontent, a-la Argentina’s Galtieri in 1982.

October 17, 2007 @ 7:08 pm | Comment

Looks like the US government has made a more considered, thoughtful response.

http://tinyurl.com/3dqoql

The US Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Thomas Christensen has urged China’s President Hu Jintao to find a way for dialogue with Taiwan that is acceptable to both sides. Christensen made his remarks in an interview with the Singapore-based United Morning News.

Christensen said the United States welcomed Hu’s recent call for talks with Taiwan aimed at ending hostility across the Taiwan Strait. But he said the United States was aware that some people in Taiwan would not accept President Hu’s precondition for talks. At China’s 17th national Party Congress Hu called for talks based on the “One China” policy, that is, acknowledging Taiwan as part of China. Taiwan’s President Chen Shui-bian said in response that any agreement based on such a precondition would not be a peace accord but a surrender treaty.

Christensen said the United States hopes that both sides can find a way to bridge their differences to work out a peaceful solution to the cross-strait issue. He called on China to be willing to engage with Taiwan’s democratically-elected leaders.

Note that Christensen called for China to be willing to talk with Taiwanese leaders – rather suggests despite Hu’s recent comments the US realises it’s China putting down the blocks, not Taiwan.

October 17, 2007 @ 8:32 pm | Comment

I just discovered what is, for me, a useful idea. There are three levels of cross-strait military balances. One, China can do absolutely nothing to Taiwan, no matter what. Two, China can deter Taiwan from declaring TI. Three, China can successfully invade and occupy Taiwan.

As long as the balance is of the second type, the status quo can be extended indefinitely, until new trends emerge (in my thinking, enough soft power and hard power to coerce the Taiwanese electorate to agree to reunification under various terms, but I suppose there also should be trends towards TI). If the balance is of the third type, then what should the RoC and the United States do? In one case, the CCP would be unwilling to risk international sanctions in order to perform a “hostile takeover” when soft attack could work, but in another, the CCP is, as Ivan (is that the difference between Ivan and nanhe? Ivan seems better educated and overall seems smarter, but he has absolutely no respect for a non-liberal government. If you are morally bankrupt, then, somehow, you’re also utterly unimaginative and incompetent) would imagine, plain bonkers, then what would you recommend?

Besides, the United States is the world’s preeminent military power. Decimating the PLAN should be a cakewalk, especially considering fifth-generation fighters like the F-22. This is why General Xiong talks about trading Taiwan for Los Angeles; the only way the PLAN can win is to go nuclear. And that would assume the USA wouldn’t be willing to escalate the nuclear exchange.

October 17, 2007 @ 8:58 pm | Comment

“It was z that said China had clearly set the grounds. I was disagreeing with him.”

Raj,

Did I leave you with the impression that I meant a list of A, B, C and D, with exact meaning for each item?

I didn’t follow China policy on Taiwan very closely; but as far as I can remember, here are what it considers red lines:

(1) Declare independence, with legal status change. Yes, you are right, President Chen said it many times that Taiwan was an independent country. But it bears no legal meaning.

(2) If Taiwan is in a kind of crisis and foreign country gets involved directly.

(3) Taiwan delays talking to the mainland indefinitely.

October 18, 2007 @ 1:40 am | Comment

heres an interesting article…

Keir, you will like this one

http://tinyurl.com/2l9b6x

WHoever said that theres no danger in uniting taiwan and china is so ignorant. If theres one thing (among many) that the communists spread like the pleague, its corruption. They cannot function on legal basese and they throw their stolen clout around here and there maing amockery of other nations value systems and laws.

Theres a huge number of Falun Gong practitioners in Taiwan and they are treated fairly with that governments values right now. The ccp would do what they did in Tibet and just subvert the whole culture of human rights and replace it with communist bull.

October 18, 2007 @ 1:40 am | Comment

Z

You used the word “clearly” – there is nothing clear in where the “red lines” are drawn. China decides where they are and won’t do so until it wants to go to war. But it will be China’s choice – it won’t be forced to.

October 18, 2007 @ 3:59 am | Comment

Richard, who are you kidding? Without the so-called “One-China” principle, what is there for them to talk about? How to assist Taiwan to become formally independent?

CSB and DDP would not talk to China whatsoever. And Ma Ying-jeou, the shameless coward who would do anything to get more votes (sounds like any politician in the US) does not want to talk to mainland China as a gesture to show the voters that he is not pro-China as the DDP paints him to be.

Raj, the missiles? How many missiles do you think the US has targeting China? Yet the two are still talking, right?

October 18, 2007 @ 6:25 am | Comment

Snow, the CCP is very corrupt, yes. But most of the world’s most corrupt countries are not communist or socialist. You do know that, don’t you?

So I take everything is about the FLG, huh? Gosh, I would take the CCP’s crap over Master Li’s crap anyday.

October 18, 2007 @ 6:29 am | Comment

pffefer

“Without the so-called “One-China” principle, what is there for them to talk about?”

How to impliment direct links, increase investment and trade, improve security and reduce military tensions, deal with the “diplomatic war” going on in trying to poach each other’s allies, setting up official representative offices to co-ordinate discussions, how to have regular high-level meetings. The list goes on.

China seems to expect relations to run before it can walk. It makes sense to deal with immediate problems between China and Taiwan before addressing the difficult questions. After all, do you really think Taiwan will even consider unification before it can trust China? There’s no trust now, nor will there be without those afore-mentioned issues being addressed.

CSB and DDP would not talk to China whatsoever

Utter rubbish. Both want to talk – it’s China that is refusing by drawing unhelpful red lines.

How many missiles do you think the US has targeting China? Yet the two are still talking, right?

I’m surprised I have to tell you this. Both China and the US have NUCLEAR missiles that could cause massive damage to each other if used. On the other hand Taiwan has a handful of conventional missiles that could be useful against Chinese military facilities but otherwise wouldn’t hurt China that much.

Both China and the US are safe in the knowledge that if the other used their weapons, they could retaliate and cripple the other. Taiwan on the other hand has no such capability to hurt China, which is why your comparison is poor.

October 18, 2007 @ 8:50 pm | Comment

Dear TPD,

I can’t find Taiwan on a map, but all Yellow people are my brothers!

Sincerely yours,

Homer Simpson

October 18, 2007 @ 10:16 pm | Comment

pfeffer, define corruption. Seemes either you dont know what is corruption, or you don’t know China (under the CCP), like when we were talking about evil.

China, due to the terrorism and brainwashing instilled by the ccp is the most corrupt place I would say.

Falun Gong is a very good reference point because it is so similar to the cultural revolution and it shows the degree to which the party is scared into doing terrible things for no good reason.

It shows how scared the security people are, the police, the polititians, it shows how willing the teachers, the media, the doctors, everyone is of the party’s psycho policies of persecution. People in China, out of fear of the party, go against their consciences all the time and that is what the CCP wants.

Look at how the CCP treats it when other countries want to speak up for Falun Gong or Tibet, the CCP directly threatens “relations” it’s simply spreading their brand of corruption and threatening people into obeying their psycho plans.

It’s not all about Falun Gong, it’s all about the truth and what the CCP wants the world to think, and what they are willing to do to make sure that people repeat their crap and believe it, and for those who dont believe it and wont repeat it to suffer and die.

October 18, 2007 @ 10:42 pm | Comment

China’s nuclear missile capability is actually quite rudimentary. Estimates range from the declared number, somewhere around 30, to under 200. Either way, most of them can’t hit the continental United States; the original intention was to get the Soviet Union to back off. It really is LA for Taiwan and all of the cities east of Xian (because it’s just LA, right?).

October 19, 2007 @ 12:22 am | Comment

Raj,

China has many missiles than Taiwan does, and China squeezes Taiwan internationally at every chance. I agree with you it is not fair. If I was a person living in Taiwan, I would not like that either. But that’s the reality of power politics.

October 19, 2007 @ 1:50 am | Comment

“How to impliment direct links, increase investment and trade”

My understanding is that CSB and the DPP don’t want the “three links” and anything that might help bring mainland China and Taiwan close (even economically). Prove me wrong.

“Utter rubbish. Both want to talk – it’s China that is refusing by drawing unhelpful red lines.”

Please show me how eager they allegedly want to talk to mainland China.

“I’m surprised I have to tell you this. Both China and the US have NUCLEAR missiles that could cause massive damage to each other if used. On the other hand Taiwan has a handful of conventional missiles that could be useful against Chinese military facilities but otherwise wouldn’t hurt China that much. Both China and the US are safe in the knowledge that if the other used their weapons, they could retaliate and cripple the other. Taiwan on the other hand has no such capability to hurt China, which is why your comparison is poor.”

Oh please. How many nuclear warheads does China have? I was told around 80. How many does the US have? Also in terms of capabilities, the US could hit China several times before China responds or retaliates. The US enjoys lopsided advantage over China. Yet you don’t see the Chinese asking the Americans to redirect their missiles. Taiwanese cry babies.

October 19, 2007 @ 6:07 am | Comment

“define corruption. Seemes either you dont know what is corruption, or you don’t know China (under the CCP), like when we were talking about evil. China, due to the terrorism and brainwashing instilled by the ccp is the most corrupt place I would say.”

Actually you should define corruption for us. China is the most corrupt place? Clearly you haven’t been to many places, or you are just plain ignorant and anti-China.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html
http://tinyurl.com/34olq3

If you can’t read plain English or understand plain logic, I can’t help you.

“Falun Gong is a very good reference point because it is so similar to the cultural revolution and it shows the degree to which the party is scared into doing terrible things for no good reason. It shows how scared the security people are, the police, the polititians, it shows how willing the teachers, the media, the doctors, everyone is of the party’s psycho policies of persecution. People in China, out of fear of the party, go against their consciences all the time and that is what the CCP wants.”

Snow, have you read the garbage known as “Zhuan Fa Lun”? It’s full of crap. If they do what they preach, which is the so-called “Truthfulness, Benevolence and Forbearance”, why did they besiege the editor’s office of that magazine in Tianjin which published an article critical of FLG? Let me be clear again, I think what the CCP did to FLG practitioners was plain wrong and inexcusable. But do I think FLG is load of crap? Yes.

“Look at how the CCP treats it when other countries want to speak up for Falun Gong or Tibet, the CCP directly threatens “relations” it’s simply spreading their brand of corruption and threatening people into obeying their psycho plans.”

They can protest all they want, but how does the CCP spread “corruption” to other countries?

If China is this bad (evil terrorist), leave.

October 19, 2007 @ 6:21 am | Comment

You’re thinking of the Republic of China. For many Taiwanese their home became “Taiwan” when it became a democracy, even if its name is still officially the RoC.

Still, they made Taiwan worth something.

Hu’s been making this “gesture” for years, despite the fact he gets the same response. He knows (if he has a fully-functioning set of brain cells) that the offer will be rejected because of the pre-conditions.

Just flatulent lipservice from a politician, happens all the time.

If he wants to make a gesture for peace he could start by removing some of the missiles pointed at the island, rather than keep adding to them. When is he going to stop? 1,000? 2,000? 5,000? Talking of peace whilst continuing the military build-up is not being sincere.

Moving the missiles would just be another “false promise” that you’d complain about; they can move them back fast enough.

China, due to the terrorism and brainwashing instilled by the ccp is the most corrupt place I would say.

Stop spewing retarded BS. CCP is bad, Africa, Russia, are worse. Not saying much, but it’s still true.

Falun Gong is a very good reference point

No it’s not. Falun Gong is a recent thing, it didn’t involve defacing and destroying things that had been in place for thousands of years. And the death toll is insignificant in the scope of things. Stop using retarded comparisons. This is almost as dumb as when idiots talk about how modern China is the same as Nazi Germany.

October 19, 2007 @ 6:31 am | Comment

Prove me wrong.

Read any of the statements by Frank Hsieh saying that direct links are possible if China negotiates without insisting on the one-china principle.

Please show me how eager they allegedly want to talk to mainland China.

So you are saying that you cannot find one statement that says either party wants talks if China drops its preconditions?

How many nuclear warheads does China have? I was told around 80.

Then you heard wrong – it’s more like 120.

How many does the US have?

You’re missing the point. The fact the US could destroy multiple nations around the world doesn’t help the fact that China could really cripple America.

US could hit China several times before China responds or retaliates. The US enjoys lopsided advantage over China. Yet you don’t see the Chinese asking the Americans to redirect their missiles.

That’s because China invests in mobile launchers that the US couldn’t easily hit. If America launched a first-strike China could still retaliate.

Taiwanese cry babies.

You spiteful git. China could really hurt Taiwanese civilian population centres, whereas Taiwan could do very little to Chinese cities EVEN IF IT ATTACKED FIRST. Jesus Christ, no wonder Taiwanese don’t want unification if their neighbours are all like you.

October 19, 2007 @ 6:52 am | Comment

“Read any of the statements by Frank Hsieh saying that direct links are possible if China negotiates without insisting on the one-china principle.”

“So you are saying that you cannot find one statement that says either party wants talks if China drops its preconditions?”

Not aware of any statement from Hsieh. Do you know if there is any?

“Then you heard wrong – it’s more like 120.
You’re missing the point. The fact the US could destroy multiple nations around the world doesn’t help the fact that China could really cripple America.

That’s because China invests in mobile launchers that the US couldn’t easily hit. If America launched a first-strike China could still retaliate.”

OK, you are saying the mainlanders shouldn’t complain because according to you, they can still hit and “cripple” the US while the US is capable of destroying mainland China? Why the hypocrisy then? Taiwan is capable of hitting the mainland and cripple it (at least HK, Shanghai etc.), is it not? So why should the Taiwanese be complaining?

Says who if mainland China launches a first strike Taiwan could not retaliate? And if they can’t, whose fault is it? The mainland Chinese have not asked the Americans to stop pointing missiles at them. Instead they developed their own counter measures. The Taiwanese could do the same. Military build-up, it is called. Who is stopping them?

“You spiteful git. China could really hurt Taiwanese civilian population centres, whereas Taiwan could do very little to Chinese cities EVEN IF IT ATTACKED FIRST. Jesus Christ, no wonder Taiwanese don’t want unification if their neighbours are all like you.”

The same can be said of the US vis-à-vis China. Again why should the Taiwanese complain about the mainland missiles when the mainland Chinese don’t complain about American missiles?

You and I all know that the missiles have been used by CSB and the DPP as an excuse to stir up fear among the Taiwanese people. They will be upset if the mainland actually redirects them because they will lose the dead horse they kept beating. The last thing they want is reconciliation.

I for one don’t see any hope of peaceful reunification. There will be a bloody and costly war.

October 19, 2007 @ 7:04 am | Comment

Corruption > Index

Hello, the CCP employs the biggest propaganda machine int he world, so I’m not surprised that the > is such and such.

Just look at the title, and you are telling me I don’t understand my language, hm.

Anyway, when you said the Falun Gong people besieged the newspaper office, what did you mean and how do you figure going to a newspaper office to complain about being slandered is unvirtuous? Isn’t that truthfulness? yeah. Did they do anything wrong that day? Then what’s is your problem.

And I have read Zhuan Falun, if you are not spiritual, yeah it would seem waaaay farfetched, but some people believe in that kind of stuff and I dont think theres anything wrong with that as long as they believe in being good people in society and dont use spirituality to do weird things that are against the law. That, I wouldn’t agree with, but the Falun Gong people don’t hurt anyone and they endure and keep speaking out with peacefulness and patience, could you be so virtuous?

October 19, 2007 @ 2:17 pm | Comment

oh weird it happened again, of where it says the little arrow shape, thats where I had typed the word ‘perception’

October 19, 2007 @ 2:28 pm | Comment

Do you know if there is any?

Yes – go have a look in the Taiwanese media. I’m not going to do your research for you.

Why the hypocrisy then? Taiwan is capable of hitting the mainland and cripple it (at least HK, Shanghai etc.), is it not? So why should the Taiwanese be complaining?

Taiwan is not capable of hitting and crippling China’s major cities – its current missiles have neither the range nor are there enough of them. This is a very simple principle,

The mainland Chinese have not asked the Americans to stop pointing missiles at them. Instead they developed their own counter measures. The Taiwanese could do the same.

Wow, you really don’t know anything about this – do you?

The Chinese don’t have any counter-measures, they just have their own weapons. Taiwan is threatened by China if it tries to obtain similar missiles to what the PRC has – it could be yet another convenient excuse for war on China’s part. At least the US accepts China can have its own weapons – China complains when Taiwan wants to buy anything from anyone.

You and I all know that the missiles have been used by CSB and the DPP as an excuse to stir up fear among the Taiwanese people.

ROFL, you really are a very sad Chinese apologist aren’t you? The missiles cause fear by themselves. Or would you be quite happy if I was your neighbour and pointed my shotgun at you every time you stepped out into the garden (you don’t have one by the way)?

By the way, pointing the missiles elsewhere wouldn’t reassure anyone given it would take minutes to target them back. Moving them away to some central provinces would be a more significant step and all parties would welcome that.

I for one don’t see any hope of peaceful reunification. There will be a bloody and costly war.

If that is the case it will be because of Chinese arrogance and aggression.

October 19, 2007 @ 3:52 pm | Comment

Raj,

Nothing new in Hu’s speech? You really don’t have a clue of what’s going on, do you?

CCP has always stated that their goal is “Unification,” which is a conclusive term. A conclusive term means there is no room for compromise. By making a “peace agreement” proposal (for the first time) to end the unfinished civil war, the CCP recognizes that we are still in the process. It’s a huge concession from the CCP and will be welcome by the international community. It’s also a message to the Taiwanese people, you have a possibility of a peace agreement by voting No for the referendum, and you have a near certainty of war by voting Yes, it’s your choice.

Why the precondition of “One China”? Well, because “peaceful solution” and “One China” is the biggest common ground amongst CCP, KMT, US and the international community. We all want peace and we all recognize “One China,” right? So now maintaining peace becomes defending “One China”! By rejecting the “peace proposal,” Chen has further isolated himself as the only troublemaker in this game. You tell me who is fooled? I wonder how much sympathy he’ll get when something bad happens…

If you think Hu is getting soft by making a concession, think again! Is he backing up away from war or is he getting closer? The Anti-Secession Law says that you have to exhaust all peaceful means before using force. Hu is telling you that this proposal may be the last peaceful attempt! He is making a threat without actually making a threat.

Have you learnt anything yet, Raj?

October 20, 2007 @ 6:53 am | Comment

You really don’t have a clue of what’s going on, do you?

Actually I do – at least in this current reality. Maybe in whatever fairy-land you live in you think you have a good understanding of these matters, but not where most of us dwell.

It’s a huge concession from the CCP and will be welcome by the international community.

How is it a concession? If anything Hu is demanding a concession from Taiwan by giving up its claim to independence. And for what? He wasn’t offering a peace treaty, he was offering talks that might result in something.

It’s also a message to the Taiwanese people, you have a possibility of a peace agreement by voting No for the referendum, and you have a near certainty of war by voting Yes, it’s your choice.

If Taiwan votes “yes”, I believe there will be no war. Why? Because China knows that it would be a flimsy excuse to kick off a conflict, such that the US would not stand back and watch. I don’t think China is even that concerned. As Michael Turton often comments, China is very good at pretending to be “concerned” and “offended”. Just as a drama queen will throw a hissy-fit because you got her the wrong sort of chocolates – both make mountains out of molehills to get what they want.

Well, because “peaceful solution” and “One China” is the biggest common ground amongst CCP, KMT, US and the international community.

Actually no. Even the KMT doesn’t believe in the PRC’s “one China”. For the CCP it means the PRC – for the KMT it means something else. The US and international community generally don’t care as to how the problem is resolved. They’ll say whatever to keep China happy – in the end they just want to see peace. That doesn’t give China carte blanche.

But more importantly, Taiwan itself generally doesn’t want it. It can live with the ROC, but if you think it will sign up to an autocratic China then you’re living in fairy-land. To win them over China needs a new approach.

So now maintaining peace becomes defending “One China”

ROFL, you sound like a Communist propaganda mouthpiece. Seriously what utter tripe!

“To maintain peace we must go to war!”

Peace is peace – you can’t have it by going to war.

By rejecting the “peace proposal,” Chen has further isolated himself as the only troublemaker in this game.

Yeah, Thomas Christensen was really scathing of the fact Chen didn’t agree to the proposal. So much so that he said Hu should find a way to host talks that all parties could agree on.

Wait a sec…….

You tell me who is fooled?

People like yourself, but that’s what happens when you don’t read the news properly.

If you think Hu is getting soft by making a concession, think again!

Given I can see Hu didn’t make a concession at all I wouldn’t think that for a moment.

Hu is telling you that this proposal may be the last peaceful attempt!

Last peaceful attempt? Erm, what peaceful attempts has he made in the past?

Hu: “You will agree to unify with China!”
Taiwan: “Well we can’t do that now. Let’s recognise each other as legitimate states first and work out our differences.”
Hu: “No, you will agree to unify with China! Then we will talk about how you will do it!!”
Taiwan: “Look, ok, why don’t we agree to disagree over our status and work together to make relations better. Then we can find a political situation because we will trust each other more.”
Hu: “No! I have been so peaceful in not invading you in the last 2 minutes – UNIFY OR I WILL ATTACK!!!!”

I mean geez, you’re making it sound like Hu has Dr Strangelove syndrome. Does the guy’s right arm start pulling towards the “make war happen now” red button every time he sees Chen on TV?

Hu: “Can’t…. hold on…… Must…. start….. war…. because…… I have….. a big chip on my……. shoulder…….!!”

Have you learnt anything yet, Raj?

Yes, I’ve learnt to use the moist thing inside my skull – you could try that yourself.

October 20, 2007 @ 7:23 am | Comment

Oh, what happened to China’
s policy of non-interference in other countries’ internal politics?
ht*p://w*w.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,4231217.story?coll=la-home-center

October 20, 2007 @ 8:23 am | Comment

You sound just like MacArthur right before China entered the Korean war.

Hint #1:
At APEC, in front of TV and on the record, Hu told Bush: “This year and next year are going to be a highly dangerous period for the situation in the Taiwan Straits.”
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2007-09/07/content_6087165.htm

What’s so “dangerous” about a referendum? A conflict may follow?

Hint #2:
In the Chinese political system, what Hu says IS policy. A skillful leader like him would never leave no room for future maneuver unless he absolutely means it.

October 20, 2007 @ 9:37 am | Comment

And please, I don’t want to get into a debate about whether China has the balls and means.

October 20, 2007 @ 9:42 am | Comment

Nang, for god’s sake, use your brain. China does not regard Formosa as an independent country; while it is independently governed, it’s supposed to have been transfered to the Republic of China after WW2, a government that has already lost control of the Chinese mainland.

Snow, you’re nuts. If you think that a few Taiwanese cruise missiles can deter Zhongnanhai, a government that has run over protesters with tanks, from invading, you’ve obviously had too much methane from deep-green bullshit. I don’t disagree that there are possible deterrance factors that the RoC can pull out, but the missiles are utterly idiotic. What happens when the PLA manages to pull out American corpses from the rubble? British corpses? I respect the TI movement for their intelligent play and control of the propaganda war, but this is utter stupidity.

Faction of quacking canards, indeed. I was foolish in paying Nanhe the compliment on Tim Johnson’s blog.

October 20, 2007 @ 3:56 pm | Comment

the Falun Gong people don’t hurt anyone and they endure and keep speaking out with peacefulness and patience, could you be so virtuous?

Bullshit. No religion is pure. And especially those that are perpetuated by ultra-rich conmen, getting fat and lazy off the blood of their followers.

Oh, what happened to China’
s policy of non-interference in other countries’ internal politics?
ht*p://w*w.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,4231217.story?coll=la-home-center

Oh, what happened to America fighting for freedom and not murdering people for natural resources? The “internal affairs” thing is Hu’s version of “freedom and democracy and anti-terrorism”. Only they haven’t used the excuse to butcher hundreds of thousands of people in a couple of years since reform an opening up at least.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html

As Michael Turton often comments, China is very good at pretending to be “concerned” and “offended

Yes.

October 20, 2007 @ 5:41 pm | Comment

” China has many missiles than Taiwan does, and China squeezes Taiwan internationally at every chance. I agree with you it is not fair. But that’s the reality of power politics.”

Yes, thats the reality, and China is not that popular in taiwan as you can imagine…

Speaking of Power politics, …this is precisely why some people are thinking of getting “power/attention” the quick and dirty way, aka the “lets – become- terrorists” approach …

October 21, 2007 @ 4:18 am | Comment

” I for one don’t see any hope of peaceful reunification. There will be a bloody and costly war. ”

OUCH. Thats harsh. What happens to all the “brotherly 同胞愛” stuff?
You see, I think the chinese ppl are quite confused about their feelings about taiwan too.

Anyways, it sounds like Taiwan really should have gone on and developed nuclear war heads all those years ago, and probably shouldn’t have dropped the development of bio-terrorism weapons under pressure from US, iether.

But if that was what happened, it probably wouldn’t have been the same taiwan I know about.

Taiwan made such a big mistake of not becoming a mafia country…sigh

We should have valued civilian lives/economy less and emphasized on military development…

who cares about costly war and blood shed accross the straight, eh?

October 21, 2007 @ 4:47 am | Comment

“Corruption > Index

Hello, the CCP employs the biggest propaganda machine int he world, so I’m not surprised that the > is such and such. ”

Snow, are you blind or something? The corruption index or whatever you call it, the CCP did not come up with it. Both URLs that I have provided to you are from western media, not Xinhua.

“Just look at the title, and you are telling me I don’t understand my language, hm.”

If your language is ignorance, you certainly do.

“Anyway, when you said the Falun Gong people besieged the newspaper office, what did you mean and how do you figure going to a newspaper office to complain about being slandered is unvirtuous? Isn’t that truthfulness? yeah. Did they do anything wrong that day? Then what’s is your problem.”

How about sending a letter to the editor’s office to protest that article? Just because there are limited means in China to voice one’s opinion, it doesn’t mean everytime you don’t agree with somebody you besiege their office or home. FLG doesn’t do what it preaches, a bunch of hypocrites.

October 21, 2007 @ 7:56 am | Comment

“Taiwan is not capable of hitting and crippling China’s major cities – its current missiles have neither the range nor are there enough of them. This is a very simple principle”

Just because a guy named Raj said so? Who the heck is Raj? What happened to Xiongfeng 3 that the Taiwanese officials boasted so much about?

“The Chinese don’t have any counter-measures, they just have their own weapons.

Are you kidding me? Having their own weapons is not a counter-measure? I was not just talking about having Patriot-type anti-missile missiles that could render American missiles into a bunch of scrap metal.

“Taiwan is threatened by China if it tries to obtain similar missiles to what the PRC has – it could be yet another convenient excuse for war on China’s part. At least the US accepts China can have its own weapons – China complains when Taiwan wants to buy anything from anyone.”

The US accepts China can have its own weapons? Gee, I guess sovereign countries like China have to obtain American permission before they arm themselves? Who the hell do you think the Americans are? God?

Mainland China is certainly not happy about Taiwan developing such capabilities, but if Taiwan insists, there is nothing mainland China can do about it. So I say, go ahead and develop your own long range missiles that could seriously cripple mainland China. Be my guest.

“ROFL, you really are a very sad Chinese apologist aren’t you? The missiles cause fear by themselves. Or would you be quite happy if I was your neighbour and pointed my shotgun at you every time you stepped out into the garden (you don’t have one by the way)?”

Again I have to drag the US into this discussion. The US does it all the time and gets away with it, why not China? Again, who is stopping Taiwan from developing counter-measures, capabilities to retaliate?

October 21, 2007 @ 8:05 am | Comment

“OUCH. Thats harsh. What happens to all the “brotherly “¯–Eˆ¤” stuff?

You see, I think the chinese ppl are quite confused about their feelings about taiwan too. ”

Chinese don’t fight Chinese, the Chinese tell me. But they are willing to fight those people (and these people don’t even consider themselves Chinese) if all other options have been exhausted. It is the last resort, but a viable albeit sad option.

“Anyways, it sounds like Taiwan really should have gone on and developed nuclear war heads all those years ago, and probably shouldn’t have dropped the development of bio-terrorism weapons under pressure from US, iether.

But if that was what happened, it probably wouldn’t have been the same taiwan I know about.

Taiwan made such a big mistake of not becoming a mafia country…sigh”

Actually, had Taiwan developed nuclear and bie and chemical warfare capabilities, it would have been taken out a long time ago, if mainland China follows the American school of thinking. It would have provided mainland China the perfect excuse to take out Taiwan.

“who cares about costly war and blood shed accross the straight, eh?”

Last resort. But if you talk to enough Taiwanese youth, you get the impression that they can hardly wait. “Come you Chinese hogs, Daiwan banzai!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

October 21, 2007 @ 8:13 am | Comment

“Only they haven’t used the excuse to butcher hundreds of thousands of people in a couple of years since reform an opening up at least.”

Like E. Turkestan and Tibet? Or supporting the Kim family and Myanmar’s generals? NK alone accounts for over 1 million dead from starvation and dehydration over the past 30 years.

“Actually, had Taiwan developed nuclear and bie and chemical warfare capabilities, it would have been taken out a long time ago, if mainland China follows the American school of thinking.”

Some of the American school of thinking comes from reading Sun Zi, but back when Taiwan was planning NBC development, China only had copies of Russian bombers to deliver nukes. ROCAF would have knocked them down inside of Chinese territorial waters.

Bad, ugly, rotten China.

October 21, 2007 @ 10:07 am | Comment

It certainly wasn’t China who recently invaded two sovereign countries, who is directly and indirectly responsible for tens and thousands of death, and growing.

If China is bad and ugly and rotten, I don’t even know what @#$ is.

October 21, 2007 @ 11:01 am | Comment

“It certainly wasn’t China who recently invaded two sovereign countries, who is directly and indirectly responsible for tens and thousands of death, and growing.”

How about the colonization of S. Pacific islands with male Chinese laborers?

October 21, 2007 @ 1:58 pm | Comment

Straight out of VOA, RFA of course. By the way, you know where Guam is, right? Last time I checked, it was not far from Japan. The US being a northern American state, talk about colonization!!

October 21, 2007 @ 2:01 pm | Comment

Guys, stay on topic. Any more off-topic comments are liable to be junked – then you’d have to ask Richard to restore them. We’re talking about the relationships between China and Taiwan.

Pffefer

“Just because a guy named Raj said so?”

No, because defence correspondents say so. If you want to allege that Taiwan already has a significant missile stock that could devastate Chinese cities, please give us some hard information.

What happened to Xiongfeng 3 that the Taiwanese officials boasted so much about?

The Hsiung Feng III missile is an anti-ship missile with a maximum range of approximately 200km. It isn’t designed for land-attack but destroying PLAN shipping. So you’re barking up the wrong tree.

Having their own weapons is not a counter-measure?

No, because they can’t stop the attack once initiated. A real counter-measure can stop something even when set in motion.

Gee, I guess sovereign countries like China have to obtain American permission before they arm themselves?

No, but China believes it has a right to veto arms sales to Taiwan. That’s the difference.

The US does it all the time and gets away with it, why not China?

China has its own gun to point back at the US – Taiwan does not.

Again, who is stopping Taiwan from developing counter-measures, capabilities to retaliate?

China and to a lesser extent the US. China keeps talking about “provocation” because of Taiwanese arms developments and whinges to the US to stop Taiwan. It also implies it could be something that will cause a war. It even complains if Taiwan builds anti-missile defences.

October 21, 2007 @ 6:48 pm | Comment

Question, Raj, how is any of this irrational or counterproductive from the PoV of 中南海?

October 21, 2007 @ 9:35 pm | Comment

Ok, you guys are arguing over an issue that has no logical answer. The issue of “whether Taiwan should go independent” depends on whose side you are on. If you are a Taiwan Greenie, then of course Taiwan should go independent. If you are a mainlander, then of course Taiwan must not go independent. So stop arguing and trying to convince the other, it’s so idiotic.

This is sort of like debating the question “Do you think we should love America?” between an American citizen and a foreign citizen. It makes no sense.

Questions like these are “ass controls head” questions. What is an “ass controls the head” question? It means your ass is where you sit, meaning which team you are on. And since your head is connected to your ass by your body, where you are sitting invariably decides your views on many issues.

And the Taiwan issue is one of those issues.

By the way, “ass controls your head” is coined by Mao.

October 21, 2007 @ 11:39 pm | Comment

Raj, everybody knows that China protests a lot (“hurting Chinese people’s feelings), but beyond that it can’t do much. The US has sold F16s to Taiwan, mainland China protested, so what happened? The jets were sold. Taiwan can do the same, and the Americans will be more than happy to make some cheap money.

October 22, 2007 @ 12:22 pm | Comment

“By the way, you know where Guam is, right? Last time I checked, it was not far from Japan. The US being a northern American state, talk about colonization!!”

So where are the complaints about the US presence? And the Japanese were driven off, but you don’t pay much attention to history. And Guam gets paid for that US presence as well.

When it comes to weapons sales to Taiwan, China can’t do much to the US itself, but the threat of what could happen to US companies in China is enough to make the US think twice.

China is simply worried about ROCAF maintaining near numerical and qualitative parity with the PLAAF forces that can reach Taiwan.

October 22, 2007 @ 3:28 pm | Comment

I don’t agree with Thieves in Suits’s “ass control head” theory about the Taiwan issue. The future of Taiwan is one of the major contributing factors to security in the Asian-Pacific region. As such, it should be open for debate among concerned members of the international community. Besides, there are more options for Taiwan’s future than what the “Taiwan Greenies” or the “Mainland Commies” prefer.

October 22, 2007 @ 9:16 pm | Comment

I don’t agree with ass controls head at all either. Of course if mao pronounced it (its probly in his little evil book) then that explains why its a simplistic and rediculous concept promoted as reality.

I am from Canada, so why do I care about China, Taiwan etc? Why do Americans criticise America?

You think the world is like the party says it is? Its not. It’s like saying a person will never criticise himself, it might seem that way sometimes, but it’s a load of crap, you can say that about all your rediculous marx lenin Mao jiang thought crap.

October 22, 2007 @ 10:38 pm | Comment

Whoever said that compromising and crouching under the communists for so called peace is sadistic and warped and has nothing to loose by the world turning to total hellcrap.

Kowtowing to CCP to save your but in any sense is sorta like, if your getting raped, you can struggle less in order to save yourself the extra cuts and bruises,

In that case the rapist uses his threats to make you let him in easy laughing at the whole situation…..

If we don’t stand up for what’s right even if the bad guy is scary, then the world will just be so easily taken over by the ass, and then, the world will be ass world, of course.

Theres a lot that can be done without getting into a war with the CCP… My understanding is that if the Chinese people werent brainwashed, they would stand up for themselves and would not be fed the poop of the party. So thats why we should do something to have true information be more widely known. DOWN WITH THE CENTRAL PROPAGANDA DEPARTMENT, AND DOWN WITH CCP SECRECY. And of couse, the world would be a better place without that stupid party.

Chinese people, can you conceive of a world without the CCP? Has it ever crossed your minds that there could be better options that always following their crap?

If not, you’re brainwahsed to think that they are forever (or at least for 2oo years er whatever) Chinas overlords.

October 22, 2007 @ 10:47 pm | Comment

ps

I’m not China bashing, if you think hating the CCP is China bashing because you can’t separate China from the stupid party, you are brainwashed.

October 22, 2007 @ 10:49 pm | Comment

“So where are the complaints about the US presence? ”

Hahaha, isn there not enough complaints about American presence everywhere?

“When it comes to weapons sales to Taiwan, China can’t do much to the US itself, but the threat of what could happen to US companies in China is enough to make the US think twice.”

So? The noble US can tell China to eat @#$%, after all all the US cares about is “democracy” and “freedom”, right? Give China the middle finger, what is the US afraid of?

October 23, 2007 @ 1:55 am | Comment

snow, are you on drugs? I wouldn’t be surprised if this kind of desparate and hystercial rhetoric comes from some typical westerner who has never set his feet outside his country, be it Canada or whatever, but you? A resident Canadian in China? How long have you lived in China? 2 weeks?

Instead of helplessly getting brainwashed by Joe McCarthy’s, VOA’s, your PM Harper’s or master Li’s crap, you should be talking to real Chinese citizens while you can. Don’t confine your sample to just FLG people.

Instead of cursing the CCP to death in front of your computer, why don’t you help start a demonstration, better yet, a movement that might topple the CCP? You never know, you might be contacted by the US government and get some funding for that, if you are lucky enough.

Yell your heart out, it ain’t gonna work unless you do something, snow. Coordinate rebellions. Storm Zhongnanhai. Hijack government buildings. Kidnap some CCP officials. China’s future is in your hands.

Well? hahaha

October 23, 2007 @ 2:08 am | Comment

“When it comes to weapons sales to Taiwan, China can’t do much to the US itself”

Having good relationship with the US is a top priority for China and China benefits hugely from this relationship. But if it is forced to, China can make lots of things difficult for the US too. For example, if the US sales more F16 to Taiwan, China can give its equivalent advanced fighter jets J-10 to countries like Iran or North Korea.

As things are going now, it is hard to say who has more leverage over whom 20 years from now.

October 23, 2007 @ 2:28 am | Comment

pfeffer, I totally didnt get your point, your childishness makes me think maybe there wasn’t one to get…

How can you assume so much about me like who the Chinese people I know are and stuff?

A lot of people don’t see the CCP as the scum of the earth, but, a lot of people do as well, so what’s so hard to understand?

October 23, 2007 @ 1:54 pm | Comment

Raj and Richard,

I think it’s about time to close this thread. The whole thing has fast disintegrating into mud sling tournaments showing casing snow vs pfeffer and nanhe vs z.

October 23, 2007 @ 4:13 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.