Dump Taiwan

Paul V. Kane is a former international security fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of government, and a Marine who served in Iraq. His op-ed in today’s NY Times is a stunner. No, really. A stunner.

WITH a single bold act, President Obama could correct the country’s course, help assure his re-election, and preserve our children’s future.

He needs to redefine America’s mindset about national security away from the old defense mentality that American power derives predominantly from our military might, rather than from the strength, agility and competitiveness of our economy. He should make it clear that today American jobs and wealth matter more than military prowess….

There are dozens of initiatives President Obama could undertake to strengthen our economic security. Here is one: He should enter into closed-door negotiations with Chinese leaders to write off the $1.14 trillion of American debt currently held by China in exchange for a deal to end American military assistance and arms sales to Taiwan and terminate the current United States-Taiwan defense arrangement by 2015.

This would be a most precious prize to the cautious men in Beijing, one they would give dearly to achieve. After all, our relationship with Taiwan, as revised in 1979, is a vestige of the cold war.

Today, America has little strategic interest in Taiwan, which is gradually integrating with China economically by investing in and forming joint ventures with mainland Chinese firms. The island’s absorption into mainland China is inevitable.

But the status quo is dangerous; if Taiwanese nationalist politicians decided to declare independence or if Beijing’s hawks tired of waiting for integration and moved to take Taiwan by force, America could suddenly be drawn into a multitrillion-dollar war.

There will be “China hawks” who denounce any deal on Taiwan as American capitulation, but their fear of a Red China menacing Asia is anachronistic. Portraying the United States as a democratic Athens threatened by China’s autocratic Sparta makes for sensational imagery, but nothing could be further from reality.

The way this Harvard scholar talks you’d think Taiwan is on an inevitable track to integrate with mainland China. I see it differently; I think they’re going to grow a lot closer, but “reunification” is not in the stars. Not for many years, if ever.

This is an extraordinary piece. The author believes that ditching Taiwan (“slowly and gradually”) will help turn the US around and boost Obama’s standing everywhere. It would, he said, immediately eliminate 10 percent of the US’s national debt (which could well be true.) Taiwan would be a super-bargaining chip, giving us leverage to get China to agree to stop supporting terrorist states and to write off our $1.4 trillion debt owned by China.

The only thing missing from this op-ed: the Taiwanese. I lived there for nearly two years. This “solution” would be met by abject horror, and not just by the Green fanatics. (And not all Greens are fanatics; I know some splendid ones. But I also know a few fanatics. And when I say fanatics….) I know plenty of politically apathetic Chinese who emphatically say Taiwan will never accept being ruled by the CCP. And they really mean it.

Read the whole column. You can’t criticize him for not being bold enough. But does bold equal bright?

Update: James Fallows goes after Kane, and you have to go there.

______________

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: 93 Comments

Leveraging Taiwan for debt forgiveness would be playing America’s weakest hand— not a very reassuring options. Secondly, getting Taiwan off our ledger would not improve our economic position. The Pentagon is the biggest employer in the US and arms sales are our biggest export of the USA and Taiwan is our biggest buyer. Unless I’m missing some brilliant Ivy League calculation the math doesn’t add up…

November 12, 2011 @ 9:36 am | Comment

Wow. If this were to happen it would signal that America’s days as a superpower were well and truly over. Even the fact that this is a serious proposal (from an ex-Marine no less) shows that the US today is not the US that won the Cold War.

By giving America an easy way to avoid dealing with its debt problem, China would also get a chance to buy them out a second time in another generation.

November 12, 2011 @ 10:19 am | Comment

So US credit card companies should also forgive debt because in the long term (hopefully breaking even in 2030) they would break even with all the costs of collection agencies and employees going after really late payments?

As you mentioned, Taiwan would also never accept being a part of China. Business relationships are one thing. Being ruled by China is another.

That writer is telling the US (free and democratic) to make a deal with China (communist), so that Taiwan (free and democratic) can now become “owned” by a Communist country. Wasn’t there a big war regarding freedom and communism?

November 12, 2011 @ 10:27 am | Comment

He’s entitled to his opinion, but he’s wrong, if he thinks America owns us. Even if USA step back, it doesn’t mean China can just take us. The thing is, nobody knows for sure, what would happen, if you move a figure away from the stalemate constellation, there are so many things to take in consideration, that his proposal is too simplistic and doesn’t understand the mindset of the Chinese leaders, nor of the Taiwanese people. I hope America stays in the region and keeps the belt around China (S.Korea, Japan, Taiwan) If they break a link in this chain, the world gets in trouble, the beast will be unleashed and won’t be able to stop.

November 12, 2011 @ 10:32 am | Comment

This Kane vermin’s FP advice is beyond comment. Obviously, the Marines must be getting a bit slack in the psych vetting dept: how this scum make it thru to graduation is beyond me. Given half an opportunity, I would like to see him hog-tied and delivered up to Al Quada for their pleasure.

November 12, 2011 @ 10:51 am | Comment

Aside from the politics or even any assumption that the US has any right to do this, consider the monetary impact on China of such a move.
China’s FX reserves are not really like having stacks of cash in the bank.
They have been exchanged for cash (RMB) that are already in the Chinese economy. So there is a domestic claim on these reserves.
If China were to hand back the Treasuries it would have to replace them with other assets – either by raising taxes or borrowing.
The economics are a tad complicated. But I feel that Chovanec makes a good stab at explaining the mess that China would be left with if it found such a debt-for-Taiwan deal represented an offer that it simply could not refuse.
check this out: http://chovanec.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/should-we-sell-taiwan/

November 12, 2011 @ 11:24 am | Comment

[...] defines them as not-PRC, where the realistic chances of integration grow smaller every year. As Peking Duck said in response to the article: The only thing missing from this op-ed: the Taiwanese. I lived [...]

November 12, 2011 @ 12:21 pm | Pingback

Whatever honor and gratitude having served in Iraq deserves (not least on 11.11) it does not at all confer intellectual respectability. This is about the worst piece of tripe the NYT op-ed page has ever carried — and that says a lot.

–As Nick Mackie helpfully points out, T-bills are not a simple loan from China.
–Even if the United States were the whore that this idea implies, China’s not going to pay for something it believes rightfully belongs to it.
–China’s style is to pocket goodwill gestures and seek more. This would only whet its appetite for more concessions.
–Imagine how allies like Japan and South Korea would respond to this. Probably go nuclear fast.

(Depending on the year, Taiwan is in the top five US arms customers but the top slots have recently been Iran’s Arab neighbors and Afghanistan.)

November 12, 2011 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

Thanks Nick. That’s a great link. Spells it out in such way even a layman like me can understand.

Gotta hand it to mr. Kane for bravery, both for having been a marine in Iraq, and for coming out with this piece and putting his name on it.

November 12, 2011 @ 1:59 pm | Comment

Portraying the United States as a democratic Athens threatened by China’s autocratic Sparta makes for sensational imagery

If anything makes for sensational imagery, it’s Mr. Kane’s op-ed. As Marc Niola says, this wouldn’t be an economic game-changer. Structural economic change needs to come from within America – becoming more Chimerica would only aggravate the economic situation. I wish Obama success with his industrial and educational policies – that’s where change has to come from.

Security fellows obviously know a lot about international security, but many of them know very little about the economy. I have the feeling that Kane is one of them.

One more thing: the Obama administration is doing the right thing in the western Pacific in that they offer countries like the Philippines, South-Korea and Vietnam contributions to a security network there, but expect them to do their own share, too. If they should abandon Taiwan, however, they can forget all their alliances. They will erode very quickly.

Like it or not: Taiwan is your moral test case. If you dump an old ally, you will be on your own, very soon.

November 12, 2011 @ 3:41 pm | Comment

This would be a thoroughly amoral, counter-productive, and stupid move, and would only encourage further moves in the South China sea and on the Sino-Indian border.

There is not much more that needs to be said.

November 12, 2011 @ 3:57 pm | Comment

Providing weapons to the government in Taiwan is interfering in the internal affairs of another state. No different from when the U.K. allowed the C.S.S. Alabama to sail during the War for Succession of the Southern States.

November 12, 2011 @ 4:48 pm | Comment

[...] Richard Burger at the Peking Duck, who correctly labeled the piece as a “stunner” (and not in a good way): The only thing [...]

November 12, 2011 @ 6:09 pm | Pingback

“No different from when the U.K. allowed the C.S.S. Alabama to sail during the War for Succession of the Southern States.”

. . . or just like when the USSR provided weapons and materiel to the CCP during the Chinese civil war, or like when the PRC supplied weapons and materiel to the Viet Cong, or the Khmer Rouge, or FRELIMO, or ZANU, or other pro-Beijing communist guerilla groups.

Meanwhile, Taiwan is a democratic society under threat, one Washington is committed through a long-standing relationship to defend. For the US to sell-out Taiwan now would be shameful, and would merely reward aggressive behaviour.

November 12, 2011 @ 6:40 pm | Comment

Ok, so this might help with the debt crisis. But what about the DEFICIT crisis? Sure there’d be less interest payments every year, but the US would still have to find a way to close the huge gap between national spending and income.

As for selling Taiwan out to China, ok so who’s next? What’s the dollar figure on breaking the military alliance with Japan? Maybe Russia would forgive the US of its debt over that. Or China might revalue its currency. And what could the US get for withdrawing from NATO or breaking commitments in the Middle East…..

The man’s a lunatic. As FOARP says, it would only encourage China – not least because they’d demand the US do everything up front and give vague offers that they might do something down the road. And as justrecently says, if the US abandons Taiwan it will find its other allies wonder what the point of cooperating with Washington is, if it will sell them out for a big bag of cash.

November 12, 2011 @ 7:35 pm | Comment

[...] Richard Burger during a Peking Duck, who rightly labeled a square as a “stunner” (and not in a good [...]

November 12, 2011 @ 9:26 pm | Pingback

I hope the author isn’t an indication of dramatically lowered standards in the Marines’ recruitment process.

That dude is utterly clueless in every which way. A proof that a even a degree can’t help make one smart.

I’m mobile so I won’t type much more, but I agree with critical comments posted by others.

November 12, 2011 @ 9:48 pm | Comment

Oh… LOL.. Since when Taiwan needs to be blamed for US rising debt? For years, Taiwan has paid big money to buy US arms and still holds lots of US Treasuries. Not every Taiwanese likes to live in China, with over-70% of Taiwan people opposing that disturbing, ridiculous re-unity issue.
We get Presidential election next January. It looks very likely the pro-China, ruling KMT party will lose to DPP. Gritty Taiwan has been ditched by so many countries in int’l political arena, but never buckled. It earned huge Forex reserves due to hard works. Kane is at least right in one point that China spends much in military weapon aiming to attack the island, Formosa (beautiful island named by Portuguese centuries ago). He may further suggest US dumps all of its East Asian allies to please China in return for economic revival.
His op-ed, anyway, is very funny, making me laugh at this boring night. But sadly to say, we live near by Goliath, a reality we can’t ditch for good. Maybe, we need more good pitchers in US to showcase our baseball strength, not military ability, as Chien-Ming Wang has done in Nats and previously, Yankee. All stars MLB players visited Formosa early this month. We love nice games highlighted by powerful pitching…. Good luck to them and welcome back next year … Cano, Granderson and Moorse were popular here.
“Taiwan Next” – election slogan by DPP …
To NYT – please stop publicizing that kind of childish articles…

November 13, 2011 @ 1:31 am | Comment

to get China to agree to stop supporting terrorist states

Which explains why so many of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi and Egyptians.

November 13, 2011 @ 3:01 am | Comment

–As Nick Mackie helpfully points out, T-bills are not a simple loan from China.
–Even if the United States were the whore that this idea implies, China’s not going to pay for something it believes rightfully belongs to it.
–China’s style is to pocket goodwill gestures and seek more. This would only whet its appetite for more concessions.
–Imagine how allies like Japan and South Korea would respond to this. Probably go nuclear fast.

Yawn. What proof do you have that China’s “style” is to pocket goodwill like some Western state? China has given up vast tracts of lands to militarily inferior nations all around its border for absolutely nothing in exchange. This is all Qing Era land that, quite frankly, the PRC has no right to relinquish (parts of Tibet, Xinjiang, Siberia).

Can you imagine the jerks in Washington suddenly agreeing to hand Hawaii over to Australia?

Likewise Japan is already proto-nuclear, which is something you’d know if you knew anything at all.

November 13, 2011 @ 3:04 am | Comment

He may further suggest US dumps all of its East Asian allies to please China in return for economic revival.

The fact that you think the US actually has “East Asian allies” is a perfect way to display the DPP ideology’s clueless, adorable childishness. America uses Japan, India, South Korea and Taiwan, nothing more.

Most Taiwanese support the status quo and not independence. If it weren’t for the KMT Taiwan would have been taken over long, long ago. The KMT is the only thing maintaining Taiwan’s relative independence, this is something the small-minded peasant screed of the DPP refuses to acknowledge.

November 13, 2011 @ 3:07 am | Comment

Raj
And what could the US get for withdrawing from NATO or breaking commitments in the Middle East…..

America trickle of funds to Mubarak slowed and what they got was a revolution. The ellipsis is a nice touch, I wouldn’t want to fill in the blanks either.

November 13, 2011 @ 3:10 am | Comment

This is all moot anyway, cuz Kane’s suggestion is going nowhere. But if it did, china would want the US out of Taiwan first, then maybe out of SE Asia altogether. Perhaps they would cobble together a dollars-for-military bases package. No secret that china wants to be the big daddy in the region, and the US stands in her way.

What on earth is “proto-nuclear”? Is that like “kinda pregnant” (which, in case you’re wondering, is a state of being that doesn’t actually exist)?

November 13, 2011 @ 3:43 am | Comment

@Cookie Monster. Even if Washington was so inclined, Ozlanders would definitely not accept the offer, since we already have better beaches than Hawaii.

Anyway, we know all about your grubby land grab ambitions in Siberia. With luck you will be sexually assaulted by brown bears.

November 13, 2011 @ 4:38 am | Comment

Cookie Monster is not a commenter to be taken seriously, unless the subject is misanthropy, xenophobia or racism.

I know what the “proto-informed” CM is TRYING to say with “proto-nuclear”, but my point on Japan fully stands.

November 13, 2011 @ 5:33 am | Comment

I agree with the excoriations.

If Kane were proposing to *dump* Taiwan (for example, on the grounds that there is no longer a community of interests between us and them, or that they lack the will to defend themselves), his article would be reckless and probably unwise, but it would deserve consideration.

But he is proposing to *sell out* Taiwan in the belief that an unfriendly power would pay us handsomely for the betrayal. This is reckless, unwise, and despicable.

It would be nice if someone high up in the Administration would now make a gesture of support and constancy to Taiwan, in an effort to mitigate the damage done by this article. But that is unlikely.

November 13, 2011 @ 6:55 am | Comment

But he is proposing to *sell out* Taiwan in the belief that an unfriendly power would pay us handsomely for the betrayal. This is reckless, unwise, and despicable.

And this is kane’s main line of thought, and should it come to pass, just imagine the crowing in China Daily, etc. PRC diplomats abroad would be lecturing all and sundry and doing the Wen finger point thing.

The NYT needs a serious bloodletting at the editorial level.

November 13, 2011 @ 7:51 am | Comment

Urm, it already has happened, in 1978:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU2mmfX4NQQ&feature=relate

The guy speaking was James Soong, then a chief of staff of the Taiwanese executive office, had this to say “The President once again expresses his strongest protest against American government’s decision to break diplomatic relations with our country. The American government should bear fully responsibility for all consequences from this highly damaging decision, which was never consulted with our government, and which hurts the interest and rights of the Republic of China…..”

November 13, 2011 @ 8:40 am | Comment

SK Cheung
No secret that china wants to be the big daddy in the region, and the US stands in her way.

No secret to who? If China wanted to be a “big daddy” they wouldn’t have handed over land to pissant microstates who absolutely do not deserve any of it.

What on earth is “proto-nuclear”? Is that like “kinda pregnant” (which, in case you’re wondering, is a state of being that doesn’t actually exist)?

It means Japan could scramble a credible nuclear response in a few days.

King Tubby
With luck you will be sexually assaulted by brown bears.

No thanks, you can keep your bestiality.

slim
but my point on Japan fully stands.

Your point on Japan is moot, they are far from being defenseless despite the posturing.

November 13, 2011 @ 8:54 am | Comment

KT, maybe you can find a nicer metaphor?

November 13, 2011 @ 9:35 am | Comment

The thing is, I think much of Middle America can be persuaded that this is a good idea, as the preservation of Taiwan under the American umbrella doesn’t really help them at all (Taiwan does not provide a core product like Saudi Arabia, for example). Taiwan (and the Sino-US rivalry) is much more of a legacy of the Cold War than anything else; indeed, it can be argued that Sino-US trade and capital flows are what keeps the elites of each country in power over their citizenry.

November 13, 2011 @ 10:47 am | Comment

I think its an excellent idea. Why should the US be bailing out an island state that just costs us billions to maintain? The Taiwanese have to grow up a lot, they’ve been mollycoddled, and China’s growth over the past 30 years has shown they are fit to manage. Its always been part of China, even the US official opinion recognizes that.
Give it back to China, it saves us money and we can go on and do more productive things than pour billions trying to maintain a poxy island stuffed full of corrupt politicians that pretend to run it democratically. Its not, and Taiwan is a farcial state. Kane is right, and very brave to stand up and say so. Its not in any danger so lets leave it to their natural conclusion and have it subsumed back as a Chinese Province where it rightly belongs.

November 13, 2011 @ 1:33 pm | Comment

This is a blog filled with stupid laowais’ empty talks about China’s future. All the laowais’ wishful pleadings for a divided China is fully understandable. Similarly, we Chinese would be merciless, once we gain an upper hand, to dismember NATO, EU & even the US when our moment arrives. The question is who will triumph eventually is an open question. We Chinese are very philosophical about the ups & wanes of civilisations because we have been through it all so many times in our history. It is those people who have short history who insist that the west’s exceptionalism shall prevail. Taiwan’s fate is unfortunately not for the west, native Taiwanese or even the mainlanders to decide. It is the unstoppable tide of geopolitical history that shall dictate the final outcome. You can resist all you wish but we believe history is turning increasingly in our favour. Who shall prevail in the end, we shall see.

November 13, 2011 @ 2:28 pm | Comment

To 29:
“No secret to who? If China wanted to be a “big daddy” they wouldn’t have handed over land to pissant microstates who absolutely do not deserve any of it.”
—-to just about everybody except you, apparently. Handing over land of no strategic value doesn’t affect the CCP’S goals in SE Asia one iota.

“It means Japan could scramble a credible nuclear response in a few days.”
— just as someone could go from not pregnant to pregnant in a few days. Aka kinda pregnant, a state that doesn’t exist. Thanks for confirming that. Since slim’s point was that Japan could probably go nuclear fast, not sure why you bothered to open your silly mouth, since you challenged his point without any basis whatsoever…unless you disagree that a few days isn’t the same as fast. Gosh, the next time I meet a Ccp apologist with the slightest grasp of logic will certainly be the first time.

To 33:
Taiwan’s fate is not for Taiwanese to decide? And you people wonder why Taiwanese would prefer the status quo to reunification? Who would want to join up with Neanderthals who think like you apparently do?

November 13, 2011 @ 3:34 pm | Comment

To 21 ..

Taiwan is a sovereign state, officially titled as ROC (TWN). Fewer talk about getting independence, a topic actually used to fight off KMT early control of speech, election and setup of political party, and of course communism. TWN has a pitifully scanty number of diplomatic ties with other countries (around 23) and most were bullied by PRC. But this won’t stop TWN’s efforts to enter global organizations despite PRC’s continued block.

The rich ruling KMT party can win more support, if giving up enormous assets, estimated at USD30 bn, stolen from people on its retreat to the island in 1949. It doesn’t has guts to raise ROC flag whenever PRC key guys showed off on the island, even Taipei Zoo got to hide the flag on arrival of PRC gift, panda. Kane’s points just reflect US is increasingly sick of TWN gov’t moving closer with PRC, partly as TWN might leak military know-how of US arms to PRC. It won’t be big surprise for US to end arms sales in future.

TWN President lately praised US-TWN relationship that reaches a 30-year peak due to big arms sale (USD4.6 bn) to TWN this year. But there’s been a subtle change, particularly now that the unneeded signing of TWN-PRC peace accord is brewing….. WOW … Peace accord!!! How can we believe a saber-rattling nation? That’s only the safety cover for those profiteers, both biz and political. BTW, it’s not fresh to KMT that did the same in wars with PRC before 1949. Unfortunately, it just couldn’t learn the lessons. HAHAHAHA. A peace will only rise when PRC people are entitled to more freedom.

Thanks God!!!… TWN people still have voting rights to choose President, an impossible thing in PRC for now. However, before US dumps TWN, the KMT might have inked re-unity treaty with PRC in closed-door meeting. Can KMT represent TWN or “small-minded” DPP amid a lack of referendum? The answer is “NONONONONO”. It’s the democratic life style for most “peasant”-but-honest Taiwanese enjoying at present, not one-sided and no-election system…

November 13, 2011 @ 4:44 pm | Comment

I like KT‘s metaphor, but feel some concern for the brown bear in question. We should all be a bit more considerate.

November 13, 2011 @ 6:59 pm | Comment

Anyone know what’s happened to Michael Turton’s blog? Blogspot says it’s been taken down.

November 13, 2011 @ 7:53 pm | Comment

[...] Corps veteran of Iraq and a former fellow at the Kennedy School at Harvard, really means it. And The Peking Duck This is an extraordinary piece. The author believes that ditching Taiwan (“slowly and [...]

November 13, 2011 @ 8:24 pm | Pingback

Back up now, never mind.

November 13, 2011 @ 9:06 pm | Comment

These are some samples of Chinese reactions:
1. 中国实际并不担心美对台售武,美卖台的都是些过时的武器,对大陆构不成威胁!关键是大陆绝对不希望对台动武,一个繁荣的台湾才符合中国以及国际上的利益,所以美用停止军援台湾来抵消欠中国的债务是一厢情愿,而且随着中国的军力的增强,美国介入台湾的力量只会越来越难有作为!
2.对中国大陆来说,这绝对是个赔本的买卖,绝对不能同意,而且你免掉它的国债是立即可实现的,实实在在的东西,而它所谓的放弃台湾却是使大陆不能立即得到的有些虚的东西,更何况米国的信用极其差劲,所以绝对不能那么做
3.用中国的领土换中国的财富,美国佬的小算盘噼里啪啦打的可真响啊!!!
4.台湾本来就是中国的,凭什么要从你美国手上交易
5.真是开玩笑 台湾本来就是我们中国的 美国人脑子是不是让驴踢了
6.美国是个出尔反尔毫无诚信的骗子,他是为了自己的利益什么不要脸的事情都能做出来的流氓加强盗,不能相信他们的谎话,中国人民不是傻子,欠我们的钱必须还给我们,它是我们全中国十三亿人民的钱,台湾自古就是我们中华民族的,你甩不甩掉他都是我们的,美国别太自以为是了,你的谎话只能骗骗像小日本这样的附属国,中国人民为了自己的国家利益是什么都能做出来的,美国收起你的小伎俩吧
7.放屁,台湾从来就是中国的,统一台湾是迟早的事情,这不是由美国政府决定的事情,而是中国人民的意志决定,贫什么要我们拿人民的血汗去收买,这是赤裸裸的强盗逻辑。我们宁可花钱买军火,强大自己,也决不向帝国主义摇尾乞怜
8.中国统一只是时间问题。不是美国人和台湾人所决定的。
9.搞笑了,很多人读书读到一定程度就傻了。台湾,是我们的,为什么我们会买?这人以为美国就牛B了,以为台湾是美国的?台湾,是我们的悲剧,也是台湾的悲剧。不过美国人是不是都觉得台湾是他们的?他们想把台湾怎么样就怎么样?臭不要脸
10.美国鬼子这个想法比较符合当前实际。台湾对于美国就像一块“鸡肋”,它想拿也拿不去,扔了还可惜,每年还得往里搭钱。不如早早甩掉给大陆送个人情。
11.美国姥想的美,台湾是中国的就是中国的,不允许你美国姥拿了当筹码,中国人有智慧解决自己的问题,国债是要还的
12.这是个什么学者?既然自己都承认台湾回归是不可避免的,我们又怎么可能花几万亿美元去做一个本来就可以做到的事情呢?而且台湾是中国不可分割的一部分,美国人用我们的土地去换自己的外债,本身就是可笑的。
13.美国凭什么以此做交易,我呸!赖账的嘴脸露出一斑,别买美国国债了,买得越多亏得越大!国债也要还,台湾也要收复!
Chinese are no fools. For all you care to realise, the Taiwan issue provides a perfect excuse/incentive for China’s rapid military modernisation & galvanisation of patriotic feelings among the masses against a formidable foe in the US. The more the delay in its resolution the merrier it becomes for the Chinese leadership. Now you see who is now the real fool in this game of high stake deception.

November 13, 2011 @ 9:24 pm | Comment

Interesting that these reactions all seem to take offence to the implication that Taiwan is there for the Americans to give away, since they note that Taiwan doesn’t belong to the US. That seems quite consistent with Taiwanese reaction to Kane’s piece. On that point at least, Taiwanese and mainlanders can agree. As for the suggestion that Taiwan belongs to china, maybe not so much.

November 14, 2011 @ 1:30 am | Comment

Overseas: This is a blog filled with stupid laowais’ empty talks about China’s future.

Nobody forces you to come here. Why don’t you hang out at Hidden Harmonies, where everyone thinks monolithically, where whatever the CCP does is right, and where China is constantly having its feelings hurt by a cruel and hateful West bent on its destruction?

Netizens, I believe you’re right. Taiwan is a rallying point for the Chinese and brings out their nationalistic pride like nothing else (along with the Nanjing Massacre and the destruction of the Summer Palace). It’s a useful tool for the CCP.

November 14, 2011 @ 2:06 am | Comment

Netizens is right up to a point. But a look at those Chinese comments, and those of Overseas Chinese above, also highlights the risk of whipping up the excitable masses with propaganda and emotive, one-sided arguments. How many times in recent history has China churned up nationalism (vis-a-vis Japan, the US, Taiwan, Norway to name a few) only to have to tamp it down or risk international embarrassment or possibly having angry mobs turn against their masters? China can’t really ultimately deliver in ways that satisfy the passionate hatreds inspired by Patriotic Education and the Global Times without going on the warpath. Even the bread and circus approach of growing living standards and The Olympics seems to fall short.

The policy that generated the epithet Wumao Dang, for a newish example, has already backfired, in that pretty much everywhere Chinese nationalistic comments show up on the English Internet, they are denounced (accurately or not) as the product of paid commenters. While Wumao started as a term of contempt within China, it is now a badge of opprobrium everywhere.

The smartest thing said about this Kane essay came from James Fallows, who wondered why there was no “The Onion” logo attached.

November 14, 2011 @ 3:01 am | Comment

SK Cheung
just as someone could go from not pregnant to pregnant in a few days.

Except not, because gaining nuclear weapons capability from scratch is nothing like manufacturing warheads out of the nuclear infrastructure you already have.

Again, you make yourself look like a fool running your mouth in a feeble attempt to score points against me.

You’re still at 0 ;)

November 14, 2011 @ 5:38 am | Comment

slim
Even the bread and circus approach of growing living standards

HAHAHAHA, so “improved living standards” is bread and circuses? What a joke. Anything but China being a groveling servant of the West is no good to you.

November 14, 2011 @ 5:39 am | Comment

If this Op-ed wasn’t published in the NYT, it wouldn’t even be worth repudiating. It’s a shame the national paper of record lent the op-ed pages to someone like Kane, when they usually reserve space for serious foreign policy commentary from established scholars/thinkers/practitioners.

Would the Times have printed an op-ed calling on the U.S. to “ditch” Israel in exchange for a verifiably de-nuclearized Iran? I doubt they would have had the nerve…

November 14, 2011 @ 9:07 am | Comment

“Except not, because gaining nuclear weapons capability from scratch is nothing like manufacturing warheads out of the nuclear infrastructure you already have.”
—slim never said they would get it from scratch. He just said they would get it. That’s when you came up with that “proto” nonsense. Do the Japanese have nuclear weapons now? No, they don’t. Slim said they might be inclined to get them if the US sells out Taiwan. Your ” point” is that they could get them quickly. Gee, thanks Sherlock. You are so stupid that you don’t even realize how stupid you are, which is yet another of those wonderful Ccp apologist traits. Don’t worry, I don’t seek to score points against mental cripples. That would be unbecoming.

November 14, 2011 @ 9:24 am | Comment

Most Taiwanese support the status quo and not independence.

Since the status quo IS a form of independence, even from your flawed POV, most Taiwanese support independence. In any case as a number of recent polls show, most Taiwanese support outright independence for Taiwan. It’s the military threat from China that keeps Taiwan from asserting its own statehood.

If it weren’t for the KMT Taiwan would have been taken over long, long ago.

If it weren’t for the KMT Taiwan would already have been an independent state a long time ago. The existence of the China threat is due to the KMT’s expansionist foreign policies, which have been continued by the CCP.

Michael Turton

November 14, 2011 @ 10:45 am | Comment

I don’t think Cookie Monster uses or understands words or phrases according to standard definitions and usage and context. And what on earth does China being a groveling servant of the West have to do with this thread or anything I said? Nothing. Strawman again, and not the first.

Nobody wants to “score points against” you. Most of us want you to drive a car with a full tank of gas into your garage, shut the door tightly behind you, leave the car running and take a nap.

November 14, 2011 @ 1:43 pm | Comment

“Since the status quo IS a form of independence, even from your flawed POV, most Taiwanese support independence.”

Agreed.

“If it weren’t for the KMT Taiwan would already have been an independent state a long time ago. The existence of the China threat is due to the KMT’s expansionist foreign policies, which have been continued by the CCP.”

I guess you’re referring to the desire to undo the results of the first Sino-Japanese war pre-1945 – but would any conceivable Chinese government have have had a different aim? It also assumes that the Taiwanese would have preferred full independence after 1945 if they had been given a choice – something that is disputable. Both sides exaggerate how much pro-independence/unification opinion there was in Taiwan pre-1945.

November 14, 2011 @ 2:36 pm | Comment

Actually the foreign reserve does not belong to China.
Do noy forget that a large proportion of this usd3 trillion dollars are the hot money which flow into China to take advantage of the higher Chinese interest rate and widely expected RMB appreciation expected by China trading partners.

Perhaps Paul Kane should consult his country men like Soros to seek thei approval first!

November 14, 2011 @ 3:22 pm | Comment

slim: whenever you get angry about something written by cookie monster et al, take a breath: anger – in that kind of situation – is always useless.

November 14, 2011 @ 3:35 pm | Comment

Foreign reserve = Trade/services surplus + foreign Fixed Investment(FDI) + Hot Money

Actually there are some speculations in Chinese internet that if they were to take out the value of FDI and hot money,then the foreign reserve truly belong to China is a negative value!

November 14, 2011 @ 3:37 pm | Comment

slim
WAH WAH WAH I WISH U WERE DED!!

I do tend make some people cry.

SK Cheung
slim never said they would get it from scratch. He just said they would get it.

No, genius, he implied that Japan going (officially) nuclear would be some monumental paradigm shift. Anyone who doesn’t have shit for brains knows it would not be.

So slim is being over-dramatic as usual. It’s those emo glasses.

Michael Turton
Since the status quo IS a form of independence, even from your flawed POV, most Taiwanese support independence.

I support the status quo. And it should be subtly enforced with a strong military and economic credibility (but spare us the DPP peasant bravado). But since you want to talk about “forms of independence” we should note that an export-dependent resource poor island is never truly “independent” in the first place, but we’re not here to talk about your bizarre DPP interpretation of the Taiwanese economy.

most Taiwanese support outright independence for Taiwan.

One thing to know for sure is to never trust your statistics. You’re not even Taiwanese and yet you’re a foaming at the mouth pro-independence type. I’m sure you’re fit for military service in case China invades as you wish, right? This is that question you just love to dodge.

If it weren’t for the KMT Taiwan would already have been an independent state a long time ago. The existence of the China threat is due to the KMT’s expansionist foreign policies

Yes lets just ignore the fact that it was annexed by the Qing before Japan colonized it – try to remember that the Hoklo aren’t exactly native. This is what I love most about the DPP peasant mentality.

November 14, 2011 @ 11:14 pm | Comment

Interesting to read the not-so-surprising reaction from Netizens, but hard to accept. They will stubbornly assert the so-called rightful reclaim of TWN, whenever TWN sovereignty issue grabs all eyes. Obvious is it PRC fellows love this island the most, much more than some domestic politicians and Americans who were said to waste money to defend TWN. Seriously speaking, TWN can be part of cultural Chinese, but far from political ones. Further, TWN has spent much annually for “protection” fee – buy weapon instead of being given.

A major factor sustaining PRC loving comes from a then-secret 1949 event – the presently ruling KMT transferred tons of gold and antique to TWN after defeated. One will meet fierce debate from every rank of Chinese claiming the laborious carry largely helped fuel TWN booming before. To stage all-out courage to TWN folks, PRC can first try to recoup the land near NE China and Vladivostok harbor lost in Qing dynasty, and Mongolia separated in WWII. Here is a funny win-win solution to the stupid cross-TWN Strait dilemma – KMT returns gold and antique to where it belongs in exchange for the turf now occupied by PRC.

What’s noteworthy is Taiwanese now really really pay far less attention to “independence” issue than “reunity”. A likely win by DPP in next Janauray Presidential election does not point to a change of ROC status quo. Yet, if KMT reins the island again, most will fear a continued capoital outflow to mainland, lifting hollowed-out effect. Improved KMT-PRC link, partly reflected by signing of ECFA last year, was proved little helpful to TWN in local economy and int’l political relation. KMT, reelected as ruling party in 2008, failed to fulfil promise of “6-3-3” policy – 6% GDP growth, below-3% jobless rate and over-USD30,000 annual per capita GDP. It’s the annoying job problemTaiwanese face now, not indepennce. As always for years, to dump or not to dump TWN by others, that’s not the question. Voting can dictate our income and everything else next year.

It’s warming to see so many lovely “laowais” supporting this island. This page is interesting…….

November 15, 2011 @ 2:59 am | Comment

Taiwan is an independent state. Can’t see much that would indicate the legitimacy of the PRC’s claim on the island. People may keep chanting stuff like “Taiwan belongs to China”, but mere repetition, or reminders that the U.S., or most other governments “adhere to the one-China policy” won’t cut it. Such statements do, however, indicate that Taiwan would deserve a revaluation within the international “community”. Democratic countries above all should give the issue a lot of consideration.

November 15, 2011 @ 3:21 am | Comment

To my pet dog:
“No, genius, he implied that Japan going (officially) nuclear would be some monumental paradigm shift.”
—oh really? You know what he’s thinking? You don’t even know what you’re saying, or what you’re reading, as I just pointed out on that other thread. BTW, Japan is officially nuclear now. They’ve had nuclear energy for years. Going weapons grade nuclear and having the vehicle (ie missile) to transport it is not the same thing as having reactors for electricity. You guys were raised so poorly that you don’t know when to stop and concede, and instead keep digging deeper and deeper holes for yourselves. I suppose that’s to be expected, since folks like you operate with a proto-brain.

November 15, 2011 @ 5:09 am | Comment

SK Cheung
You know what he’s thinking?

Whoops I forgot, you’re mentally stunted and can’t read meaning from context. Meanwhile, slim is a histrionic, screeching crybaby.

If we put the two of you together you’d almost be a complete human, minus of course 90% of basic brain function and all logic.

November 15, 2011 @ 5:54 am | Comment

“you’re mentally stunted and can’t read meaning from context”
—the point is that most normal humans can infer meaning from context. But when I say “you”, I literally mean you. And CCP apologists like you are not normal humans. You guys are this morass of poor logic, dollar-store intelligence, and questionable character with poor quality upbringing who can only engage in disingenuous arguments, it would seem. Your performance on the other thread is exhibit A (well, actually I’ve lost track of how many times you’ve made an idiot of yourself, but let’s just say exhibit A for the last 15 minutes).

November 15, 2011 @ 8:56 am | Comment

SK Cheung
You guys are this morass of poor logic, dollar-store intelligence, and questionable character with poor quality upbringing

Yeah, I guess these guys bring

1) massive economic growth
2) massive advancement in scientific and technological output
3) the end of poverty for hundreds of millions
4) the prevention of millions of unnecessary deaths

Oh but to slim and others of barely human intelligence, these are “bread and circuses”.

The two of you would combine to form one single emotionally balanced imbecile.

November 15, 2011 @ 9:23 am | Comment

he implied that Japan going (officially) nuclear would be some monumental paradigm shift.

Nope, he didn’t.

Imagine how allies like Japan and South Korea would respond to this. Probably go nuclear fast.

Seems to me that the “Probably go nuclear fast” comment shows he understands Nuclear Latency (i.e. The Japan Option). It’s not that uncommon. Japan could likely have nuke-armed missles within a week, SK not far behind. Sweden, Germany, South Africa, Australia, Taiwan, etc. possess the technology and production base to have nukes in a very short time.

But you can be fucking sure of one thing, there would have to be a paradigm shift for them to take the next step.

November 15, 2011 @ 9:24 am | Comment

A Taiwanese view of this NYT oped
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/11/15/2003518326

November 15, 2011 @ 10:06 am | Comment

Atticus
But you can be fucking sure of one thing, there would have to be a paradigm shift for them to take the next step.

From my experience with Japan, I highly doubt that. The people may not like the idea of having nukes, but the right wingers who dominate politics are utterly shameless.

Aside from literal terrorist attacks on the opposition parties they have no qualms at all with shady underhanded dealings with America that absolutely go against will of the average Japanese person.

November 15, 2011 @ 10:07 am | Comment

From Mike’s article:
As this newspaper argued in response to the previous articles, the 23 million people who inhabit this nation are not mere commodities who can be traded by larger nations on a diplomatic chessboard.

I think he must have missed the last few decades

November 15, 2011 @ 10:09 am | Comment

Mike, I’m a bit taken aback by the Taipei Times’ personal swipe at Kane at the end of that editorial. I hated Kane’s article and read it in dismay, but the personal attack based on gossip was a bit much.

November 15, 2011 @ 11:00 am | Comment

Personal attacks based on gossip is the DPP’s modus operandi. At least they didn’t empty a pail of feces in his office.

November 15, 2011 @ 11:11 am | Comment

@Richard
I guess his article must have struck an editorial nerve.

November 15, 2011 @ 11:17 am | Comment

To my little doggie,
When I said “you people”, iwas referring to feeble ccp apologists like you.

That is rather different than your reference to “these guys”. I have utmost respect for what Chinese people can do. But the typical ccp apologists are most certainly not Chinese people, just disgruntled Americans like you.

November 15, 2011 @ 12:17 pm | Comment

@Richard – I was all set to agree with you, as I am not exactly a fan of TT’s editorial style. Too many of the pieces they run consist of poorly-sourced paranoia directed at the KMT or the mainland written by individuals whose qualifications are dubious, to say the least. One particularly dire piece by Li Thian Hok published back in June referred to a “secret” communique from Deng Xiaoping in which he commented on things that happened after he died. Really.

However, so long as they actually do have sources at Harvard who hold those opinions, I think the attack on his academic credentials is in-bounds. I too wondered what exactly was meant by him being a “former fellow” at the Harvard Kennedy school, and how exactly his experiences in Iraq qualified him to write such an article. It now turns out that he was small part of the occupation government in 2003 – something that from any perspective was a total disaster.

The main problem for me with this kind of attack, though, is not the nature of the attack itself, but the fact that they are so very unqualified to criticise the NYT in this way when their failings are actually worse. If TT wants to make this kind of criticism, they should also apply the same standards to their own editorials. So far they have not.

November 15, 2011 @ 3:16 pm | Comment

…but the right wingers who dominate politics are utterly shameless.

Aside from literal terrorist attacks on the opposition parties they have no qualms at all with shady underhanded dealings with America that absolutely go against will of the average Japanese person.

Kids, this is what’s known as a pot-meet-kettle moment. Please thank Mr Merp for the demonstration.

November 15, 2011 @ 4:36 pm | Comment

FOARP, it was this line that jumped out at me:

Sources describe him as a “poseur” and a “climber” who should not have been allowed to set foot in Harvard to begin with.

This does not allege that the sources came from anyone within Harvard. it is purposefully vague and, unfortunately, reads like hearsay, gossip. It may well be true, but it would be a lot more meaningful if he has said “Sources at Harvard,” or something to indicate that these sources are legitimate and not just the opinion of some blogger or anyone who’s pissed about the article. The way it’s written sounds very catty.

November 15, 2011 @ 11:14 pm | Comment

Kane’s ideas can certainly be criticized based on their merit or lack thereof. But I think it was bang-on appropriate as an op-Ed for NYT. After all, editorials should aspire to get people talking, and not necessarily to elicit agreement. So this editorial has certainly achieved what it set out to do.

It definitely got TT’s knickers in a twist. The analogy to Cambodia and Khmer rouge I thought was a little rich.

While Kane makes himself fair game merely by virtue of putting himself out there, it should be sufficient to address his ideas. His never receiving a degree from Harvard doesn’t change the fact that he was a fellow at Harvard. And none of that has much relevance to his opinion anyway. And the unnamed sources bit was definitely needlessly cheesy.

November 16, 2011 @ 1:07 am | Comment

@Richard – Re-reading, I agree with you. “Sources” does not mean “sources at Harvard”.

November 16, 2011 @ 1:49 am | Comment

I hope everyone saw the NMA parody of Kane’s column. Priceless. Those guys are geniuses.

November 16, 2011 @ 4:06 am | Comment

Atticus
Kids, this is what’s known as a pot-meet-kettle moment. Please thank Mr Merp for the demonstration.

The kids have already seen and read enough “America can do no wrong” tripe for that lesson, Mr Dogsbody.

And no, there is no real Chinese Nationalist party in China.

November 16, 2011 @ 4:32 am | Comment

@Richard – Actually, the more I think about it, the worse it gets.

The person who wrote that Taipei Times editorial was J.Michael Cole, TT‘s deputy editor. J. Michael Cole wrote an editorial back in September criticising the Financial Times for running an article in which anonymous US officials were quoted as having “distinct doubts” about Tsai Ingwen, the DPP presidential candidate. J. Michael Cole described the FT‘s decision to run the piece as “questionable”, although other authors, Michael Turton in particular, described the piece as a “hack job” and the decision to use anonymous quotes as unjustifiable and “propaganda” – although they did not feel this way about the latest TT editorial.

J. Michael Cole hardly appears to be in a position to question Kane’s credentials. He describes himself as a former Canadian intelligence officer, which is true – he served with CSIS for one year, before resigning out of protest at what he saw as a looming invasion of Iran in the middle part of the last decade. He does have a master’s from the Canadian Royal Military college – but does this match a fellowship with Harvard? And if the qualifications are relatively unimportant (as I believe they are) then why attack them?

To be honest, unless there is evidence that Kane actually was trying to deceive people into thinking he was more qualified than he is, I cannot see this as anything more than an unfair attack on the credentials of someone whose opinions are unfortunately moronic by people who are hardly in a better position credentials-wise.

November 17, 2011 @ 5:52 am | Comment

The Taipei Times is infested with non-Taiwanese, pro-West shills installed in prominent positions.

What a shocker.

November 17, 2011 @ 10:32 am | Comment

And no, there is no real Chinese Nationalist party in China.

Oooooh! Ya got me there, Merp. The CPC could never be considered nationalist, could it? I mean, it’s a Communist party and that means it’s internationalist, doesn’t it, Merp?

Hold on a second. I just checked some first year, second semester textbooks and they say… that you’re a mendacious wanker.

November 17, 2011 @ 11:22 pm | Comment

Swiftian satire – ha, ha, haaa…, haaaaaa…….

November 18, 2011 @ 4:56 am | Comment

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/selling-taiwan-to-mainland-china-the-author-explains-his-swiftian-intent/248637/

Nearly identical letter by kane to fallows. Whereas he sounded ballsy but stupid before, now he just sounds stupid. Pretty lame to be backtracking from the main thrust of his argument to now basically say he was only kidding. His point didn’t work based on merit, and doesn’t work as satire either.

November 18, 2011 @ 8:04 am | Comment

Fallows sure let’s him have it in the update. Wow. You can tell he feels a bit of contempt toward Kane.

To Foarp above: That’s really shocking. It doesn’t make the Taipei Times look anything but petty and unprofessional.

November 18, 2011 @ 8:52 am | Comment

@Richard – Cole has clarified that he resigned from CSIS after three years, not one. However, the point still stands.

November 18, 2011 @ 2:46 pm | Comment

I SAID THREE DAYS AGO: “the KANE Piece i now believe was mere MODEST PROPOSAL satire a la Jonathan Swift…i think he was trying to make a point, the opposite point…. he loves Taiwan in fact…..he hates CHina….this was SATIRE.”

But everyone took him too seriously. DOn’t people know how to READ anymore.

He now admits to the world that IT WAS A SATIRE. Now what do you say Joe Bloggers and Professors of Taiwan? Get thee to a nunnery!

from Trevor in UK
descendant of Jon Swift

PS; — My UK friends doubted me saying: “uh, Trevor, old boy, Do you have any reason to believe that this is a Jonathan Swift type of satire? Or is it wishful thinking? I hope you might be right. Kane once worked on Ted Kennedy’s staff.”

November 18, 2011 @ 6:57 pm | Comment

It wasn’t funny if it was a satire. If so, he fooled everyone because the way he wrote it was very specific and serious. Read his letter, and you’ll see he still stands behind what he wrote. I don’t really believe it was a satire; he is scrambling because the world denounced his harebrained scheme.

November 18, 2011 @ 10:40 pm | Comment

Atticus
I mean, it’s a Communist party and that means it’s internationalist, doesn’t it, Merp?

The CPC loves foreigners and minorities, so yeah, it’s not exactly nationalist – not in the way you think it is.

Are you going to start crying now about how poor laowais are mistreated in China?

November 19, 2011 @ 5:10 am | Comment

Merp, the CPC is explicitly nationalist. Every honk from the CPC goose is nationalist.

“Honk! You have hurt the feelings of the Chinese people. Honk!”

“Honk! You don’t understand how China works. Honk!”

“Honk! The West is trying to keep China from its rightful place in the world/leader of Asia. Honk!”

“Honk! Japan, blaaaargh, blaaargh. Honk!”

“Honk! Those islands are ours. That sea is ours. Honk!”

“Honk! U.S. forces in Australia are there to harm China (be careful Australia you wouldn’t want to get caught in the middle). Honk!”

Honk! Honk! Honk! Honk!

The CPC is nationalistic in exactly the way I think it is.

Are you going to start crying now about how poor laowais are mistreated in China?

What the fuck are you talking about, Merp? What the hell does that have to do with nationalism. I have always been treated well in China, that fact that most Chinese people are nice doesn’t negate the fact that the CPC and its lickspittle fenqing (e.g. You) are extremely nationalistic. I should point out I have known several non-white laowai who have been on the receiveing end of racism and mistreatment in China.

November 19, 2011 @ 12:56 pm | Comment

You forgot “Honk! The sky is blue! Honk!” and “Honk! The sun rises in the East! Honk!”. Can’t leave out such insidious Chinese propaganda.

1) The West does indeed not understand how China works.
2) The West IS actively trying to contain China (and just about any other region that does not bow to its every whim)
3) Japan gets a mixed response due to their own, very real and US sponsored hypernationalism
4) The islands are a part of China, and by international law the sea follows – Taiwan agrees
5) And yes, US forces are out to harm China just as US banks and US media are out to harm China – and their own citizens

I should point out I have known several non-white laowai who have been on the receiveing end of racism and mistreatment in China.

Cry me a river. These “non-white laowai” discriminate against Chinese in the West, in their homelands, and in China itself. Tell them to get the chips off of their shoulders and be grateful for how much better the Chinese treat them compared to how their own kind treat the Chinese.

November 21, 2011 @ 3:08 am | Comment

LOL #1-5. Man, voices in your head, and shadows around every corner. You CCP apologists are a paranoid lot. There must be medication for that type of thing. Then again, mansbestfriend does appear to have a particularly bad case of it.

November 21, 2011 @ 6:20 am | Comment

@SKC #5 I don’t think I measure up as a CCP apologist.

Okay, paranoid and the occasional voice from god, but hey, this is on par for the course for all scribblers in the Sinosphere.

November 21, 2011 @ 6:33 am | Comment

SK Cheung
LOL #1-5. Man, voices in your head, and shadows around every corner. You CCP apologists are a paranoid lot. There must be medication for that type of thing. Then again, mansbestfriend does appear to have a particularly bad case of it.

Trained poodle of the West barking again. Why bother with facts when we can spew our propaganda?

I mean, a country that has “toppled regimes” in dozens of countries certainly wouldn’t think about doing the same to China, right?

Oh but listen to Fox News – it’s just your imagination!

November 21, 2011 @ 8:01 am | Comment

“I mean, a country that has “toppled regimes” in dozens of countries certainly wouldn’t think about doing the same to China, right?”
—huh? Please explain how “toppling” china would be good for America. This I’d love to hear. C’ mon, now is your chance to vow me with a great or compelling argument. I realize it will be too much to ask of you, but the reach should exceed the grasp, as they say. Has the Ccp taught you the party line to that question before?

You aren’t seriously suggesting that fox news represents msinstream opinion or government policy, are you? Cuz that would be a good one. If you’re paranoid because of what you hear on fox news, I think the cure for you might be to watch less of it. There. That therapy session is free of charge. Chalk it up as my good Samaritan deed for the day.

November 21, 2011 @ 3:06 pm | Comment

@Merp: Weren’t you trying to argue that the CPC isn’t nationalist? Now you’re trying to say that I am making the Honk! points because they’re not true. I’m making them because they are the talking points of nationalists. They are the “poor China, we’re all victims” talking points, go back and look at the talking points made in Germany in the ’20s and ’30s. You’re a fucking moron, Merp.

These “non-white laowai” discriminate against Chinese in the West, in their homelands, and in China itself. Tell them to get the chips off of their shoulders and be grateful for how much better the Chinese treat them compared to how their own kind treat the Chinese.

I’ll say it again, Merp. You’re a fucking moron.

You wanna tell me about the racism that Chinese are facing in the Phillipines, or Zimbabwe, or Brazil? C’mon, Moron, out with it or get back in your hole.

November 21, 2011 @ 4:59 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.