An essay on Taiwan and China

I’ve been corresponding a bit with a writer in Taiwan, William Stimson, who has a very interesting site — not a blog, but more a collection of writings that’s well worth a look.

He also sent me an essay on one of our favorite topics, the smoldering Taiwan-China conflict [PDF file], written by a friend of his, Jerome Keating. So here it is; it, too, is worth a read. If you’re of the school that Taiwan rightfully belongs to China, your blood pressure may increase several notches by the time you’ve finished the piece.

The Discussion: 138 Comments

The essay is an interesting read. In the spirit of the “Why should” questions, I guess China’s response would be “Why should we care about any of those questions?”.

I like Jerome Keating’s writing – he often has good insights into Taiwanese politics. He’s got a website with all his essays here:
http://zen.sandiego.edu:8080/Jerome

December 28, 2004 @ 7:17 pm | Comment

Interesting reading. The essay is pretty powerful for people who want independence, but probably do little convert people on the other side.

Jerome question the world. Instead, he should question why Taiwanese is schizophrenic; why do they invest so much money in China, bring so much management skills to China and help China become a manufacturing powerhouse? Then Jerome want the world to help them to stay away from China. No kidding.

December 28, 2004 @ 10:16 pm | Comment

Powerful! Simple truth supported by data. The more people read this article the better. It may help Google (and the world) find this article more easily if Richard’s posting spells out Jerome Keating’s name.

cheers, Luby Liao

December 29, 2004 @ 12:01 pm | Comment

Done.

December 29, 2004 @ 1:33 pm | Comment

The author is wrong, Qing was China. China was never an ethic concept, different groups in China had vied for the Chinese court for centuries, be it Han, Manchu, Jing, Liao, Tibetan or Mongolian and so many others.

ROC inherited China from Qing in 1911, then PRC replace ROC as the rightful government of China in 1971 (UN resolution1668, 2025, 2159, 2389, 2500, 2642 and 2758).

Sovereignty of Taiwan belonged to China before 1895. The sovereignty of Taiwan was ceded to Japan by China under the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895) after China’s loss in Sino-Japan war.

The return of Taiwan’s sovereignty to China (ROC) was decleared before the defeat of Japan in WWII, in Cairo Declaration (1943) “all the territories Japan has seized from China, such as Manchuria, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, shall be restored to China,”

It was reiterated in Potsdam Proclamation (1945), “the terms of the Cario Declaration shall be carried out.” which was the condition for Japan’s surrender. ( Japan’s Instrument of Surrender 1945)

Therefore, Taiwan’s sovereignty belongs to China, which is rightfully represented by PRC today. Peaceful secession of Taiwan from China can only be achieved by the consensus of 1.3 billion Chinese people.

Notes.

1. As a proof of PRC’s linkage with Qing, HongKong was lended to UK in 1842 in the Treaty of Nanking, yet Hongkong was returned to PRC in 1997. Actually in the Treaty of Nanking, there was no appearance of the name “Qing” at all, but only “Emeror of China”.

2. China was called “Qing” in Chinese back then, which is just like China is called “ZhongHuaRenMinGongHeGou(ZhongGou)” today.

December 29, 2004 @ 8:54 pm | Comment

I used to read these kinds of arguments. Now I don’t, because nobody has ever convinced anybody. The facts and believes, even being true, remains useless and pointless. The question becomes, “I’ve see your point. Are you willing to defend it?” Does it eventually lead to war? Everything that Taiwan’s doing makes us pessimistic. (It may sound unfair for I blame one side. But PRC at least does not change its policy and we have been co-existed for half century. Now ROC is taking progress.) At that day, we’d say a old saying, “If we could do it peacefully, we don’t have to do it here.”

December 29, 2004 @ 9:22 pm | Comment

people in taiwan have chinese blood, they speak chinese language, eat (mostly) chinese foods, and share a common history with mainland china.

an independent taiwan is a very strange concept to chinese, and to many asians, i believe.

if a re-unification requires the agreement from taiwan people, then the independence of taiwan requires the agreement from mainland chinese. this is fair.

December 30, 2004 @ 2:54 am | Comment

We should keep the status quo of Taiwan not declaring independence and China not invading Taiwan. I don’t blame Taiwanese for not wanting to be part of communist China. The CCP needs to reform itself to become a true democracy in China first.

December 30, 2004 @ 1:27 pm | Comment

Richard, is it possible for you to send my comment to the author, and get a response from him?

December 31, 2004 @ 7:33 am | Comment

I believe the author is aware of this thread and plans to comment here at some point.

December 31, 2004 @ 8:11 am | Comment

I will probably have to answer these and the comments on Confucius in parts.

First, for the record, I am not for the independence of Taiwan; but I am for their right to choose. Taiwan has fought long and hard for their functioning democracy. It is not perfect, what democracy is, but it has weathered numerous storms and still functions. I don’t want to burden Richard’s site with my writings but if anyone wants an idea of that struggle go to my website and look up the July 19 entry on “Chiang Kai-shek’s Legacy” to Taiwan. You will see that it took Taiwan a little over 50 years to get rid of CKS’s Leninist one-party state dictatorship.
So in my mind, if Taiwan wants to choose to join another one-party state dictatorship (PRC) that is OK with me; if they choose not to, that is also OK; if they choose to maintain the status quo, that is also OK. I will defend their right to choose; someone like BL I would bet will not.

Taiwan is made up of many philosophies; we have some die-hard unificationists; some die-hard pro independence types; some status quo believers etc. but we have a free press and they can all express their beliefs in it without recrimination.

Back to China: For business people who have blind faith in the all is good in growing China, ask yourself, the basic question, why do snakeheads never lack customers? Especially when the cost they must pay upfront is much more than a years salary, their travel will be hard and the chances of success are limited. Why don’t they, or why can’t they just go to Shanghai, Beijing etc.?? As you start to get those answers you will begin to understand the controlling aspect of the government.

Second question: Why were Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan able to achieve functioning democracies with a 2 or more party system and a free press in less than a decade after World War II? In Taiwan it took them 50 years, about the same for Russia. In the PRC, they still have not even approached a functioning democracy with at least two contending parties and a free press in 55 years and the prospects of achieving it in the near future Control, control, control.

The CCP cannot function in a democracy or anywhere they don’t have control.

I have observed the comments on the Chinese hatred for Japanese as well as on my two essays. If BL is who I think he is, I have run into him before. He lives in relative comfort in the USA and writes about how all Chinese should be happy to live under the father knows best, controlling CCP. If he is not the same BL, I apologize for making the link.

But let me ask some questions of BL the one who states he would get down on his knees and say sorry, sorry, sorry if any of his ancestors did what the Japanese did.

What is your interpretation on Mao who many have already correctly pointed out is responsible for the deaths of more Chinese than the Japanese killed in World War II?

What is your interpretation of the suppression at Tiananmen Square?

What is your interpretation of the oppression of the Falun Gong?

Why does China lack a free press? (Those who grow up in the west know how even with a free press, so much can be hidden–imagine how much more can be hidden when you control the press.)

When do you think that China will have a functioning democracy?

For the others, watch his rhetoric, as a filial Confucianist he cannot openly criticize elders, country etc.

BL, please don’t give me the answer that these are internal matters and not our business, or that I hate the CCP or the Chinese etc.

As I said in my article on Confucianism; the legalist tradition in China has learned how to manipulate the filial devotion required by Confucius and the hierarchical roles. They use it to maintain control and they count on people like BL to blindly support it.

When I read BL’s comments I have the feeling of deja vu; here instead of Japanese blindly believing their interpretation of history, we just substitute Chinese for Japanese.

So BL, just give your interpretation of Chinese matters; give us the view of Chinese on Chinese. Don’t cop out and say, “other people do it too.” or “It is an internal matter.”

For the others, an interesting read of Chinese on Chinese are the writings of Bo Yang. His writings have been translated and put together in a book called “The Ugly Chinaman.”

For those of us old enough to remember from the 60’s, the book called the “Ugly American” and later the book the “Ugly Japanese” it is in the same vein. (But I date myself.)

Enough for now.

Jerome

January 1, 2005 @ 9:08 am | Comment

Fantastic comment, Jerome – thanks. Unfortunately, I find that making these rather simple and powerful arguments to someone under the spell of the CCP is similar to banging one’s head against the wall.

January 1, 2005 @ 9:16 am | Comment

To Richard, you enthusiam for Jeromy Keating is quite overt:), which is not a bad thing. It may reveal some leanings already. But that’s ok, as long as we acknowledge that we all have bias. Yet to say

“Unfortunately, I find that making these rather simple and powerful arguments to someone under the spell of the CCP is similar to banging one’s head against the wall. ”

I find to be rather arrogant, assuming you have taken hold of the only truth. Such mentality is actually very CCP like. Do you want me to call you brainwashed by western media?
——————————————-

To Jeromy Keating, First of all, I have no idea I have met you before. Also I don’t see any reason to bring up this issue, other than painting me in a very unfavorable light of an avid CCP support. Maybe it’s your way of discrediting someone before even getting down to the core of debate. So you don’t need to appologize, I take it as your debate tactics, which is intellectually dishonest.

Since your rebutal totally avoids my comment on the status of Taiwan’s sovereignty, I take it as the admission of the veracity of my points. Therefore, let me reiterate, Taiwan’s sovereignty belongs to China, and China is rightfully represented by PRC at present. So the conclusion is the secession of Taiwan from PRC has to be agreed upon the 1.3 billion Chinese. End of proof.

Regarding your other points, I have no intention to defend CCP. I only want to point out what I see as flaws in your essay. If you want to discuss an issue like Taiwan independence, firstly, I strongly believe you should include the very important issue of sovereignty from the other side: secondly, your arguement about Qing and Han nationality is grossly erronous, either you lack relavent knowledge to discuss such issue, or you are intentionally presenting the half truth to relatively clueless non-Chinese like Richard. Giving you the benefit of doubt, I assume the former. Unfortunately, many western writers like you, have spread much misconception of Taiwan by willingly or unwillingly ignore the relavent facts.

My view on China you can find under the comment section of “The Chinese Peasant Survey trial.” Again Taiwan’s sovereignty doesn’t have much to do with CCP. I am no CCP supporter, I support China only. I am only interested in pointing out your errors, which is enough to overturn your conclusion. Thank you.

BL

January 1, 2005 @ 10:21 am | Comment

BL, we all have our prejudices. I make no secret of my feelings on politics in China. But I try to be fair and listen to all sides. And I let people express their views, no matter what side they are on.

January 1, 2005 @ 10:33 am | Comment

But then again, if you insult people here like you just did, I won’t tolerate it.

January 1, 2005 @ 10:40 am | Comment

Richard,

Please show what “insult” I “just did”, I said sorry for my comment on ACB already, what else you see me did that “insult people.” Please show me, would you?

January 1, 2005 @ 11:24 am | Comment

You just referred to me as “relatively clueless.” It’s okay, not a big deal, but you do have a reputation for belittling those who see China differently from yourself.

January 1, 2005 @ 11:35 am | Comment

Thanks for showing me, Sorry for calling you relatively clueless, I was referring to the Qing and Han issue.

As for “have a reputation for belittling those who see China differently from yourself.” , Please show me an example, I would really appreciate, so I know to avoid such in the future.

January 1, 2005 @ 11:56 am | Comment

Jerome,

“First, for the record, I am not for the independence of Taiwan; but I am for their right to choose. ”

This sentence has become a standard cover for pro-independence people to pretend unbiased. This statement implies that, the Taiwan issue is only the matter of people living in Taiwan, and none of business of anyone else.

By the same token, the south in US has the right to choose session too. I do recognize that Taiwanese should have more say on the future of that island. But for various historical reason, the sentiment of other parts of China should also be respected.

The future status of Taiwan should not be rushed. The reason some people push for independence is that they know they will miss the window as time goes by. All China wants now is to keep the status unchanged. Is that too much to ask?

In Shanghai, lots of our neighbours are Taiwanese. Most business people and professionals in Taiwan prefer more economic integration. Keep in mind that, the less educated people in Taiwan, the more tendency of supporting indepedence. What do that mean to you?

January 1, 2005 @ 6:03 pm | Comment

The comparison of China-Taiwan with the United States’ North-South won’t hold up. The north and the South were one country under one constitution and government, using the same currency and laws, etc. That is hardly the case with Taiwan and China. It’s not as though Taiwan had been ruled by the CCP all this time and suddenly decided to secede! You will need a better analogy I’m afraid.

January 1, 2005 @ 6:43 pm | Comment

Analogy is always an analogy. You can always find differences between two cases.

Taiwan and mainland china was in a same country for over 100 years and had the same currency. Then Taiwan was lost to Japan. After WWII, Taiwan and mainland china was in a same country and using same currency for another 4-5 years.

There was a constitution during KMT regime. There was representative democracy at that time, even though the regime was very corrupt. Well, the democracy in early days of US was also very premitive. Woman could not vote, neither did many minorities and black. Corruption was also very rampant.

So, how much similarities do you need?

The reason that Taiwan was not ruled by CCP for last 50 years is because china is still in a state of civil war, and US supports Taiwan. If France and British supported the south, the south can also lasted many more years.

In summary, the analogy between china civil war and US civil war may not be perfect, but it is a fairly good starting point to understand this issue.

January 1, 2005 @ 8:40 pm | Comment

There is a very easy counterargument to the notion that Taiwan has the right to secede from “China”, which is less controversial than the US Civil War analogy.

If Taiwan has the right to secede, then shouldn’t “North Taiwan” be able to secede from Taiwan. If North Taiwan has the right to secede from Taiwan, shouldn’t Mr. Chang Lin have the right to secede from North Taiwan. And shouldn’t Chang Lin have the right as a sovereign nation to request aid from the PRC in order to defend the right of the Republic of Chang Lin?

When you start talking about issues of secession then talking about rights is probably the wrong way of doing it. Especially since any “right” Taiwan has to secede is totally meaningless without US military intervention.

The annoying thing about all of this is that there is a political solution that is viable where you have an autonomous Taiwan within some sort of “one China” economic union. I suspect that Beijing will go for this and you’ll probably enough support in Taiwan to make it happen. I figure that there will probably be another three or four years of screaming back and forth before people get back to the table, and work out the solution that is there all along. I just hope that nothing really bad happens before people get to the “obvious” solution.

As far as Taiwan democracy…..

One of the ironies here is that I think that one can make the argument that it is Chen Shui-Bian and Lee Teng-Hui that are being undemocratic here. I’m pretty sure that a “one loose Chinese federation” solution can easily get 60-70% popular support on Taiwan, but CSB and LTH refused to consider this solution, I think *precisely* because its political viable but it leads Taiwan away from the direction that they want to take it. There are certain “red line” issues that Taiwanese care about. For example, any political solution that gives the PRC any real political authority on Taiwan is dead. However, within those limits, there is a lot of room for flexibility, and one problem with the political leadership on Taiwan is that they haven’t used it.

It *may* be that “one China” means a loose Chinese confederation is unacceptable to Beijing, but it is interesting that Taiwan has not asked, and my own opinion is that neither CSB or LTH has asked because they are terrified that Beijing will be flexible on this issue.

I’m hoping that Ma Ying-Jiu or Su Cheng-Chang are willing to be much more flexible on this issue.

The political situation on Taiwan is really complex, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing since it means that there is a solution out there. One problem (which I’m trying to fix with my own blog and posting on bulletin boards) is that there are very few English pro-KMT perspectives out there, and that gives you a pretty skewed picture of what the political situation is like in Taiwan. It’s like trying to understand American attitudes by just reading Kerry supporters.

January 2, 2005 @ 12:30 am | Comment

About the US civil war analogy : As far as I know, the legal justification for the civil isn’t perfect. I’m ready to admit that the agression on the South was illegal, and that the South could have rightfully seceded.

But then 1) it’s past so there’s no need going back over it, and 2) it ended slavery – the North had the moral upper hand.

If it wasn’t for slavery, the case for the North wouldn’ve been quite tougher to make.

January 2, 2005 @ 6:00 am | Comment

“The comparison of China-Taiwan with the United States’ North-South won’t hold up. The north and the South were one country under one constitution and government, using the same currency and laws, etc. That is hardly the case with Taiwan and China. It’s not as though Taiwan had been ruled by the CCP all this time and suddenly decided to secede! You will need a better analogy I’m afraid.”

as i know, former east germany and west germany have their own currency, their own government, different political systems, different living standards, different national flags, different ….

i can’t see any strength in your argument, sorry.

January 2, 2005 @ 6:03 am | Comment

“First, for the record, I am not for the independence of Taiwan; but I am for their right to choose”

sound great, pls allow those taiwanese who support the reunification with mainland to set up a PRC TAIWAN in taiwan, please respect thieir right to choose. i don’t mind you give them 100 SKM or 10 SKM, or where PRC TAIWAN is located in taiwan, i just hope those who like reunification have their own land in taiwan, so next time i choose a vacation destination, i could fly to PRC TAIWAN.

January 2, 2005 @ 6:14 am | Comment

btw, in exchange, those mainlanders who don’t like the reunification with PRC TAIWAN could set up their own land in mainland, let’s call it TAIWAN PRC.

let’s respect their right to choose!

oh, maybe we should just expand this principle to other parts of the world. how about setting up a TERRORIST IRAQ, let’s just respect those terrorists’ right to choose, …

January 2, 2005 @ 6:19 am | Comment

Emile,

My understanding is that, the Lincoln’s achievement, first and foremost, is his fierce determination to save the union. Slavery was the secondary issue.

In Lincoln’s inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law.

For Americans to lecture Chinese on Taiwan issue, they should either throw Lincoln out of his memorial, or state explicitly in Lincoln’s memorial that, the south can secede and slavery is the major issue.

Without those actions, Americans are simply kicking off ladders after they climb up. Pure hypocricy.

January 2, 2005 @ 6:37 am | Comment

Richard,

I wish you didn’t delete any post, no matter how clueless or insultive they might be.

In his project ESWN is trying to put a human face on China. Admirable efforts. You can do the same by leaving those posts intact, and thus putting a real face on China’s ultra-nationalists, who would rather nuke Taiwanese than letting them enjoy independence as status quo. Those kind of posts are flooding Chinese language BBS on daily basis, and it’s fair to have them accessible for English readers here.

January 2, 2005 @ 7:12 am | Comment

richard, Mr. keating’s response was rather weak. He totally avoided my core challenge to his essay. Isn’t sovereignty of Taiwan the core issue in the Taiwan question? If he or the rest of the independence leaning crowd can’t challenge the assertion Taiwan’s sovereignty belongs to PRC, why can’t they admit Taiwan’s secession has to be agreed upon by 1.3 billion Chinese?

It will be nice if we can agreed upon an analogy, but it’s fine if we can’t. We can still discuss the Taiwan sovereignty status.

BTW, I feel rather uncomforable to be called

“do have a reputation for belittling those who see China differently from yourself.”

without any evidence shown. I think it’s unfair to me.

January 2, 2005 @ 7:13 am | Comment

“You can do the same by leaving those posts intact, and thus putting a real face on China’s ultra-nationalists, who would rather nuke Taiwanese than letting them enjoy independence as status quo. Those kind of posts are flooding Chinese language BBS on daily basis, and it’s fair to have them accessible for English readers here.”

those mainland chinese are just as crazy as those taiwanese who shouting bombing 3-gorge dam of china and killing tens of millions of mainland chinese. but i don’t think those taiwanese represent the majority of taiwan people.

china is a 13 billion population nation, if you use the sample of a few internet kids and draw any conclution of china, that’s dangerous.

perhaps somebody hopes the western readers to get the misleading image of china, but the truth is, china is far from nationalism.

i can understand the benefits of the misleading images of china that might bring to somebody, and i think you guys can understand it too.

btw, most chinese over the age of 35 seldom go to a forum or internet board, actually many of don’t use computers.

be careful of somebody that trys to misleading you, buddy!

January 2, 2005 @ 7:30 am | Comment

bellevue, you didn’t answer my question about your comment on Mr. Hu YaoBong. Please show the world where is the CCP document says Mr. Hu was purged because of reconciliation attitude towards Japan. Aren’t you dishonest in your post by implying so? Am I wrong calling you a liar?

“In his project ESWN is trying to put a human face on China. Admirable efforts. You can do the same by leaving those posts intact, and thus putting a real face on China’s ultra-nationalists, who would rather nuke Taiwanese than letting them enjoy independence as status quo. Those kind of posts are flooding Chinese language BBS on daily basis, and it’s fair to have them accessible for English readers here.”

You know there are extremist language used in web chat room everywhere, they represent a small portion of the population, yet you want to use them to influence non-chinese opinion. Again here, you are not interested in presenting the truth, but only interested in defaming the Chinese. Is this honest? Is this not hatred?

January 2, 2005 @ 7:33 am | Comment

You are absolutely wrong in name calling. Did I say Hu was purged for his invitation? Read again.

– Hu invited 3,000 young Japanese as wellwishers, fact
– Hu later on got dumpped from his position and his plan got dumpped, too – fact

Let me follow up with another fact. In Party’s criticism against Hu, that invitation was cited as one mistake: hao4 da4 xi3 gong1. Of course, the main reason was Hu’s simpathy with pro-democratic movement in 1987.

I wish you can still figure out pinyin after over one decade.

January 2, 2005 @ 7:40 am | Comment

“You know there are extremist language used in web chat room everywhere, they represent a small portion of the population, yet you want to use them to influence non-chinese opinion. Again here, you are not interested in presenting the truth, but only interested in defaming the Chinese. Is this honest? Is this not hatred? ”

as i said, there are many benefits for some people to mislead western readers on the image of china.

portraiting china as a ultra-nationalism nation benefit those japanese right wings and those taiwanese who want to steal chinese soil.

many of my friends and all my family in shanghai will NEVER think it’s an option to nuke taiwan. it’s the idea only existing in the brains of a few internet kids who drunk many beer and spent 10 hours in front of his laptop and imaging that he were the commander-in-chef of the reunification war.

i don’t think that bellevue lacks this common sense.

January 2, 2005 @ 8:00 am | Comment

“and thus putting a real face on China’s ultra-nationalists, who would rather nuke Taiwanese than letting them enjoy independence as status quo. ”

Please go check the comments on

http://www.freerepublic.com/

There are numerous comments on nuke China. Does that reflect the opinion of US majority?

The way you are presenting things is propaganda. As I have discussed with you at Hangzhou T-salon, you have a habit of making things up and twisting facts.

For interesting parties, you can visit this discussion:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/andreal/110231773443251850/

January 2, 2005 @ 8:09 am | Comment

we call this as “selective reading”

people tend to absorb the information that makes them feel good.

in case of the above propaganda, i can image that bellevue feels better if others have a bad image of china, becaue, every reader can conclude from bellevue’s posts that bellevue hates china a lot

January 2, 2005 @ 8:17 am | Comment

emile: Yes it is important to talk about the American justification for the Civil War. We can argue about theory a lot, but there is one basic fact and that is that the United States would not be an economic superpower if it let the South secede, and I don’t think that the world would be in as good a shape as it is now. One of the most eloquent letters justifying Beijing’s position on Taiwan was written by General William T. Sherman to the people of Atlanta in 1864. Google for “war is cruelty.”

Personally, I like the position that the United States government has taken which is that the Taiwan situation is a situation that both sides need to work out together, and that *neither* side has the right to impose a unilateral solution over the objection of the other. I do **not** personally think it is realistic or morally correct for Beijing to impose a unilateral solution over the objections of Taipei, but I also do not think that it is realistic or morally correct for Taipei to impose a unilateral solution over Beijing. If there is a deadlock, then we just keep things the same. The current situation really isn’t that bad.

I do think that if you start with this as a principle, then you *will* eventually come up with a political settlement that everyone can live with. Let me point out one important thing and that unlike other parts of the world (such as Israel-Palestine), no one is dying over this issue right now.

January 2, 2005 @ 10:57 am | Comment

Steve, Free Republic is a right-wing site for idiots. They absolutely do NOT represent the view of most Americans. We do not want to see China nuked, of course. You can always find some voices to prove your argument, but turning to Free Republic isn’t really a good strategy.

Joseph, thanks for the intelligent input. I tend to agree with you.

Bellvue don’t worry, I haven’t deleted any posts. I’m just trying to tell BL to remain polite.

BL, I was sent three separate emails warning me about your belligerent attitude as displayed at other online forums. Now, just because they say this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. But it is true that you have this reputation, fair or not.

January 2, 2005 @ 11:25 am | Comment

Richard, I am sorry, you may have to call me insult others again, I hate to make this forum a place for “personal attacks”, but what bellevue does is constantly spinning and twisting even his own words. He has no intellectual honesty. Since he has addressed me again, I have to respond and show his duplicity. If you think this inapproapriate, let me know this will be last time I communicate to him. So sorry if you find it inapproapriate.

————————————————

bellevue,

I am sorry you have once again proved your duplicity. Here is the evidence all from your own mouth, this is the original post I was commenting on.

Quate:
“As for the education is 70s/80s, yes, “shi4 shi4 dai4 dai4 you3 hao3 xia4 qu4″ (friendship forever) was in official curriculum, and then CPC secretary Hu Yaobang personally invited 3,000 youth from Japan to foster better relations. Hatred against japan was not even on the radar screen.

Who purged Hu Yaobang and his successor, and veered the nation towards a hate-based agenda?”
Unquate.

So according to you, Hu was purged for reconciliation with Japan, and someone came to power later steered the nation to a “hate-based agenda”. Now we compare it to how you rephrased yourself later after I challenged you on this point.

Quate:
“You are absolutely wrong in name calling. Did I say Hu was purged for his invitation? Read again.

– Hu invited 3,000 young Japanese as wellwishers, fact
– Hu later on got dumpped from his position and his plan got dumpped, too – fact

Let me follow up with another fact. In Party’s criticism against Hu, that invitation was cited as one mistake: hao4 da4 xi3 gong1. Of course, the main reason was Hu’s simpathy with pro-democratic movement in 1987.”
Unquote.

Well “the main reason” of Hu’s purge according to bellevue has changed. Even “hao4 da4 xi3 gong1” in Chinese means “love big sucess”, No apprent relation with Japanese reconciliation what so ever. Is that a criticism of reconciliation to Japan? Nowhere close, it could be complaining the wastefulness in conducting such event.

Let everyone see your duplicity, I am really not sure if you are interested in engaging honest intellectual discussion and exchange of ideas. . Anyways, thank you.

January 2, 2005 @ 11:42 am | Comment

Richard, I think it’s important for you to reveal the secret charges against me. Don’t you agree. I really don’t know what you are talking about the warnings.

January 2, 2005 @ 11:45 am | Comment

Richard,

I totally agree with you. I fully understand the comments at Free Republic does not reflect the opinion of US majority.

I quote this site is to educate Bellevue that every country has its share of idiots. Using idiot’s comments to describe China is a vicious propaganda, and I would like her to know that.

January 2, 2005 @ 11:47 am | Comment

binfeng: as i know, former east germany and west germany have their own currency, their own government, different political systems, different living standards, different national flags, different ….

binfeng, in the case of the two Germanys, both sides WANTED reunification! They were separated against their will by the USSR. A very, very, very differernt situation from China and Taiwan, don’t you think? ๐Ÿ™‚

January 2, 2005 @ 11:48 am | Comment

BL, you can email me if you want to discuss what others have said, though I won’t give any names. And I disagree with you about bellvue and don’t think I’ve seen any duplicity in his/her writing.

Steve, thanks for clarifying.

January 2, 2005 @ 12:10 pm | Comment

Richard,

This is the first time I am engaged in a blog. I bumped into your website several days ago. I have no idea what some of your friends might have said. Like Mr. Keating, I know for sure this is first time I came across his name. I find it’s rather scandelous to comment on my “reputation” without evidence. and then ask me to contact you privately.

If my arguements made it difficult for some to advocate Taiwan independence, I am sorry, I only present the facts as I know them.

If there is anything inapproapriate regarding my behavior on this forum you can simply point it out. I can either appologize for it or I can refute the charge. I think it’s absolutely unfair to bring up some “warning” from your friends to tarnish my “reputation”. Especially when you and I obviouisly have strong disagreement on a variety of issues, your behavior could be taken more than it’s face value.

Glad to know your opinion on bellevue, even though it wasn’t asked for. You are entitled to your opinion just like everybody else. Thank you.

January 2, 2005 @ 3:07 pm | Comment

“Free Republic is a right-wing site for idiots. They absolutely do NOT represent the view of most Americans.”

Sadly most Americans also voted a right wing cowboy idiot back to the white house in November. It is totally inexcusable.
Be afraid people….

January 2, 2005 @ 4:51 pm | Comment

JR, I agree we should all be afraid of Bush. On the other hand, I’d still ratrher live under this government’s than the PRC’s — at least fornow. Knowing Bush’s propensity for screwing up all that he touches, who knows what we’ll be like 4 years from now?

January 2, 2005 @ 4:55 pm | Comment

BL, maybe these warnings are from readers who have you confused with someone else, as one told me you were in Singapore, another told me you were in America. Let’s just forget it.

Glad to know your opinion on bellevue, even though it wasn’t asked for.

That’s the kind of rude remark that hurts your credibility and makes you sound belligerent. No need to say you’re sorry; you are obviously smart and I appreciate your passion and your contribution. You just need to tone down some of that anger, just as Mr. Song does.

January 2, 2005 @ 5:34 pm | Comment

richard:
The comparison of China-Taiwan with the United States’ North-South won’t hold up. The north and the South were one country under one constitution and government, using the same currency and laws, etc. That is hardly the case with Taiwan and China. It’s not as though Taiwan had been ruled by the CCP all this time and suddenly decided to secede! You will need a better analogy I’m afraid.

binfeng:
as i know, former east germany and west germany have their own currency, their own government, different political systems, different living standards, different national flags, different ….

richard:
binfeng, in the case of the two Germanys, both sides WANTED reunification! They were separated against their will by the USSR. A very, very, very differernt situation from China and Taiwan, don’t you think? ๐Ÿ™‚

bingfeng:
ok, richard, since you change your key point in the original argument, i need to give you something new.

chinese in both taiwan and mainland wanted a reunification from 1950s to 1980s, but as i can remembered, one foreign country, just like the former USSR, sent warships to “protect” taiwan and separated taiwan from mainland.

as i said in a previous post, my opinion (i believe many other mainlanders hold the same attitute) is: taiwan is chinese soil, but currently its residents are reluctent to reunified with mainland because of different political systems, let’s just wait and see, the reunification needs approval from taiwan people, and taiwan independence needs approval from both mainland and taiwan. does this sound fair?

one basic fact i’d like to mention to western readers:

the first taiwan independence organization was established in tokyo. the so-called “father of taiwan independence” lee denghui studied and grow up in japan and served in japanese royal army, his older brother dead as a japanese soilder and his father was a japanese police.

January 2, 2005 @ 6:11 pm | Comment

We know that Lee Teng Hui’s father was a collabrative to the Japanese regime in Taiwan, AKA “Han gan” , and Lee was once a member of the Mao’s Communist party. However, there was an elaborate and investigative “rumor” in Taiwan in the early 90s that Lee Teng Fui’s real father was Japanese. Anyone else remember that?

January 2, 2005 @ 6:39 pm | Comment

What “key point” did I change, binfeng? I think YOU changed points when we were talking about the Civil War and you brought up the two Germanys! And unfortunately, the two Germanys don’t compare to Taiwan and China. In the case of Germany, all sides were in favor of unification. The Taiwanese are dead opposed to it, and for good reason! Just look at the slow strangulation of Hong Kong.

January 2, 2005 @ 6:57 pm | Comment

richard:
What “key point” did I change, binfeng? I think YOU changed points when we were talking about the Civil War and you brought up the two Germanys! And unfortunately, the two Germanys don’t compare to Taiwan and China. In the case of Germany, all sides were in favor of unification. The Taiwanese are dead opposed to it, and for good reason! Just look at the slow strangulation of Hong Kong.

bingfeng:
richard, in your post you said:
“The comparison of China-Taiwan with the United States’ North-South won’t hold up. The north and the South were one country under one constitution and government, using the same currency and laws, etc. That is hardly the case with Taiwan and China. It’s not as though Taiwan had been ruled by the CCP all this time and suddenly decided to secede! You will need a better analogy I’m afraid.”

then i come up with the case of former east and west germany, telling you that living in one government currently is not a prerequisite for reunification

but you come back to me again talking about “will” of germans.

i am just confused by your logic.

even in your current logic – free will, you can not defend yourself well. the south didn’t want a united america, they just want independence. is it illegal to force south against their will?

btw, do you agree with me to set up a PRC TAIWAN because there are many taiwanese hoping a reunification with mainland china? come on, that’s my next target of vacation! and don’t tell me you won’t allow them to set up a PRC TAIWAN in taiwan because that against their will!

January 2, 2005 @ 7:14 pm | Comment

is it a basic fact that taiwanese wanted reunification with mainland from 1950s to 1980s?

if free will is a condition for reunification, do you mean that taiwan should reunified with mainland during that time?

January 2, 2005 @ 7:15 pm | Comment

“The Taiwanese are dead opposed to it, and for good reason! Just look at the slow strangulation of Hong Kong.”

macao’s ecomomic growth is below 0% before it returned to china, but under the “1C2S”, it started to grow, and the growth for 2004 is more than 30%.

the government trys to relate that achievement to the 1C2S, and some westerners trys to relate current hongkong to 1C2S.

both of them are just propaganda.

it has nothing to do with 1C2C, both in hongkong and in macao.

January 2, 2005 @ 7:20 pm | Comment

Binfeng, arguing with you is not dissimilar to banging one’s head against a steel wall. After reading your last comment in the “Blind Rage” thread I think we’d better agree we’ll never see eye to eye on things.

For readers who haven’t yet had the pleasure of reading binfeng’s latest gem, here’s an excerpt:

i am not a japanese-hater or anything like that, but I CAN NOT keep silence if some japanese want to re-write the history, it’s not only a matter of past but also a matter of future, i need to speak out for my children. and I CAN NOT keep silence when some people say the hatred towards those fucking japanese worshiping war criminals is blind, it is not blind and it is japanese that fuel this hatred again and again after 65 years ending of wwii

If you’re not a Japanese hater, I’d be curious to meet a Chinese person who really hates Japan!

Sorry to get off-topic, but I’m trying to make the simple point that meaningful discussion with you is made difficult by your susceptibility to rage and illogic.

January 2, 2005 @ 7:21 pm | Comment

I was referring to HK’s political strangulation, not economic.

January 2, 2005 @ 7:24 pm | Comment

“We know that Lee Teng Hui’s father was a collabrative to the Japanese regime in Taiwan, AKA “Han gan” , and Lee was once a member of the Mao’s Communist party. However, there was an elaborate and investigative “rumor” in Taiwan in the early 90s that Lee Teng Fui’s real father was Japanese. Anyone else remember that? ”

anyway, lee can speak japanese quite well and his bio was written by a right-wing japanese writer.

it just amazed me that a so-called taiwanese president insist that the disputed (between taiwan and japan) DiaoYu islands belong to japan. can you believe it?

all these little things never known to west, and i don’t know how long they will trust japan and its pet project of “taiwan independence” when they know them.

you can check and find all the information about lee tendhui and Diaoyu islands by googling

January 2, 2005 @ 7:26 pm | Comment

richard:
Binfeng, arguing with you is not dissimilar to banging one’s head against a steel wall.

bingfeng:
this makes me laugh out.

if i am a steel wall, you have a steel head ๐Ÿ™‚

January 2, 2005 @ 7:38 pm | Comment

Back after the holidays.
For BL, a reason I will speak more to your historical points but I referenced Confucius is to bring out how you are a perfect example of the filial hierarchy. You can never directly challenge or criticize your government, your elders, your historians in public. I have read your comments in the “Chinese Peasant Survey Trial” and to tell the truth I find them condescending and patronizing to the peasants. You briefly acknowledge there is much social ill and vice in China but spend the rest of your time making excuses for the leadership. To say that the change will be gradual and may take generations. If I were growing up in one of the AIDS villages or other poverty explotied areas etc. I would find little comfort in the fact that you “feel” for my plight. Then you excuse the leadership by saying they are under such tremendous “pressure.”

I think I will write a letter to Michael Moore and tell him to let up on George boy in the White House, because Georgie Porgie is under great pressure; at the same time I will send a note to Gary Trudeau and tell him not to mock the Pres in his cartoons because of the great pressure he is under. You vilify the Japanese but you cut Mao slack because his intentions were good though he was responsible for the deaths of more Chinese than the Japanese. This is what I mean by the fact that the farmer peasants who make up the major portion of the 1.3 billion Chinese may have the “noble” position of 2nd place in the occupational hierarchy but I would be willing to bet that most would trade that for the lowest class merchants who deal with “filthy money.” They have no political voice and little resort except to riot which we read about even though the press is muzzled. For those of us who worked in the Civil Rights movements in the States it was little comfort to the black community to tell them, “don’t worry, change will come in a couple of generations, the government is under a lot of pressure.”

But to history. Your history is very Sino-centric. Let’s start with your first paragraph. “China was never an ethnic concept. Different groups in China had vied for the Chinese court for centuries, be it Han, Manchu, Jing, Liao, Tibetan or Mongolian and so many others.”

Am I to understand by that that the Manchu, Jing, Liao, Tibetans and Mongolians did not make up other independent sovereign nations vying for the same territory as the sovereign nation of the Han in China?

Or are you saying that the Manchu, Jing, Liao, Tibetans, Mongolians etc. were just wandering barbarian tribes wondering around the borders desirous of the Chinese court, but the only real sovereign nation in Asia was China?

By the way, I do agree with Bing Feng that Taiwan’s roots of democracy are from Japan as those who would go to my website and find the entry on Oct. 31.

I also think that Joseph Wang is on the right track by proposing a “loose federation” type solution. I favor something more like the European Union where even age old enemies like France and Germany with a long history of running wars are now locked in to a union where war is almost all but impossible. What few seem to realize is that even though the USA became independent of Great Britain they have been the staunchest of allies ever since even to the point of Tony Blair almost losing his job because of George Bush. But for Beijing, the only eyes they can look from are control, control, control.

Jerome

January 2, 2005 @ 8:34 pm | Comment

About the civil war thing :

Yes, it made America what it is now. But does that mean it was legal (or moral, or right, whatever) ? I don’t think it’s clear cut.

I have no problem admitting that maybe the war was wrong. If that means ditching Lincoln, or admitting that the only moral basis was slavery, not the union, fine with me.

If it’s a wrong, it can’t be righted now anyway, so who cares ? All those people died ages ago (though it seems that people in the south still resent the war as unjust).

Now, yes, it did make the US stronger, and maybe that’s better for the world. But, is that the point ? Didn’t slavery, and the genocide of the indians, also make the US stronger ? Does that mean that we should consider those kinds of things right ?

January 3, 2005 @ 2:12 am | Comment

emile,

I actually agree with you. Unfortunately, this world is not run as we wish. No one will dare to ditch Lincoln. The daily pledge to US citizen still includes defending union. Anyone openly expressing thoughts similar to yours will not survive in politics. Similarly, in China, any leader show any intention to let Taiwan secede will be kicked out by his enemy in no time.

In history, few things were started as right things to do. Actually many things started with a seemingly lofty moral goal have turned out to be disasters, from crusade to communism, well, to today’s Iraq war. Therefore using moral to guide history is really not effective.

Back to Jerome’s writing, his strong rhetorical style stirrs powerful emotion, but it is more propaganda than scholarly report. CCP’s old propagand is actually pretty powerful too, otherwise people will not be tricked to die for it.

In my opinion, writing powerful essay to stir strong independence emotion is actually irresponsible thing to do. If one day there is a war across Taiwan strait, Jerome will have blood on his hand.

January 3, 2005 @ 3:44 am | Comment

“By the way, I do agree with Bing Feng that Taiwan’s roots of democracy are from Japan as those who would go to my website and find the entry on Oct. 31.”

you twisted my original meaning.

japan sponsored so-called “taiwan independence movement”, japan didn’t contribue and didn’t have interest in contributing to the democracy in taiwan.

why you twisted my original meaning? i just wonder. for a person as knowledgable as you, why is it that you could change the meaning of a very simple sentence of another person to meet your needs?

this really amazes me.

January 3, 2005 @ 5:17 am | Comment

my original post is here:

“one basic fact i’d like to mention to western readers:

the first taiwan independence organization was established in tokyo. the so-called “father of taiwan independence” lee denghui studied and grow up in japan and served in japanese royal army, his older brother dead as a japanese soilder and his father was a japanese police.”

and jerome said:
“By the way, I do agree with Bing Feng that Taiwan’s roots of democracy are from Japan as those who would go to my website and find the entry on Oct. 31.”

it’s really amazing! i can’t believe my eyes!

January 3, 2005 @ 5:21 am | Comment

Using China’s (the people’s republic one) logic, India, Ireland,Canada, Australia, Virginia etc. are all an inalienable part of Britain. End of story.

January 3, 2005 @ 7:10 am | Comment

using taiwan separatists logic, the south part of the US, the northern ireland, part of spain, part of russia, part of taiwan (who supports the reunification), part of canada, part of japan, part of south africa, part of germany … should be separated as “independent state”.

end of the story

January 3, 2005 @ 7:40 am | Comment

As an American, I don’t mind seeing two Americas. The west coast states, the mid west and the northeast can get independent from the right wing Jesusland. You can choose where you want to live.

January 3, 2005 @ 8:20 am | Comment

bingfeng,
“the first taiwan independence organization was established in tokyo” does not prove that it was sponsored by Japan. In fact, KMT which ruled Taiwan during the period had accused PRC of sponsoring it.

As for your other description, “lee denghui studied and grow up in japan and served in japanese royal army, his older brother dead as a japanese soilder and his father was a japanese police” applies to many Taiwanese of Lee’s age, because TAIWAN BELONGED TO JAPAN AT THAT TIME, so EVERY Taiwanese policeman was a “Japanese police,” and EVERY Taiwanese who was conscripted would be termed ” japanese soilder” in the way you categorize it.

By your own logic, only those who came over to Taiwan after 1945 are “Chinese,” because only them would not have relatives served in “Japanese Army,” or worked for Japanese government (such as policemen)! Heck, even farmers were guilty of planting food for Japanese! So by your logic, only 14% of Taiwanese population is “Chinese!” How shocking!

January 3, 2005 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

To “b” :
using taiwan separatists logic, the south part of the US, the northern ireland, part of spain, part of russia, part of taiwan (who supports the reunification), part of canada, part of japan, part of south africa, part of germany … should be separated as “independent state”.
end of the story

Not really. If they want (CHOOSE) to be separate, why on earth not? I’m saying according to the Chinese logic, 1/4 of the world will always belong to Britain. India should always fall under the governance of Westminster FOREVER in the same way as Tibet should simply accept that it is Chinese despite the differences in culture, religion,language, ethnicity, history, and so forth. Oh, and furthermore: Quebec has had a number of referenda where Canada allowed them to CHOOSE to leave the country. Well, otherwise they would do as you would apparently advocate and kill as many Quebecois until they beg to remain part of Canada. Parts of Germany were decided by plebeicite. Czechoslovakia allowed itself to break in half. The USSR broke up into various independent countries- you would demand that Ukrainians who make up the largest country in Europe should be forced to again be ruled by Russians or die. And so on…. For God’s sake, even Cornwall has voted on whether or not to leave the Untied Kingdom! Empires collapse and die but people remain. I say let people choose. You say go back into history and force them to live in arbitrary and illogical systems of government whereby if a land was temporarily annexed by Alexander the Great, it should always be part of Greece no matter the distance of time and the views of the inhabitants.
Kind of wrote so much, but I honestly can’t understand China’s logic except from a purely nationalistic standpoint NO DIFFERENT FROM JAPAN OR GERMANY 65 YEARS AGO. I’m keen to read a true response to this as opposed to the simplistic “well, should Alaska be allowed to leave the US?” The issue is Taiwan. Do you love Taiwan so much that you’ll bomb the hell out of it and kill the Taiwanese just so it will have the same colour as the mainland on maps?

January 3, 2005 @ 4:44 pm | Comment

Keir, good luck getting this rather simple point across. At this point, we’re going ’round in circles. (Can you spell o-b-t-u-s-e?)

January 3, 2005 @ 4:57 pm | Comment

Keir,
What if the people in North Ireland want to be independent from England. Do you support it without the agreement from people in England???
Waiting for your answer.

January 3, 2005 @ 5:20 pm | Comment

keir,

as i know, there are taiwan people hope to reunified with mainland china, would you allow them to separate from the rest of taiwan and set a taiwan part of PRC in taiwan?

wait for your answer.

for the GB case, it’s obviously different from mainland-taiwan case, i would rather compare germany and korea case here.

January 3, 2005 @ 5:29 pm | Comment

robo,

not every taiwanese served in japanese government in taiwan, even fewer served in their army and police.

and talking about lee denghui, as the “taiwan president”, he said that Diaoyu islands should belong to japan while this is still a dispute between japan and taiwan.

go back home and ask yourself if lee is a japanese or taiwanese, and why he was called the “father of taiwan independence”

January 3, 2005 @ 5:34 pm | Comment

as a chinese living in mainland, i would NEVER expect a war between taiwan and mainland, not mention to hope it.

a rational way to solve the problem is wait and see, i hope a gradual and peaceful reintegration, with more exchanges of people, inforemation and trade, people in two sides will understand each other. i really can’t see any reason why taiwan NEED to be separated from mainland. mainland china is now capalism country….

January 3, 2005 @ 5:40 pm | Comment

“the first taiwan independence organization was established in tokyo” does not prove that it was sponsored by Japan”

as a matter of fact, the first person that developed this TI idea was a japanese. in the riots supporting the TI after 1945, most mobs are those japanese left in taiwan, their slogan is sth like this :”kill all chinese, let taiwan be independent”. no need to mention that a few days ago, “taiwan president” lee denghui visited japan and met some japanese politicians to discuss sth important to them.

January 3, 2005 @ 5:48 pm | Comment

Bingfeng,
Read the Taiwanese World Journal about the KMT wanting direct flights between the two coasts. I believe the KMT is doing just that right now to facilitate mutual communication between the two coasts. Does the CCP receive that signal? The KMT can become the go-between for the CCP and Chen’s DPP. The KMT and CCP both want the reunification of one China.

January 3, 2005 @ 5:55 pm | Comment

JR, I have heard several englishmen say that Britain would be quite relieved to be rid of northern ireland. It’s the loyalist up there who don’t agree.

I wish there was more acknowledgement of the situation of Quebec. They voted on whether to leave or not, and chose not to. And not because Canada was threatening to bomb the shit out of them if they left.

bingfeng : Yes, the mainland is capitalist. But it’s also extremely undemocratic. I can understand the Taiwanese objecting to that (yes yes, you say they’ll still have there freedom. Go ask Hongkongers what they think of that).

January 3, 2005 @ 8:09 pm | Comment

. i really can’t see any reason why taiwan NEED to be separated from mainland. mainland china is now capalism country….

Posted by bingfeng

If nothing else, you can access this particular blog from Taiwan but not from the mainland. Capitalist or not, without democracy, freedom of the press and freedom of expression, Taiwan will be taking a step backwards, not forwards.

January 3, 2005 @ 9:54 pm | Comment

in the riots supporting the TI after 1945, most mobs are those japanese left in taiwan, their slogan is sth like this :”kill all chinese, let taiwan be independent”.

I didn’t know there were that many Japanese left in Taiwan after 1945. I am even more surprised that the KMT government had allowed them to stay. I must say those Japanese are rather bold. What you have described is like the equivalent of Germans in postwar Czechoslovakia shouting slogans like “kill all Czechs, let Sudetenland be independent!”

January 3, 2005 @ 10:17 pm | Comment

JR: Obviously I would support the outright independence of Northern Ireland, having been a member of the PUP which first came up with the idea. The government of Great Britain long ago agreed to giving up its claim to Northern Ireland if that is what the people wish. They have made this explicitly clear; I have no idea what your point is. England allowed the south to leave in 1922, didn’t it?

January 3, 2005 @ 10:28 pm | Comment

Bingfeng: Comparing Taiwan with the US of the late 19th century or Ireland in the early 20th century or Germany in the late 20th century or Korea…. is pointless. They are all unique cases. Why do you want to refer to other cases instead of sticking with taiwan? I mean, you can’t compare the two Germanys because they were forced to separate by not just the USSR (Richard) but the three other allies, primarily France. The East was not forced to join- they begged to! To use this example as you have asked is ludicrous unless you’re arguing that backward communist China join free western-orientated Taiwan. And Korea- well, what’s your point? Sure I want it to be reunified. But as what? Against the will of whom? We already fought a brutal war to prevent such a forced unification in 1950. I want China and Taiwan to reunify. If that’s what both parties want. Again, answer the question instead of evading by throwing up red herrings: do you support the destruction of Taiwan and the deaths of countless others on both sides just to say it belongs to you?
AND PLEASE EVERYONE, enough of what was agreed at Cairo and Potsdam and so on. The world has changed since then (the Chinese who signed the agreement were the KMT, not CCP) making it worthless today. Should Germany still be bound by the Treat of Versailles?

January 3, 2005 @ 10:47 pm | Comment

keir asked bingfeng:
“Why do you want to refer to other cases instead of sticking with taiwan?”

bingfeng answered keir,
it is YOU who first give us the cases of other countries.

look the original posts:
___________________

Using China’s (the people’s republic one) logic, India, Ireland,Canada, Australia, Virginia etc. are all an inalienable part of Britain. End of story.

Posted by Keir at January 3, 2005 07:10 AM

using taiwan separatists logic, the south part of the US, the northern ireland, part of spain, part of russia, part of taiwan (who supports the reunification), part of canada, part of japan, part of south africa, part of germany … should be separated as “independent state”.

end of the story

Posted by b at January 3, 2005 07:40 AM

January 3, 2005 @ 11:31 pm | Comment

keir,

i am a little confused here.

see, we have different opinions, and debating is one way to communicate and find the truth.

if like the above case, YOU first gave us the cases of other countries, then i fellowed the same iogic and also gave the cases of other countries, and suddenly you pointed at me saying i should stick to taiwan and should not use other nations as a comparsion, you are just trying defending yourself nomatter what.

in short, debating is always better than war. and i will try my best to be honest and respectful to the other side, hopefully everyone will do the same.

January 3, 2005 @ 11:37 pm | Comment

keir said:
The East was not forced to join- they begged to! To use this example as you have asked is ludicrous unless you’re arguing that backward communist China join free western-orientated Taiwan. And Korea- well, what’s your point? Sure I want it to be reunified. But as what? Against the will of whom? We already fought a brutal war to prevent such a forced unification in 1950. I want China and Taiwan to reunify. If that’s what both parties want. Again, answer the question instead of evading by throwing up red herrings: do you support the destruction of Taiwan and the deaths of countless others on both sides just to say it belongs to you?

keir is trying to protait a mainland that will use force to unite taiwan. this is not correct. as a matter of fact, mainland just want to keep the status quo, and wait untill both sides figure out a way to solve the problem, at the same time, enhance the mutual exchanges and understandings.

what is the name of the law currently in discussion in mainland? it’s ANTI-SECESSION LAW, it’s NOT a REUNIFICATION LAW.

i can tell you this, the natural and peaceful reintegration between mainland and taiwan is going quite well, in the city i live – shanghai, there are many taiwanese (about 200,000), actively involved in many aspects of the life here in mainland.

taiwan chinese can come to mainland but mainland chinese can not go to visit taiwan. taiwan government forbid mainland chinese to visit there. fear of spy? there are numous taiwan spys here in mainland, caught dozens last year. so why don’t allow us to visit taiwan? taiwan is like a place ruled by commie government.

in short, mainland doesn’t want to use force to unite taiwan, and it’s taiwan that want to use force to separate from china.

January 3, 2005 @ 11:56 pm | Comment

“England allowed the south to leave in 1922, didn’t it?”

in case of mainland-taiwan, mainland won’t allow taiwan to separate.

January 3, 2005 @ 11:58 pm | Comment

bingfeng said:
… i really can’t see any reason why taiwan NEED to be separated from mainland. mainland china is now capalism country….

schtickyrice said:
If nothing else, you can access this particular blog from Taiwan but not from the mainland. Capitalist or not, without democracy, freedom of the press and freedom of expression, Taiwan will be taking a step backwards, not forwards.

schtickyrice,

the spirit of 1-country-2-system is very simple:

let taiwan be itself, whatever it has before, just keep them, keep the politicial system, keep the army, keep the “free” press, keep the good things and dirty things. mainland will not intervene taiwans own issues.

so, your worry is unnecessary. on the contrary, you should worry how taiwan influences mainland if both are reunified.

January 4, 2005 @ 12:05 am | Comment

Confucius once said: the path is not far from man. (dao bu yuan ren), which i think tells us that truth is easy understand.

go to ask any 80-year-old grandma knowing nothing except her family and children, and she will tell you that taiwan is a chinese soil, and she will star at you confused why you ask such a simple and strange question.

you just CAN NOT get the heart from one person, and if you get it out, that person dies, and in taiwan-mainland case, i am pretty sure you also die.

January 4, 2005 @ 12:20 am | Comment

About the one party – two systems : China promised the same thing to Hong Kong, and didn’t keep it’s word. Now you want Taiwan have blind trust ?

January 4, 2005 @ 1:10 am | Comment

About the one party – two systems : China promised the same thing to Hong Kong, and didn’t keep it’s word. Now you want Taiwan have blind trust ?

Posted by emile at January 4, 2005 01:10 AM

correction from bingfeng:
there is not such a policy called ONE PARTY TWO SYSTEMS, its name is ONE COUNTRY TWO SYSTEMS.

let me know what happened in hongkong, is it the direct election issue?

January 4, 2005 @ 1:35 am | Comment

yes, especially the election issue. Elections were promised, and now it looks like they have been canceled.

(And yes, that was just a typo.)

January 4, 2005 @ 2:34 am | Comment

From bingfeng: “England allowed the south to leave in 1922, didn’t it?”

in case of mainland-taiwan, mainland won’t allow taiwan to separate.

I say: Yeah. I know. That’s the point, remember?

OK, I give up. Anyone ever seen the Monty Python “Argument Clinic” sketch? This reminds me of the Monty Python skit the “Argument Clinic”:
“You’re not arguing! An argument is a collected series of sayings that are
intended to establish a fact, not the automatic gainsaying of whatever the
other person says.” Reply: “Yes it is.” “No it isn’t.” “Yes it is.”
Aaaarrrrrrrrrrrggghhhhhh!

January 4, 2005 @ 4:45 am | Comment

To Anonymous:

FYI, I do NOT hate China, but hate the rampant injustice in China, just as I hate the injustice in Taiwan, Chile, US and other countries. I have to admit that I might feel more emotionally invested in China case. I assume that’s understandable.

In order to discredit me you’d better focus on the facts I presented, rather than the motivation. For Steve, if you’re serious on defending China’s record in Xinjiang, you have to prove that the genocide I mentioned never took place, even if it’s recorded by many authors and we as Chinese all know about it.

January 4, 2005 @ 5:02 am | Comment

BL:

You are trying to infer something I didn’t imply from the following:

“Who purged Hu Yaobang and his successor, and veered the nation towards a hate-based agenda?”

Plain English. This sentence focuses on the responsible party – I mean the Party machine – that deposed Hu, later Zhao, and along with them the reconciliatory policy with Japan. I provide this fact as a proof of a policy turn in 90s.

Did I suggest the Japan policy is the MAIN reason to dump Hu? Of course not, but meanwhile not a insignificant collateral – the reason I followed up in another post. I believe it’s well balanced. The AP style book would have to be re-written if you are right.

January 4, 2005 @ 5:24 am | Comment

And for those who believe that nuke-Taiwan opinion is as unpopular as freerepublic.com in the US, I wish you luck. But just check it up on the Internet. Combined with the nuke-America-for-sake-of-Taiwan mob, it’s very popular and very seriously discussed on Chinese BBS, and obviously it’s condoned by Chinese government, if not encouraged, to boost official ‘patriotic education’.

Those extremists can no longer hide behind language barrier, and now we can even enjoy a muted English version. Wouldn’t it be great? It’s like reading Mein Kampf in English way before first bomb could be dropped on Poles. Poles today may be saved this way.

January 4, 2005 @ 5:34 am | Comment

bellevue,
With your China hate, I am very interested to know
What is your background?
what are you doing in China???

In America, right wingers love to say, “if you speak against the government like that in China, they would have you arrested already”…. I am sure that’s not the case. You are proving it.

Talking about extremist….Oh I don’t hate China but I am going to compare China to Hitler anyway. Now that’s what I call BLIND RAGE.

January 4, 2005 @ 5:58 am | Comment

JR, are you saying that nuking taiwan is never seriously discussed on chinese BBS ?

January 4, 2005 @ 6:07 am | Comment

JR:

To testify the progress made in China, do not cite a wretch like me, but a real heroine, Liu Di, aka Stainless Steel Rat, who was only imprisoned for mere 12 months without a trial for her writing on the Internet. The rightwingers are wrong: she was never arrested and charged with any crime!

I would like to offer you other examples if you want, JR.

January 4, 2005 @ 6:33 am | Comment

JR, are you saying that nuking taiwan is never seriously discussed on chinese BBS ?

Posted by emile at January 4, 2005 06:07 AM
__________________________

emile, please, do you know what you are talking about?

“nuking taiwan” has never been “seriously” discussed in chinese BBS, except one article i read before, as i can remember, that guy is a chinese living in canada, writing all super nationalism ariticles online.

as for those wee boys using the word “nuke”, you can find plenty in american boards during the spy plane incident, as a matter of fact, i learned this word “nuke” from american wee boys at that time.

as i said before, the majority of chinese people, would NEVER consider “nuking taiwan” as an option.

and as i said before, most mainland chinese won’t believe taiwan people will bomb 3-gorge dam to kill tens of millions mainland chinese.

please, DO NOT agitate hate!

January 4, 2005 @ 6:34 am | Comment

then I wish JR had said it that way instead of directly attacking bellevue.

January 4, 2005 @ 6:41 am | Comment

a china-hater like bellevue is no difference with the sick mr. soog.

just like i commented in this post :
http://pekingduck.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi?__mode=view&entry_id=2132

they could pick up the materials they need on the web in order to protrait china as a monster.

everyone can do the same thing for japan, the US or any country of the world.

this kind of persons, no matter they live in mainland china, japan, taiwan or any place of the world, are the real trouble

January 4, 2005 @ 6:42 am | Comment

emile,
It is a common phenomenon called the abuse of annoymity on the internet.
Example, Trolls like bellevue here can say stupid and irresponsible stuffs to hurt others because he thinks he is anonymous.
Another example, People have been saying to make France a parking lot(meaning nuke France) for Walmart here in America, go to little green cesspool and go thru its links.
Nuke france? nuke China? hurtful of course but I don’t think you should take them seriously.

January 4, 2005 @ 6:47 am | Comment

Emile,
Please follow the posts in this blog, I did not “directly attack” him.

January 4, 2005 @ 6:55 am | Comment

I’ll accept that unless bellevue comes up with a convincing link (not just a couple of instances).

But I still do find chinese people more, well, beligerent than most people I know – i.e. considering it perfectly acceptable to go attack and invade another country. (Yes, yes, I know. Iraq. Damn you, Mr Bush ! – but still, it just doesn’t feel the same to me.)

Maybe if I knew more Texan rednecks I wouldn’t have the same impression. I hang out with too many europeans, liberals and books.

January 4, 2005 @ 7:01 am | Comment

emile:

Just give you an example that how serious they are.

China has an official not-first-use and not-use-against-non-nuclear policy on nuclear weaponary. These years Chinese BBS has a perpetual topic on if that applies to Taiwan. The conclusion is clear: NO. Why not? That promise was made to foreign states, and since Taiwan ‘is part of China’, using nuclear weapon to flatten Taiwan is a domestic issue, those nationalists argued.

The mentality of never-give-Taiwan-independence is the same for those first-users and bingfeng, JR and others, I feel. The only difference is those first-users are not ashamed to speak out what they believe.

Also, there is a grassroot movement to ask the government to repeal it’s not-first-use and not-use-against-non-nuclear policy, mainly targeting America and Japan. Each topic and scenario is thoroughly discussed on Chinese BBS.

January 4, 2005 @ 7:07 am | Comment

quote emile:
“But I still do find chinese people more, well, beligerent than most people I know”
end quote.

You are right emile, and those Chinese will take it as an honor. Just one anecdote: once some Chinese Americans had an argue with Indian Americans (Asian) on queue line trivial, I heard a Chinese yelling in Mandarin: what was the last time Indians had an upper hand? They never ! (referring to Indian defeat by Chinese in 1960s border skirmish).

BTW, what kind of link do you want me to furnish? Ultra-nationalism? Countless. Use Google.

January 4, 2005 @ 7:15 am | Comment

then China should rename it’s policy “non first use and not use against non nuclear except if you blast the fucking three gorges dam”.

… or is the possibility of nuking also raised outside of “three gorges dam destroyed” scenarios?

January 4, 2005 @ 7:19 am | Comment

bellevue (angry Japanese blogger?),

I also heard Taiwanese people said they would nuke Hong Kong after 1997.
The Mainlander responded, “thats fine, let them nuke Hong Kong, we still have Shanghai.”
The conversations went on and on…

January 4, 2005 @ 7:24 am | Comment

What should I google for ? I know that googling for “traitor to the race” (‘han-something’, I’m to lazy to look it up, I’m going offline now) is supposed to turn up a bunch of ugly results.

Any chinese keywords that would find some “Nuke the US” stuff ? Or Nuke Taiwan, or whatever. It can be a more interesting read than my chinese textbooks ๐Ÿ˜›

January 4, 2005 @ 7:24 am | Comment

(By the way, I’d be interested on a view on how trustworthy the “One country two systems” policy is (seen from Taiwan), considering Hong Kong’s canceled elections)

January 4, 2005 @ 7:26 am | Comment

bellevue, the angry Japanese in China,
I see you continue to show your China hatred… Why are you staying in China, if you hate it so much???

January 4, 2005 @ 7:30 am | Comment

i can see the fire of hatred towards chinese is burning in bellevue’s eyes!

wow, taiwan independence!!!

January 4, 2005 @ 7:39 am | Comment

JR:

To brand anyone you don’t like as a Japanese is very telling. Sorry, I’m a Chinese. The trick is too old.

emile:

A simple search of “yuanzidan” AND “dajitaidu” can return thousands of links. (Some are against this strategy) But many are for it. Here is a serious discussion:

http://jczsbbs1.sina.com.cn/cgi-bin/rview.cgi?gid=5&fid=12&thread=132805&date=20040108&page=10

which is on navy-background warship building industry. They discussed on what specific weapon should to used.

As for Japan, nuke-Japan and stage a rape of Tokyo is more common. “Rape of Tokyo” will return 53,300 links, and it’s counting.

January 4, 2005 @ 7:42 am | Comment

Bingfeng,
Tell me about it. Besides, he is a Japanese in China, I wonder if he is Angry Chinese Blogger in a different name???
=)

January 4, 2005 @ 7:43 am | Comment

One most popular picture on Chinese Internet:

An ‘artist’ rendering of Taiwan being destroyed:

http://www.chinese-vietnamese.ch/_overlay/taiwan.htm

JR, I read in Chinese, not in Japanese.

January 4, 2005 @ 7:46 am | Comment

Bellevue,
you showed your tail. (Hint, the pronoun you used betrayed you.
LOL)
Keep digging the hole you’re in, why don’t you?!
=)

January 4, 2005 @ 7:47 am | Comment

JR:

You are wrong again. I enjoy reading ACB, but I’m not ACB. S/he is a Japanese? Never heard of it.

January 4, 2005 @ 7:49 am | Comment

JR:

I speak 3 Chinese dialects besides Mandarin. What pronunciation? I could have typo, but I have confidence in my accent.

January 4, 2005 @ 7:53 am | Comment

which 3 Chinese dialects do you speak?

January 4, 2005 @ 8:14 am | Comment

again, those chinese wan-fans are just like their japanese or american wee boy counteparts, it’s just stupid to believe they represent the majority of a country.

and it’s even more stupid and, snaky to portrait a country using such extremists as representatives.

i just developed a short writing on this in my blog:
http://blog.bcchinese.net/bingfeng/archive/2005/01/04/6874.aspx

coming back to the topic, i think we should calm down and exchange view points, not hate.

debating is not defaming, or defending yourself no matter what.

bellevue seems to be destroied by his hate towards chinese, why is that? if you are a japanese, i want you to understand that the hate expressed in the other post is only towards those japanese trying to deny dark past.

January 4, 2005 @ 8:14 am | Comment

“I speak 3 Chinese dialects besides Mandarin.”

this is impossible, usually a chinese speak only ONE dialect besides Mandarin, very very few can speak 2.

a person that can speak 3 chinese dialects must be a linguist or a foreigner talented in language.

January 4, 2005 @ 8:18 am | Comment

i think the nationality here is not that important, but pretending to be a chinese while attacking chinese is something that makes me sick.

it’s not necessary and only makes you look very stupid

January 4, 2005 @ 8:23 am | Comment

bingfeng: this is not very common, but not rare either. Many people in the South can speak 2 or more dialects, from parents, relocation, or pure curiocity. A privilege of being a Southerner ๐Ÿ™‚

Actually my Mandarin is Beijing dialect and I’m proud of it – how many southerners can do that?

January 4, 2005 @ 8:27 am | Comment

Pretending to be a Chinese, huh, are you sure?

This is for sure not the first time you claim something without backing up with fact. Can we expect it would be the last time?

January 4, 2005 @ 8:29 am | Comment

JR:

I have some doubts on naming the 3 publicly or disclose to you. It’s a little bit personal.

Let me put it this way: one from father’s side, one from mother’s side, and the last one: Cantonese.

January 4, 2005 @ 8:33 am | Comment

Bellevue,
you showed your tail. (Hint, the PRONOUN you used betrayed you.
LOL)
Keep digging the hole you’re in, why don’t you?!

January 4, 2005 @ 8:39 am | Comment

bingfeng:

If I’m a Chinese hater, I’d love to have people in China as clueless as you. Check up your assumption:

Criticising CPC is hating China;
The one hating China, must be a Japanese.

I don’t need to go any further; all our comments are here. People can read and make their own judgment. It’s not Chinese BBS and you are not the almighty banzhu (board master), you just can’t do the old trade – delete everything you don’t like.

January 4, 2005 @ 8:42 am | Comment

JR: show me the beef. Stop bluffing
Sorry Richard.

January 4, 2005 @ 8:44 am | Comment

“If I’m a Chinese hater, I’d love to have people in China as clueless as you. ”

see what richard reacts to this. should be interesting.

January 4, 2005 @ 8:53 am | Comment

“Criticising CPC is hating China;
The one hating China, must be a Japanese.”

the first one should go back to those who believe criticising japanese right wing is hating japan. they call those chinees japanese-hater again and again.

i never said you are a japanese, i just respond to somebody saying that this kind of behavior is not necessary and is stupid.

January 4, 2005 @ 8:57 am | Comment

bingfeng:

Is it really so hard for you to imagine that a Chinese could be so critical about the ruling party?

Then I have to say, maybe we had been living in 2 very different Chinas. Guess Richard is more familiar with this 2-America phenomenum. Blocks away, world apart. sigh.

January 4, 2005 @ 9:11 am | Comment

Bellevue,
Please stop pretending to be Chinese, I don’t believe you one bit.

January 4, 2005 @ 9:14 am | Comment

JR:

First, it’s perfectly okay to be an Japanese. Using it as a dirty word is racism.

Second, I’m a Chinese. I’m holding a PRC passport. Not being able to be as clueless as you doesn’t mean I’m not. To expose flaws in your logic doesn’t mean I’m not. Not having a bit respect for Chinese communist regime doesn’t mean I’m not.

January 4, 2005 @ 9:28 am | Comment

“I’m holding a PRC passport. Not being able to be as clueless as you doesn’t mean I’m not.”

bellevue, i am pretty sure you should leave here for a while.

January 4, 2005 @ 9:37 am | Comment

[bellevue, i am pretty sure you should leave here for a while.]

Is that a threat?

Back in 1996, early year for China’s Internet, I was as critical as today. I believe in truth.

January 4, 2005 @ 9:42 am | Comment

[bellevue, i am pretty sure you should leave here for a while.]

Is that a threat?

Back in 1996, early year for China’s Internet, I was as critical as today. I believe in truth.

__________________

it is not a threat.

you called me and another one as “clueless” guys. i just hope you could calm down and come back with a mood suitable for a good debate.

January 4, 2005 @ 9:58 am | Comment

bingfeng:

Any clue on ‘One China’? Its capital, currency, constitution?

If that raises your blood pressure, sorry. But truth is just that simple. Saying something that doesn’t exist won’t help your obsession.

January 4, 2005 @ 10:04 am | Comment

bingfeng wrote:
“not every taiwanese served in japanese government in taiwan, even fewer served in their army and police.”

So what’s your point? Do you know that Japan “conscripted” Taiwanese to serve in the Army near the end of the war? In other words, those who “served” did not have a choice!

As for “policemen,” of course few Taiwanese were policemen; just as few were firemen, or any other profession, if you look at each of them individually. For instance, my grandfather worked for Taiwan Rail during Japanese occupation. Now are you going to say that few Taiwanese were employed by Taiwan Rail, so he must be a traitor? As I said, by your logic, EVERY Taiwanese is guilty because their relatives had done something for Japanese, even the farmers had planted food for Japanese consumptions!

If you have to criticize Lee based on his father’s or brother’s occupations (may not even be voluntary), it only shows that you really don’t have much else to criticize him!

January 4, 2005 @ 2:57 pm | Comment

hi i am nancy, i’m 20 and i am taiwanese. i’ve lived in china (beijing) for four years about 7 years ago. i’ve always considered myself Taiwanese, and NOT chinese. my question to the people who considers taiwan a part of china is: “why do you treat us like foreigners if you claim us to be a part of you?” i have just done a survey (of the topic “taiwan and china in the eyes of europeans and americans”) for my paper, and i was quite surprised, and happy to see that most europeans and americans think taiwan is an independent country. i have to admit, i don’t really care any more whether we are a country or not, just as long we remain as who we are. taiwanese. taiwanese who owns taiwanese traits. that’s all i ask for. i don’t mind if we become a part of china, but bottom line, china has to become a democratic country, i don’t want to live in a communist society. we’ve come so far. we’re not about to give that all up now. for whomever. (if you have any comments on anything, please email me, i love sharing and discussing about this, although like what most of you think, no matter how hard you try to persuade the other side, it never works)

January 14, 2005 @ 6:54 am | Comment

It has always puzzled me why the mainland says Taiwan must return to the “motherland” yet they never make a peep about Mongolia.

Why can China live with an independent Mongolia but not an independent Taiwan?

January 21, 2005 @ 1:18 am | Comment

What’s wrong with this picture?

Russia sells weapons to China.

The US sells weapons to Taiwan.

China fights Chinese in Taiwan.

Taiwan fights Chinese in China.

Who’s the fool?

January 21, 2005 @ 1:25 am | Comment

taiwan is a part of china!no doubt!

October 3, 2006 @ 10:24 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.