Posted on 03/13/2006 6:24:53 PM PST by blam
Taiwan storm set to get louder
By Chris Hogg
BBC News, Hong Kong
Tensions between the two sides are running high
It is 12 months since China passed a law authorising the use of force against Taiwan if the self-governing island moved towards formal independence.
On the face of it, it looks like nothing much has changed since then.
Both sides are still flinging insults at each other. China is still refusing to talk to Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian. The "status quo", as people call it, remains in place.
But conversations with the leading players and analysts who monitor their every move suggest an alternative conclusion - the situation has changed, and continues to evolve.
"Beijing now is taking a different approach to dealing with the Taiwan issue" argued Lo Chih-cheng from Taiwan's Institute for National Policy Research.
Taiwan flashpoint
"They want to be the 'good cop'," he said. "They're asking Washington to be the 'bad cop'. They offer carrots to people here while pressuring the Americans to take a more hard-line approach to prevent any move towards independence."
One carrot was Beijing's invitation to leaders from Taiwan's Kuomintang (KMT) opposition to meet them in the Great Hall of the People, a few weeks after the anti-secession law was passed.
Senior KMT lawmaker Su Chi believes the contacts between his party and the mainland leaders have helped ease tensions in the Taiwan Strait since the anti-secession law was passed.
"We gave them the assurance that not everyone in Taiwan is pushing for independence so there's no need to panic," he said, "no need to attack or invade Taiwan. We have saved Taiwan's skin."
Unsurprisingly, the chairman of the government body tasked with handling cross-strait issues, the Mainland Affairs Council, sees it quite differently.
Joseph Wu said relations between the two sides have worsened in the last 12 months.
Our president is being treated probably worse than a terrorist or a criminal and that's not fair to Taiwan
He sees the meeting between opposition leaders and the Chinese leadership as an attempt to meddle in Taiwan's internal affairs.
And he cited China's continuing military build-up and continuing efforts to isolate Taiwan diplomatically as evidence of a tougher, not a softer, line from Beijing.
He used the strongest language to protest against the way the international community - almost all of whose members grant diplomatic recognition to China rather than Taiwan - treats the island's democratically elected leader.
"Our president is being treated probably worse than a terrorist or a criminal, and that's not fair to Taiwan. It adds to Taiwan's frustration," he said. "We think this is the problem."
Domestic woes
Beijing has been alarmed by Mr Chen's recent scrapping of a council on reunification with the mainland, the National Unification Council.
Mr Wu denied that the president was trying to draw attention away from his problems at home.
Mr Chen's poll ratings have plummeted and his Democratic Progressive Party has been damaged by corruption scandals and beaten badly in local elections.
Critics said his scrapping of the Council was part of an attempt to draw attention back to the threat posed by China, and edge Taiwan closer towards formal independence.
"(He's) trying to consolidate the pro-independent voters' support, and distract Taiwanese voters' attention from his party's corruption and poor performance in developing the economy," said Kaocheng Wang, director of the Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies at Taiwan's Tamkang University.
Opposition supporters have denounced Mr Chen's tactics
KMT legislator Su Chi said the president's next tactic would be to try to make constitutional reform an issue in the months to come.
President Chen has already made clear his view that "re-engineering" of the document was needed.
The opposition fears this means rewriting the whole document.
The Mainland Affairs Council's Joseph Wu denied that. He pointed out that the current document was drawn up in China in 1947, and that certain sections were "simply out of date".
Mr Chen has pledged not to touch on the issues of sovereignty. But he has refused to be drawn on what changes he plans to propose.
Proposing changing the island's official name or flag, for example, would provoke a furious response from Beijing.
Even limited constitutional changes passed last year led to protests from China's leaders.
So why bother to risk antagonising them again?
Some analysts point out that if it provokes sabre-rattling by the Chinese, that could prove to be an electoral asset for the president's party - as it has done in the past.
Mr Chen personally does not have any more elections to fight - he has to stand down after finishing his two terms as president in 2008 - but of course he wants to do his best to ensure his party remains in power.
And like many politicians coming to the end of their term in office, he no doubt has an eye to his legacy, and wants his place in the history books.
"Not in my experience. I have met a number of people in Taiwan who support independence to one degree or another and not one of them was anti-Chinese culture: they write Chinese (the traditional characters - not the degraded characters that Mao and his thugs created); "
This shows how little you know of Chinese language and literature. They didn't create the simplified Chinese, it has been there for centuries. They just chose to use it instead of the traditional characters.
That's besides the point anyway, the fact is, no country has ever declared independence and not have to fight a war for that independence. Let's not forget the South during the civil war - democractically elected governments declaring essentially independence from the North and what did the Union do? They attack and invaded the South, even though they were democratically elected. If Taiwanese wants independence, then they'll have to sacrifice for it themselves - but they're not, they're waiting for us to come to their rescue.
We in the US needed the French during our own revolution and without their aid, would very likely not have carried the day. But the patriots in America of that day knew this, and not only courted the French aid, but trusted that God would, as Patrick Henry so eloquently put it, "raise up friends to fight our battles for us".
...and He did.
The people of Taiwan are willing to fight and have created, to the best of their ability and at the cost of significant national treasure, a military force to that end for themselves. My experience with them is that a large percentage are willing and ready to fight if it ever comes to it...and we in America have indicated through our own elected representatvies a willingness to help them if need be.
...and we will.
You avoided my argument about the Civil War completely :)
You do not have a democratically elected Mainland government with a constitution that both the Mainland and the island agreed to beforehand. Therefore, the island is not "breaking away" from that government with its democratically elected leaders. It's never been a part of it...and they fought the war to make sure they were not a part of it...and they are not to this day. In essence, the mainland is fighting a war of agression to MAKE the island become a part of something it never has had, and never wanted to have anything to do with...a mainland communist government.
Completely different scenario than the American civil war.
"This shows how little you know of Chinese language and literature. They didn't create the simplified Chinese, it has been there for centuries."
I am fairly certain that is incorrect. They may have adopted some older and simpler forms, but its seems to me very unlikely that all or even a majority of the changes have their origin in traditional usage before the 20th century. There were undoubtably other efforts to modify the characters throughout the history of China (the characters didn't just appear out of nowhere), but I'm confident that most of what the communist did was their own doing. Anyways, I'd be interested if you have any evidence to the contrary as I have never heard a Chinese (from Taiwan or the PRC) make a claim similar to yours. And in any case, you have no place disparaging my knowledge of Chinese literature in light of the fact that you have previously made the claim on another thread that Lao Zi was the author of the I Ching; that is an unfathomable mistake - even a commie would know better than that.
"That's besides the point anyway, the fact is, no country has ever declared independence and not have to fight a war for that independence."
I don't believe I commented on this subject one way or the other. Perhaps you were talking with someone else? Anyways, since you didn't address the main points of my post, I will take that as an indication that you have nothing intelligent or relevant to say.
"You make good points, but I was really meaning (though it was not worded clearly) independent and free of the mainland."
I see. I was just trying to emphasize that, pratically speaking, the political separation that has existed for 110 years. In addition, there is also the separation caused by a long-standing distrust of mainland rule; this has existed since the late-1600's due to the treatment the people on Taiwan received from the Ching dynasty. In recent times that sentiment has only been exaccerbated by the abandonement of Taiwan to Japan by China in a war fought over Korea, the abuse that people living on the island suffered at the hands of Zhang Zhe Shi and his associates, and now the thuggergy and threats that the democratic people of Taiwan are having to endure from the communists. In light of the 110 years of political separation and the abuse suffered at the hands of the three most recent regimes on the mainland (i.e. Ching, Nationalists and Communists) I think Taiwanese have the moral right to choose their own political and cultural destiny without threat or intimidation.
Self-determination for Taiwan. Hands off, Chicoms.
Lao Tzu is regarded as the author of I-Ching in general, if you dont' accept that, that's your issue. I pointed out a lot of facts in that discussion but you just can't see it. And your view on Confucius versus Daoism is simply ridiculous. But that's not the topic at hand.
Simplified Chinese in China has been there for a long time. Even in Taiwan people may write certain characters in the simplified form. It's true in China they force the educational system to adopt to the simplified Chinese format and practically abandoned the traditional Chinese format, but to say they "invented" the written language is wrong.
I would agree with you that the traditional characters look better and convey more meaning, but that's not to say that simplified characters aren't already there for centuries. If you look at Chinese calligraphy, you will see simplified characters in it throughout the centuries. Also, read the letters from the previous generations, a lot of them will use simplified characters even in Taiwan. Why? Because it's a lot faster to write letters in simplified Chinese than in traditional.
And we will come to their rescue. But, you know that, troll.
"Lao Tzu is regarded as the author of I-Ching in general, if you dont' accept that, that's your issue."
Wrong. Lao Zi is considered to be the author of the Dao De Jing (Way of Power.) I don't believe anyone knows who wrote the I Ching - it probably predates Lao Zi by a thousand years. Do you even know the difference between the I Ching and the Dao De Ching? I believe you need to get an education. I don't have time to waste on you, with your lies, misinformation and astounding ignorance.
http://www.simplynumbers.com/html/beyond/iching/sn_bey_iching.asp
You're right, Laozi didn't write it word for word, but the I-Ching TODAY certainly contains mostly his and his follower's thoughts. It's not like a book that's written once and then not changed.
And you also claimed Lao tzu didn't found Daoism, when in fact, he's credited to have done so.
"You do not have a democratically elected Mainland government with a constitution that both the Mainland and the island agreed to beforehand. Therefore, the island is not "breaking away" from that government with its democratically elected leaders. It's never been a part of it...and they fought the war to make sure they were not a part of it...and they are not to this day. In essence, the mainland is fighting a war of agression to MAKE the island become a part of something it never has had, and never wanted to have anything to do with...a mainland communist government. "
You do, however, have a government of "China" in one form or another that has been there since 221 BC. And that government did control Taiwan for a few hundred years prior to the Japanese aggression. If you're saying that Japanese can attack another country and take over its territory, and taht its territory is no longer part of that other country, then that's like saying Saddam Hussein attacked and took over Kuwait and therefore, it is his. Does that make sense? OF course not.
The fact is, the government of China has had control of Taiwan previously before the 1911 republic revolution and that's where the issue lie -- if the situation was reversed, and China is democratic and Taiwan is Communists, then you and everyone on here would be screaming to attack Taiwan (and a democratic China will still claim Taiwan as its territory and would use force if Taiwan declares independence). Your opposition to Taiwan being part of China is because China is communist. Remove the communists and you would still support Taiwan independence?
My point is that you can also argue that the British colonies, the 13 states, are also independent from Britain for quite some time, other than having to pay taxes. And yet Britain still attacked the 13 colonies when US was formed and declared independence. My point is that Taiwan will have to fight for its independence - and I don't think its citizens are ready for that at all. Most Taiwanese are sending thier kids abroad so that they DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT. I'll bet when the Chen declares indpendence and the shooting starts, Taiwan will fall within 5 days. There simply isn't enough people in Taiwan who are going to stand by and fight when the sh*t hits the fan -- Chen Shui Bian will be the first one to leave the island when the time comes.
As far as your claim of unwavering US support - I think Bush has shown in recent days that it's not going to support Taiwan if it declares independence and rightfully so. If they want independence and go against the status quo that Bush supports, they should fight for it themselves. Right after Bush admin said that, Chen immediately backed down.
As far as Taiwan being a strategic position for the US - not so. People claim it can stop shipping to Japan? C'mon, most of the Japanese shipping don't go through the Taiwan strait. Going through Taiwan straight or east of Taiwan is the same distance as Japan is actually to the northeast of Taiwan anyway, not directly north. The claim that there is "critical" shipping lane is false. Given the choice between Iran/North Korea or Taiwan, the US will choose the former - and that's what Bush has done. There is no strategic value to Taiwan's location other than as an irritant to the communists in China.
"You're right, Laozi didn't write it word for word, but the I-Ching TODAY certainly contains mostly his and his follower's thoughts."
He in fact didn't write a single word of it and your claim that it contains mostly his and his follower's thoughts is either a vast exaggeration or misunderstanding at best. Well known Chinese scholars were writting commentaries on the I Ching hundreds of years before Lao Zi. Even Kong Zi wrote a commentary on it. How much do you think later Taoist authors could have changed the text? You've got it completely mixed up. If some ideas of Taoism seem to resemble those in the I Ching, it is due to the overarching infuence of the I Ching on pretty much every system of Chinese philosophical thought including Taoism - not the other way around.
"And you also claimed Lao tzu didn't found Daoism, when in fact, he's credited to have done so."
Yours is a simplistic view. Most scholars will admit that Lao Zi's role was likely primarily that of putting down ideas that had already been developed and circulating at his time. His position in the library in the court of Zhou would have given him contact with the popular philosohical ideas of the day. On the other hand, Taoist practitioners would say that Taoism is eternal and has no founder. But for the laymen or uninitiated, saying Lao Zi is the founder of Daoism presents a simple, easy to understand story so it is not surprising that you cling to that.
Anyways, I don't have any more time to educate you. You change the topic of conversation to these trivial matters about which you don't have a clue in order to avoid answering difficult questions.
Good God you are an idiot ....
Oh great, they will give the job of Governor of Taiwan to the Ronery One.
Exactly
That is not always the case. Look at the Commonwaelth of Independant States (modern day Poland, Hungary, Czech, Clovakia etc) and Ukraine. They never had to fight the Soviet Union when they became independant in 1991.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.