Posted on 08/29/2019 8:44:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
For several years, I was vice president of the US-China Strategic Review Commission, and we spent a lot of time with the top experts. We all generally agreed that China would grow larger and more powerful, but the central question was whether this would be a peaceful transformation or a violent one. Very few of these people (almost all men) thought China could get through the transition without some sort of violent convulsion, as we see today.
Chinese unification has long been a challenge to the chiefs of their dynasties, and today there are three big areas that seek various degrees of independence from Beijing: Tibet, Hong Kong, and the Uighur territories.
Each territory has made its own arrangements with the capital, giving formal control to Beijing while retaining varying degrees of independence for themselves. The Dalai Lama has sworn he will stay away from his Tibetan homeland, but the nature of contemporary communications is such that he maintains a constant channel to his people. The violence in Hong Kong we see daily. And the Uigurs, who for some time received support—including military training—from Iran, are now prime targets of Chairman Xi.
So the Chinese are facing three convulsions, shortly after making Xi president for life, and they are dealing with a nationwide economic challenge that is testing the abilities of Xi and his colleagues to manage the highly ambitious global expansion they have set for themselves. The Belt and Road Initiative, flush with cash just a year ago, is cutting back on investment in places like sub-Saharan Africa. And if you remember all those artificial islands in the South China Sea that the Chinese dredged up in apparent preparation for offensive action in the Pacific, you’ll be surprised to learn that Beijing isn’t pressing ahead to arm them. As Stephen Green writes in Pj Media:
But as conspicuous as the bases’ capacity to project China’s offensive power is how little of that might Beijing has actually deployed there. The Pentagon’s latest report on China’s military notes that no new militarization has been observed since China placed air defense and anti-ship missiles in the Spratlys last year.
The decision to withhold offensive power likely goes hand-in-hand with Xi’s long-term thinking, hoping that Trump is replaced a year from November with a more "moderate" president.
Meanwhile, Xi has his hands full with the monster demonstrations in Hong Kong, provoked at least in part by the dictator’s decision to crack down on the protests. If he cannot reassert control there, he may face similar demands for greater freedom around the country. In fact, there has been considerable disruption already, as demonstrated in the Uighur territories.
The US-China Strategic Review Commission found that internal Chinese reporting on the real state of economic affairs was often “a hoax,” suggesting that official growth rates were simply made up We don’t know how much contemporary data has been falsified, but we do know—on the basis of our own intelligence—that the tempo of militarization of the islands has diminished. It may be that the reduction of the tempo is the result of a shortage in available funding, or that it is the result of a desire by Xi and his men to at least temporarily avoid direct military conflict with the United States, or for some other reason.
I keep thinking back to all those experts who confidently predicted that China would have to overcome a period of crises before—or if—the country could find its way to a stable unity. Ever since Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon saw a chance to bring Beijing into the “community of nations” by offering American largesse, Western diplomats have pursued this goal with the confidence that a wealthy China would inevitably seek warm relations with those who had made it possible for China to become a rich nation. Current events suggest that culture, tradition and politics play a role at least as important.
China has a long history of rebellion against would-be tyrants, and the three large pieces of territory in more or less open revolt show that the tradition is still vibrant. Xi has the support of the Beijing bureaucracy, but the rest of the country remains at odds with him. At the moment, Hong Kong presents his greatest challenge. How will he deal with it? Will he eventually send in the armed forces? Will he step back and leave Hong Kong to its own devices, transferring the city’s wealth and experience in the international marketplace to another place? Nobody knows if either expedient can or will succeed.
We only know that, as in eras past, China is trying to find some way to survive its crisis.
Hi.
“He forgot to mention Taiwan.
“
Or Christians.
5.56mm
[In Water Margin, all of the outlaws eventually surrendered to the government;
And the Three Kingdoms ended up in the Great Unity.]
[The imminent problem is somewhere like Shanghai. If Shanghai catches the Hong Kong disease, Xi and his henchmen have a real problem.
That is why the Trump tariffs are so important. If the tariffs disturb substantially the status quo in Shanghai, the problem is likely to erupt into the streets]
China claims Taiwan as Chinese territory. Taiwanese are careful to keep China sufficiently mollified they will not force their government upon Taiwan. Taiwan is not granted independent state statue by the US, although it is supported with US military trade.
Taiwan is very much the fourth rebellion against China.
[In Water Margin, all of the outlaws eventually surrendered to the government;
And the Three Kingdoms ended up in the Great Unity.]
“young shouldn’t read The Water Margin, and the old shouldn’t read The Three Kingdoms”
>
Have the two dangerous novels ever been banned by PRC China government?
No?
Or the two novels help government get the ideas on how to deal with crisis and unrest?
[Have the two dangerous novels ever been banned by PRC China government?
No?
Or the two novels help government get the ideas on how to deal with crisis and unrest?]
Animal Mother in Full Metal Jacket had an amusing line - if I’m gonna die for a word, my word is poontang. My impression is that any new ructions will be over who gets to replace Xi rather than something high flown like one man one vote.
“Taiwan is not granted independent state statue by the US”
What does that have to do with the statement you are replying to?
I know what you are trying to say, but it is a non-sequitur and illogical. Think about it.
“Taiwan is very much the fourth rebellion against China.”
As much as WWII was a rebellion against Germany. In other words, no.
This is the same as not letting the liberals and leftists define and set the argument in our domestic politics.
“Should we care about the Uighurs? The enemy of my enemy?”
It’s true both ways, isn’t it?
“China considers Taiwan to be part of China.”
That doesn’t mean it is.
” It just isn’t considered an active rebellion at this time, although in the long term, China plans on returning it into their orbit.”
That doesn’t mean Taiwan is in rebellion. Germany wanted to take over Europe. Were France and England in rebellion against Germany?
No.
“The Uighurs aren’t armed with hundreds of nukes. And it wasn’t Uighurs who, by backing North Korea and North Vietnam with troops and weaponry, killed 100,000 GI’s.”
Uighurs also were generally very nominally Muslim and secular. Drink, eat pork etc...
70 years of communist oppression probably made East Turkestan more Muslim.
“I think Marx and Engels have been somewhat discredited.”
In China when someone dies they say he’s gone to see Marx.
I don’t know if that phrase is still common there.
Marxist indoctrination is still taught.
“those saying Taiwan isn’t part of China : both the ROC and the PRC state that it is and that they are the rightful government.”
You need a new calendar. It’s not 1950.
Taiwan does not claim that.
—
You’re first paragraph was well stated and a good analysis I agree with.
Nice comment.
“” Communist” China is really old wine in new bottles. It’s the same old Chinese imperial state dressed up in what was then fashionable European threads.”
I agree, it’s just the latest dynasty with Xi as the emperor.
Currently, China does not have time to wait President Trump out.
If they still think this, they are making a very serious miscalculation.
I appreciate your viewpoint, but I will have to disagree. While the Taiwan view on the policy has evolved since the 1990s the one china policy is still the official policy and was actually reaffirmed in a public referendum in 2004 that also rejected a new constitution. I support my argument with the following:
A congressional policy statement issued in 2014 on the subject:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30341.pdf
including the following phrase in the summary : “Taiwan calls itself the Republic of China (ROC) and does not recognize the PRC.” and includes discussion of the 2004 refrendums where 55% of voters chose to maintain the 1 china policy on pages 12-14.
One explanation here the the policy is still in effect:
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/03/14/what-is-the-one-china-policy
Another from 2017 explaining the impact of Panama and Trump on changing 1-china stances and including the phrase “From the Chinese perspective, that policy is non-negotiable.”:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/13/what-is-one-china-policy/102806774/
Another more rudimentary article on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy#Policy_position_in_the_ROC
Policy position in the ROC[edit]
Exit and Entry Permit issued by ROC, to PRC citizen who wants to enter Taiwan.
The only official statement of the ROC on its interpretation of the One-China Principle dates back to 1 August 1992. At that time, the National Unification Council of the ROC expressed the ROC’s interpretation of the principle as:[23]
The two sides of the Strait have different opinions as to the meaning of “one China.” To Beijing, “one China” means “the People’s Republic of China (PRC),” with Taiwan to become a “Special Administrative Region” after unification. Taipei, on the other hand, considers “one China” to mean the Republic of China (ROC), founded in 1912 and with de jure sovereignty over all of China. The ROC, however, currently has jurisdiction only over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. Taiwan is part of China, and the Chinese mainland is part of China as well.
Since 1949, China has been temporarily divided, and each side of the Taiwan Strait is administered by a separate political entity. This is an objective reality that no proposal for China’s unification can overlook.
In February 1991, the government of the Republic of China, resolutely seeking to establish consensus and start the process of unification, adopted the “Guidelines for National Unification”. This was done to enhance the progress and well-being of the people, and the prosperity of the nation. The ROC government sincerely hopes that the mainland authorities will adopt a pragmatic attitude, set aside prejudices, and cooperate in contributing its wisdom and energies toward the building of a free, democratic and prosperous China.
However, political consensus and public opinion in Taiwan has evolved since 1992. There is significant difference between each faction’s recognition for and understanding of the One China principle. The Pan-Blue Coalition parties, consisting of the Kuomintang, the People First Party, and the New Party, accept the One China principle. In particular, former President of the Republic of China, Ma Ying-jeou, stated in 2006 when he was the Kuomintang chairman that “One China is the Republic of China”. Until the 1990s, the government actively stated that the ROC is the only legitimate “One China” while the PRC is illegitimate.
The Pan-Green Coalition parties, consisting of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union, are more hostile to the policy, as they view Taiwan as a country separate from China. The former ROC President, Chen Shui-bian of the DPP, regards acceptance of the “One China” principle as capitulation to the PRC, and prefers to view it as nothing more than a topic for discussion, in opposition to the PRC’s insistence that the “One China” principle is a prerequisite for any negotiation.
When the Republic of China established diplomatic relations with Kiribati in 2003 the ROC officially declared that Kiribati could continue to have diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Despite the declaration, however, all countries maintaining official ties with Taipei continue to recognize the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China.[24]
The ROC does not recognize or stamp PRC passports. Instead, Chinese residents visiting Taiwan and other territory under ROC jurisdiction must use a Exit and Entry Permit issued by the ROC authorities.
There are others reaffirming the current official statements of the ROC government, and I will admit that it is not as hard a stance as it once was among the general population on the island...however it is the official stance.
Notice how you are going back almost 30 years to supposed 1992 consensus.
As for US, it does not recognize Taiwan as part of PRC.
It doesn’t even say Taiwan is part of some theoretical undefined one China.
It’s ok to disagree, but you’re just wrong.
Hi Reed. I didn’t mean to be terse or rude.
Just to be clear Taiwan is not part of PRC and therefore cannot be in rebellion.
“both the ROC and the PRC state that it is and that they are the rightful government.”
This is false (it’s anachronistic and has been decades).
Interestingly the 1992 Consensus you reference is an example where neither side makes the claim but agree to disagree.
Taiwan today refers to free region and mainland region, the latter they claim no authority over or that they are “the rightful government”.
I specifically placed articles from 2014 and later earlier in the post.
The elections were in 2004.
The US policy is and always has been a 1-china policy which if you read the congressional paper I attached reinforces and expands on.
Until 1972 the US recognized the ROC as the legitimate government of a 1-China. When the PRC was recognized the US facilitated the PRC replacing the ROC in world bodies including the UN and removed our embassies. We still support the ROC and actively communicate the desire for a future combined democratically elected government.
The US specifically does not allow for recognition of the ROC/Taiwan as a separate country government in it’s communications with Taiwan and actively discourages them from seeking recognition as such in order to ameliorate tension between the island and the mainland.
Read the attached congressional report and tell me otherwise.
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.