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.
My Chinese professor at USNA worked with the OSS during WWII and fled the mainland to the island when the commies took over the mainland by hijacking a plane.
I spent a month with the ROC Naval Academy on a language study trip during that time and have been to the mainland over a dozen times for extended periods in the past 10 years, include a 6 month stint in Beijing.
This is an area I’m familiar with and have kept tabs on. I was on my way to Beijing for additional language studies after graduation when I was stopped by the Naval attache in Hong Kong because Tiananmen occurred while I was enroute. I spent the next month watching the Hong Kong rallies that resulted and have watched the detrimental changes over the years.
I didn’t take it as terse/rude and I hope I didn’t come across that way either. We have different views on the issue and open debate is how views are shared.
There is no crisis that can be settled temporarily with diplomacy and negotiations that can’t also be put to rest permanently through a judicious use of high explosives.
The Taiwanese know they are in rebellion against the CCP’s insistence they are part of China.
“The Taiwanese know they are in rebellion against the CCP’s insistence they are part of China.”
It’s not rebellion.
They are against Communist China taking them over. They are resisting it.
But it’s not rebellion because they are not ruled by China, they are not part of the PRC. Never have been.
I made the analogy earlier. England was not rebelling against Germany in WWII.
I’m very familiar with the subject.
I think it would be more efficient if you were to point out where in any of the writings you link to, that this assertion is made:
“...the ROC state[s] that it is and that they are the rightful government [of mainland China]”.
You’ll find you won’t find it.
Ok let me try to explain why I think this way in another manner:
The ROC constitution (I’ll use wiki just for my own ease here)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_China
“It should also be noted that, because the ROC constitution is, at least nominally, the constitution of all China, the amendments avoided any specific reference to the Taiwan area and instead used the geographically neutral term “Free Area of the Republic of China” to refer to all areas under ROC control. In addition, as the preamble of the amendments stated they are [t]o meet the requisites of the nation prior to national unification, these amendments would automatically be voided in the case of Chinese reunification. As a result, all post-1991 amendments have been maintained as a separate part of the Constitution, consolidated into a single text of twelve articles.”
In some of the amendments that have occurred with further democratization of Taiwan they have gone to a great deal of trouble to ensure that they have retained the 1-china policy including the use of “Free Area of China”. as discussed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_area_of_the_Republic_of_China
“While the 1991 revisions of the Constitution granted the sovereignty rights to the Taiwanese people, it did not explicitly name Taiwan and instead used the term “free area” to maintain the notion that the Republic of China encompassed more than Taiwan. In ordinary legislation, the term “Taiwan Area” is usually used, especially in contexts of trade and exchange. In contrast to the “free area” is the “mainland area”, which the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area defines as “the territory of the Republic of China outside the Taiwan Area”. However, on more practical grounds, the “mainland area” refers simply to mainland China.”
NOTE That the official act currently in place “Act of Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area” specifically defines it as “the Republic of China outside the Taiwan area”.
All I’m saying is the OFFICIALLY these are the definitions in place and while discussions and referendums have been held - NOTHING has changed in that regard. The ROC is still DEFINED as including the are of the mainland.
In a perfect world they’ll one day be reunified - like Germany ....and hopefully soon Korea. It isn’t going to be soon. Especially if the PRC takes any action against HK.
Yes.
But, this: “the ROC state[s] that it is and that they are the rightful government [of mainland China]”
Still not there.
Chiang Kai-shek said that in the 50’s and even up to the 70’s. Taiwan hasn’t said that in decades now. (Because it’s absurd).
Here’s the thing. If they change the constitution the ChiCons have said they will attack. US diplomatic pressure has been strong for them not to change it as well. Because of ChiCom threats. So they don’t.
It’s called the status quo.
Read about the Period of mobilization for the suppression of Communist rebellion.
It was 1991 when the Temporary mobilization for the suppression of Communist rebellion was ended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Period_of_mobilization_for_the_suppression_of_Communist_rebellion
That was the end of Taiwan’s claim over the mainland.
Taiwan began applying for UN membership not as China’s representative and without saying the PRC does not represent China or saying PRC should be kicked out.
This is the “Two Chinas” that the communists refuse to accept.
Can’t be any more clear they are not claiming they are the rightful government of China.
The ironic thing is it’s the communists keeping this alive. They want Taiwan to be claiming the mainland.
If the communists weren’t threatening war this would be a non-issue. Only a small fringe element in Taiwan would want to “retake the mainland”.
At this point I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I’m aware of the mobilization being ended - this was in part, if not mainly, to allow for additional democratization to occur. The ROC hasn’t renounced a 1-China policy though it has been discussed and even voted on in different ways.
They didn’t renounced the claim only admitted the reality that they didn’t have control of the mainland in order to allow open discussions to move forward ...not mutually exclusive. In a similar manner the PRC did not require mainland passports for those visiting from Taiwan, also not relinquishing their claim that it is part of the PRC.
I get the status quo argument, and I agree that there has been a shift away from hardline policies as the island has further democratized, but the claims of jurisdiction are technically still in place. The ROC constitution still applies to the mainland per the document.
Appreciate the cordial discussion.
“this point I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree.”
I don’t understand what you disagree with.
“The ROC hasn’t renounced a 1-China policy...”
How can asking to join the UN and be in the UN along with China not be renouncing one China policy?
Same way the Koreans and Germans had both join and both still held a believe in eventual reunification with “their side” taking over the reunified country.
1 happened, the other likely will.
“Same way the Koreans and Germans had both join and both still held a believe in eventual reunification with “their side” taking over the reunified country.”
That’s right. Exactly.
There were two Germanys. There are two Koreas.
Taiwan is for this. Two Chinas. This is why they apply for UN membership.
It is splittism to the CCP.
Splittism is the word they use. It’s anathema to them and considered Taiwan Independence.
They say over and over “no two China’s”’.
Taiwan does not claim China and is fine with two Chinas.
Chiang would put people in jail for advocating that back in the 50’ and 60’s.
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.