[Hopalong]

"It's my bet that political reform will start with a two party state setup...."

It's my understanding, for what it's worth, that some in the KMT and a few others are aiming at exactly such a "solution" on the mainland, though theoretically with any number of "parties."

On the other hand, the ChiComs argue, that by maintaining a few inconsequential dummy "parties", they are obviously already a multi-party state, hehe.

At any rate, the ChiComs don't seem to grasp easily that the ROC on Taiwan is not the British in Hongkong or the Portuguese in Macau.

Best regards. S&W R.I.P.

[Voronin]

Either way, I am somewhat wary about the arguments the 'Chicoms' (bit dated really isn't it?) use to transmit to the outside world and what they think in reality. Many of Sun Tzu's theories can be applied in non-conflict scenarios. Just as the US bases some of its strengh on the idea of 'credible threat' (I can't remember the exact phrase), I feel that the same is true of the Chinese. After all, a bluff is worthless if you do not take 'appropriate measures'. The way I see it is that whole 'Taiwan scenario' for China acts as a laboratory simulation for the modernization of the rest of China's armed forces. All of that equipment can be redeployed elsewhere if it suits Chinese 'national interests'.

Maybe it is because I don't like 'simple' solutions or explanations, but I think that the Chinese government strategy is 'bloody devious' (to use a British phrase). When you hold up a mirror to yourself, you see what you want to see, but you cannot see underneath, and that is without even going into the machivellian motives of the various parties. I would really like to hear from some former Sinologists, but they seem to be rather thin on the ground these days.

Regs,

VRN