I'd just like to point out something that Glaser neglected in his quest to drain his paper of everything concrete and historical. As I noted in my commentary which several media outlets rejected several versions of (poo on them):
Finally, we already have a historical example of what happens when “tensions” are reduced in the Taiwan case. The 2008 election of Ma Ying-jeou in Taiwan resulted in an apparent reduction of tensions between the two governments. Beijing, however, simply used the respite granted to it by the friendly ruling party in Taipei to ramp up tensions elsewhere in Asia – increasing its visa games with Arunachal Pradesh, intensifying its claim to the South China Sea, and engaging in renewed brinkmanship in Japanese waters. This suggests that yielding up Taiwan would simply relieve Beijing of a strategic headache, freeing it to boost its expansionist activities on some other front.Yeah, remember how the US supported Ma because the new pro-China initiatives were going to "reduce tension". What did they get for reducing "tension" across the Strait? More tension elsewhere, as I've noted before. Clearly making Taiwan servile to China didn't help. Now Glaser and others are calling for selling out Taiwan. What are they really doing? It's the age old bureaucratic solution: if something doesn't work, do it harder!
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.