tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post6092488998806695555..comments2023-10-22T18:25:39.688+08:00Comments on The View from Taiwan: The Ma-Tsai Debate on ECFA =UPDATED=Michael Turtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-54736511396386454652010-05-04T03:33:07.446+08:002010-05-04T03:33:07.446+08:00Wow! I love this sort of stuff. So much has been l...Wow! I love this sort of stuff. So much has been lost in recent years that I can't keep track. The Communist Chinese, who the last generation wasted so much time and money to protect us from are now, it seems, our friends. <br /><br />Such places as you've captured in the pic remain symbols of our past foolishness. LOL.Patrick Cowsillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12904899672214340947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-89567174078603073292010-04-29T13:36:20.294+08:002010-04-29T13:36:20.294+08:00Yes, that's the address on the side, Patrick. ...Yes, that's the address on the side, Patrick. There were two guardhouses on opposite sides of the road facing opposite directions. I think this must have been some military reserve at some point, but I am not sure. It is on Donglin Rd coming north out of Dongshih.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-6655718110610671622010-04-29T13:26:35.209+08:002010-04-29T13:26:35.209+08:00Great photo. What is it though? A guard post for p...Great photo. What is it though? A guard post for protecting people in the forest from communists? <br /><br />Is that an address on the side?Patrick Cowsillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12904899672214340947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-53204177139642978132010-04-28T18:13:39.915+08:002010-04-28T18:13:39.915+08:00Sorry if this is a bit off topic:
I often wonder...Sorry if this is a bit off topic: <br /><br />I often wonder if Taiwan is paying attention to the outside world.<br /><br /> What I mean is that we can clearly see that Greece is about to default, followed by Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy and then the UK. <br /><br />Once the Fecal Matter Impacts the Rotary Impeller (SHTF) in the UK, the contagion will spread to Singapore, I believe. Once there, all of Asia will experience 1997 all over again except 100x worse.<br /><br />Why are the KMTards in such a rush to get this ECFA signed? Shouldn't we wait and see what happens in the EU, US and Japan before we sign any long term agreements? From my POV, the wait won't be very much longer. Once things really start to fall apart, the dominoes will fall rapidly. <br /><br /><br />fyi: I lifted this from a comment on Zerohedge today:<br /><br />"What you hysterical defenders of financial and political establishments utterly fail to realize is that we are experiencing NOT just a recession, NOT just a depression, but a collapse of the entire financial and monetary order. We are living through a phase-change and the beginnings of a revolution as profound as the Renaissance, the birth of printing, and the creation (recreation?) of money itself." <br /><br />I believe this. Taiwan should not be thinking of China as the savior.mxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-71783859588764402972010-04-28T12:12:05.829+08:002010-04-28T12:12:05.829+08:00@Michael
Nicely put ;)@Michael<br /><br />Nicely put ;)Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-66596016570943476172010-04-28T11:40:15.603+08:002010-04-28T11:40:15.603+08:00D is right. After all, the years of clean governme...D is right. After all, the years of clean government, support of democracy, the complex battery of programs aimed at Taiwan's SMEs, the years of advocating for a more Taiwan-centered polity, and the treatment of Taiwanese under KMT rule, all definitely show that the commenters on this blog, as well as myself, are much too cynical about people like Ma, Lien, and Wu po-hsiung.<br /><br />I mean, look at Ma and his administration. It has never put out government documents denigrating Taiwanese as ignorant boobs for opposing ECFA, and never appointed a prominent gangster as spokesman for ECFA. It has never held a negotiation with China in which it permitted China to name cross-strait shipping routes "domestic" and to block third country flags. It never conceded the really good routes or the fifth freedom in its air agreements. It has never repeatedly floated the idea of Chinese labor being permitted into Taiwan. It does not have the backing of powerful foreign financial interests cooperating with PRC financial elites. It has never said relations between C and T are region to region, or attempted to reintroduce more Chinese history into the educational program. Nor has Ma ever appealed to traditional confucian/imperial rituals of imperial power while in office as president. Prominent KMT officials are not deeply involved in businesses in China. Etc. <br /><br />D's correct. There's just no reason, based on years of experience, and Ma's current behavior, to think that ECFA could ever be a sell out. It must be a straight economic liberalization program, otherwise all things I just said would be true instead of false.<br /><br />Michael TurtonMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-39000544339900569102010-04-28T11:25:02.793+08:002010-04-28T11:25:02.793+08:00So many "unknown unknowns".... The key,...So many "unknown unknowns".... The key, I think, is to engage China constructively, and the question is whether ECFA is a constructive engagement. I lean towards thinking it is, or at least it might be and is worth the risks. Admittedly, though, I don't yet share the complete cynicism towards the KMT that others seem to have. Perhaps I am willing to trust Ma et al -- a little bit.Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-83870409862499911442010-04-28T11:04:20.501+08:002010-04-28T11:04:20.501+08:00Richard,
I fully agree with you, and I do think y...Richard,<br /><br />I fully agree with you, and I do think you have hit on one of the weaknesses of D's argument. Essentially, he assumes that Taiwan's current administration has the stamina or desire to resist a Chinese push towards unification. <br /><br />As for your comments about the US Seventh Fleet, the matter in question is something that worries me. I just hope that the US is really planning for such a situation rather than simply hoping that China will change before 2020. <br /><br />Articles like this one give me hope (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4203874), but the perfection of any successful weapons that could slow a Chinese advance from over the horizon seems to be a little far off.Tommyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13552370490869601403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-66616815863896367032010-04-28T05:08:57.997+08:002010-04-28T05:08:57.997+08:00"Can't the Taiwanese outgame the Chinese?..."Can't the Taiwanese outgame the Chinese?"<br /><br />D, I think the Taiwanese are surely capable of doing so. The problem is right now the Taiwanese aren't in control of their future. It's the few KMT in power that are brokering back-door deals with the PRC, putting Taiwan on borrowed time. <br /><br />As far as China's interest in Taiwan, as Robert mentioned, China will continue to blur the lines until they are capable of militarily taking Taiwan (though it does not mean they definitely will). I believe recent U.S. military reports have stated around 2020? is when China's military power will be able to block out the (U.S.) 7th fleet.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13864496921909619980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-7441105026977553962010-04-28T02:20:37.734+08:002010-04-28T02:20:37.734+08:00While I am all for not demonizing the Chinese, one...While I am all for not demonizing the Chinese, one has to understand and accept that they wont be satisfied with anything less than the official recognition of one China.<br /><br />Whether that means the PRC would be satisfied, with controlling Taiwan in name only, without the peoples liberation army or more subtle state organs exercising control over Taiwan is a big question, concerning the History of the PRC and China as a whole it doesn't seem overly likely, on the other hand the current leadership could be pragmatic enough to let it pass, initially.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-66573570859069236262010-04-27T22:47:38.222+08:002010-04-27T22:47:38.222+08:00Risk-averse? Perhaps, but another way to look at t...Risk-averse? Perhaps, but another way to look at this is to consider Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions study, which identifies, among other things, the level of uncertainty avoidance generally found in national cultures. <br /><br />Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of uncertain situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and/or religious level by a belief in absolute Truth; ‘there can only be one Truth and we have it’.<br /><br />The higher the UA score, the more likely you'll find these tendencies.<br /><br />China score is 40.<br />Taiwan is 69<br /><br />I believe it's the KMT who have arguably long-held to an absolute belief in what is the "true" China. Although mainland China has been an aggressor, they have also wavered on Taiwan throughout history.<br /><br />As fraught with uncertainty the China/Taiwan relationship appears to be, I try to keep an open mind about China's real intentions--and Taiwan's, for that matter. There is so much we don't know! <br /><br />Even though, as another poster stated, many Taiwanese may not even believe that unification will ever happen, I would very much like to hear what the benefits might be for such a scenario. <br /><br />For example, if, in future, climate change causes 30% of Taiwan, including its two main cities and much of its arable land to become submerged, wouldn't a proactive relationship with China be benficial? (I'm playing the devil's advocate - so please don't get overexcited - LOL)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-72754941209037260092010-04-27T22:20:23.080+08:002010-04-27T22:20:23.080+08:00Keep up the good work. Your blog is a valuable re...Keep up the good work. Your blog is a valuable resource.Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-23197784490895617502010-04-27T22:00:00.255+08:002010-04-27T22:00:00.255+08:00Ok, D. I accept what you say. Sorry for my respons...Ok, D. I accept what you say. Sorry for my response.<br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1165632716117846182010-04-27T21:51:56.399+08:002010-04-27T21:51:56.399+08:00"...would rather be sophisticated than right&..."...would rather be sophisticated than right"<br /><br />I think I've heard Bill O'Reilly use that one. But I said your portrait was cartoonish, not your views. I think your view of China is "limited", though understandable and not incorrect. But perhaps that's simply because you are -- "the view from Taiwan". (Couldn't resist that one).<br /><br />@Robert R: I don't see much risk in the Rio Tinto trials. I don't see why any country would be expected to support the "priorities" of another. I don't see confidence and risk-averse as being mutually exclusive. But I agree with you about the unhelpful US fuzziness on TRA -- again, I think blogs like Michael's can help people realize the subtle but important lines being drawn there. Maybe Barack is reading now.<br /><br />As for a) "no one will actually call them out on their imperialistic (and other) tendencies" and b)"ECFA is just another (big) step toward annexation", I a)disagree and think other countries will push back when necessary and b)think that Beijing certainly regards it as such, but does that mean it will be? Can't the Taiwanese outgame the Chinese? ECFA is a tough call, though.Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-79491850742832494702010-04-27T18:10:34.139+08:002010-04-27T18:10:34.139+08:00D, I'm surprised to see China characterized as...D, I'm surprised to see China characterized as risk-averse. While they don't want to completely piss off the international community, actions such as the Rio Tinto trial and lack of support for many of the US's priorities makes me skeptical.<br /><br />Rather they seem to act with confidence that no one will actually call them out on their imperialistic (and other) tendencies. And confidence is rarely seen in someone who is risk averse.<br /><br />On the other side, they are not headstrong. They will not rush into an action that they cannot diffuse or back off (but not back down) from.<br />That is why you do not see them invading Taiwan militarily. They will continue to try to blur the lines little by little, and you can see it working as each US President's interpretation of the TRA becomes less and less helpful to us.<br /><br />ECFA is just another (big) step toward annexation. And they don't even have to sneak it past the US, they nearly get their blessing!Robert R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12956389352825464115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-34118715168836194122010-04-27T17:18:11.066+08:002010-04-27T17:18:11.066+08:00Thanks, D. But your comment that my views are cart...Thanks, D. But your comment that my views are cartoonish -- as if there were not a wide range of evidence to support them -- betrays a position that would rather be sophisticated than right.<br /><br />Good luck.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-89489003393629735462010-04-27T11:07:57.501+08:002010-04-27T11:07:57.501+08:00"D, if you think China's interests in Tai..."D, if you think China's interests in Taiwan are in conflict with some other agenda of that nation, do tell."<br /><br />Let me make like Confucius and sum up the PRC/CCP in one (hyphenated) word:<br /><br />Risk-averse.<br /><br />I take it that you don't think anyone in the international community, including the US, will stand up for Taiwan in a time of crisis. I see otherwise, but that's not the point. You can't deny that there's _a chance_ that other countries wouldn't stand for it. The CCP doesn't like that "chance".<br /><br />Also, consider, if I may suggest so, not taking Chinese "policy statements" as policy in the way we normally think of it. Chinese policy is actually propaganda. "Peaceful unification" may mean something other than what you think it mean -- it may be a way of drawing down the nationalistic sentiment and leading towards a long-term acceptance of the status quo.<br /><br />I'm just saying that cartoonish portraits of PRC thinking is no different from the cartoonish portraits of the DPP you often object to. And while I have profited immensely from your blog, one continuing misgiving I have is the way you simplify "China". <br /><br />But to answer your question directly: I think China's simple stated interest in Taiwan is in conflict with US and Japanese interests, and to some extent with those of any Asian democracy. How that would play out is unknown, and honestly I think the advocacy of a blog like yours can play a positive role in pushing people to recognize those interests. Therefore I remain -- an optimist. Thanks for the conversation --Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-90507352865106894622010-04-26T22:51:35.214+08:002010-04-26T22:51:35.214+08:00D, if you think China's interests in Taiwan ar...D, if you think China's interests in Taiwan are in conflict with some other agenda of that nation, do tell.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-3525723453704299382010-04-26T22:43:24.424+08:002010-04-26T22:43:24.424+08:00"But China's motives are simple..."
..."But China's motives are simple..."<br /><br />Aww, you can do better than that ;)<br /><br />Start with the fact that countries (and people) have varied and conflicting interests, hence varied and conflicting motives. Is Taiwan the only interest of the PRC? Could this interest come into conflict with other interests? You can ponder it.Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-73021481318386681902010-04-26T22:15:02.136+08:002010-04-26T22:15:02.136+08:00But thanks for the great comment, D.But thanks for the great comment, D.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-51917420419016064172010-04-26T22:14:44.514+08:002010-04-26T22:14:44.514+08:00try doing it without simplifying China's motiv...try doing it without simplifying China's motives, and try doing it without assuming that China will be successful. Treat them "just like any other man, only more so", as you put it. That will at least make it more challenging.<br />+++++++++++++++++<br /><br />Interesting requests. But China's motives are simple, in the long run -- annex Taiwan, snuff out its democracy, and hollow out the economy (after a period of looting), along with levering taiwanese firms out of their markets in the short term, while stealing their tech. In that sense, China does not treat Taiwan differently from other nations -- just more so :)<br /><br />I've commented too much on everything elsewhere. <br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-25017150843514916982010-04-26T20:44:41.044+08:002010-04-26T20:44:41.044+08:00"Monsieur Rick...". Ha ha ha. That'..."Monsieur Rick...". Ha ha ha. That's hilarious. But Renault turns out ok in the end, doesn't he?<br /><br />As always, a thoughtful and informative post. Yet I still see so many unknowns, so many that the arguments on either side come down to one's "sense" of the situation. Each side may draw up its factual underpinnings, but their views aren't really based on facts. It's quite like the US health care debate in that way -- very few people understand all the details of the issue, and even if one does it's really impossible to declare what the effect of the policy will be in 15 years. (Still want a referendum?)<br /><br />There are some very interesting facts here, but they (some of them, at least) could be turned around to service the other side. The economy's going well now? All the more reason to forge ahead, from a position of strength. Or China's untrustworthiness,as shown in trade pacts it has signed elsewhere. I might say that this is more of a reason for Taiwan to sign on, thus becoming, in effect, part of an international community with problematic trade relations with China.<br /><br />Along these same lines, there's the idea that China has ulterior motives. Well, no kidding. It wouldn't be much of a "rational actor" if it didn't. Hopefully Taiwan has ulterior motives too. Not to make light of the situation, but it is not incorrect to see a sort of "game" being played here, and the object is -- to win. (This is where I'm supposed to quote the "It's chess, not checkers" line). China is making some bets -- that they can win over the hearts and minds of Taiwanese, and/or that they can take over the Taiwanese economy -- but Taiwan can make its own bets. Do you really think Taiwan can't win? I don't believe that for a second. Is there risk? Sure. But uncertainty is a part of life. You've got to play the game, and despite what Tsai said in the debate last night, it really seems to me that Ma was right when he argued that the DPP hadn't pursued an effective strategy.<br /><br />Oh, if you write an "why ECFA = annexation" column, let me make a pair of related requests (well, you can always ignore it -- it is your blog): try doing it without simplifying China's motives, and try doing it without assuming that China will be successful. Treat them "just like any other man, only more so", as you put it. That will at least make it more challenging.Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-43233469859282649392010-04-26T18:12:16.734+08:002010-04-26T18:12:16.734+08:00DPP legislator in China Times:
"In response ...DPP legislator in China Times:<br /><br />"In response to Lee’s words, DPP Legislator Kuan Bi-ling said she, too, is in favor of mainland students studying in Taiwan. But additional laws have to be passed first, such as those that would prohibit people with mainland degrees from obtaining professional licenses in Taiwan and prohibit them from becoming certified teachers or public servants.<br /><br />For some reason, she said, the ruling Kuomintang has been opposed to the DPP proposals.<br /><br />“We are also strongly against the practice that mainland students who wish to study in Taiwan must first be approved by mainland authorities and forced to undergo ‘thought education.’ That’s definitely not something we can accept. Taiwan’s schools must be able to choose whatever students they want,” Kuan said. (HZW) "Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-53089909568924251712010-04-26T17:33:39.656+08:002010-04-26T17:33:39.656+08:00The thing is that most Taiwanese do not believe th...<b>The thing is that most Taiwanese do not believe that ECFA=annexation. If they did they wouldn't support it.</b><br /><br />Most Taiwanese don't support ECFA. No credible poll shows that they do. Generally they split with 2/3 opposed or don't know, and 1/3 supporting. <br /><br />In any case it hardly matters what ordinary Taiwanese think, but what the KMT and CCP think. ECFA is all about annexation -- Beijing has made that clear. It's the first step, they've said.<br /><br /><b>Vin-the DPP also play on visceral fears of being swallowed up and losing Taiwan's sense of identity.</b><br /><br />Not identity, sovereignty. Swallowed up = annexed.<br /><br /><b>What is particularly hard to comprehend is their opposition to Chinese students studying in Taiwan. How does a move like this undermine Taiwan's sovereignty? Actually I can only see positives.</b><br /><br />Several issues -- it is just a subsidy for universities that should not exist (and thus for the KMT since virtually all the private universities that suck and should be weeded out are family run and deeply Blue going way back). Second issue is that Chinese annexation strategy always involves flooding the target with Chinese people. Thus the students are part of a larger strategy including undocumented and documented workers, etc. Third is that the Chinese use their students for intelligence and for technology theft, something known in the US since at least the 1990s. One can easily see how large numbers of Chinese students will play out here -- the island is already crawling with undocumented illegal workers from the Philippines and Thailand. <br /><br />Note I am not taking a position, but explaining to you how others might see them. It would take a mighty impaired sense of history to simply view students as such.<br /><br />As an academic I would prefer to see the universities weeded out and the funds spent on Chinese students instead devoted to the upgrade of facilities and research as well as the importation of foreign professors and systems to truly internationalize Taiwan. Good Chinese students aren't going to make Taiwan any more competitive; that can only be done by systematic upgrade across the system. Bringing in Chinese students is the typical government response of appearing to do something to reform without making hard changes -- they permit the system to go on as it is.<br /><br />In any case outside of the PRC agents and intelligence specialists, I doubt we'll get all that many Chinese students. our universities are just not that good, and do not confer status on status-hungry Chinese.<br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-91007369581004033992010-04-26T17:01:40.824+08:002010-04-26T17:01:40.824+08:00HA-still waiting for the piece!
The thing is that ...HA-still waiting for the piece!<br />The thing is that most Taiwanese do not believe that ECFA=annexation. If they did they wouldn't support it.<br />I thought Ma won the debate easily.<br /><br />Vin-the DPP also play on visceral fears of being swallowed up and losing Taiwan's sense of identity.<br />In fact over the last 30 years of contact and exchange with China, Taiwanese identity has only increased in strength. The DPP should recognize the positives in engagement across the strait.<br /><br />What is particularly hard to comprehend is their opposition to Chinese students studying in Taiwan. How does a move like this undermine Taiwan's sovereignty? Actually I can only see positives.<br />I am glad to see that Lee Yuan Tseh has come out in favour. <br /><br />former anonYushannoreply@blogger.com