Wow. Among the hundreds of articles on Taiwan I have discussed on this blog over the last couple of years, this piece of dreck from Robert Ross, For China, How To Manage Taiwan?, represents the absolute nadir of writing on the island and its future in a major media publication.Probably the only accurate statement in the piece is found in the opening two paragraphs:
Although Chinese business leaders, particularly in Shanghai and in other coastal cities, prefer that China focus on economic growth, rather than on preparations for war against Taiwan, Chinese party leaders in Beijing remain fixated on Taiwan. Taiwan is the foremost symbol of Chinese nationalism.
After that, it flows like sewage going downhill:
Taiwan's independence movement challenges China's nationalist agenda of reversing the humiliations of the imperialists by unifying lost territories. It also threatens the nationalist legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party. Moreover, China has a vital security interest in Taiwan, a small island 90 miles from its coast (think Cuba). For all of these reasons, Taiwan has been an issue of war and peace for China that continues to challenge U.S. cooperation and remains a political vulnerability for Chinese leaders.
In the above paragraph, Ross simultaneously accepts China's position that Taiwan is a "lost territory" (no ethnic Chinese emperor ever ruled it) and its claim of "humiliation" which it advances to cover its expansionist territorial dreams and whip up Chinese nationalism to provide legitimacy for the ideologically bankrupt Communist Party
Chinese moderation is all the more remarkable, given the series of provocations from Chen Shui-bian, Taiwan's leader. Over the past year, Chen has all but declared formal Taiwan sovereign independence from mainland China. His speech on Oct. 10, just prior to the opening of the Party Congress, was particularly provocative.
In this la-la land, Chen Shui-bian provokes; missiles and threats do not. Needless to say, Ross does not point out that being provoked is a policy position for Beijing, a policy that appears to have been especially successful in the Ross case.
One point that should be made here -- Ross wrote in the spring of 2006 that Taiwan's independence movement was 'fading'. Apparently this "fading" movement is a threat to China. Yes, being a pundit means never having to admit that you were totally wrong.
Chen Shui-bian has not only riled Beijing--he has displeased the Bush Administration, as well. Despite U.S. security cooperation with Taiwan and American support for Taiwan's democracy, state department officials have publicly criticized Chen's initiatives, and the White House no longer urges Beijing to negotiate with Chen, but rather encourages China to look forward to cooperation with Chen's successors. The White House has also praised China's moderate response to Chen's provocations.
LOL. Chen Shui-bian, the root of all evil. It is certainly true that Chen has made some dumb moves in managing the relationship with the US; it is also true that the Bush Administration has strangled the relationship from its end for the last five years. Surely a more nuanced presentation of the issues is possible.
In the past, China would have responded to such Taiwan provocations with combative rhetoric, deadlines for unification and military threats. Over the past year, however, including during the weeks leading up to the party congress, China has exercised considerable restraint. Its propaganda machine has yet to turn its full attention on Taiwan, and the Chinese military has been content to carry out its routine annual exercises. In his speech to the party congress, Hu Jintao offered to open peace talks with Taiwan.
But why should China turn its propaganda machine on Taiwan, when it has Robert Ross to do its work for them? I think we have noted, to death, that the "peace talks" were a surrender demand -- note that Ross fails to inform his audience of the "condition" for talks: that Taiwan give up its sovereignty. Yet another key fact suppressed in Ross' presentation.
Chen Shui-bian is an isolated and unpopular politician on the subject of Taiwan. The Taiwan electorate recognizes that Chen is driven by ideological and nationalist aspirations for Taiwan independence, rather than focused on the economic and strategic welfare of the island. Chen is in the last months of his presidency and Taiwan is in the midst of presidential campaign. Taiwan's two presidential candidates both stress economic development and cross-strait stability, rather than such symbolic gestures as changing the name of Taiwan or promoting Taiwan membership in the United Nations.Here Ross simply reproduces the standard China/KMT line on Taiwan politics: Chen doesn't care about Taiwan, he doesn't care about the economy, etc. Nobody likes Chen. The other candidates are moderates. Ross takes everything at face value, from pan-Blue media polls to Chen's relationship with Hsieh (can anyone say "political theatre?")
Frank Hsieh, the candidate from Chen Shui-bian's party, is doing his best to distance himself from Chen and his provocations. The opposition party candidate is Ma Ying-jeou. He is leading in all of the polls, and he is favored to win the presidency. He opposes Taiwan independence, he supports direct trade between the mainland and Taiwan, and he says that he will try to negotiate a peace treaty with Beijing.
Ross again reproduces standard KMT propaganda -- the "polls" are all pro-KMT media polls, and the idea that Ma is the "favorite" is laughable. Nor does he mention that Ma is pro-China, that his party is cooperating with China, and that Ma's "peace treaty" offer was first proposed by Soong in 2000 and the electorate has never shown interest in it -- and that Ma wants to annex the island to China. Key facts, once again supressed.
Earth to Ross: the Taiwan electorate's mainstream position is independence, a position that Ma has slowly been inching toward since he needs to win votes. Ross has to dance around this problem because, well, he declared the independence movement dead last year.
The presidential election is in March 2008. After the election, no matter which candidate wins, a moderate leader will move Taiwan toward a mainland policy that emphasizes stability and economic development rather than independence.
The Taiwan electorate is becoming more moderate because the rise of China is limiting Taiwan's options. The country's economic development has drawn Taiwan into the Chinese market. China is Taiwan's largest export market and the largest recipient of Taiwan foreign investment. Taiwan simply cannot afford to alienate the primary source of its economic prosperity. Nor can Taiwan risk the high cost of war with China by declaring independence.
The United States can no longer defend Taiwan. It cannot help Taiwan deal with mainland retaliatory economic sanctions and it cannot defend Taiwan from the mainland's aircraft and missiles. The rise of China has compelled Taiwan to be cautious when dealing with it, and this includes abandoning its aspirations for the symbols of sovereignty and focusing instead on economic development. The major outlier in this trend is Chen Shui-bian, Taiwan's lame-duck president.
Note again the obsessive focus on Chen Shui-bian.
It is reassuring that Chinese leaders, in the midst of jockeying for power and selecting the next generation of leadership, have been able to develop a Taiwan policy that reflects their understanding that patience and forbearance will enable Taiwan to alter its course on its own. Ultimately time is on China's side if it can resist the temptation to heighten tensions, which can only undermine the forces of moderation on Taiwan.
Chinese moderation points to Hu Jintao's confidence in his authority. He has not needed to manipulate China's Taiwan policy to serve his political ambitions and contend with the competition. It also suggests restraint among Hu's political competitors. They, too, did not take advantage of Taiwan's provocations to use nationalist sloganeering to promote their political interests.
Ross simply takes the Chinese position. Chinese exhibition moderation, Taiwan exhibits provocation. The main impediment to good relations is Chen Shui-bian, who is a radical (never mind that he was a moderate and pragmatic leader seven years ago). There is nothing structural going in the relationship between Chen and the electorate, which is becoming more moderate -- read, pliable to Chinese desires. Actually, the electorate was always moderate, from the point of view of any rational definition of that word. The immoderate electorate is over in China, where people seem to be unable to accept that Taiwan is not part of China, and to advocate violence in redressing this perceived wrong.
Above all, Ross accepts that it is OK for a Communist dictatorship to suppress a democracy. What more can be said after that?
This is a very sick article. Please take a moment and write in to Forbes: readers@forbes.com
UPDATED: Maddog sent me a few choice observations of his own. The badness of this article is so vast, we have only just begun to explore it. Maddog writes:
* Taiwan policy has been a non-issue this year [How's he know? Was he at the party congress?][Taiwan] [US] [China] [Asia] [Chen Shui-bian] [DPP] [Ma Ying-jeou] [Taiwan Independence] [US Foreign Policy]
* Chinese party leaders in Beijing remain fixated on Taiwan. [Can you say "contradiction"? A thing can't simultaneously be both a "fixat(ion)" and a "non-issue"!]
* growing sophistication of Chinese policy-making ["Surrender or be destroyed by our sophistication!"]
* short-term Taiwan provocations [could be read as either side doing the provoking?]
* Chen Shui-bian is an isolated and unpopular politician on the subject of Taiwan. ["on the subject of Taiwan"?]
To follow your order, I did send a protest to Forbes --- using the title of CEO, which should help, more or less ;-)
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for writing this response to the sick article in your blog. I left Taiwan in 2004 and come to Washington state for my PhD work. This morning I accidentally checked this article and I am surprised at it's extremely biased opinion. I thought I was reading some high school level stuff posted on "China Times". Why they published such BS on Forbes? Because Ross is a professor at Boston College?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, thank for supporting Taiwan.
You are welcome, Das R.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Runsun. But it's not an order, only a request!
Michael
Hey Michael, on the topic of sick topics (but this time on sick behaviour of a different kind, recently, Range, of Memoirs on a Rainy Day at http://thememoirs.org/ has been blogging a lot about Cindy, Tim, etc, and a couple of other students of his whom his school's homeroom Chinese teacher systematically abuses. Very horrible.
ReplyDeleteI don't envy Range working at that school. Although being in his class must be a relief, for these poor kids, from the other, homeroom teacher. The stories (about five of them, he has links to earlier posts in the recent previous weeks), make me feel a little bit mitigated; I feel a bit better. I may have yelled at the kids and had a lot of kids stand up for fifteen minutes, etc., and I once reported a very bad, rather delinquent kid to the main, Chinese teacher, my ex-boss' brother-in-law who the kid's hand about one or two times with my stick (I would never have hit a kid, of course, even though I felt pretty darn angry, occasionally). I may have been very strict, but I wasn't SADISTIC like Range's colleagues.
As I say, I feel very bad for Range. I hope he has a better job soon. Not all Taiwanese schools are as bad as that. They may be strict, and have corporal punishment (I am not against the idea, in moderation; although I don't feel comfortable meting it out myself. I have seen perfectly good people hit their kids, but not in a cruel, persistent way. More half-playfully, half-scoldingly; sometimes threateningly, as long, as I said, it is not in an extreme way. The Taiwan government has been passing laws about this sort of thing, but that isn't going to change anything. It is the parents who need to look into themselves and find what is appropriate and decent and humane behaviour. Sure, kids aren't equal. They need to learn from their parents, etc. But, they aren't punching bags, either. In the west, most kids will respond to talk, or withholding of what, at their time of life, are considered privileges. Still, maybe there are cases where moderate corporal punishment is necessary. Somehow, however, the authoritarian mindset sometimes goes too far. Let's get away from collectivized behaviour (by the way, Michael, I was really impressed by your post on that topic last week; however, I think Americans are certainly individualized, from what I have seen, for the most part, even if the politics is tribal. I would say Canadians are more collectivized. I really do feel that here. Not in the same way in Taiwan. It is more like where Taiwan is going...which is not good, perhaps. There are some things about Canada that Taiwan should stay away from, even if they are not aware of it. This fusion between alienated individualization and collectivization is one example).
Michael, can you tell me what the point of this article is? hmmmm
ReplyDeleteChina: how great thou art.
Chen: troublemaker.
but as the article noted, Chen is a "lame duck" and outta here by March anyway. so i can only conclude that someone is scared of something....
hope Ross' check cleared before his boss read your post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ReplyDeleteThanks, Runsun. But it's not an order, only a request!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Typo?
Btw, Michael, excellent article as usual. Can't believe they published this shit.
Number of times variations of the word 'provocative' were squeezed into that article to describe either Taiwan or Chen Shui-Bian: 8.
ReplyDeleteNot a very long article, either. I'm impressed.
If you had ever studied calculus at school, you will know that function value and derivatives are two different things. The former is the absolute position of "where it is," while the latter is the tendency that signals "where it goes." And in the long run, derivative matters.
ReplyDeleteThe moderation of the PRC and the provocation of Chen's government are both referring to "tendencies" rather than "positions." Also, you are exaggerating the effect of the missiles, not to mention that if the governments on the two sides are willing to sit down and reach a peace deal, as Hu suggested (which both Ma and Hsieh openly agreed to), it is possible that those missiles would eventually be removed.
So you are saying, if the Mainland is sincere about its intention for peace, why it doesn't remove the missile first? But one can also suggest that once a peace treaty is in place, the missiles won't be a problem at all - they can be removed, or disabled, or simply left there without a potential of ever being launched.
You have surely heard of the "prisoners' dilemma." That is precisely the situation across the Strait now. To break the distrust->double-loss pattern someone has to move first, although it may not be the best time to do so at this moment when Chen's regime is coming to its end.
Nevertheless, I do not understand what good it does by preemptively rejecting all possibilities of peace based on a hollow passion to the ideals such as democracy and freedom, instead of trying to exploit such opportunities.
Liberals put ideals before reality, while liberal realists achieve liberal goals with realistic approaches. What you want to be is a matter of your choice.
Thomas, your reading of this is utterly and totally wrong.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Taiwan and China are not in a prisoner's dilemma. The PD is characterized by:
*each actor has equal bargaining position
*one iteration only
*gain for one implies loss for the other, assuming trust is violated
Neither of these applies. China and Taiwan repeatedly have relations (not once as in the PD) and they have vastly unequal power. And if Taiwan gains, CHINA DOES NOT LOSE. If Taiwan becomes independent, China LOSES NOTHING. All will be exactly the same as it is now MINUS THE MILITARY THREATS AND INSTABILITY and plus a great deal more trade and exchanges. Hu can have paradise any time he chooses, simply by choosing differently. But he exhibits the same terrifying lack of imagination that seems to come over leaders of Great Powers...
And yes, Hu could easily have reduced the missiles by half as a gesture. It is China's threats, not Taiwan's behavior, that is the cause of instability, and only by changing China's behavior can we achieve stability in the Straits.
Michael
I've started wondering if those missiles are dummies. It'd be so ironic.
ReplyDelete...on that note, I won't attempt any further injection of humor lest someone get offended.
"I do not understand what good it does by preemptively rejecting all possibilities of peace based on a hollow passion to the ideals such as democracy and freedom, instead of trying to exploit such opportunities."
ReplyDeleteBy your rationale, I should agree to my own enslavement just to make peace with my belligerent neighbor.
And since when is passion for democracy and liberty hollow? Could the passion for these ideals be any more hollow than the CCP's passion for nationalism? The CCP rejects all possibilities of peace based on anything that does not include the one-China principle? You can't get much more hollow than refusing all discussion for nationalistic reasons only.
(I'm a different Thomas BTW)
LOL to Channing: I've often wondered that too. But the slow rate of production suggests that they are for real.
ReplyDeleteMichael
>>>>>>>>>>
ReplyDelete(I'm a different Thomas BTW)
<<<<<<<<<<
Geesss, man, I have been wondering lately: does thomas have multiple personalities?
To the first thomas:
It seems to me that you are either unaware that the prec-ondition of China's peace offer is Taiwan to surrender, or you don't care.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But one can also suggest that once a peace treaty is in place, the missiles won't be a problem at all - they can be removed, or disabled, or simply left there without a potential of ever being launched.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
LOL. Don't mind that I point a gun at your head. Don't mind that my finger is on the trigger. We are in peace treaty so I won't pull it.....(some struggle).... Damn it just let me point my gun at your head, you trouble-maker !!!!!!
What a good laugh. Can't believe people can achieve that level of naiveness.
I'm the Thomas the Third, but please, just call me Tom !
ReplyDeleteMichael, you've mentioned the bias of the pro-KMT media polls several times now, could you direct readers to alternative polling results that could be used for comparsion?
If you were to guess, what would you see the Ma / Hsieh spilt being right now ?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that you are either unaware that the prec-ondition of China's peace offer is Taiwan to surrender, or you don't care.
Surrender!!? It seems to me that you're unaware that nobody's at war... yet.
And if Taiwan gains, CHINA DOES NOT LOSE. If Taiwan becomes independent, China LOSES NOTHING.
ReplyDeleteThe ignorance of this statement is so typical American.
China loses face.
The fact that you fail to understand this does not speak well of your insight into East Asian culture.
我的媽呀。。you're right...that's got to be the worst article about Taiwan i've seen by a mile...
ReplyDeleteI just send a letter to Forbes. Not sure if it will get published but it's been a while since I've read such an ugly piece in a mainstream US publication. I incorporated many famous "Turton talking points" (TTP) in my letter. I hope I don't have to pay any copyright royalty when using the TTP
ReplyDelete:)
~~~~~
To Editor:
The special report on how China can “manage” Taiwan by Robert Ross contains some analysis and comments that are very out of step with reality. Ross takes the view that China is a model of moderation while Taiwan is provocative and unnecessarily confronting China in its bid for independence. In this bizarre worldview, an elected President of a popular democracy speaking out for his people is being provocative while pointing one thousand missiles at your neighbor and threatening an imminent invasion is considered an act of moderation. What Ross does not take into account in his article is that being “provoked” is a foreign policy tool for China; it chooses when and what it deems provocative. It is especially effective tool when directed at the Western media accustomed to receiving stately press releases from Foreign Ministries. Ross would have us believe that if only Taiwan would stop “provoking” China, everything will be fine. But it is China that continues to interfere with Taiwan’s bid to join WHO and refuses to renounce the threat to annex Taiwan by force. In recent years, most of China’s neighbors have steadily increased their defense spending. They know who the provocative force in East Asia is and it is not Taiwan. It is also worth pointing out that Taiwan’s closet neighbors, Japan and South Korea have never characterized Taiwan’s various responses to China’s bellicose behavior as “provocative”. Indeed, South Korea or Japan also frequently “provokes” China with its cooperation with US in missile defense, for example, or whenever Korean or Japanese Government officials espouses comments that is not to the liking of the Chinese Communist Party.
The second major flaw in Ross’ article is his opinion that President Chen Shui-bian is an isolated and unpopular politician and his support for Taiwan independence puts him on the political fringe. On the contrary, support for Taiwan independence is the moderate mainstream position in Taiwan and President Chen and his party enjoy wide support when it comes to Taiwan’s identity and sovereignty. The majority of Taiwanese agrees that the island is not part of China and would not support any kind of union with China. When Chen was elected, he was widely thought to be a moderate by Western media. And he still is. What has changed over the last several years is the tone of Chinese propaganda which has successfully co-opted Western media into repeating the Chinese position on cross-straight relations as the default status quo. China has imposed the pre-condition that Taiwan accept China’s territorial claim on the island before any peace talk can begin. That is akin to Czechoslovakia’s acceptance of Hitler’s claim on its territory in order to avoid an invasion. It’s not a peace offering but a surrender agreement. The Taiwanese Government has repeatedly called for dialogue with China without any pre-condition but was met with indifference each time. But according to Ross, President Chen is the provocative one for refusing to enter into surrender discussion with China.
Lastly, Ross neglected to mention that Taiwan’s main opposition party, The Chinese Nationalist Party or KMT as it is commonly referred to in Western media is cooperating with China. Top officials from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have been visiting China and holding high level discussion on election strategies since 2005. Imagine if you will that during the height of cold war, the main opposition party in the US that had control of Congress is actually a Soviet puppet. China does not need Ross’s help to “manage” Taiwan; it has its own political party in Taiwan to do its bidding. The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate for President, Ma Ying-jeou, is pro-annexation but has lately been trying to moderate his position on this issue so as to not appear to be the “Manchurian candidate”. Ross’s report comically missed this fact while at the same time upheld the Chinese propaganda that President Chen is “provoking” China. It is about as far off the mark as it can be.
The ignorance of this statement is so typical American.
ReplyDeleteChina loses face.
The fact that you fail to understand this does not speak well of your insight into East Asian culture.
LOL. China chooses to lose face, anon. Successive Chinese leaders, rather than leave themselves room for retreat and compromise and growth, have instead painted themselves into a corner. At anytime, any of them could have, and can, choose differently.
Unlike you I am not an essentialist who sees people as culturebots.
Michael
TTP©. I love it!
ReplyDeleteMichael
Michael you might find this article interesting:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.geocities.com/hkhemlock/pig/diary-27oct07.html
the 22nd of October
Hey Michael, you might be interested in this Hong Kong blog post:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.geocities.com/hkhemlock/pig/diary-27oct07.html
look at the 22nd of October post
Michael, I see you posted a critique of another article by Robert Ross last year. Tim Maddog linked to it at Taiwan Matters.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is Ross has the credentials to make him seem credible. He has written a book about China-US relations. It is easy for us to see that he is utterly clueless and uninformed about Taiwan, but plenty of people will read that article and take it seriously.
I wrote to Forbes.com. I don't expect a reply, but if more of us write to major media organisations more often, editors will at least start to pay a little more attention to articles about Taiwan.
The really scary thing is that academics like R. Ross can be considered experts on Taiwan, without (apparently) having any substantial first-hand experience of Taiwan society. Sure, they’ve got a long and impressive list of China-credentials, fellowships at Chinese universities, etc., but because they may have attended a couple of weekend symposiums in Taipei, they can claim to also have expert insight into Taiwan’s social and political dynamics.
ReplyDeleteAn academic cannot be considered an expert on Taiwan without having spent a lot of time in China. How much experience they have in Taiwan is apparently irrelevant.
Seriously, reading R. Ross’ article makes me wonder whether he has ever been to Taiwan at all. It looks like he gets all his information and analysis about Taiwan via the on-line version of the China Post.
I think you also have to realize that many academics are a lot like newspaper journalists. If they want to get published in particular papers or academic journals, they know they have to write a piece that fits into a particular paradigm. That means not straying too far from the conventional frames of reference. Also, if they have publicly gone on record with a particular theory or analysis of a situation, they are often loathe to change their academic writing in the future, regardless of what new insights they may gain along the way.
Also, you have to assume that they want to continue to be invited to do guest lectures, fellowships and such at Chinese universities, as well as to be consulted for advice by important people, so they know there are limits to what they can and can’t say if they want to continue be taken seriously. A guy like R. Ross could derail his whole career by changing his mind on Taiwan.
--scott in 士林
Michael,
ReplyDeleteAgain, you made no effective counterargument. Absolute position does not matter in the long run, tendency does. If you compare Hu's position with his predecessor, Jiang's, or even with his own statements earlier, you will see a clear pattern of softening policies, which exactly indicates that the PRC's leaders has realized how their previous "bully" policies embarrassed themselves, as you pointed out. The trend on the other side is clearly going the other way.
I am not totally against the DPP (unlike you guys, who see no virtue in your opponents), and I think Hsieh is much more pragmatic a person than Chen. So whoever gets elected will be good for the cross-strait relations. In fact, I am surprised that you did not even notice that Hsieh had actually nodded to Hu's offer, under the condition that Taiwan's dignity and self-determination be preserved (which is compatible with Hu's words too). Hiesh OKing Hu's offer also proves that Beijing is NOT demanding for a surrender.
Also, your unreserved bias towards the greens also shield you from understanding what Mainland China wants. If Ross were ignorant about Taiwan, people here seem equally ignorant about Mainland China (that's why you can come up with something like "China has nothing to lose").
If you think Ross is wrong, you probably did not understand it.
From your article and the comments of the people here, I see clear, unashamed misunderstandings. If you really wanna take Mainland China as your enemy, at least you got to know your enemy well. But how is that possible, when you can't even read their messages? If you have to make such a claim that Beijing is demanding a surrender, please quote Hu's original words and analyze them in Chinese.
David -- it only goes to show how important having more academics trained in Taiwan is...
ReplyDeleteAgain, you made no effective counterargument. Absolute position does not matter in the long run, tendency does. If you compare Hu's position with his predecessor, Jiang's, or even with his own statements earlier, you will see a clear pattern of softening policies,
ReplyDeleteYou've mistaken political theatre for political reality, Thomas. Political theatre is in the words that come out people's mouths, and in the propaganda. Political reality is in the guns and missiles and aircraft, in the nationalist brainwashing on the Taiwan issue, and so on.
I'll believe in a real softening when (1) the number of weapons facing Taiwan falls (2) the PRC hedges its Taiwan claims and leaves space for independence (3) the brainwashing in the PRC shifts (4) the PRC backs off other claims to other Qing colonial holdings. Etc
which exactly indicates that the PRC's leaders has realized how their previous "bully" policies embarrassed themselves, as you pointed out. The trend on the other side is clearly going the other way.
Nope. The rhetoric is going the other way. The trend is clear, Thomas, and not in the direction of a softening by the PRC.
Again, the peace offer had a precondition: surrender.
I am not totally against the DPP (unlike you guys, who see no virtue in your opponents),
Who are my opponents?
and I think Hsieh is much more pragmatic a person than Chen. So whoever gets elected will be good for the cross-strait relations. In fact, I am surprised that you did not even notice that Hsieh had actually nodded to Hu's offer, under the condition that Taiwan's dignity and self-determination be preserved (which is compatible with Hu's words too). Hiesh OKing Hu's offer also proves that Beijing is NOT demanding for a surrender.
I included Hsieh in more than one of the articles, Thomas. It is obvious that the Chen-Hsieh dynamic permits Hsieh to look conciliatory while Chen takes the heat. Hsieh did not give any specifics in his response to Hu, permitting him to look moderate while saying nothing. Deliberately. These guys are lawyers -- they are masters at saying nothing. Do you really think Hsieh will negotiate on the basis that Taiwan is part of China? I think it is you who massively misunderstand here.
Of course a demand that Taiwan give up its sovereignty as a precondition for talks is a surrender demand!
Also, your unreserved bias towards the greens also shield you from understanding what Mainland China wants. If Ross were ignorant about Taiwan, people here seem equally ignorant about Mainland China (that's why you can come up with something like "China has nothing to lose").
Please explain, concretely, what China has to lose. What exactly would China lose if Taiwan became independent?
If you think Ross is wrong, you probably did not understand it.
ROFL. I've been understanding the Ross' of the world for many years now, Thomas.
From your article and the comments of the people here, I see clear, unashamed misunderstandings.
Feel free to point them out, concretely. Take your time.
If you really wanna take Mainland China as your enemy, at least you got to know your enemy well. But how is that possible, when you can't even read their messages? If you have to make such a claim that Beijing is demanding a surrender, please quote Hu's original words and analyze them in Chinese.
No problem. Are you saying that the words have been misreported in English, and that Hu's offer carried with it the idea that Taiwan could be a sovereign and independent state? If not, and the English correctly reproduces the Chinese, then it is a surrender demand.
Post a link to Hu's exact words and I'll be happy to analyze it.
Michael
Look, it will be an extremely time-consuming task to refute the specific points that you got wrong. Those are simply 罄竹難書 (sorry but if Chen is allowed to misuse that idiom, I think I am allowed to do so too). You base all of your argument on the assumption that "Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state" and "anything that does not explicitly permit that is a violation of Taiwan's self-determination."
ReplyDeleteGeez. You are even tougher than the diehard Communists and their unification plan.
You assume that the missiles are a signal that the PRC wants unification. It does not surprise me that you follow the DPP politicians' logic, which grossly exaggerates the threat (not to mention that Taiwan's missiles now can reliably hit Shanghai).
Say, the US may have tons of nuclear missiles targeted at Mainland China, while China's long-range missiles take so long to get ready for launching that they cause little threat to the United States. Have you ever heard of PRC leaders complaining that the US is "threatening" China with its missiles? I don't think they frequently do.
However, if one day China seeks to drastically expand its missile forces and whip up nationalistic sentiments against the US, I think you will agree with me that it would be China not the US that is being provocative, despite the fact that the US had the massive amount of missiles pointing at China first.
In 1945 the Communists and the Nationalists had a similar issue: the neutralization of their military forces. The Nationalists insisted that the military forces of both sides must be politically neutralized first and brought under the control of the central government before any peace deal can be reached, while the Communists took the peace agreement and general elections as precondition of such neutralization.
Here, you demand removal of the missiles and softening policies towards the DPP regime as precondition of talks, which, to the mainlanders, are not possible until a deal is reached.
In fact Hsieh and Chen took different stances on the issue not because they deliberately cooperate: Hsieh and Chen have had that disagreement for long. Michael, you can't claim that you have the support of "moderate mainstream" opinions; Hsieh can. Anyone who knows Taiwan politics well will call the opinions of people here "deep-green."
And your insistence on Taiwan's "independence and sovereignty" and your conception of "unification" are really bizarre but unsurprising. How do you know that a deal can't preserve what Taiwan has before you even sit down and talk? And I can confidently assert that any reading to Hu's message beyond "an intention to talk" is a stretch. Your misreading, I guess, is not because that the reporters did a bad job in translating Hu's words - it is exactly because that they did a good job. Because you have little knowledge about the Communists' bureaucratic culture and their language, Hu's words do not make sense to you because you can only understand them literally.
The topic "How to interpret Beijing's language" can fill a library, so I'm not gonna make a lengthy lecture here. Let's just see how the real world politics work out. Even if I can convince you that you are wrong, it does no good to the reality. You and I are just too insignificant to change the cause.
You assume that the missiles are a signal that the PRC wants unification. It does not surprise me that you follow the DPP politicians' logic, which grossly exaggerates the threat (not to mention that Taiwan's missiles now can reliably hit Shanghai).
ReplyDeleteIf missiles are not a signal that the PRC wants to annex Taiwan, then what are they? If aircraft, military exercises, and constant threats are not threats, what are they?
Here, you demand removal of the missiles and softening policies towards the DPP regime as precondition of talks, which, to the mainlanders, are not possible until a deal is reached.
It's real simple, Thomas. Did Hu's "peace offer" demand as a condition of talks that Taiwan give up its sovereignty before sitting down at the table? If not, explain.
And please -- I did not demand any preconditions for talks, Thomas. My point was that I'll believe the Communist position has softened when I see concrete evidence that it has. Clearly it has not.
Say, the US may have tons of nuclear missiles targeted at Mainland China, while China's long-range missiles take so long to get ready for launching that they cause little threat to the United States. Have you ever heard of PRC leaders complaining that the US is "threatening" China with its missiles? I don't think they frequently do.
Probably because US missiles don't threaten China -- they aren't part of a larger policy of expansion and threat against China; while Chinese missiles threaten Taiwan because they are part of a larger policy of expansion. That's an elementary political fact, Thomas.
it is exactly because that they did a good job. Because you have little knowledge about the Communists' bureaucratic culture and their language, Hu's words do not make sense to you because you can only understand them literally.
So you're saying that after 50 years of insisting on A, the Communists don't really mean A.
Explain, please. Don't pretend you have some secret superior knowledge and then walk away.
If you didn't want to waste space, why did you just waste about six paragraphs explaining nothing? You could easily have spent six paragraphs explaining why Hu really didn't mean Taiwan had to give up its sovereignty to talk when he said it had to give up its sovereignty to talk.
Michael
So far, Michael's argument seems to be more logical and make more sense.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of missles, please allow me to remind Thomas that China DID fire a few rounds right by Taiwan during the 94 election?? That's not a threat?? (Point a gun at your head and fire a shot by your ear??)
If I remember correctly, Hu offered to give Taiwan the special treatment as Hong Kong.....that they were allow elections for the leader. With the fine print of the "Central Government" at Beijing holds 51% vote and people of Hong Kong holds 49% all together.
So, instead of leader of your choice, you got accept the leader appointed. Hmm.....that sounds like a bad bargain to me.
It seems that our fundamental difference is that, while you contend that Taiwan is a sovereign country, I do not entirely agree - there are certainly still disputes over the issue, and that's precisely what the situation is now. I'd rather leave it as "undecided." It's awkward, I know, but it's better than excluding any answers other than "Taiwan is an independent sovereign nation." You may claim that that is the fact, but sorry, only a "fact" to you.
ReplyDeleteSuppose Hu and the next president on Taiwan sat down and talked. And they signed a peace treaty, freezing the status-quo, which means that the Mainland will not wage war on Taiwan, they will trade as usual (only easier), and most importantly, Beijing will still have no jurisdiction over the affairs on the island. How is that a "surrender" of Taiwan? In fact, that is all that the Mainland government wants for now.
If Taiwan is an independent nation now, why so afraid of freezing the status-quo? Taiwan is the one that has nothing to lose if there is a treaty that maintains the status quo. In addition, I am confident that once such a treaty is signed, Beijing will be more willing to tolerate Taiwan's international visibility.
You may discredit my interpretations however you like, but I don't think your allegations are better founded than my readings. All you know about Mainland China's intention is that there are missiles 200 miles away and some Communists yelling for unification. What else?
I really do not understand, why is your world so simplistic that there are only "good guys" vs. "bad guys, ""suppressors" vs. "the suppressed," "democratic" vs. "undemocratic," "free" and "unfree"? Being on Taiwan does not necessarily improve your understanding of it, if you retain your biased way of filtering and reading news. 正所謂當局者迷，旁觀者清
I think what people like "you-don't-really-understand-Beijing"-Thomas is trying to say (but is having a hard time putting into plain language) is a lot like what Ma Ying-jeou and the KMT are saying. Ma has the same diffuculty getting across a clear message.
ReplyDeleteStated clearly, it would look something like:
"Come on-- being provocative will get us nowhere. It will only continue to ruin our economy and increase the risk of war. Beijing is not nearly as nasty as some people think. If we allow them to save face by going along with the One China thing and admitting that Taiwan is part of China, then Hu will be happy to begin peace talks. Beijing will be so grateful that they may even allow Taiwan to remain autonomous, and not interfere too much in local affairs."
Of course Ma can't come out and say it so clearly. Indeed, he appears to believe that taking a decidedly vague stance on cross-strait issues is precisely what will get him elected. The key part of Ma's non-position is the "1992 consensus". Even as interpreted by Ma ("with each side having its own interpretation"), it is ridiculously vague.
Unfortunately, he may be right. Most Taiwanese simply do not want to hear anymore about the issue, and would likely think better of the candidate selling a comforting --although vague-- picture of the future.
scott
(Sorry for more confusion. This is from the Taiwan-friendly Thomas to the condescending Thomas.)
ReplyDeleteCondescending Thomas says: "How do you know that a deal can't preserve what Taiwan has before you even sit down and talk?"
Taiwan-friendly Thomas replies: Because the deal rests on giving up what Taiwan has. Say what you want, but giving in to the precondition that Taiwan is a part of a country that is controlled from Beijing is, by nature, a surrender of liberty.
If someone is suing me and wishes to claim damages (not intended to be an exact comparison of situations), I will not agree to give them all they ask as a basis for negotiation. How is it in my interests if my money is in their bank account, even if they tell me that they will give me an ATM card that I can use to access the funds at any time?
Thomas, perhaps you are failing to convince people in here not because they are "deep-green", although yes, this blog does lean towards the green end. Rather you are failing to convince anyone here with your arguments because the readers have access to a wide variety of media of differing viewpoints, and have considerable experience living in the area, and are therefore able to make informed decisions for themselves.
To dismiss readers here as neophytes who could never understand the intentions of the august leaders of the PRC and their lofty discourse (and yes, that is what you are implying) is a bit distasteful.
Hi thomas,
ReplyDeleteI read your comments slowly, trying to understand your points. I do understand your words, but found some points of yours really puzzling. Hopefully, I can get some positive responses from you to help me further understand how you think.
First, and the most puzzling, is what you think about what Taiwan's current status is. From your reply to Michael's:
You base all of your argument on the assumption that "Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state"
your insistence on Taiwan's "independence and sovereignty" and your conception of "unification" are really bizarre
Obviously, in your eyes "Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state" is just an assumption. If you don't think that "Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state," then:
1. What do you think Taiwan's current state is ?
2. What makes a country "an independent and sovereign state" ?
3. Who decides a country "an independent and sovereign state" ?
You must have your definition from where you come up with that. I believe most readers/commenters here have different views than yours. Could you please shed some light on these to help us understand?
I'm also puzzled by your indifference on the fact that Hu's peace offer requires Taiwan to give up sovereign. In your long comments here you keep avoiding this fact and only stressed on other part of Hu's talk. But then I understand, if you don't agree that "Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state," then in your eyes Taiwan has no sovereign therefore nothing to give up.
It's therefore extremely critical for you to tell us what you think about the questions I raise above.
Secondly, you keep stressing "it's the tendency that counts." However, China keeps increasing its missiles against Taiwan, keeps sqeezing Taiwan's international space. Just couple of days ago China intercepted WHO's disease announcement and prevented a disease warning being sent to Taiwan. These and many others are what China really does to show hostility toward Taiwan, and it has -- use your own words -- the tendency of getting more and more serious. I don't see you remotely mentioned all these facts, but only see you repeating what China says. My questions:
4. Doesn't all these count as a "tendency?"
5. Is it true that, in your eyes, what China does doesn't count, but what China says does?
If I am not mistaken your major is political sciences. I am looking forward to hearing some professional views from you.
Taiwan is definitely an independent country with its sovereignty. However China absolutely won't admit that because that will bring them a big trouble. If china admit Taiwan's independence and withdraw missiles, other provinces will fellow up and ask for their independence. Then China government will be forced to use their missiles to crackdown their "rebel" comrades. The less thing China government want to see is that anything can damage their territory integrity. That's why China criticized seriously that the US congress gave the metal to Dali-lama.
ReplyDelete"Come on-- being provocative will get us nowhere. It will only continue to ruin our economy and increase the risk of war. Beijing is not nearly as nasty as some people think. If we allow them to save face by going along with the One China thing and admitting that Taiwan is part of China, then Hu will be happy to begin peace talks. Beijing will be so grateful that they may even allow Taiwan to remain autonomous, and not interfere too much in local affairs."
ReplyDeleteYes, this is very much what Hu is saying -- very Chinese -- acknowledge the rightness of Power, and Power may be benevolent. It's very much in the Imperial mode: throwing oneself on the emperor's benevolence.
Everyone understands this, Scott. The problems with it should also be obvious.
Michael
"Taiwan is definitely an independent country with its sovereignty." is some kind of sentences I can shout out loudly because I'm not a politician and I don't have to take the responsibility for the coming consequence. In other words, politicians should use every single word very carefully and precisely because it's possible to cause a war. I believe that nobody wants a war for us or next generation. So if there is a gray area between "the independent status" and "the occupied status" that can be reached and keep peace for more 50 or 100 years, I will support that. It depends on how smartly our politicians can talk with China government, how strong we will be, and what kind of role we will play in the world. If we are strong enough, more countries will support us. In other words, we are not strong enough and that's why we can't get any advantage on the international affairs. That's the reality.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, If you know there is no chance to defeat your enemy but keep irritating your enemy, that will be suicide. It's some kind of brave and very stupid behavior. The only result is that all of people die or be slaved and there will be bad reputation in the history for the leader who cause that war.
ReplyDeleteObviously, in your eyes "Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state" is just an assumption. If you don't think that "Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state," then:
ReplyDelete1. What do you think Taiwan's current state is ?
2. What makes a country "an independent and sovereign state" ?
3. Who decides a country "an independent and sovereign state" ?
That is the difference between us. I have realized long ago that getting into legal and historical arguments gets us nowhere. If I really need to restate my basic points, fine I'll do it:
I recognize that there are a variety of interpretations of Taiwan's status, all of which I am open to, including the "independent nation" one. However, it seems that there is currently no way for all parties to reach an agreeable answer. Therefore, I believe that the best thing to do is to sign an agreement to freeze this status-quo WITHOUT specifying what the status of Taiwan really is (or doing it very vaguely), and by doing so, neither Mainland China nor Taiwan will have anything to lose.
To some degree, you are right, that what China does doesn't count, what it says does. It sounds strange but not entirely false. It's in fact harder to take words back than to remove (or freeze) missiles; and for that reason, the CCP leaders are more cautious about what they say than what they do on the ground and thus, the former has more weight than the latter. The PRC keeps its routine BEFORE a deal can be reached, but if the negotiation really starts, the pace will certainly slow down. Also, the change of attitudes toward Taiwan is a fairly recent development, you really can't compare it with their previous routines.
The underlying message of Hu is simply "let's talk," and any reading beyond that is probably a stretch. Insisting Taiwan is part of "China" is not the same as insisting that it is part of the PRC: the former is simply a demand of freezing the status quo; the latter, in contrast, is really what both of you and I are apprehensive of. Beijing has clearly abandoned the latter point, although it is still saying so.
I know that you are going to say, "what what what? You are saying that the Communists are a bunch of maniacs who don't speak Chinese as normal people would do?" Unfortunately, yes. Take some irrelevant examples: in the PRC's bureaucratic language, a) "X in principle should not do Y" means "X can do Y." b) "lifestyle problem" means "sexual scandal."
And Michael, it is the reality, whether you like it or not, that the PRC has more power and resources than Taiwan. Therefore, denouncing the imperialist mentality of the undemocratic juggernaut is like throwing a beer can at a tank - it doesn't help get what you want. The PRC doesn't like the American hegemonic power either, but they are smarter than the flag-burners that they take the "engagement" strategy towards the United States, and now you see what they get. Even for the US this is clear. Although the US government, Democratic or Republican, constantly emphasizes the ideals such as human rights and democracy in its decision-making, at the end of the day, it is still the REAL interests rather than ideals that dominate its foreign policies. On this point I would say that allen gets the point.
Let's lay out what we can agree on and what we can't:
We both agree that:
There should be no armed conflicts across the Strait;
Taiwan deserves more international visibility and the right to participate in world affairs;
Taiwan should be able to continue its pursuit for democracy, which Mainland China eventually should too;
the Communists had been unwise by making armed threats.
etc.
We cannot agree on:
what Hu's message really is and what the PRC's army is really doing;
whether it is more appropriate to pursue a single cause and make things clear now, or leave the doors open for all possibilities and save the problem for later;
whether brave confrontation is a better strategy;
whether ideals should bend to reality.
Finally, you do not know what you can get until you start negotiating. Of course Beijing is going to demand more than what you can accept FOR NOW; Which idiot reveals their bottom line before the negotiation even starts?!
The PRC keeps its routine BEFORE a deal can be reached, but if the negotiation really starts, the pace will certainly slow down. Also, the change of attitudes toward Taiwan is a fairly recent development, you really can't compare it with their previous routines.
ReplyDeleteThomas, attitudes haven't changed. This isn't the first time that the PRC has made a "peace offer" with that condition -- it is the condition contingent on all Taiwan-China exchanges. The military buildup continues, and Taiwan's space in the international community compresses even further. So where is the behavior change?
Arguing that making Taiwan part of "China" is not the same as making it part of the PRC is ridiculous. Who will Taiwan be negotiating with? "China?" Nope. The PRC, of course. Because the PRC knows that if Taiwan accepts that it is part of "China" then at some point PRC rule over it will be accomplished.
Further, the ROC is a state that accepts Taiwan is part of China. So please explain why Hu would make acceptance of the one-China principle a condition of the negotiations, when Taipei already formally accepts that? Taipei's belief in independence is its real position, but if China had wanted to adopt the position you claim it is adopting, then all it had to do was announce that it would accept Taipei's version of one-CHina -- it wouldn't even have to accept the legitimacy of the ROC. But of course Beijing envisions China as an empire centered on itself, which simply betrays how Beijing will see Taiwan when Taiwan accepts its version of the "one-China" policy.
Also, it's not just Taiwan. The PRC dreams of inflating itself out to the old Qing borders, and perhaps to the Tang and beyond. Letting it have Taiwan simply legitimates this drive, and encourages it to continue.
And Michael, it is the reality, whether you like it or not, that the PRC has more power and resources than Taiwan. Therefore, denouncing the imperialist mentality of the undemocratic juggernaut is like throwing a beer can at a tank - it doesn't help get what you want.
China has more power than Taiwan? Gosh, I never noticed. Thanks, man! Duh. Of course China has more power than Taiwan. And of coure denouncing imperialism helps -- because the one thing "realists" never understand is reality -- a key weapon against evil is the moral high ground. That reality is always ignored by realists, which is why -- after a huge pile of bodies is generated -- the "realist" position invariably fails and people start reaching for airheaded ideals like democracy and human rights. As Kerim pointed out last week in a post over at Keywords, when people trundle out hackneyed phrases like "the ivory tower" and "realism," you know that they are advocating something morally objectionable, and, I should add, long-term stupid.
The real difference is that I'm a realist -- one who looks at the large number of nations successfully created in the face of objections from powerful nations who coveted them, and takes inspiration -- and one who looks past words to deeds. As I said, when China changes its behavior, I'll say that China has changed.
So really, your "realism" amounts to idealistic worship of power, and my "idealism" to pragmatic acceptance and use of history, as well as observation of the actual behavior of nations.
Although the US government, Democratic or Republican, constantly emphasizes the ideals such as human rights and democracy in its decision-making, at the end of the day, it is still the REAL interests rather than ideals that dominate its foreign policies.
LOL. What this has to do with our discussion is a mystery, though it is a good example of "REAL" interests are generally conflated with the position "Screw everybody, take what we want." Interests are values, Thomas -- so what values to REAL interests support? When people talk about REAL interests they are actually talking about the interests of a small class of elites. This paragraph appear to be there to support the idea that I am somehow naive, whereas you are one of those real men who decide the fate of nations, seeing far deeper than I! Congratulations! I'm so naive. I got that way living in a guerilla war in Africa, and then later working for the media in Washington DC.
Fact is, it's a REAL interest of Taiwan to be independent and in charge of its own destiny (doh). When Taiwanese support independence, they support a REAL interest of Taiwan -- Taiwan has no interest in becoming part of the corrupt and incompetent government of the PRC and gains nothing it could get by trade. As for the brilliance of the realpolitik approach, Taiwan is an excellent example of its total failure in almost every way. Nothing has screwed up US foreign policy more than the would-be Kissingers who get off to the idea that Real Men Decide the Fate of Nations. That has resulted in an unbroken string of failure (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Chile, Iran...the list is long -- in each case, REAL interests were involved). Instead, it is the multilateralists who stressed cooperation, a framework of international norms including democracy, and similar, who created the conditions for prosperity and peace in the post WWII world. That's a real approach. Conditions constantly threatened by the Real Men who find democratic constraints irritating and think the strong should eat the weak.
Where does your "realist" position end, Thomas? China has more power than Mongolia, Kazakh, etc. Do we hand those over too? How about Okinawa? What limits does your position set on Power? Power is a Moloch, Thomas, that lives by human sacrifice and eats its worshipers, especially the idealistic ones.
Finally, you do not know what you can get until you start negotiating. Of course Beijing is going to demand more than what you can accept FOR NOW; Which idiot reveals their bottom line before the negotiation even starts?
What idiot agrees to a precondition that eliminates any possibility of them reaching their goals? If China were really interested in talks, then it would talk -- but it stopped talking to Taipei during the LTH era. But instead, it set out an offer it knew Taipei would reject. "We can negotiate the conditions of our relationship after you acknowledge I own you." Now, ask yourself as a good realist, what is the purpose of a "peace offer" made with full knowledge that it will be rejected?
Michael
Taiwan-friendly Thomas says to the other Thomas:
ReplyDelete"to freeze this status-quo WITHOUT specifying what the status of Taiwan really is (or doing it very vaguely), and by doing so,"
This implies the possibility that a status quo exists. There can be no status quo in an environment where one side has and continues to develop a military advantage. There can also be no status quo when one side undergoes an identity shift. Status quo implies a lack of change. Like it or not, things have and continue to change, a point which you yourself admit when you say: "the change of attitudes toward Taiwan is a fairly recent development, you really can't compare it with their previous routines."
How can you advocate a status quo while admitting that no such thing exists?
You also say: "The underlying message of Hu is simply 'let's talk,'"
Um, no. The message is clear. It is "Lets talk on OUR TERMS." Hu said it. And, as you say, it is what he says that counts, right? I don't ascribe to the view that what the CPP says is more important than what the CCP does. However, assuming this is correct, you have contradicted yourself again.
"You are saying that the Communists are a bunch of maniacs who don't speak Chinese as normal people would do?"
Who is or would say that? Where does this argument come from?
Finally, we're back to the point that negotiation exists when both parties are willing to give a bit. There can be no negotiation when one party wants its cake and all of its cake without even talking first. You still have not managed to address this point.
thomas,
ReplyDeleteNow I understand a little more about your thinking. I mistakenly thought that you think Taiwan is not a an independent and sovereign state. But your actual position is "undecided." Therefore, any possible status of future Taiwan, including: (A) independent (B) one country two systems (C) autonomous region of China (D) ...etc etc, is acceptable to you.
thomas' position vs. China's
I appreciate your position, at least you didn't exclude the possibility of independence.
Unfortunately, this is just your position.
6: Do you recognize the difference between your position and China's ?
7: Have you ever realized that China's options exclude the possibility of (A), the independence, completely ?
If China is as open as you, then we won't have any problem. Unfortunately, it's not you whom DPP government needs to negociate with.
Since your position is different from China's,
8: Isn't it weird to come up with all reasons -- based on your position -- to blame Taiwan's government for not accepting the talk request that are actually based on a different position?
Do you see what I mean? What you are doing here seems like some sort of 移花接木 (use reasoning on somthing to blame something else) to me.
You said:
I believe that the best thing to do is to sign an agreement to freeze this status-quo WITHOUT specifying what the status of Taiwan really is.
Now you confuse me.
9: Do you realize that President Chen repeated many times that if no pre-condition is set, a talk can be started any time?
10: Are you aware the fact that China sets pre-condition but Taiwan doesn't ?
11: China sets pre-condition but Taiwan doesn't, but your blame is on the side that doesn't set pre-condition. Don't you think it's odd?
Your way of deduction really confuses me.
Try to understand what we care
I respect your insisting that "what China does doesn't count, what it says does." But to me, it sounds like someone pointing a knife closer and closer to you at the same time keeping saying "I love you." You are trying to convince people that don't look at the knife, just enjoys the sweet talk. I don't think it can convince anyone, because it violates common sense.
You might argue that China's missile threats and squeezing Taiwan's international space are not the same as pointing a knife to kill.
You can have that thought, that's fine. But you have to realize that many others don't share the same view as yours. To us, IT IS like pointing a knife trying to take what's the most cherishable from us. I know you don't mind a knife pointing at you, but "you doesn't mind" can't be transferred to "all or most Taiwanese doesn't mind". You have to learn to understand what it's like to take others' most cherishable valuable away.
In my opinion, you don't understand what we cherish, and consider what we cherish most as meaningless. That's the very source of our disagreement.
If our talk can at least let you see this, then every second I spent is worth it.
China's pre-condition
We question you a lot about this, and your last response is:
The underlying message of Hu is simply "let's talk," and any reading beyond that is probably a stretch. Insisting Taiwan is part of "China" is not the same as insisting that it is part of the PRC: the former is simply a demand of freezing the status quo
The argument "China not= PRC" makes no sense here, unless you mistakenly think that the reason we don't want to be "part of China" is because "China=PRC." That's dead wrong, man.
Surprisingly, in this paragraph of yours you admit that there is a demand that China made as a pre-condition of the talk !
This is a bit shocking to me, because you have spent paragraph after paragraph of comments arguing that China's position is "just talk without any pre-set condition", and based on that reason you blame Taiwan government, even deep down you do realize that they do have pre-set condition !!
This doesn't look honest to me, thomas.
I am not expecting to reach any consensus between us. After all, we have different concerns and are looking at things from different angles. However, I hope that by going through detailed analysis, we can get a small step closer to a mutual understanding.
Thomas, attitudes haven't changed.
ReplyDeleteNo. Find the phrases from the old documents and compare them. I know it’s tedious homework, but do it.
Further, the ROC is a state that accepts Taiwan is part of China. So please explain why Hu would make acceptance of the one-China principle a condition of the negotiations, when Taipei already formally accepts that?
The fact is that Chen’s government does NOT. If there were no limitations of constitutionality, I am sure Mr. Chen would have made the ROC not accept “Taiwan is part of China,” or simply destroyed the ROC.
Also, it's not just Taiwan. The PRC dreams of inflating itself out to the old Qing borders, and perhaps to the Tang and beyond. Letting it have Taiwan simply legitimates this drive, and encourages it to continue.
I don’t know which alarmist you get that baseless claim, but I am sure that it’s not true. You are probably also among the ones who actually believe that the Communists sent one million ethnic Han Chinese to colonize Tibet.
That reality is always ignored by realists, which is why -- after a huge pile of bodies is generated -- the "realist" position invariably fails and people start reaching for airheaded ideals like democracy and human rights.
Sigh. When can you get out of your black and white world that classifies people into nothing but “good” and “evil”?
As I said, when China changes its behavior, I'll say that China has changed.
The PRC, if smart enough, should get ready to deal with the next president on Taiwan. So if you see no “real” changes within 7 months, you win, and I will agree that the PRC leaders are idiots.
I got that way living in a guerilla war in Africa, and then later working for the media in Washington DC.
Congratulations on your survival. I will be happy to listen to stories about African guerilla wars and DC your experiences, which unfortunately give you no credentials on Mainland China.
Instead, it is the multilateralists who stressed cooperation, a framework of international norms including democracy, and similar, who created the conditions for prosperity and peace in the post WWII world. That's a real approach. Conditions constantly threatened by the Real Men who find democratic constraints irritating and think the strong should eat the weak.
Do I need to lecture you with political science 101? Democracy does NOT necessarily create conditions for prosperity. Your idealistic worship to the ideals make you give far more credits to them than they deserve. You think that there is no power coming into play in “multilateralism” and “cooperation?” Power is just camouflaged under the table, but it’s still there. Chinese have long known strategies such as欲擒故縱 and 以退爲進. Soft power is still power. Power on the negotiation table is still power. We have faith in international multilateral organizations, because we believe that those are a more effective and efficient way of achieving our objectives and reaching consensus. International organizations and cooperative approaches do not eliminate power mechanism but rather they rationalize the practice of power.
Where does your "realist" position end, Thomas? China has more power than Mongolia, Kazakh, etc. Do we hand those over too? How about Okinawa? What limits does your position set on Power? Power is a Moloch, Thomas, that lives by human sacrifice and eats its worshipers, especially the idealistic ones.
Do I need to lecture the poli-sci 101 again, this time on the complexity of “power?” If power can be anatomized in your simplistic formula, China would have conquered half of the world. Oh wait, before China can do that, the US would have conquered the whole world and brought democracy to the 6 billion people on this planet. Power is multidimensional and issue-specific, and you are right in that moral power is power too – you just forget that there are more than that, and moral power does not always prevail (it seldom does, in fact. And you have surely heard of the story of 宋襄公). Not to mention that the definition of morality itself remains controversial.
"We can negotiate the conditions of our relationship after you acknowledge I own you." Now, ask yourself as a good realist, what is the purpose of a "peace offer" made with full knowledge that it will be rejected?
For God’s sake, that is NOT what Hu is saying. – That’s the third time I say that. If my previous posts cannot make you believe it, I suspect that only time can tell who’s wrong. If you insist on “real” changes, I’d rather leave you in disbelief for now. I will owe you an apology if I did overestimate the intelligence of the PRC leaders, once it turns out that they really want nothing but swallowing Taiwan.
For the other so-called “Taiwan friendly” (I’d refer to it as “independence-friendly”) Thomas, I’ll say the same thing: your interpretation of Beijing’s message is incorrect in that you failed to see a softening position, which Taiwan can in fact take advantage of. Again, there is no word in Hu’s statement demanding the PRC’s sovereignty on Taiwan as a precondition; otherwise Hsieh would have rebuked it.
When can you get out of your black and white world that classifies people into nothing but “good” and “evil”?
ReplyDeleteI got out of that world years ago, Thomas. About the same time I stopped being fascinated by power, come to think of it.
For God’s sake, that is NOT what Hu is saying. – That’s the third time I say that.
Well, it's the third time you asserted it, true. But no convincing evidence exists to support your claim.
There doesn't to be much point in discussion anymore, so I'll let you have the last word.
Michael
Here are the previous formulations that Thomas wanted:
ReplyDelete2004
Zhang Mingqing, spokesman with the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, said there is no basis for reopening bilateral talks unless Taiwan leader Chen Shui-bian abandons his separatist push.
He added that the resumption of any cross-Straits talks must be based on the precondition of the one-China principle, which holds both Taiwan and the mainland are part of China.
The official brushed aside Taipei's allegation that the precondition set by Beijing has hindered the resumption of cross-Straits negotiation.
"What would we talk about if there was no (basis of the) one-China principle between both sides of the Taiwan Straits?" Zhang said at a regular news conference.
2000
"On Monday, Chinese President Jiang Zemin dismissed the suggestion that the two governments are equal, and said that "negotiations across the Taiwan Strait should have a basis, namely, the one-China principle must first be recognized."
What evolution? What softening?
Michael:Well, it's the third time you asserted it, true. But no convincing evidence exists to support your claim.
ReplyDeletethomas,
What Michael wants (and probably many readers expect) from you is to "quote the source" and "link to the reference" to backup your words. Just that simple.
Science studies are done that way, thomas. Even social sciences.
He repeatly asked it, but you repeated ignore, instead you keep stress your own words.
Remember the last time I asked you to provide sources of your very critical society-damaging stories? (in Miss Fu（福小姐）And Hearsay)
You seem to have a tendency to say something without being able to provide solid evidence or source. When this behavior becomes a typical one of yours, your words become nothing but hearsay.
This is not gonna convince any one, man.
Taiwan-friendly Thomas says:
ReplyDelete"I’ll say the same thing: your interpretation of Beijing’s message is incorrect in that you failed to see a softening position."
Now you see, I have read all about how some feel Hu's position is different just because he did not say "we will attack you" in his speech. However, I think my interpretation is spot-on. You see, I told you before that I did not adhere to the belief that Hu's words speak louder than the actions of the CCP. The missiles are still there. Furthermore, I still pooh pooh your assertion that Hu has not demanded a surrender of sovereignty. You simply cannot explain how "We will only talk with you if you accept that there is one China" does not equal a demand of surrender. The fact is, Thomas, even if we consider Taiwan as the ROC, that would still be a second China. Hu's words would have been revolutionary had he indicated his readiness to accept a SECOND China existed.
One China DOES require a surrender of sovereignty because there are still TWO Chinas on paper. One would have to disappear, and we know that Hu did not mean his own.
The only one I see who is misinterpreting things is you.
Taiwan echo,
ReplyDeleteYou are carrying out double standards on "evidence." I do not think the pro-independence people's interpretation to Hu's message and his "one-China" policy have any convincing evidence base upon, either.
On "hard-evidence" part, all they can suggest is the PLA's missiles and the PRC blocking Taiwan's access to international organizations, both of which can be changed once negotiation starts.
On "soft-evidence" part (i.e. the interpretation of the actual language that Hu uses in his 17th Party Congress report), they did an even worse job because all they did was also just asserting "Um, no, Hu wants Taiwan to accept the PRC's rule before negotiations are possible." I have in fact pointed out twice an evidence that would disprove their point, which was Frank Hsieh's response to Hu's offer. I assumed that people here follow Taiwanese news closely and do not need me to copy and paste what he actually said.
謝長廷今天下午在參加一個會議論壇後被問到兩岸和平協議議題，謝表示，兩岸和平是民進黨追求的目標，只要能維持台灣的主體性以及維護既有生活的尊嚴，一切和平的建議都是可行的。
至於兩岸和平協議是在胡錦濤所說的“一中原則”下簽署，還是陳水扁說的要“放棄一中框架”才簽署？或者如馬英九所說的在“一中各表原則”下簽署？謝長廷說：技術性的問題不應該放話，如果現在就急著講什麼可以，什麼不可以，那到最後就變成是空話，只會變成選舉語言，最重要的是要有心：兩岸要和平，兩岸人民要友好。
What can be more positive than Hsieh's reply? If Hu's offer indeed requires Taiwan to "surrender" as a prerequisite, Hsieh will absolute not make a response like that. In fact I am surprised that Hsieh did not even insist on excluding 一中框架, which is a totally different view compared to the DPP party's.
And if you analyze Hu's words, you WILL find a softening position. He does not mention 一國兩制 and 台灣是中華人民共和國的一省 as Beijing previously insisted; he merely briefly refers to a vague "one-China" policy which is not too far away from the "one-China" position that all governments of the US, Democratic and Republican, would agree to and the one that looks acceptable to Hsieh. Other than that, Hu said absolutely NOTHING about preconditions of talk. Who says Taiwan's integrity and dignity cannot be preserved under this vague and broad "one-China" framework? If YOU, Westerners on Taiwan can come up with nothing but preemptively rejecting a possibility, it doesn't mean that the Chinese mainlanders and Taiwanese themselves can't.
If people here insist that Hu DID make such a strong demand that Taiwan "surrenders," isn't it THEIR responsibility to quote Hu's words and present evidence for that?
Since the "One-China" principle fails to solidly specify the PRC as representative of the One China, there's a vagueness.
ReplyDeleteNotice how the PRC has failed to assert that "Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China."
If you want to bang on Thomas for not being able to prove his claims, remember that nobody can quote PRC leaders wanting to "swallow" or "annex" Taiwan. We're all arguing with our own interpretations and allegations here.
On the other hand, many quotes often used as evidence in arguments include dubious statements such as "China is a Communist dictatorship," and some other less blatantly false claims.
Some of us choose to view China and the whole Taiwan issue with different eyes, and many of us place our own views as "superior and morally correct."
I am having trouble posting my comments on Forbes.com:
ReplyDeleteWhile Mr. Ross echoes China's condemnation of Taiwanese President for having "nationalistic aspirations," he has no qualms with China's claim over Taiwan, saying that Taiwanese separatist movements threaten China's "nationalist" legitimacy. It is equally ironic when Mr. Ross describes Taiwan as "provacative," and praises China for being "moderate." Is Mr. Ross not aware of the 1000 missiles China is pointing at Taiwan, and the anti-secession law of 2005 which China enacted to give itself the "right" to attack Taiwan if it deems unification trends isn't going in China's favor?
According to Mr. Ross, handing over Taiwan's sovereignty to China appeases the Communist Party's appetite and need for legitimacy, mindful that the CCP is currently a dictatorial regime that is not elected by the people and never will be. What justification does Mr. Ross have in asserting that Taiwan, with its democracy, freedom and human rights, is a necessary sacrifice for the rise of a totalitarian regime that is the antithesis of those values?
Michael said far above:
ReplyDelete“Unlike you I am not an essentialist who sees people as culturebots.”
This sentence risks causing a lot of confusion and might be taken as self-contradictory. In the field of history, yes: “essentialism” sees people as culturebots. In ethics, and most non-history humanities fields, it’s the opposite: purveyors of “Asian values,” for example, are labeled constructionists, who view people as culturebots. Cultural relativism as outlined by Franz Boas offered a mediating view between these extremes: a cultural group may be understood in constructionist terms, even as ethical essentialism among all cultures is upheld. This latter formulation accords with the Aristotelian distinction between matter and form, and it rescues cultural relativism from the charge of moral relativism with which many ethical essentialists oppugn it. It’s in biology and neuroscience, though, where discussions of essentialism are most interesting. First, evolutionary biology brought ideas of an “essential” human nature into heavy question; now, advances in neuroscience have brought the essentialism question back to the fore. Quite interesting to read are the attacks by Steven Pinker and his neo-essentialist minions on the “innate cognitive structures” views of Chomsky and his paleo-essentialists.
Anyway, in the most often (today) used sense of the words, and certainly in terms of ethics, Thomas One seems to be taking more of a constructionist stance in the argument above, and Michael appears to be hewing to an essentialist position.
Taiwan-friendly Thomas says:
ReplyDelete"Hu said absolutely NOTHING about preconditions of talk."
Sorry. You can say what you want, but Hu saying that "the mainland side is ready to conduct exchanges, dialogue, consultations and negotiations with any political party in Taiwan on any issue as long as it recognizes that both sides of the Straits belong to one and the same China," sets a precondition. You and I would be in total agreement without that last part.
Get over it.
You know, Thomas, Channing does have a point to an extent. There are different interpretations to most matters, and I respect that. But if you are going to continue trying to convince people that no preconditions were specified by Hu, you had better come up with something to back your point rather than your own personal assertions. And seeing as how Hu mentioned his precondition quite clearly, you will be hard pressed to find one.
If an English/Mandarin speaking foreigner like me with years of experience living and working in Taiwan, Hong Kong and the mainland just can't understand that one simple sentence that Hu uttered that I quoted above, and if I still can't get how Hu's words actually mean something else, as you insist, then I guess there is just no point in me commenting further... unless you can back up what you say (which you obviously can't after being backed into a corner about it repeatedly and offering nothing new).
thomas,
ReplyDeleteI have in fact pointed out twice an evidence that would disprove their point, which was Frank Hsieh's response to Hu's offer
.......
What can be more positive than Hsieh's reply? If Hu's offer indeed requires Taiwan to "surrender" as a prerequisite, Hsieh will absolute not make a response like that.
I am completely speechless, man.
After you avoided 4 times the request to offer evidence to support your assertion on Hu's words, you offer someone's other than Hu's.
Your education level let me believe that you should have enough IQ to tell that "A said B said so" doesn't convert to "B did say so."
But you seem to behave the other way. Why?
The only reason I can come up with to support my assumption "thomas is not stupid" is that you actually don't have anything on Hu's words to back up your statement, otherwise you wouldn't need to use other's words.
If fact I already pointed that out in my last two response to you. You tried to suggest "China not=PRC" in order to explain that Hu's precondition "Taiwan is part of China" not= "Taiwan is part of PRC."
I pointed out that you come up here writing comments after comments selling that Hu doesn't have any pre-condition when you already know that Hu has "Taiwan is part of China" as the precondition.
No wonder you can't provide Hu's words to back up yours, because there's none, and you know it since the beginning.
thomas, if you can't even be honest to yourself, if your thought violates even your own understanding, what do you expect what others are gonna see in you?
From China's own English report :
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
"On the basis of the one-China principle, let us discuss ..." Hu said in a report to the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
-----------------------------------
"The mainland side is ready to conduct exchanges, dialogue, consultations and negotiations with any political party in Taiwan on any issue as long as it recognizes that both sides of the Straits belong to one and the same China, Hu said.
-----------------------------------
You finally got the quotation. Very good. Read it again. What more can you ask for from Beijing? You keep requesting "evidence," but how are your claims backed up by any third-party evidence other than your perceptions through the green colored glasses that you refuse to take off?
ReplyDeleteI don't intend to appear condescending but I spent time here trying to clarify what Hu said is because I think YOU are being dishonest to the readers. All you try to do is to make the baseless assertion that "one China" means "one PRC." And all I have tried to do is to clarify that that is not.
As I said, Hu only mentioned "one China," which appears in the words quoted by Taiwan echo. As I said, that IS where the point has softened. You claim to know Chinese language well, but don't you know "China" is not the PRC? "...as long as it recognizes that both sides of the Straits belong to one and the same China" Wow that looks really straight-forward. And you think you got it? You DIDN'T.
Look, the point of contention is, whether by saying "one China" Hu means that Taiwan is part of the PRC. I say no. Evidence? If they mean that, they will phrase it like 世界上只有一個中國，台灣是中華人民共和國不可分割的一部分 plus emphasizing the 一國兩制 policy. Geez! I have never heard either of that for years. Since they did not emphasize that "China" is equal to "The PRC," they hinted concessions on sovereignty demands.
Also, Hsieh's comments are valid evidence in this circumstance, too. Hsieh's top priority is to win the election and he is still working hard to appease both deep-Green and middle-of-the-road voters. Therefore, he has absolutely no incentive to make such a friendly response to Hu's offer. But he did.
Assuming that, as you said, the whole "friendly gesture" is merely part of a larger plot through which the Communists want to strengthen their legitimacy. However, Hsieh, not only OKing the idea, but also implied that "one China" needs not to be excluded. So we can only have three explantions: a) Hsieh didn't realize that it is a trick. b) Hsieh realized that it is a trick but he does not want to defend Taiwan. c) Hsieh wants to defend Taiwan but he thinks that insisting on Taiwan's "sovereignty" will only make him lose support. Is there even a slim possibility that any of these is true? After writing these out I really don't know what you have been doing all these years in Taiwan that you will even disregard the presidential candidate's direct response to a signal from the mainland.
Hsieh insisted that "Taiwan's dignity and self-determination be preserved" while he did not insist on excluding the "one-China" framework. This stance is acquiesced by Beijing, and no strong opposition (except from the deep-deep-Green) come from the DPP either. That is the start of a benign circle of the Hu-Hsieh dynamics. And I see positive signs if this dynamics continue. And all you do is to jump in and say "No!!!!" Do you have to hear "Taiwan is an independent and sovereign country" before you can start negotiations? Sorry, that's really asking for too much. Why "no," if "one China" is nothing more than a nominal notion? Why "no," when you haven't even started negotiations and find out what they really mean and what they can accept in the end?
Hsieh has no problem with a vague "one China" framework, which ensures both peace and Taiwan's self-governance; and I don't know why YOU keep misinterpreting "one China" as "PRC Supremacy." If you think you can see the "trap of the Communists" clearer than Hsieh and handle it better, please, I beg you, run for the president of the ROC, or at least volunteer to replace his policy advisers.
It is crystal clear that "real" changes are not yet happening because no one outside Taiwan (Beijing, Democrats or Republicans in Washington) thinks that it is worthwhile to deal with President Chen, who has only about half a year left in office.
Hence, I hereby promise to you, that if Beijing does not start genuine efforts to build peace on the basis of respect of Taiwanese people but instead intensify its aggressive behavior after the new president on Taiwan inaugurates, I will formally apologize to you for my misjudgment based on an overestimation of the intelligence of the leaders in Beijing. Are you confident enough about YOUR theory to make a similar promise?
Nevertheless, I cannot find better words to describe what you have reported and how you have made your judgments than 盲人摸象 and 越俎代庖, which is exactly because, as I said earlier, 當局者迷，旁觀者清。
I am glad that it's people like Hsieh who are running for president, not people like you.
Thomas
ReplyDeleteAs I said, Hu only mentioned "one China," which appears in the words quoted by Taiwan echo. As I said, that IS where the point has softened. You claim to know Chinese language well, but don't you know "China" is not the PRC? "...as long as it recognizes that both sides of the Straits belong to one and the same China" Wow that looks really straight-forward. And you think you got it? You DIDN'T.
Thomas, Hu's remarks have to be contextualized by the conference the other day. Hu the Great Man appears conciliatory, while his underlings come to the main point with the usual threats of violence. The PRC's position hasn't changed since Chen came into office, and we all know what "one and the same China" means in practice. It means "rule by Beijing" since the ideal Chinese state is centered on the city that rules the Empire.
Further, if China is really interested in talks, why set conditions?
When the repeal the Anti-Secession Law and take down the missiles, and announce they don't care whether Taiwan is part of some China, then I'll believe. "Softening" from "I'll kill you if you don't join me" to "I'll kill you if you don't join an abstract concept centered around me" is not much of an offer.
Besides, Taiwan doesn't want to be part of any China, however you slice it.
All I know is I too would have responded with a lot of vague nothings, just like Hsieh. I'm sure there will be changes in Taiwan's policy when he gets in office. Probably Hu will make more cosmetic concessions. The media will report a great softening, but nothing fundamental will change, and in the end, Hsieh will also be frozen out by China, like Lee and Chen before him.
There's no need to apologize, Thomas. We're just debating, perfectly normal on the internet. You are right, we are Green here -- supporters of democracy and independence for the island. So how come you aren't one of us? Just take the blue pill, man...
Michael
Besides, Taiwan doesn't want to be part of any China, however you slice it.
ReplyDeleteNow we see what's 越俎代庖.
We're just debating, perfectly normal on the internet. You are right, we are Green here -- supporters of democracy and independence for the island.
even Communists haven't played 人民民主專政 (i.e.民主之專政, or 專政 under the name of 民主) to such an extreme level. Good luck.
thomas,
ReplyDeleteWhen Hu says, "as long as it recognizes that both sides of the Straits belong to one and the same China"
Hsieh reponds with, "if we are rushing to set a pre-condition for what should or should not be, then eventually it will come to nothing. (如果現在就急著講什麼可以，什麼不可以，那到最後就變成是空話)"
That, in your interpretation, is "Hsieh is OKing Hu" ?????????????????????????
Your way of twisting Hsieh's words into your own favor is amazing.
I would have agreed with you if you said that "Hsieh didn't reply with anything about Taiwan soviegnty like Chen did."
But he DID NOT OKing Hu either. Like Michael said he's just being vague. I am sure that if Hsieh is elected the President, Beijing will have more headache handling him than handling Chen.
I have no idea why you keep wasting our time on "China!=PRC". A pre-condition is a pre-condition. It doesn't matter if China=PRC.
I am still puzzled how come in your eyes Hu's pre-condition is not a pre-condition.
If you come here trying to present yourself as a reasonable man by advocating that no pre-condition should be set, but at the same time keeping a blind eye to Beijing's pre-condition, then there's really no ground for any wee bit of consensus on logic deduction between us (not to mention political).