Tuesday, July 13, 2004
China Will Go To War If Taiwan Declares Independence
5:40 PM /
Editor /
 
Links to this post:
48 Comments:
Wow! This one's really got people's goat up!
A quick note on LiC policy: the basic policy is to post everything we are sent unless it can be construed as rascist, sexist or otherwise bigoted or genuinely likely to get us blocked. On the last point I like to ride as close to the wind as possible since as a journalist trained in the UK I believe in free speech.
I'm actually quite glad that this article has raised the hackles, since debate is what we're all about. However, I do want to say that I would never knowingly accept an article in which the facts weren't right, but the nature of blogging means this is very difficult indeed.
Though I won't defend Mr McCarthy's opinions, I'm pretty sure that in one aspect where you attack his accuracy he's making the distinction between the PRC as established in 1949 rather than the China established in 3000BC (of which Taiwan has been a part).
Thus, since Taiwan has not been governed by Beijing since 1949, I think it's fair to say that Taiwan has never been part of the PRC though it has been part of China. It's merely a pedantic semantic point...
The rest of it is mainly opinion and predicition rather than fact, on which you must debate away!
All the best,
Phil
Dear Phil,
I was in no way impugning your editorial efforts, which I applaud with great sincerity and the utmost respect.
Regarding the "P.R.C.'s" claim to Taiwan as opposed to "China's" historical claim to Taiwan, I address that semantic parsing directly in the post.
All the very best,
Joseph
If they prefer to be Taiwanese, if they want to declare independence, go find any islet to do that. We are not interested in it and we don't care. We just want that island back.
So fed up with them...
As well you should, since it is your island.
Thank you for your comment.
I started writing a comment and then wound up writing a post instead, so I posted my full comment on my own blog.
So that I don't take up too much of your space, I'll keep it short: I am disgusted with this McCarthy guy's inane rantings on a subject about which he evidently knows precious little. It's not just his 'parsing of words' or 'pedantry', but his gross distortion of the historic and legal facts of the situation.
Not only that, but he evidently suffers from a gross overestimation of the role America has played in the development of democracy and its continued role in the support and continued development of democratic institutions and societies. I have said before that America has a lot to offer, and I stand by that, but I don't think that the world will end, or even collapse into a morass of anti-democratic totalitarianism, with America's eventual demise.
I think the best thing America could do for peace, stability and continued prosperity in East Asia would be to stop meddling in the last front of the Chinese Civil War.
Chris Waugh
www.livejournal.com/users/chriswaugh_bj/
Chris,
Thank you for your eloquence and other-than-American perspective yet again. None of us, from any nation, should ever believe that we and our ideals are the center of, and absolutely central to, the peace, prosperity and potential progess of this spinning rock we all share.
The threat of a PRC attack against Taiwan is of course real. At the same time, it is tragic. It is unfair. It is based on distortions of reality that have been propagated by years and years of continual rhetoric from the fanatical PRC and the KMT government on Taiwan that refused to give up it’s pipe dream of taking back the mainland, and the PRC insistence on taking over that last bit of territory that they could never seem to grasp. The people of Taiwan have no interest in being subjugated by the PRC government. I find it horrifying, and sad, that so many in mainland China would say that they are really willing to go invade Taiwan and engage in senseless massacre in order to force unification down Taiwanese throats.
Simply to say that there is only one China is a gross oversimplification of a far more complex issue, and at the same time confuses politics with ethnicity. That is like saying America is England, simply because the founders were descendent from the British. Or more exactly, that is like saying the Republic of China on Taiwan is the People’s Republic of China, because both nations share Chinese ethnicity and the island of Taiwan and it’s outlying territories under ROC control have at points in history been more or less under past mainland Chinese government control. When rhetoric heats up, it is easy to get caught up in a washed and polarized view of the situation and start to believe in the PRC mantra of One China. But the fact remains that the so-called Republic of China on Taiwan, a.k.a ‘Taiwan’, is a separate political entity from the People’s Republic of China. Any PRC invasion of Taiwan would be seen as a gross act of aggression against a free, peaceful, democratic nation and I sincerely doubt that the world would just stand by and watch.
It is my own pipe dream that eventually the PRC propaganda machine will cool it’s rhetoric and stop inciting it’s people to violence against Taiwan. It’s time to move on. The PRC would stand to gain a lot more by offering an olive branch to the Taiwanese and embracing economic partnership, rather than pointing a gun at their heads.
Anonymous makes an interesting comment here. Yes, the PRC and RoC are two separate political entities. But the issue here is not whether the PRC is part of the RoC or the RoC part of the PRC; the issue is which is the legitimate government of China.
And I'm not so sure of this comparison with America. The 'founders' of America may well have been of English decent, but that does not necessarily make America part of England. Define 'founders': The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or those who fought the English for that independence? If by 'founders' you mean the people who fought for independence, then if we confuse ethnicity with politics, America rightly belongs to all of Europe and probably a great many other countries, too. But that's irrelevant, because unlike the RoC on Taiwan, America declared its independence, fought for it, won it, and set about founding its own unique political system and culture, eventually growing into the America we know today: A nation distinct in every way other than skin colour from its European ancestors. We could also compare Taiwan with New Zealand; perhaps a better comparison than with America considering it can be proved that the majority of New Zealanders are of British decent. But again there are important differences, the most important being that New Zealand has had formal, legal independence from England since the 1940s, again unlike Taiwan. Not only this, but right from the first European settlement in New Zealand, us Kiwis set about developing a culture and political system distinct in every way except skin colour from those of our European, Polynesian, Asian and whatever else forebears. My point? Should Taiwan declare its independence from China, fight for it, and win it I will respect Taiwan as an independent nation in its own right. Should it be proved that the majority of Taiwanese see themselves as being culturally and politically distinct from their Mainland forebears, in the way that I see myself as being a New Zealander culturally and politically distinct from my Irish and Scottish forebears, I will start to respect the independence movement as being something more than a pack of spoilt little wankers upset about a few historical facts.
Lastly, I don't see the One China position as confusing ethnicity with politics in any way. The One China position is the one that represents the historic and legal facts of this case. Ultimately, I don't care what happens to Taiwan, so long as the problem is resolved peacefully. But I do object to people (on all sides of the debate) misrepresenting the facts to try and bolster their political positions.
Thanks to both anonymous one and two; an intellectually honest debate of the issue is what is needed instead of reactionary rhetoric.
I apologize for Blogger forcing commenters to either register or post anonymously. I look to remedy the problem soon.
My apologies, I did not intend to post so completely anonymously. That comment in which Taiwan is compared to America and New Zealand is mine.
Chris Waugh
www.livejournal.com/users/chriswaugh_bj/
Chris, I just tried to place the comment below on your LiveJournal site but was prevented by a message saying that my IP number was a Proxy number and for SPAM protection purposes I was being denied access. But, as the comment below notes, I was not coming from a proxy server. Please advise when you have a moment.
Chris,
Very nicely argued; you hit the target squarely. On a more personal note: In the past I have not been able to access your site without going through a proxy; today I was able to arrive here directly. I have placed your site on my blog roll.
I really want to thank you for all of your insightful comments. Now that I can more easily visit your site--I am truly "American," I'm lazy!--I won't have to wait for your appearance at The LongBow Papers to read your marvelous perspective.
Joseph
Joseph, thanks for the compliments, but I hardly think I deserve such praise. Well, I'm glad my point of view is appreciated, that is the whole reason why I got into blogging.
I, too, have had some trouble with Live Journal, and we're not the only one's in Beijing to have had to use proxies to access LJ- although the problem seems to be more with individual ISPs blocking access rather than the government. I can post and comment using a proxy, but that's probably only because I'm an LJ user myself. You're most welcome to visit and comment on my blog, and I hope LJ allows you to do so in the future. Considering some of the completely inane or non-sensical comments that have been left by Mr Anonymous in the past, I'm surprised you were blocked.
I just glanced through the revised version of this post and I like it: the changes give it a much greater force. While we're ranting about Chiang Kaishek (I find it hard to write his name without adding expletives), we should perhaps add what he also stole from his own people: China's gold reserves and half the treasures in the Forbidden City were shipped over to Taiwan in '49. In the case of the gold reserves, that was done to ensure 'red China' would collapse economically, allowing the Triads, I mean the KMT, to re-invade the mainland. Some patriot.
Although I'm confused as to why you seem to suggest that countries refuse to recognise Taiwan out of fear of retribution by the US. Last I heard, the more important of the countries that recognise Taiwan were Latin American countries, those that can least afford to anger America. Add to that the odd impoverished island nation in the South Pacific which switches between the mainland and Taiwan as a way of shopping around for the best foreign aid deal, and I don't see a whole lot of US interference. If you mean that US interests lie in the status quo, therefore the US pressures those countries it can find on a map (i.e. not the South Pacific countries that keep switching allegiance) to not change their recognition, ok, I can accept that. But I'd be surprised if any country faced retribution from the US for refusing to recognise a (so-called) communist country. A small point, and not overly important, but I'm confused by it.
The rest, as I already said, is very forceful and well-written.
This time I signed my name before I wrote the comment so I wouldn't forget.
Chris Waugh
www.livejournal.com/users/chriswaugh_bj/
Joseph:
Sometimes I don't agree with what you say but on this one I'm with you (and Chris) 100%. The original article deserved a good fisking and you've delivered it. Imust admit that prior to my coming to hong Kong my views on the whole Taiwan issue were very different. However the more I read the history and study the reality the clearer the situation is. The problem is whereas many, including I suspect the US and many in Taiwan, see the status quo as an acceptable state of affairs, most of China does not. Your summary of the three likely methods of reunification is accurate. However the US has been backed into a corner by its Taiwan Relations Act.
It's part of a fundamental misunderstanding between China and many in the West, especially the US. I think the most realistic path is an eventual reunification under the "one country, two systems" fig leaf that HK came back under China's sovereignty. That is partly why China needs to handle the current aspirations in HK so carefully: because it knows Taiwan is watching it as a template for a future merge.
Simon
http://simonworld.mu.nu
Chris,
You well deserve the praise. I am sorry I did not make myself clear on the point about recognizing Taiwan or not based upon fear of U.S. retribution. The point I tried to make is this: Many people who favor independence for Taiwan have often said--irrationally--that the reason so few nations sided with the "mouse that roared" was their fear of displeasing America. The proof of this fallacy is that almost all of America's traditional allies have in fact voted to exclude Taiwan from the U.N. and other international organizations for years, along with all of America's enemies, past and present.
In other words, American support for or against Taiwan independence over the past 32 years--say 1972 on--has not affected how other nations chose to view Taiwan's clame to sovereignty. Indeed, a number of America's traditional allies recognized Beijing diplomatically before Nixon's bell-weather visit in 1972, and Carter's full reversal of recognition in 1979.
Jeeze, I made it more complicated trying to explain it. Sorry.
Thank you for your patience and support.
Joseph
Simon,
I don't always agree with you, either, but I respect the hell out of your blogging. I also must say that my wife is a real fan of your site and was thrilled when you added "The Crackpot Chronicles" to your blog roll.
Now, having dispensed with the pleasantries, I will confess to agreeing with your point about Hong Kong completely: Other than crushing dissent and the democratic movement in Hong Kong, my single greatest concern there was how the Central government's reneging on the Basic agreement would be viewed by the Taiwanese who must be able to trust Beijing's promises, even if they are going to be "bought back"--perhaps I should say particularly if they are going to be bought back
Making my point publicly regarding reneging on Deng's promise to the people of Hong Kong got me into a bit of trouble with the government that I work for, but it didn't last long. And what the hell, being in trouble with governments, state and federal, has been the hallmark of my life and career--in the U.S. As a journalist and professor I believe and teach if you aren't pissing off both sides of an issue you probably aren't doing your job.
Thanks for dropping by, and please do come back.
Joseeph
Thanks Joseph, your point has been clarified.
Chris Waugh
Thanks very much for the kind words, and pass on my best to Ellen - I visit both of your sites more than you know...in fact I read your article on the OJ case and found it very interesting.
As to the whole HK/Basic Law thing, the reality is China can present a case they are sticking to the letter of the Law, even if not the spirit. However the powers in Beijing aren't stupid and know Taiwan's public is watching. It makes their handling of HK that much harder.
The one aspect of reunification that's often overlooked is the economic impact. We're talking about two of the world's biggest holders of foreign reserves, of which a large amount are US dollars and US Treasury bonds. It's something I've been meaning to write on for some time and you've spurred me into doing something about it.
There is a fourth option the three mentioned options (“Wait ‘em back,” “Buy ‘em back,” or “Shoot ‘em back.”), one that would take a lot more courage but has the most promise: Start over. Take the bones of those two 20th Century monsters (MZD, CKS) whose egos brought so much pain and death to the Chinese people and send them to the far side of the moon and historical hell of disgraced dictators and tyrants. Get rid of them so people killing and dying for them. Then bring a group of enlightened men together to write a new constitution building on those that came before, introduce a new flag and start the Chinese century.
Stranger things have happened in the late 20th Century: the sudden fall of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, unification of Western Europe, South Africa and the Truth and Reconciliation hearings. China has an opportunity for greatness and it would be a shame if they passed it up to continue fighting for two dead guys.
There is a fourth option the three mentioned options (“Wait ‘em back,” “Buy ‘em back,” or “Shoot ‘em back.”), one that would take a lot more courage but has the most promise: Start over. Take the bones of those two 20th Century monsters (MZD, CKS) whose egos brought so much pain and death to the Chinese people and send them to the far side of the moon and historical hell of disgraced dictators and tyrants. Get rid of them so people killing and dying for them. Then bring a group of enlightened men together to write a new constitution building on those that came before, introduce a new flag and start the Chinese century.
Stranger things have happened in the late 20th Century: the sudden fall of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, unification of Western Europe, South Africa and the Truth and Reconciliation hearings. China has an opportunity for greatness and it would be a shame if they passed it up to continue fighting for two dead guys.
i am a chinese from mailland china, from a top university, but have totally different view point with those rich and naive brain washed students in your school.
i find some comments disgusting, you praise me, i praise you, remind me the CCP's meetimg( i am a middle rank law enforcement officer)
ok, you US people can stand by, watching fighting between CCP and some democracy country, but i can not gurantee after 100 years later, some CCP (THEY WILL WIN AS JOSPH PREDICTED)people would not stand US anymore, they do not care the president mybe a librel( KERRY OR SOME OTHER DEMOCRATY PARTY), SO in the end you will be part of China,hahahaha,
sorry!!!hahahaha
i support the IRAQ WAR!!!!
99% PERCENT PEOPLE IN cHINA( NOT INCLUDE MANY PEOPLE BRAIN WASHED)
THINK SOME US guy are naive, so naive, we can use the word idiot and moron!
Uh,...sir,
I am not exactly sure who you are angry with? I know you say that you agree with my prediction on who would win a war between the Mainland and Taiwan--which I appreciate. However, at the same time I do believe you are calling me a moron and an idiot. It's okay, I've certainly been called worse.
By the way, I also lecture weekly at the Communist Party School (otherwise known as the Beijing Administrative College) and have had a number of police officers in my classes. To my knowledge, none of them were rich...they also seemed quite patriotic on the Taiwan issue.
Thank you for stopping by and leaving a comment. Please do come back. Perhaps you might be in one of my classes next year.
Joseph
I wouldn't give much thrift to the prior poster Mr. Boscoe. He is almost certainly a non-chinese Troll.
make them an ofrer they cant refuse hee
Dear Anonymous One,
Thank you for your kind words of support; however, I am not sure what is meant by a "non-Chinese troll"? I am not terribly literate in the world of Cyber-speak. Are you suggesting that the commenter is a Westerner immitating a Chinese person in order to prompt an inappropriate response from me? Please advise.
Again, thank you for visiting and commenting on this site.
Joseph
Dear Anonymous Two,
I and many other people wish we knew what to offer Taiwan that they would not refuse short of independence.
However, my guess is that you are not only referring to the famous line from "The Godfather" trilogy, but are suggesting that its meaning here is the same as used by Mario Puzo when he wrote it, namely: Do what we want or else you "will sleep with the fish," or wake up one morning to find a horse's severed head in your bed.
Whichever it is, I appreciate your wit.
Thank you for taking the time to visit and comment on this site.
Joseph
Sorry, folks, but there is an anonymous comment that has gone unnoticed: the comment that there is a "fourth option," namely starting afresh without two of the principle players--MZD and CKS.
A tantalizing suggestion, but I have no idea how we can turn back their deeds since we cannot in actuality turn back the clock.
Bringing "a group of enlightened men together to write a new constitution building on those that came before, introduce a new flag and start the Chinese century" makes so much sense that I am afraid most leaders will have nothing to do with it--primarily because they know that most of them will be excluded from the enlightened gathering.
I very much appreciate the thought and you taking the time and effort to visit the site and make a comment.
Joseph
Sorry for the terribly off-topic comment but I cannot allow my favorite barbarians from the north to be forgotten. The Mongols are probably the toughest and most successful people to take over China, but please don't forget the Manchurians. While they may not have taken over quite as much of the world as their distant cousins to the west, they did conquer China. And they did it while bearing cool banners too!
Eric: The Mongols are probably the toughest and most successful people to take over China, but please don't forget the Manchurians.It would not do to leave out the Tang dynasty, which was composed of sinified "barbarians". In fact, sinified "barbarians" make up a big chunk of China's imperial history, being responsible for much of its vast territorial extent. Unfortunately for the descendants of these "barbarians", the Chinese empire is like a roach motel for covetous foreigners - you get in, but you don't get out.
i am a chinese from mailland china, from a top university, but have totally different view point with those rich and naive brain washed students in your school.I hope there are many more of you, since I would greatly regret having to be on the opposite side of a conflict involving Taiwan or any other part of East Asia. The one thing I do know is that the only time China has ever not expanded its territorial extent is when it was weak. China has fought almost every one of its neighbors in the 20th century is significant border wars involving tens of thousands of Chinese dead. It is now rearming. I am waiting for the next round of Chinese expansion. Just as the problem with the Soviet Union was ultimately a problem with Russia's expansive appetites, the problem with China isn't with the Communist Party - it's with a people with a (thwarted) superiority complex not too different from that of pre-war Japan. In a way, I am glad that we have been given a temporary respite from the Central Kingdom's depradations due to the weakness of the Communist Party. A powerful China under the Kuomintang would have been much more troublesome much earlier.
Anonymous Chinese poster: i find some comments disgusting, you praise me, i praise you, remind me the CCP's meetimg( i am a middle rank law enforcement officer)You wouldn't expect the Chinese government to hire someone whose views were hostile to official Chinese positions, would you? The government needs tame Caucasians it can trot out to show students that foreigners agree with them, too. Phil Bosco serves the role that George Galloway played in Iraq - reinforcing the view of his Chinese students that official Chinese views are respectable abroad.
Joseph Bosco: The absolute invincibility of the American military is very much in doubt today against a guerilla force of only a few thousand in a country smaller than several provinces within mainland China.Many guerrilla wars last decades. Iraqi terrorists are basically a spent force. The key measure of this is their ability to inflict casualties on US or Iraqi forces, which is almost non-existent. Vietnamese Communists killed about two dozen American troops a day for almost 7 years. They also killed about four dozen South Vietnamese troops a day for about 15 years. More to the point, Vietnamese Communists managed to successfully invade the South after losing a total of 1.2 million men. I doubt Iraqi terrorists will be much of a factor 5 years from now, never mind 15.
Fighting guerrilla forces is very different from prosecuting a full-fledged war. US actions in Iraq have been predicated on freeing the Iraqis, meaning that it has attenuated its use of firepower in favor of winning hearts and minds. A less subtle use of firepower could have ended resistance definitively by wiping out entire cities. Sixty-five years ago, the Dresden and Tokyo fire raids showed that hundreds of thousands could be killed in conventional air raids.* And both Germans and Japanese submitted meekly after the millions of their civilians were killed in this manner. American firepower would not be restrained in a war against China's People's "Liberation" Army, since there are no hearts and minds to win.
* Syria's Hafez Assad showed that simple artillery shells could kill ten thousand people - in the town of Hama, after which the Sunni Islamist opposition to his Alawite rule died out.
Zhang Fei,
"Phil" Bosco is a cousin of mine, one of the most prominent and respected actors in America working primarily on the stage in New York. While my degrees are in film, theatre and television, I left my acting career almost thirty years ago because my early success in the field was keeping me from my writing, the art form I love the most.
Now, as Joseph Bosco, I have been called many things during my tumultuous career as an author, journalist and screenwriter in America, but "tame" has never been one of them. My life as an advocate for social justice has always kept me in "trouble" on almost every issue I have chosen to explore as an investigative journalist, usually being attacked from all sides in the conflict or matter at risk, which I believe and teach means that I am doing my job properly. This dynamic continues here in China: I do not teach my students what they already get far too much of, CCP doctrine and history; I teach my students to think critically from perspectives other than that which they are all too familiar with.
You seem to have great knowledge about Chinese history and politics; however, the same cannot be said of your expertise in American military history, past and present. While you have the surface facts correct, with all of the right "buzz" issues, terms and phrases, your grasp of the nuance of modern warfare is not deep. I shan't go through them with you point for point, I will only say this: If you think the Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that a full scale war between China and the U.S. can be won with acceptable losses, you either are smoking your socks or you need to go and talk to a few folks at the War College.
I thank you for taking the time to visit this site and comment so eloquently; I thoroughly enjoy your writing and skills of argumentation.
Joseph
Ha.. This is all a diversionary tactic.. Don't be fooled..
You are ignoring the new, unholy alliance between the US right wing and their brothers in the CCP elite. It's not just business, its a whole attitude.. And it goes back to the Federalists under Alexander Hamilton versus the democrats under Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers (who thought that unbridled corporate - i.e. 'communist' greed was very dangerous.. it IS.. VERY dangerous. And they are counting on us not to see the connection until it is too late. For example, what good are unions without jobs?)
So, back to my point, both the GOP and the CCP are fighting, in essence, *democracy*, the US right to protect their profits exporting US jobs to China at any cost, and the Chinese government because they know that there are only maybe 20 more years of time that they can exploit their cheap labor advantage and grab in enough money before robots take over the work and their advantage boils down to a much smaller one..
At that point, the economic relationships of the countries on Earth (if independent countries still exist- i.e. we aren't run by corporations) will, to some extent freeze.. Better be living off your investments at that point.. Jobs as we know them will be very scarce... (It's a vision not unlike that in Spielberg's AI.. or it could be much worse.. if we dont moderate the poverty somehow)
The real battle, as always, is one of profitmaking against democracy.. Similar factors in the US will make that obvious soon enough..
Maybe the right wing will 'outsource' the care of the teeming masses of unemployed 'freeloaders' to China!
Soylent Green, anyone?
>>>
Central governments come and go in Chinese history, but China does not; China has been China longer than mankind has been writing, in any form.
<<<
What has *neolithic* China to do with 21st century Taiwan? Certainly you cannot be asserting that Taiwan was part of China 5,000 years ago? For that matter, what was the meaning of "China" three thousand years before Qin ShiHuang conquered his neighbors?
Seems to me that the borders of "China' have changed very much during those five thousand years. This does not seem a very convincing argment that they should be arbitrarily frozen now.
To last "anonymous,"
My point was not that Taiwan has been a part of China for thousands of years. My point was simply that you cannot use the fact that the post-1949 government of China, the PRC, has never directly "governed" Taiwan as an argument for its claim to "sovereignty." Yes, the "territorial" dimensions of China have expanded and contracted many times throughout its long history, but "China" as a nation-state has remained China in a continuous, unbroken line for longer than any other still existing nation-state on Earth.
Thank you for visiting the site and taking the time to leave a comment.
Joseph
The public debate in Taiwan has long since moved away from the fact that the PRC has never governed Taiwan. Those who would like Taiwan to continue its pursuit of sovereignty knew that the KMT's claims on Taiwan (and China) were indeed very flimsy and instead would like to construct a better kind of sovereignty based on the Jeffersonian principle of government by "the consent of the goverened".
If the current government of China (and I assure you no one disagrees that it's the CCP in Beijing) can demonstrate that it is as good a government as, or better than, the current administrative system on Taiwan, then the process of unification would be very much accelerated. After all, the KMT has relinquished its claims on China and the party is fading in Taiwan. The people on Taiwan have long been looking for an alternative to the despotic regime of the KMT, and instead of waiting for answers, they created that alternative.
Flybort,
An excellent point; perhaps it is the only good solution to this issue. It puts the ball squarely in Beijing's court: to make reunification legitimately attractive to the "governed" in Taiwan.
Thank you for taking the time to comment in these pages; please do come back.
Joseph
I'm with the previous poster. There are simply not enough incentives for the people of Taiwan to unite with China. While I agree with you that China's threats aren't hollow, you have to understand that they are using the wrong tactic. It's odd to me that China can't fathom taking a different approach with the people of Taiwan, and makes me wonder what other political dynamics are motivating the issue. Their threats and fits over Taiwan's democratic evolution only alienates them more. The 500 coastline missiles aimed at Taiwan certainly don't help. The conclusions in Swaine's article are backwards: China should stop the de-stabilizing military buildup and threats, and THEN try to build Taiwan's trust toward the Mainland.
All of the arguments over historical "rights" to Taiwan miss the main point. The fact is that the right to self-determination is what the Taiwanese are fighting for, in the same way the U.S. did at its founding. You may recall that at the beginning of the Revolutionary War the population of the 13 states was roughtly divided in half. As the conflict continued the support for the revolution grew. By the end of the war the support for the revolution was virtually unanimous. Likewise, in the years I've been in Taiwan I've seen the popular sentiment toward indepence grow along with China's threats. Most foreigners overlook the fact that President Chen's was elected into his first term with only 39% of the popular vote. Four years later, even with the economy down and an "inflammatory" referendum he won with just over 50%--even with both of his former opponents united against him. The sentiment toward independence is growing. Taiwanese feel that they have sacrificed greatly to achieve democracy. China's claims can't put a lid on it, no matter what historical "rights" they claim. (The Chinese also don't consider the fact that there have been Taiwanese independence movements during every occupation--whether during the Manchukuo, French, Dutch, Japanese or Chinese.)
As for China's borders, you may consider that the evolution of them has a more accurate parallel with those of Europe. Empires, capitals, borders and national languages have changed countless times, depending on the rise and fall of different provinces and dynasties. If you use the "border" standard for defining China's sovereignty you would then agree that a big chunk of Korea would be next in line for reunification.
I invite you to spend some time on the other side of the Strait. You may be fascinated by the stories the native Taiwanese (85% of the population) tell about their hatred for the KMT's occupation. An interesting phenomenon has been the awakening of a consciousness of there actually being a "Taiwanese" identity. History books are being re-written to include events outside of China. Every adult I talk to can tell me of the punishment they'd receive at school for simply speaking their native Taiwanese (instead of the government-enforced Mandarin). And I've met people who have had relatives "disappeared" during the years of the White Terror for their political ties. With their new freedoms they're now able to get information regarding their true history--including the years of old Peanut Head's (CKS) reign.
As to the remarks that the Taiwanese would view Mainland students as "ignorant, dirty, lazy and addicted to the past" then I would ask who is giving them that impression? That kind of vitriole isn't what I'm hearing in Taiwan. I've heard anger at China's threats, but nothing like what you've characterized. And the Taiwanese are "rich, fat and happy"? I think they're wonderful people, but I also see them struggling with all the problems and stresses of modern (and sometimes not so modern) life just like I think you are.
And let's remember that your students don't have access to a free press. You know fully well that I could never get a job at your University if I dared to speak my opinions. Your students have been preached the message of unification since childhood. They don't hear a strong and steady voice for the Taiwanese. No one doubts their resolve, but how can you not question their moral or political right?
And this definition of the Taiwanese as "family"? The family I once lived with had roots in China. But is was from over 300 years ago--much longer than any of my American heritage. And they also had aboriginal blood. You also ask what we would do if a richer relative were to cut all ties. I'd let them go. What right do I have to tell them what to do? And the last thing I'd do is invite them back to the family while holding a gun to their head.
It sounds like your quarrel is with the thieves at the KMT--not with the people of Taiwan. They're the ones who took off with billions and the museum pieces. I'm all for having them return China's treasures, as well as having the KMT repay what's left of the money. But for the Taiwanese, they should be left alone.
As for any military scenarios, remember that a looming problem with the PLA is that they have very little combat experience. As wrong as I believe many of the U.S.' recent conflicts have been, each one has given the personnel, tacticians, weapons engineers and soldiers a way to gain valuable experience. As for the U.S.' failure in guerilla war scenarios I agree with you on our failures. Other than post-WWII, our nation hasn't been able to stomach the kind of measures (financial and militarily) that an occupational force would have to commit to to make one successful. But any all-out conflict would have the Mainland caught very short.
And do you support democracy for the Chinese people as strongly as you support this issue? (I'm not trying to bait you on this--I really don't know). And on the subject of what you think are inappropriate military exercise at Matsu, why don't you mention about when Mainland China and the French had their own joint venture just before the Taiwanese elections?
How about you spend some time in Taiwan? We'll solve this whole issue over some Taiwan Beers at a local pub.
wait a minute. isn't joseph bosco the georgetown U professor who was once a friend of taiwan, now he is siding with commie china? Say it aint so, Joe!
QUOTE: How about you spend some time in Taiwan? We'll solve this whole issue over some Taiwan Beers at a local pub.
Joseph Bosco, traitor to his country, did spend some time in Taiwan. He went there several times, on trips paid for by the Taiwan government, but he pretended to be a friend of Taiwan. NOW he is in China, pretending to be a friend of China. Let's see where this story really ends. My guess is he is CIA, that's how US gets people into foreign countries, and as a former perfessor at Georgetown in DC, Bosco is most probably a CIA sleeper agent, what William Safire calls a katsva.
Don't listen to anything he is saying from there? He is using this forum to get brownie points with his commie masters. sad.
I can't believe what he is NOW saying. He USED to say very different things. Google his earlier articles around the world. Friend of Taiwan becomes Beijing toy. WOW!
Joseph Bosco
Which Joe Bosco are we talking about? he is double double doppleganger agent?
Mr. Bosco has practiced international law in Washington, D.C. for over twenty years after serving in the federal government and Massachusetts state government. In 1998, he earned the master of laws degree in international and comparative law from the Georgetown and has delivered presentations on the international law implications of the 1996 missile crisis in the Taiwan Strait. He has addressed that subject before the Chinese Society on International Law in Taipei, the Miller Center at the University of Virginia, and the Atlantic Council of the United States. He is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and is active in the Asia-Pacific program there. He taught a course on the United Nations in the Post-Cold War Era in Georgetowns Continuing Education program prior to joining the adjunct faculty in the School of Foreign Service where he teaches graduate seminars on International Law, Morality, and Realpolitik and on China and Taiwan: Cross-Strait Conflict and Conundrum. His articles have been published in a number of journals and newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Times, Taipei Times, the Chinese Yearbook of International Law and Affairs, and St. Johns Review. He has been interviewed by several publications and by the Voice of America and Radio Free Asia.
Mr. Bosco served as one of the international observers of Taiwans presidential election last year. He has organized several conferences at Georgetown on the China-Taiwan-U.S. relationships: Whither the One China Policy and the Corollary Doctrine of Strategic Ambiguity (December 1999); The Future of China-U.S. Security Relations (December 2000); and The Military Balance Across the Taiwan Strait and U.S. Arms Sales to Taiwan (April 2001). He was among the group of American academics who met with President Chen Shui-bian during his transit visit to the United States. Mr. Bosco is currently conducting research on Taiwans status under international law.
Dear Anonymous,
You are greatly mistaken; I am Joseph Bosco, the prominent American author and journalist. The individual you speak so glowingly of is a far-right, old Cold-War tin soldier who to my knowledge has published nothing substantial since I exposed him in my article: "The Greatness of China," which you can easily read since it is a featured article on the right-hand side-bar at the top of this site.
The fact that this person shares my name is one of the greatest ironies--and discomforts--of my life. However, most folks do not make the mistake you did since my books, articles and many, many television appearances have made my name and my face extremely well-known, and not for just one crackpot John Birch issue as ludicrous as that of the "mouth that roared," more commonly known as the myth of Taiwan "sovereignty"; your hero is a sad, one-trick pony without much of an audience.
In my career, I have written across the literary spectrum, as evidenced by the three books displayed in the right-hand side-bar. You also might want to click on the "read about" link.
Type "Joseph Bosco" into Google and you will see the first six hits are of yours truly, not this anachronistic fool still living and thinking in the dark ages of the "red scare."
Thank you for visiting this site and taking the time to leave several comments. Please do come back.
It is sad when a country of 1.3 billion people can, for 56 years, be kept in the throes of blind, ignorant, propaganda-fed bloodlust against a people that they share ancestry with by a corrupt, murdering farce of a government that has killed more of its own people than any outside force.
However it is truly pathetic when a foreigner with ridiculously hyper-inflated estimations of his own intellectual stature can become a victim of the same. Perhaps Mr. Bosco will one day realize that his ability to win the affections of female students in his adopted China (in stark contrast to obvious failures in this regard in his own country), while succeeding in inflating his head, does not confer the same for his knowledge and understanding of the Taiwan issue.
Ah, me thinks I smell a "urinal" and a Hillside fool lurking in the shadows of anonymity.
Stay there.
Joseph Bosco
...I am Joseph Bosco, the prominent American author and journalist.
..most folks do not make the mistake you did since my books, articles and many, many television appearances have made my name and my face extremely well-known...
In my career, I have written across the literary spectrum, as evidenced by the three books displayed in the right-hand side-bar.
Type "Joseph Bosco" into Google and you will see the first six hits are of yours truly...
lol, you have got to be kidding me. Did you cum on yourself as you typed that or what?
Self-determination is the only thing that matters. The people of Taiwan have the right to choose their own fate. If they want to belong to China, then OK; if not, that is tough luck for China. The US has a hard time against guerilla fighters precisely because its military is designed to fight large nation-states -- like China.
Bosco... Bosco... Bosco... Do you know Chinese yet, Bosco?
Ming China didn't even claim TW. The Dutch set up shop in the south and later the Spaniards in the north (until the Dutch drove them out). The warlord known as Koxinga drove out the Dutch and seized part of it as his own (He also comtemplated taking the Phillipines)
The place passed from Koxinga's son (who was considered a weakling) to the Manchu overlords of Manchuria, China, and Mongolia, the Qing.
From then on the Qing disliked Taiwan and tried to prevent their peasants from moving there, however they couldn't stop them and much intermarriage between Chinese and Taiwanese natives occured in the lowlands while the natives maintained their own kingdoms in the mountains until Japanese arrival. Eventually, in the late 1800's the (by then Sinicized) Qing started to do improvements to Taiwan and made it a province. (TW was a province under the empire only 1/5 of the time that it was under Japanese rule, 10 years compared to 50). Even in the late 19th Century the Qing emperor had to admit that he didn't control the mountains or east coast.
The previous poster is correct. It is funny how distorted history can become when the wrong people set to rewrite it.
Taiwan is not entirely Chinese either, it is an island full of different ethnic groups that includes Chinese. This was an island that saw constant invasion by different groups of people including China and any true Taiwanese can tell you that they are fed up with everyone claiming their island.
The US did have a great influence on Chinese Democracy. The founder of the Chinese revolution Sun Yat-sen who overthrew the Manchu Dynasty studied in the US, and patterned the current Taiwanese government after it. It is true that Chiang Kai-shek perverted Sun's ideals and became a sort of dictator. But you can't claim that because Chiang took Taiwan, that Taiwan was stolen from China.
One of the previous posters used the analogy of the American revolution. It is kind of like that. The Americans won their independence from Britain, so they are not part of Britain anymore. In a way, Taiwan was conquered by Nationalists. This was a tragedy, but now that there is free elections again, Taiwanese are in control of their country again. This will not be the case when China takes over and changes everything.
Democracy still works. Don't let narrowminded people tell you about property and history. The property of a country belongs to it's people. The people of Taiwan are Taiwanese.
|
