By China Watcher
First of all, he is not Chinese and thus, his authority to comment does not carry much weight except perhaps to the 30% pro-independence minded Taiwanese.
I am not a racist person but what is this middle aged “white” man doing in this part of the region other than trying to spread its so-called democracy ideals and their forever pure “rightists” values to mankind in other parts of the world, which he deemed is not as civilized as his home country in Denmark or Europe. I suggest he makes his next stop in Africa, in which his values and contributions are much more appreciated, provided he did not get murdered in a civil war (Note: The Europeans are responsible for pillaging the resources of Africa during the colonial days).
His name, I don’t even bother to remember, it is not worth it.
In his comments, he constantly criticized the current Taiwan’s President friendly policies towards China. He claimed that the President is sending out very confusing signals to the world that Taiwan is a part of China. Hey Mr. White Man, Taiwan is an island which was part of Beijing’s territory and recognized by the world since the Ching dynasty until the losing KMT made it as a rebel base in 1949 at the end of the civil war, and ultimately the island became its only area of administration till today. So, legally speaking it is still Chinese owned.
The people in Taiwan can called itself Taiwan or Republic of China, it is still owned by the Chinese people and what this “white man” is insinuating is that if it is called Taiwan then it had a more independence fervor. I sense quite a lot of rubbish coming out from his mouth. Mainland Chinese and Taiwan’s Chinese are the same yellow skinned people from the same source and they speak the same language except for a few leaders who tried to mislead the general public that they speak Taiwanese, a mix of Mandarin and local dialect, and hence are not CHINESE. Rubbish, again.
The international community, even the State of Denmark, recognized China’s standing in the United Nation and that there is only one China. He must be the odd one out trying to convince the Taiwanese that they had the sympathy of the EU residents. I am not quite sure of this fact but I also know there are a lot of PRC’s sympathizers in his country. What he is trying to create is a big divide between the same people from two sides of the Straits so that future reconciliation would be impossible.
I supported the Ma’s administration of conducting pragmatic polices with China in order to develop closer economic cooperation that would benefit people from both sides of the Straits. I would not call it “concessions” as the Mainland would also have to “give a bit more” to arrive at a workable solutions. Chinese people, in limited batches, are now allowed to travel to Taiwan on sightseeing tours which would be deemed impossible just 10 years ago. Isn’t this a slight concession on Chinese side of it? And in future, Chinese students would also go to the island to gain knowledge from Taiwanese lecturers learning and understanding the Taiwanese way of life and that in future, these future leaders would have a say in how the two different rules of governments can integrate. It could be possible, perhaps, in another 30-40 years.
The political confrontation during the tumultuous era of the previous President between China and Taiwan have almost resulted in a war between the two sides, thus drawing in the only country which would come to her assistance, the US. The US heaved a sigh of relief that it did not take place because that would mean more stretched military resources considering the US is involved heavily in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe, his home country, Denmark could help in times of war.
Since the KMT came back to power early this year, I am sure most political analysts would agree that the political tensions were very much reduced. The possibility of a conflict is no longer present.
In the light of the improved relationship, I believe that China would allow Taiwan a bit of international political space to conduct its non political business especially in the areas of health and environment, which is better than the condition in which there is none. Taiwan is already suppressed in the international arena and having negotiations with China is the only practical and feasible way forward for the continued economic prosperity of its people. The future prospect of the Taiwan economy is tied to the economic success of the mainland and many Taiwanese have gradually comes to realize this but this “white man” thinks otherwise.
Cross-strait disputes are resolved by Chinese people from both sides and if I am not wrong, the Chinese government has never resort to any moderator role from the US or remotely the EU or Japan.
If there is any change in government in China, it is up to the Chinese people to decide and not from this “white man” or others like minded person of Caucasian origin who believed that they could spur the seed of change. There were already changes going on in mainland China and the voices of the people are slowly getting across to the government. The political developments from Hong Kong and maybe, Taiwan will play a stimulus role in the changes in the rule of government in China. It may not be multi-party at first but the vote will come from the people ultimately as a people based government is more sustainable in the long run.
The Anti-Secession Law is not ridiculous as it would prevent any Chinese province from breaking away from the motherland. If it is deemed ridiculous, what about the US’s Taiwan Relations Act, which I perceived more like a nosy piece of legislation which is legally binding on the US citizens that has nothing to do with US sovereignty.
Yes, Taiwan is a democracy and China is not but that does not mean that everything about democracy is good. I am of the opinion that various stages of economic development require different types of government and every particular political and economic model has its strong and weak points.
Even if China adopts a democracy system (one-party disguised as multi-party) like Singapore in the future, I doubt that the “white man” would be given a say in how things should be run. If he loves Taiwan so much, he should take up Taiwanese citizenship. But he is not. I wonder why?
1 comment:
First of all where exactly did you get the figure
"except perhaps to the 30% pro-independence minded Taiwanese"
I mean if it was certain that only 30% of Taiwanese were pro-independence then surely Beijing would be more than happy for the Taiwanese to hold a referendum. Rather than the way that Beijing throws a tantrum and resorts to violence and economic blackmail every time that there is a remote possibility of the people of Taiwan being able to voice there own opinion.
Secondly yes the Europeans are guilty of colonialisation but then the same can be said of the C.C.P's policy of Chinese colonization of Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. I know you are going to come back with some story about there have been links between China proper and Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang since the Yuan dynasty. But you cannot argue that fact that the way these regions are directly governed by Beijing is not a new phenomina that has came about in the last fifty to sixty years. As these regions have been under the tight central rule that was characteristic of the Qin dynasty. Any way don't you think the C.C.P's policy of developing the west isn't partially driven by the desire for an oil and gas hungry China to get its hands on Xinjiang's oil. While there may have been C.I.A involvement in Xinjian and Tibet the C.I.A wouldn't have got involved if there wasn't a vein of resentment to tap into. So drop the sickening self rightous reference to European colonisation as you are not entitled to it.
Anyway the for the first few decades of the Qing dynasty at least Chinese settlement on Taiwan was discouraged which was largely reflective of the sense of contempt with which the Qing viewed Taiwan. This view was reflected in the Qing phrase which regarded Taiwan as a place "Where the birds don't sing and the flowers don't bloom". It wasn't until the French and the Japanese showed an interest in Taiwan that the Qing began an earnest effort to develop Taiwan which is shown by the fact that it wasn't until 1884 that Taiwan became a province in its own right. Anyway for most of the Qing dynasty Qing dynasty control was nominal and limited to the west coast.
Anyway you forget to mention that Taiwan was signed over in perpetuity. Which kind of undermines your claim that Taiwan has been recognised by the world as been a part of China since the Qing dynasty. Anyway you would find it most interesting the great contributions the Japanese made to Taiwan. As it was the Japanese which gave the people of Taiwan a first rate health system. Which succeeded in freeing Taiwan from such epidemics such as typhoid and maleria. As well as carrying out in depth studies of Taiwan in terms of surveying and population census which the K.M.T were most impresed by. Finally the first in depth study on Taiwan's native population was carried out by the Japanese.
Yes, Taiwan still carries the archaic official title "Republic of China. But citing that as evidence to legitimise Beijing's claim on Taiwan is circular logic as Beijing's threats and intimidation prevents the possibility of the people of Taiwan being given the option of changing the official title of Taiwan to something more relevant. Anyway the fact that the constitution of the R.O.C claims the Republic of Mongolia as its territory along with large parts of the central Asian republics and Russia which go to show how outdated the R.O.C constitution is.
Anyway why is it that time after time that references to similarites in ethnicity, language and culture are claimed as an absolute justifcation for a political union. As there are plenty of examples of countries that exist next to each other which are completely independent of each other yet have strong similarities in terms of ethnicity culture and language but have no intention of merging. For example Germany and Austria, Romania and Moldavia as well as Scotland and Ireland. So I find this whole idea of just because a group of people have similarities in culture, language and ethnicity and language that a political union is automatically justified is simplistic to say the least. Anyway the P.R.C includes regions that until fifty or sixty years ago had a majority of people of completely different ethnicity, language and religion from the common Han Chinese similarties that exist between the ethnic majorities on Taiwan and the P.R.C.
Anyway you need to distinguish between the ideal concept of reconciliation and the situation of dictation. Anyway Ma's promises of standing up for the sovereignty of Taiwan or the Republic of China have hardly being honoured given that during the recent visit by P.R.C. officials people were prevented from displaying the flag of the R.O.C. I mean he doesn't even take his position as the President of Taiwan/Republic of China serioiusly as he allows P.R.C to demean his position by not referring to him as President but as Mister Ma. Anyway why exactly is Ma's popularity so low after such a short time in office?
Anyway your claim that the P.R.C has never resorted to an external moderator is untrue. As Beijing frequently resorted to pressuring the U.S. to reign in Chen's more overt stances on independence.
Yes, I agree Taiwan's economy is becoming increasingly tied to the P.R.C. But it would be most foolish for the Taiwanese not to actively seek stronger economic links with Japan, the E.U. and the U.S. As it would mean Taiwan would gain access to more high value/high tech economic exchanges. Which would be particularly good for Taiwanese factory workers who would be in danger of being brought into direct competition with P.R.C workers who suffer from lower wages and conditions if Taiwan wher to become overly dependant on the P.R.C. Anyway Taiwan needs international support to be allowed to develop high value exchanges with first world countries and co-operations and to avoid a state of dependancy.
Anyway given the low popularity of the K.M.T and President Ma it is likely that in another four years that there may be another Pan Green President and legislature running Taiwan. So in that event how will Beijing react with a more assertive regeime running Taiwan as opposed to the passive subserviant Ma/K.M.T group.
Anyway I find this passage somewhat amusing
"it is up to the Chinese people to decide and not from this “white man” or others like minded person of Caucasian origin who believed that they could spur the seed of change"
Apart from the obvious issue that Beijing refuses to give the people of Taiwan a direct say in their future. It ignores the fact the in the 1960s the white man/i.e. U.S.A played a guiding role in Taiwan's industrial and economic development. So in answer to the question can the White Man spur the seeds of change? Well, in view of Taiwan's rapid economic development in the 1960's "Yes, he can"
In regards to the "Taiwan relations Act. Maybe you should look at the parallels in the message of Ernest Hemingway's "For, whom the Bell Tolls". Which argues that "no man is an island" and if the West abandons the Spanish Democractic Republic it won't be an isolated incident but will have wide spread consequence. Which sure enough proved to be true as it emboldened the authoritive regiemes in Italy and Germany and contributed to the Second World War. Likewise any abadonment of a democratic Taiwan will have widespread consequence which would have consequences for many including the U.S.
Finally under U.N. resolution 2758 Beijing is recognised as the political representitive of China. But there is no definitive U.N. resolution that states Taiwan is a part of the P.R.C.
In regards to an international consensus on One China policy there isn't one with some countries simply stating they acknowledge or respect Beijing's claims on Taiwan. For example the U.K. and Canada. Even the U.S.A has a somewhat vague policy of "One China, Two Interpretations"
The international community, even the State of Denmark, recognized China’s standing in the United Nation and that there is only one China.
Post a Comment