Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4226
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Rudradev »

Even Xi has much to lose by risking it all on a bid to invade Taiwan. He is already in for a rocky ride domestically given the warning signs of a debt-driven economic collapse. But you can survive tough economic times with deft maneuvering, as long as everything else is going well and you retain the Party's confidence to steer the ship of state.

If a Taiwan invasion begins and drags on for 2 weeks, 1 month, 6 weeks with no decisive victory... many of PLAN/PLAAFs shiny toys at the bottom of the Taiwan straits... thousands of Red Princes dead or wounded... and on the other side, massive loss of civilian life and devastation of cities/industries in a country whose inhabitants are (after all) ethnic Chinese, how would Xi sidestep that? It is a corner that once he paints himself in, there's no way out except to double down even further. At that point, the daggers of his rivals in the politburo will come out. He will either have to go full Mao/Stalin or be deposed.

Does he have the stones to do that? His inclination to park multiple divisions on the LAC for years without committing to an offensive, seems to suggest otherwise. He is more likely to adopt a menacing posture and let fifth columnist groups within the enemy country win the war for him.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by kit »

Rudradev wrote:Even Xi has much to lose by risking it all on a bid to invade Taiwan.

Does he have the stones to do that? His inclination to park multiple divisions on the LAC for years without committing to an offensive, seems to suggest otherwise.
Good question., but the straits is not exactly Himalayan territory tens of thousand of feet in altitude, its literally down the road for China and its humungous navy and to mention its humungous "coast guard"

200km away and two weeks is all it takes to change the history of the world while biden twiddles his thumbs thinking of a response

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2 ... a37b0e3172

https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lo ... 03936.html
S_Madhukar
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 27 Mar 2019 18:15

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by S_Madhukar »

Pooh will not go openly ballistics on Taiwan or any country for that matter. Better to let others imagine and be awestruck :lol: by your size than unzipping it for all to see! You will see massive decoupling with Sugarland if they openly invade anyone. Sun Tzu style salami tactics. Pappu nahi to Kejri. Tsai nahin to next MMS in Taipei. They can wait and sleepy Joe will continue slumber for next 4 years while they keep the pressure on.
Once Taiwan is digested expect global media shows on how nice friendly smiling Sugars are . All can go back and eat all the TSMC chips you want and play video games and drive Teslas
KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1756
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by KL Dubey »

Anoop wrote:David, one question for you. In my interactions with expatriate Chinese people from the mainland, almost without exception, they believe that economic prosperity has been a worthwhile trade for lack of political freedom. These are people who have spanned the Tiananmen crackdown. They are all professionals, and all of them with graduate degrees from the US. Why do you think the feeling is so unanimous? It's difficult to believe that not one has a contrarian view, despite having lived in the US and seen that political freedom and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive.
They spout the official CCP line since there is always a fear of their words being used against them.

You should also have asked how many are now converted X-men affiliated to a church/asuralaya. I suspect our buddy DavidD is one himself.

Then ask if they will be planning to go back to China and whether they expect to practice religion and have a church without any interference...and so on.

Usually, it reveals total mental confusion. Growing up in China has left a huge vacuum in the minds of these folks, which is filled by a different type of brainwashing once they get to USA.

When trying to get insights with these kind of conversations, always have a mental list of things to cover and correlate.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by SSridhar »

Suraj wrote:
nam wrote:I feel the US will ask Taiwan to merge. This way it doesn't need to sanction China and the supply chain will all okay.

I won't be surprised if this happens.
Asking them to merge and them wanting to merge are two different things. In the past, they didn't want to do that because of political differences between CPC in Beijing and the KMT in Taiwan. Now the younger gen in Taiwan - typified by the ruling party - don't see themselves as Chinese but a distinct group.
I totally agree with Suraj here. From whatever I know, there is no desire among the Taiwanese to have anything to do with mainland China, especially after they have seen the aftermath of the National Security Law in Hong Kong and the new 'Common Prosperity' program. XJP's reference to 'smashing heads', references within China of nuking every city of Japan, and the reports of fresh and large nuclear silo sites have revealed why XJP is confident that the 2049 timeline could be brought forward to 2035. XJP has put paid to several things, one among them is the hope that Taiwan would somehow peacefully unite. XJP's two terms have been a total failure on all fronts.

The US will and can never ask Taiwan to merge. As Ms. Tsai said recently it would be catastrophic for Indo-Pacific nations, forget about the US. That includes India as well. After setting up the AUKUS and promising Oz new SSNs, it would be just the reversal if Taiwan is asked to merge.
What might instead happen is a nuclear umbrella involving Japan and Taiwan, two countries who are politically and culturally close.
Japan & Taiwan are seeing the advantages of forgetting their past and having a unanimity of view at least as far as China is concerned. Japan has already announced Taiwan as its most important 'security interest'. It is being repeatedly emphasized by leaders in Japan that it would have to get militarily involved in Taiwan.

However, Taiwan has to make some adjustments to its territorial policy in order to win a greater acceptance and support.

Taiwan entertains the same ideas on Tibet, Xinjiang, South and East China Seas etc. as PRC. Article 26 of the Constitution of RoC specifically refers to Tibet and Mongolia as its parts. Taiwan continued to maintain a “Mongolia, Tibet Affairs Commission” (MTAC), originally formed during the Qing rule, until 2017 after disbanding which the same functions are now being performed by the “Mongolian and Tibetan Cultural Center”. Taiwan’s continued claims in South and East China Seas betray the same geostrategic mentality of Imperial China. Indeed, the vague and imprecise eleven-dash line, the precursor to today’s nine-dash line on which PRC claims almost 90% of South China Sea, was published by the Kuomintang in 1936 and later officially in February 1948. The 1993 ‘Policy Guidelines for South China Sea’ issued by the ROC says, “The South China Sea area within the historic water limit is the maritime area under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China, where the Republic of China possesses all rights and interests.” Due to pressure from other nations, most notably the US, RoC ‘suspended’ the 1993 Policy Guideline in December 2005 but has not revoked it. After the PCA’s Arbitral award in 2016, RoC’s Ministry of External Affairs said, “The ROC government reiterates that the South China Sea Islands are part of the territory of the ROC and that it will take resolute action to safeguard the country’s territory and relevant maritime rights”. Both the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the opposition Kuomintang Party (KMT) opposed the Award. Since PRC’s claims to the SCS under the nine-dash line rubric follow from claim made during RoC’s rule of Mainland China, its renunciation of claims now is likely to have an impact on PRC’s stance as well at least legally, but RoC has so far not chosen to unequivocally do so, though there is a nuanced change in RoC’s stance since May 2009 with it placing emphasis on islands and ‘surrounding waters’ rather than the whole ‘water body’ of South China Sea.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Suraj »

Thanks for the great reference material - so carefully researched and organized. We need this level of authoritative knowledge.

Taiwan continues to have a KMT polity who maintain delusions of Nationalist China. Ms.Tsai can't just shut all those departments down. She risks starting a political firestorm that's not worth expending capital on. The smart thing to do is to do a boil the frog exercise, cutting off funds and influence and let them die out with the old gen.

I've dealt with Taiwanese at length. Roughly aligning their generations to US ones:
Boomers: totally KMT. They all carry the cultural memory of the civil war
Gen X and Y: partial to KMT mainly because Taiwan grew wealthy and they naturally support the structure that saw them grow from poor to developed nation in one generation. This is normal.
Gen Z/Millenials: They have no memory of the KMT years. They see the old gen KMT-pasand types with One Nationalist China delusions as a bunch of old fogies with senile ideas.

The younger gen are very vocal on SM asserting 'We are Taiwan! We are not Chinese Taipei or China!'

Correspondingly, there's a hardline fringe in Japan that is readily prepared to shoot itself in the foot for the sake of some illusory 'we will never give up a sq.cm of Japanese territory, even to Taiwan' types.

Both sides are going to have to manage their respective fringe elements here. Given the heightening situation in the Taiwan Straits, the natural act for Taiwan would be to fix their territorial issues with Japan and form a nuclear security pact. It would be in India's interest to be involved as the US abdicates from that role.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by NRao »

nam wrote: I feel the US will ask Taiwan to merge. This way it doesn't need to sanction China and the supply chain will all okay.

I won't be surprised if this happens.
Japan will go nuclear

Wall Street will love a merger. DoD and MIC will hate it.

Wonder how a US Prez will sell that option to the people
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by SSridhar »

Suraj wrote:Taiwan continues to have a KMT polity who maintain delusions of Nationalist China.
Suraj, when you made that statement, my thoughts went to Maulana Abu Ala al Maududi as well as others from Deoband who opposed bisection of India. Their thoughts process was similar that with the bisection, they lost the opportunity to convert the whole of India into an Islamic state. The same kind of delusions.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by DavidD »

Anoop wrote: This is a strawman because given that the contest is bipolar, making China less competitive IS the same as making America/West more competitive.
Not strawman, just a very simple concept. You can widen your wage gap with me by making $50k more, or by having me make $50k less. Only one of those options will result in a higher standard of living for you. Development isn't a zero-sum game.
This is an amusing remark. Is China's BRI an attempt to benefit the world'?? :D . Then why should the US/Western counter-attempt be more altruistic? More precisely, the US/West attempt is to ensure that the Chinese economic engine that is powered by the world's consumption - largely the Western world's - is not used to undercut the Western political and military influence. This is a fundamental difference from the previous Cold War - there was no economic linkage between the US and USSR, so both systems lavished largesse on the rest of the world. If the same model were to be applied now, it would be the US funding its own demise. So it makes sense not to try the bribing game this time around.
Now that's a strawman argument. I never stated what China's intent may be, just that what it does can benefit the world. I'm sure China's primary interest is to benefit itself, but if it can benefit the world in the process, why would the world not like that? I mean, just look at the alternative that you're suggesting. You're suggesting to make/keep the world poor so China can't profit off of the world's consumption.
Again, a strawman that assumes that one has to be at the exclusion of the other. The US has the ability to run up a larger debt to GDP ratio given that it prints the reserve currency. So the US can do both. It also doesn't have as intense a societal pressure to keep the economic engine running in order to keep the population from turning on the CCP.
Again, you don't seem to know what a strawman is, or even what my argument is. I'm not doubting the US's ability to print money, I'm asking if that money will benefit Americans more when invested in uplifting Americans, or to bring down China. You don't seem to understand that development is not zero-sum. You can develop further than your opponent by being better at engaging in mutual destruction, an extreme example of this would be nuclear war, or you can win the development battle by developing faster yourself. You can win with either option, but only one option will raise your own living standards.
Now I am confused...you started with the claim that the US action is primarily external in contrast to China's internal focus, but now you say that the US internal action is more impactful than its external one??
Yes. US action thus far has been primarily external, but now it looks like Biden is trying to shift focus to the internal.
Just so that I remain consistent with my argument - the US agenda on sustainable energy spending etc is driven by the Democratic party's beliefs; it would happen whether there was a Chinese threat or not. In the same vein, if it were a Republican government, such a spending would likely not occur.
OK. Not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, but I agree that a different administration may have, and in fact had, taken a different approach.
Has Biden reversed the sanctions on China that Trump had slapped? There has been some dilution on US persons trading in securities of Chinese Military Companies, but otherwise it seems that the Trump era sanctions are still holding. So no real walk-back on the attempt to limit China's trade advantage, correct?
The latest news is that yes, indeed, the Biden administration is looking to cool the trade war.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bidens-p ... 04668.html
Biden may be establishing off-ramps, however, that could lower trade barriers between the two powers, eventually. Biden will re-establish an “exclusion” process that expired under Trump and allowed some U.S. importers to apply to the U.S. government for exemptions from tariffs. Under Trump, U.S. importers submitted as many as 53,000 exclusion requests, according to the Government Accounting Office. The Trump administration only approved about 13% of them, and some of those were temporary exemptions that expired before the whole process ended in the final days of the Trump administration.

Biden hasn’t spelled out how generous his administration’s exclusion process will be, but if used extensively it could become the norm rather than the exception. China has a similar process, for Chinese companies paying higher tariffs on U.S. imports, which China imposed in retaliation for the Trump tariffs. Exclusions could allow both countries to ease the sting of tariffs while technically keeping tariffs in place.

Case-by-case exclusions tend to be bad policy, because they allow the government to favor some companies over others on terms that can seem arbitrary or subjective. But for Biden, they may be a necessary evil, given that many economists think the Trump tariffs harmed the U.S. economy more than they helped. It would be politically unpopular for Biden to simply repeal the tariffs, opening him up to “soft on China” demagoguery. Aggressive use of exclusions would be a way around that.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by DavidD »

Anoop wrote:David, one question for you. In my interactions with expatriate Chinese people from the mainland, almost without exception, they believe that economic prosperity has been a worthwhile trade for lack of political freedom. These are people who have spanned the Tiananmen crackdown. They are all professionals, and all of them with graduate degrees from the US. Why do you think the feeling is so unanimous? It's difficult to believe that not one has a contrarian view, despite having lived in the US and seen that political freedom and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive.
What is the purpose of political freedom? Is it an end, or a mean to an end? Do people not champion political freedom, democracy, etc. because of the belief that it would lead to better lives? If China's political system has resulted in prosperity for its people, why does it matter if it's done with political freedom or not? Perhaps China could have achieved prosperity with political freedom, but it's been doing well without it, so where's the impetus for change?

If you look at the 3rd to 1st world process by most significant economies, particularly in east Asia, the bulk of the development have generally occurred under decidedly illiberal regimes. Japan joined the big boys' club under an imperial system and is essentially still a one-party state, Taiwan was a one party state until the 90's, SK only had real free elections a few years before TW, and Singapore is on the dynasty spectrum of a one-party state. How many examples of a democracy developing from 3rd to 1st world can you list?

The US's development as a terra nova power is an unique situation that cannot be replicated. Even then, at its founding, the US was already developed enough to defeat the British colonial masters, something China and India could not. Not exactly a rags-to-riches story on the same level as the one China and India are currently trying to write.
Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 632
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Anoop »

DavidD wrote:.....
I think this discussion has run its course. You started by expressing surprise that the US and China took diametrically opposite approaches in the context of Cold War 2.0. When I responded that in the same context, i.e. countering the other's influence, those respective actions were natural, you shifted to which system betters its own people and the rest of the world. That is the very definition of a strawman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

I do appreciate your insight into the Chinese view of political and economic freedoms. But Hong Kong was an exception, no? Until the CCP set that experiment right.
Perhaps China could have achieved prosperity with political freedom, but it's been doing well without it, so where's the impetus for change?
Going forward, though, will the prosperity having already been achieved, lead to calls for political freedom? Or will "Chinese Characteristics" prevail and people be content with economic prosperity?
S_Madhukar
BRFite
Posts: 517
Joined: 27 Mar 2019 18:15

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by S_Madhukar »

I think fundamentally in the near future Mainland will have to figure what kind of Chinese are they or they want to be as with more money they will travel more and experience more of the Sinosphere. There are so many outlying Chinese models from HK to TW to SEA, it will be difficult to subsume all of them into a single identity. Imagine in India we had the same question do we look at Tamils in Malaya as our ancestral keepers or Others in S India or even to Bali. Luckily we don’t have to as we know where we are and where the diaspora is
Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 632
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Anoop »

SSridhar wrote:Anoop, it is all about the choke points.... !
Sridhar, many thanks for your explanation. I looked at the map of the region and it occurred to me that the Pratas Island would also form a very good chokepoint to deny a US or Aus or Japanese sub from coming close to the mainland, quite apart from being a springboard for the PLAN to break the First Island chain. In that sense, claiming a 200 nm EEZ from that Island would significantly impede other navies from interfering with an invasion of Taiwan, were it to occur. Apparently, the Luzon straits also is a hotbed of communication cables for that region, including the PRC, Taiwan, SK and Japan. The ability to surveil or interfere with that from a base in the Pratas Islands would increase the threat to those countries.

I am curious about yours and Suraj's reading of a nuclear umbrella for Japan and Taiwan. Given Japan's historic resistance to nuclear weaponization and Taiwan's lack of experience in this area, wouldn't the umbrella have to come from the U.S.? Given that the U.S. doesn't even have a treaty for the defense Taiwan, giving a nuclear umbrella seems a stretch. The other issue is whether the PRC would be deterred by this claim...they know fully well from the NoKo experience that a nuclear umbrella provides the best deterrence against invasion...would they attack before such capability is realized?

The second point you both raise about diminishing cultural affinity with the mainland....economic arguments against a destructive war can override those concerns, no? And economic arguments are best made by people in commercial corridors of power ...and that would be the old (KMT?) guard?
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by kit »

Anoop wrote:
SSridhar wrote: The other issue is whether the PRC would be deterred by this claim...they know fully well from the NoKo experience that a nuclear umbrella provides the best deterrence against invasion...would they attack before such capability is realized?
You are absolutely right., its only nuclear weapons that can deter a full scale chinese invasion., and definitely none of the Ameerika s or their poodles assurances which are not worth the paper . But a nuclear Taiwan will endure., and going further a token force of nuke tipped tomahawks from its submarines makes things deadlier for China and forget all about its "unification" dreams. And the time for that is now.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by NRao »

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 632
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Anoop »

Most military assessments of a PLA campaign predict that it will start with a cyber attack on the adversary's civil infrastructure like power distribution, banking, communications etc. The question is - Is China vulnerable to the same? And if so, do countries like Taiwan, Japan etc have the ability to exploit it?
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by DavidD »

Anoop wrote:
I think this discussion has run its course. You started by expressing surprise that the US and China took diametrically opposite approaches in the context of Cold War 2.0. When I responded that in the same context, i.e. countering the other's influence, those respective actions were natural, you shifted to which system betters its own people and the rest of the world. That is the very definition of a strawman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.
No, my point leads directly to which approach is preferred, though perhaps I didn't make it clear. "Would a hypothetical trillion dollars spent on slowing down China be more effective or a trillion dollars spent on improving the west?" This question is meant to illustrate the point that investing in oneself is likely to result in greater return on capital than investing the same amount in bringing down the opponent. For example, if two competing high schoolers each have say $300k to invest, would investing in say a college education for oneself more likely to result in a higher wage gap, or investing the same money to prevent the other student from going to college? $300k will almost certainly pay for a good college education, but it's probably not enough money to assuredly prevent someone else from having one.

Even in the narrow context of a 1-on-1 competition, investing in oneself in most cases is more likely to result in higher ROI. When you factor in the ability to attract others to your camp, thus viewing it in a broader global perspective, the magnitude of this difference becomes even greater. After all, the US has 10 times the nukes, it could certainly assure a victory by launching a nuclear attack in a strictly 1-on-1 contest.
I do appreciate your insight into the Chinese view of political and economic freedoms. But Hong Kong was an exception, no? Until the CCP set that experiment right.

Going forward, though, will the prosperity having already been achieved, lead to calls for political freedom? Or will "Chinese Characteristics" prevail and people be content with economic prosperity?
Hong Kong was governed by a British appointed, not elected, governor during it's Asian Tigers years. Hong Kong was not granted universal suffrage until 1997. In fact, no democratic reforms at all was undertaken until the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 concluding the British handover of HK eventually in '97. I'll leave it to you to interpret the British intent behind this timing, but I don't think I need to explain how the Chinese view it.

Going forward, I can't really say. I can't imagine too many complaining so long as the government is doing its job.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Cyrano »

Hoisting democracy onto the Chinese people is an idea the west have tacitly given up decades ago. Since the arrival of Xitler, even the mere mention of the D word has been carefully avoided.

From an Indian perspective, successive Govts have had a vague and wobbly China policy, which might have continued but for Ladakh and Galwan.

Afaik, there have been no historical references where a remotely democratic or republican governance systems ever existed there. On the contrary, the concept of "stability" has been drilled strongly into the Chinese people's psyche for very long, its unlikely they will rally behind a democratic revolution, assuming something like that can be engineered in China. They are a lobotomised lot bred over generations to not look beyond immediate material existence and trust some "authority who knows best" on bigger questions.

I believe the exploitable fault lines in China are not political, they are socio-economic like demographics, pink cheeked princelings, rural-urban divide, jobs, housing, food security, terror of terrorism etc. Not sure ANY country is working on those lines though.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by kit »

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/powe ... -6gdfzw9n7

Between 383,000 tonnes and 450,000 tonnes of Australian coal from five cargo ships were brought into China for use last month, the Financial Times reported.

“Some of the Australian coal stuck at Chinese ports started to be released at the end of last month . . . though many of those [cargos] had already been diverted to markets like India,” an unnamed trading executive told Reuters.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Suraj »

Anoop wrote:I am curious about yours and Suraj's reading of a nuclear umbrella for Japan and Taiwan. Given Japan's historic resistance to nuclear weaponization and Taiwan's lack of experience in this area, wouldn't the umbrella have to come from the U.S.? Given that the U.S. doesn't even have a treaty for the defense Taiwan, giving a nuclear umbrella seems a stretch. The other issue is whether the PRC would be deterred by this claim...they know fully well from the NoKo experience that a nuclear umbrella provides the best deterrence against invasion...would they attack before such capability is realized?

The second point you both raise about diminishing cultural affinity with the mainland....economic arguments against a destructive war can override those concerns, no? And economic arguments are best made by people in commercial corridors of power ...and that would be the old (KMT?) guard?
Quoting a conversation with a pair of Taiwanese in their 30s (now 40s) - both good friends, in the context of them posting on FB that they are Taiwan not Chinese Taipei:
me: Does that mean you don't like the ROC symbol on your flag ?
them: We don't see ourselves as Republic of China but Taiwan. The symbol is just a symbol and can mean anything it should reflect.
I found this a practical view, not getting confused between a symbol and its current representation, sort of like how the present admin used Aadhaar or MNREGA even if the term came with baggage - it simply repurposed it.

The Taiwanese younger generation have a distaste of mainland, but are practical about the economic benefits. There is a dichotomy here - they see themselves as the guardians of 'real Chinese' culture, but they just don't want to be called Chinese. That's a detail they have to parse. It serves as a convenient comeback "ah but you claim to be a guardian of Chinese culture but say you're not Chinese ??" They argue in response that it's the same way Singapore Chinese are - ethnically maybe, but identity is Taiwanese (or Singaporean) not Chinese.

Whatever, it's not my battle to fight, I'm just quoting their socio-political concerns. The Taipei National Palace Museum is perhaps the greatest store of Chinese artifacts in the world - all carried over by Chiang's forces when they escaped in 1949. As with many things here, there are two Palace Museums - one in Beijing and one in Taipei.
me: So you're against any reunification ?
then: (nods vehemently) we're not China.
me: how do you feel about splitting off then ?
them1: (considers deeply) because we're chicken
them2: ... well it's stupid. It adds a lot of problems and potential for dangerous consequences. It's not practica because of their actions (referring to mainland)l.
They'd like a greater legitimacy of the current "It's a country but don't call it a country" mechanism, progressively eating away at the claws from mainland.

Taiwan's a great place. Strongly recommended for Indians to visit. Spectacular food, very nice people, the temples are a lot like anything we're used to in India - the crowds, the incense sticks and the bells, drums and all.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Cyrano »

It doesnt matter how the Taiwanese see themselves or China. When the chinese economy starts tottering they will be the juiciest target for the dragon's next meal. Their semi conductor fabs and high tech mfg and accumulated wealth will make them irresitable to China which believes they are only reclaiming stolen property.

The Taiwanese can't and perhaps wont fight unless compelled to by unkil who has to fight for them.

No matter who wins, Taiwan will be destroyed, so who can blame them if they chicken out and capitulate to their estranged cousins before an all out war occurs?
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Suraj »

The Chinese - and here include Taiwanese and even Singaporeans - understand what violent change entails for them. They'll do whatever puts that off. Their history shows why. We in India feel traumatized about the Mughal rule and British rule eras. Yes there was much privation and hardship then, millions in famines during British rule especially.

But the Chinese are in a whole other league. When a major dynastic epoch ends, it ends up killing 5-10% of the people in the subsequent revolts. The Chinese internal wars alone land half the top 10 of bloodiest wars in history. So when the CPC shows signs of imploding, the entire Chinese diaspora would worry deeply.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Cyrano »

Too much fire power and information asymmetry today between CCP and the people. Much much easier to contain and eliminate popular uprisings, before external world comes to know and react. If they could keep a lid on Wuhan virus for months in 2019 quelling a revolt is nothing.

Tang Ping is the only hope now ;)
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by DavidD »

I don't see the Taiwanese willingly merge with the Mainland any time soon. No group of wealthier people ever willingly join a larger group of poorer people. If China continues to develop, that might change with some carrots and sticks.

A nuclear umbrella for Taiwan is not feasible. Deterrence is about intention as much as it is about capabilities. Here we're debating whether the US would even use conventional power to come to Taiwan's aid, nobody's gonna believe they'd start a nuclear war over Taiwan.

For Japan, there's plenty of reluctance re: nuclear for many obvious reasons. But if they want to go in that direction, China would nudge them to obtain their own nuclear arsenal rather than relying on American ones. A Japan that no longer needs American protection, but is still just as dependent on China for its economy will be much easier for China to manipulate.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Suraj »

I disagree with the notion that the wealth disparity is an issue. Top tier mainland cities can put even Taipei to shame. Taipei is really nice, but it's more like a cleaner New Delhi than Shanghai. Sure it's got Taipei 101 and I've been up it, but otherwise it's not a showpiece city. I actually like that - Taipei is quite real, it can have its share of mild chaos any Indian is used to, i.e. closer to HK than a more antiseptic Singapore.

Taiwanese don't argue that they're not Chinese because China is poor. Maybe their Gen X/Y did, but the younger folks know what wealth is on the mainland and yet they are the most vocally opposed to integration. If anything the demographic that saw the greatest economic disparity between Taiwan and mainland China (the one growing up in the 1970s/80s) is the most benignly ok with integration. Their kids are the total opposite - and those are the ones who've seen the gap narrow.

Economic disparity has effectively never been the topic at the forefront of Sino-Taiwanese ties. It has always been either historical politics, or today Taiwan's assertion of an independent political identity. Historically, China always ramps up the temperature when it has domestic troubles brewing. I'm sure SSridhar has been historical data here.

China has a history of compelling its neighbors to act in their own security interests. But for Chinese beliigerence, India would dawdle and waste time on border infrastructure, and not be proactive. Same for Japan and Taiwan. There's no reason they both can't go nuclear independently. Sure the three-letter-acronym nuclear ayatollahs will go nuts, but who cares.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Democracy & China

Post by SSridhar »

Cyrano wrote:Hoisting democracy onto the Chinese people is an idea the west have tacitly given up decades ago. Since the arrival of Xitler, even the mere mention of the D word has been carefully avoided.
Cyrano, I am not so sure about that (I mean the bolded part above). XJP has taken it upon himself to show 'Democracy' in a very bad light. Apart from himself, his Wolf Warriors of diplomats all over the world have used the pandemic to run down 'Democracy'. In response to which, the US has been portraying the on-going US-China spat as one between Democratic and Totalitarian regimes (as in the case of China) and Authoritarian regimes (as in the case of Russia). Matt Pottinger, the US Dy. NSA under Trump, delivered a Mandarin speech last year on the eve of celebrating the May Fourth Revolution where he urged the Chinese to opt for Democracy. His speech was brilliant, but divorced from today's reality. Even then, there is a need for such a speech in the hope that a spark will ignite somewhere.

But, I agree that Democracy is barking up the wrong tree, as far as China goes. The protagonists often cite the 1989 events, but they are wrong.

Yes, there was some element of pro-democracy sentiments in the events preceding up to the massacre of June 4, 1989 at Tienanmen, but understanding the background to the events is important. There had been anti-Communist protests in Eastern Europe and Baltic states for some time prior to Tienanmen, FSU was withdrawing from Afghanistan, FSU's economy was in shambles. In China, Deng's pivot to 'Controlled Capitalism' had led to inflation added with the perennial problem of corruption. Deng's liberalization had loosened up freedom of expression. The students saw some hope in the form of Hu Yaobang but he was removed from power (as Chairman of CPC) and disgraced. When he died in 1989, the agitation started with a demand for a state funeral for him. And, then it took other forms even as Deng (as Chairman of the Central Military Commission, CMC) ordered the Army on the students and others.

Some of the lessons that the Chinese CPC leadership learnt from June 4, 1989 were: party must rule supreme without internal dissensions (which essentially means that dissenters must be cashiered and confined), the world is out to get the CPC (therefore permanent vigilance against foreign conspiracies is essential even to the point of taking it to the enemy's den and nipping them in the bud) and ideology is the underlying truth (which meant that tactical adjustments such as liberalization can be given up if the situation so demanded). We can easily see Xi completely sticking to these lessons learnt.

In the ensuing Cold War 2.0, there are no ideological determinants though one side claims 'liberal Democracy' characterizing the other side as 'autocratic [Communist] State'. As Huntington said, “The most important distinctions among peoples are [no longer] ideological, political, or economic. They are cultural”
Afaik, there have been no historical references where a remotely democratic or republican governance systems ever existed there.
In c. 1912, after the Qing perished in the uprising, republicanism took central stage in China. The protagonists had been influenced and inspired by Japan where Democracy had been introduced after 'Meiji Restoration' [China-Japan Relationship]. The 1895 defeat in Korea at the hands of tiny Japan brought in momentous changes in China and laid the foundation for the eclipse of the Qing Dynasty and the entire 2500-year old Imperial system. The Commander of the Qing Emperor, Yuan Shikai introduced 'Constitutional Monarchy'. Later Sun Yat-sen formed the Guomindang (Kuomintang) National People's Party and the Republic of China took shape. Chiang kai-shek who succeeded Sun Yat-sen was dictatorial. So, there has been some attempts but they all failed.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Cyrano »

SSridhar ji,
When I wrote "the west have tacitly given up decades ago. Since the arrival of Xitler, even the mere mention of the D word has been carefully avoided." I had not only US in mind but also Canada, Mex, all of Europe, UK, Aus...

European economies latched on to US corp.s trend of increasing profits by outsourcing mfg to China offering cheap labour, their declining post-colonial wealth and influence, and Socialist ambitions made it imperative. The only way to remain in competition and inflate falling purchasing power of European citizen was to copy US to setup factorys in China (in the 90s and 2000s) and massively import dirt cheap Chinese made consumer goods so that millions living on socialist dole can still afford flat tvs and Christmas shopping (from 2000s to date).

The consequent destruction of local mfg and increased need for govt dole was largely ignored because Eu was already in the trap. To bring back mfg and make it competitive, labour reforms, cut in social spending and lower taxation are needed. Dole fed people used to social benefits and enviable working conditions were and are simply not up to it. The French yellow vests for example is a reaction to that.

So Eu govts tried to use China as an emerging market with mixed success. Luxury goods, high end cars etc were sold by France & Germany in China and they hoped this will offset the trap to some extent. To have access to the Chinese labour first and market next, any criticism of authoritarian communist regime was carefully avoided. Angela Merkel is the worst example, French leaders weren't far behind.

So for all their grand standing on human rights, the west individually and collectively put its greed and need above all else and kowtowed to China, even during the pandemic and are mostly continuing to do so.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by SSridhar »

Cyrano, I agree, especially with your reference to Merkel and the French.

The CAI (Comprehensive Agreement on Investment) which was rushed through by Merkel & Macron after phone calls from Xi is the most recent instance in point.

I agreed with the general thrust of your earlier post too, only to point out what I did.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by DavidD »

Suraj wrote:I disagree with the notion that the wealth disparity is an issue. Top tier mainland cities can put even Taipei to shame. Taipei is really nice, but it's more like a cleaner New Delhi than Shanghai. Sure it's got Taipei 101 and I've been up it, but otherwise it's not a showpiece city. I actually like that - Taipei is quite real, it can have its share of mild chaos any Indian is used to, i.e. closer to HK than a more antiseptic Singapore.

Taiwanese don't argue that they're not Chinese because China is poor. Maybe their Gen X/Y did, but the younger folks know what wealth is on the mainland and yet they are the most vocally opposed to integration. If anything the demographic that saw the greatest economic disparity between Taiwan and mainland China (the one growing up in the 1970s/80s) is the most benignly ok with integration. Their kids are the total opposite - and those are the ones who've seen the gap narrow.

Economic disparity has effectively never been the topic at the forefront of Sino-Taiwanese ties. It has always been either historical politics, or today Taiwan's assertion of an independent political identity. Historically, China always ramps up the temperature when it has domestic troubles brewing. I'm sure SSridhar has been historical data here.

China has a history of compelling its neighbors to act in their own security interests. But for Chinese beliigerence, India would dawdle and waste time on border infrastructure, and not be proactive. Same for Japan and Taiwan. There's no reason they both can't go nuclear independently. Sure the three-letter-acronym nuclear ayatollahs will go nuts, but who cares.
Taiwan GDP per capita (2021): $30k, I assume if we just pick a big city e.g. Taipei it'd be higher.
Shanghai GDP per capita (2020): $24k
China GDP per capita (2020): $10k

For the older generation, many were either born on the mainland or have close family ties there, so there's some additional pull there. Losing those connections as well as growing up much wealthier decreases the pull in the younger generations. It'd take generations to reverse this trend, after China becomes wealthier, which might take another generation just for the bigger cities to do so. If both the youths and their parents spent their entire time alive being poorer than much of the mainland, you'll see more Taiwanese willing to merge.
durairaaj
BRFite
Posts: 137
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by durairaaj »

Considering the US's pedigree in training a native army in the Afghan theatre of ops, we can expect an amicable resolution of conflict between China and Taiwan, with Taiwan transforming into Chinese Taipei, within the next two decades.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by kit »

durairaaj wrote:
Considering the US's pedigree in training a native army in the Afghan theatre of ops, we can expect an amicable resolution of conflict between China and Taiwan, with Taiwan transforming into Chinese Taipei, within the next two decades.
:(( .. with their experience maybe less than half a decade
ManSingh
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 17:30

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by ManSingh »

Anoop wrote:
So, if the PRC conquers Taiwan and controls 50% of the global chip manufacture (being the high-end products), and under its law prohibit its trade with the US, how will the US retain it's eminent military and economic power??
Those foundries in Taiwan are dependent on North American Tech. For ex: ASML manufactures the lithographic machines used for manufacturing those 8nm chips. It has a 90% share in the market and is partly owned by Intel. If intel is cut off from TSMC, TSMC can also be cut off from Intel's tech.
There are other parts to the value chain as well. For ex: Cadence, Synopsys etc. The last US govt basically cut off Huawei from accessing tech from these firms without a US license. The impact of that move was immediate. HiSilicon( Huawei subsidiary) went from the most desired supplier to no one wanting to touch it due to uncertainty.

Also to consider is the market demand. Sure China could cutoff US from TSMC's manufacturing. But it can not generate internal demand high enough to replace the US as a consumer. Lastly, TSMC's value proposition is the 4/8nm chip manufacturing capability that is built off Us tech. US may not be immediately able to find an alternate manufacturing supplier that can manufacture chips of 4/8 nm width but there are foundries located in US that can do 15nm chips. These can take care of the most urgent needs while the Arizona fab manufacturing comes online in a few years.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

China, Taiwan & Japan

Post by SSridhar »

Suraj wrote:I disagree with the notion that the wealth disparity is an issue. . . .
I agree, though David continues to maintain this line of reasoning.

IMO, the more China persists with open threats and coercion, the more the Taiwanese are getting alienated. Reasonable standards of living, once achieved, would demand many types of freedom even in a totalitarian country like China. Xi has been systematically reversing them fearing the free world. While a China, with a long and almost uninterrupted imperial, central leadership may be happier with Authoritarian/Totalitarian rule, the Taiwanese have stopped accepting such a leadership since the 80s. They are not attached to the idea of a Motherland. They are not enamoured of China, its wealth or power or technology.
China has a history of compelling its neighbors to act in their own security interests. But for Chinese beliigerence, India would dawdle and waste time on border infrastructure, and not be proactive. Same for Japan and Taiwan.
The 1962 as well as the 1979 wars that China inflicted on India and Vietnam were due to internal political requirements. It could also be true that the Galwan and Ladakh incidents are directly related to Chinese politics.
There's no reason they both can't go nuclear independently. Sure the three-letter-acronym nuclear ayatollahs will go nuts, but who cares.
It may be more difficult for Taiwan. For example, its submarine building programme encountered delays because technologies were denied to it. IMO, Japan is only limited by its Constitution and some unrealistic and emotional Pacifist constituency. There has already been some discussion in Japan about that, hasn't it? The Japanese solved several problems with China in the 19th & 20th centuries. They captured Ryukyu without even the Chinese knowing it for 300 years! Then, prised Korea from Chinese influence got it as a buffer, a long time Japanese security requirement. Then, took over Manchuria and eventually the whole of China (well, almost). But, times now are very different. Nothing short of a nuclear deterrent would work.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Suraj »

DavidD wrote: Taiwan GDP per capita (2021): $30k, I assume if we just pick a big city e.g. Taipei it'd be higher.
Shanghai GDP per capita (2020): $24k
China GDP per capita (2020): $10k

For the older generation, many were either born on the mainland or have close family ties there, so there's some additional pull there. Losing those connections as well as growing up much wealthier decreases the pull in the younger generations. It'd take generations to reverse this trend, after China becomes wealthier, which might take another generation just for the bigger cities to do so. If both the youths and their parents spent their entire time alive being poorer than much of the mainland, you'll see more Taiwanese willing to merge.
Those numbers are useless. Nothing about Sino-Taiwanese dispute is about GDP numbers. Have you ever heard anyone argue “no no , absolutely no unification until GDP per capita hits X” . Doesn’t happen. Taiwan is wealthy, quite obviously, and yet Chinese cities look more showpiece to any visitor. Maybe if you’re mainland descent you feel the Taiwanese behavior is about wealth disparity, like how Pakistanis imagine all kinds of things about them, that we don’t.

The Taiwanese group most partial to unification are not the civil war and 40s-60s gen. It’s their kids - the 60s/70s gen who grew up amid the widest disparity in wealth during Taiwan’s economic growth. The gen born since then (Gen X/Y on) are the base of the DPP/Pan Greens. The first gen are mostly too old. second gen mostly dominate KMT political nodes and the youngsters are going the independence way.

If wealth disparity was an issue but kinship existed (eg Germany) he politics would play along, but the real politics fundamentally disagrees.

I’ve seen this up front . Interacted with 3 gens of Taiwanese across multiple families (used to date one), Been to a Bay Area KMT event of the grandpa where I came face to face with Ma Ying Jeou . And a separate DPP one where I saw Tsai IngWen. Taiwan is the only country whose heads of state I’ve seen IRL . I haven’t even seen Modi :)
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: China, Taiwan & Japan

Post by Suraj »

SSridhar wrote:
Suraj wrote:I disagree with the notion that the wealth disparity is an issue. . . .
I agree, though David continues to maintain this line of reasoning.
This is probably point of view driven. If DavidD is mainland origin, there's probably a community there who thinks Taiwan is against unification with motherland and thus they'll change their mind as motherland grows big and powerful. Taiwanese on the other hand - their behavior has little or nothing to do with relative GDP/capita and they're humble enough about their own poor origins. Mainland thinking is very nouveau riche here - they feel they were looked down on because of no money, and now because they've money but no class.

This is all a cognitive disconnect, like how Pakistanis have imaginary notions of what we think of them. Most of the time we don't think about them at all, and I'm referring to the mango person, not BRF TSP thread posters. Cognitive dissonance shows up in the form of evidence not matching reality - Chinese is increasingly well off and Taiwan's interest in reunification is that much lesser.
SSridhar wrote:IMO, the more China persists with open threats and coercion, the more the Taiwanese are getting alienated. Reasonable standards of living, once achieved, would demand many types of freedom even in a totalitarian country like China. Xi has been systematically reversing them fearing the free world. While a China, with a long and almost uninterrupted imperial, central leadership may be happier with Authoritarian/Totalitarian rule, the Taiwanese have stopped accepting such a leadership since the 80s. They are not attached to the idea of a Motherland. They are not enamoured of China, its wealth or power or technology.
I don't think the Taiwanese mind authoritarian rule. Even the DPP youngsters aren't harsh towards CKS/CCK . They are very practical. But they see value in orderly free society, though they think Singapore is a little too orderly. They have long had fond interactions with HKers, though there was an undercurrent of supremacist views on the HK side back when HK was significantly more worldly and 'modern' than Taiwan.

Taiwanese polity have also had very strong ties to Japan, which is completely unlike mainland. Even hardline KMT types in their 70s/80s can speak Japanese because they learned Japanese in school, and still see it as a 'good phase'. The mainland on the other hand periodically organizes fits of Toyota-burning like TSP burns Indian flags for cashmere solidarity.
SSridhar wrote:The 1962 as well as the 1979 wars that China inflicted on India and Vietnam were due to internal political requirements. It could also be true that the Galwan and Ladakh incidents are directly related to Chinese politics.
Yes they're good at sensing the moment. Long term it tends to backfire on them when the other side gets organized.
SSridhar wrote:It may be more difficult for Taiwan. For example, its submarine building programme encountered delays because technologies were denied to it. IMO, Japan is only limited by its Constitution and some unrealistic and emotional Pacifist constituency. There has already been some discussion in Japan about that, hasn't it? The Japanese solved several problems with China in the 19th & 20th centuries. They captured Ryukyu without even the Chinese knowing it for 300 years! Then, prised Korea from Chinese influence got it as a buffer, a long time Japanese security requirement. Then, took over Manchuria and eventually the whole of China (well, almost). But, times now are very different. Nothing short of a nuclear deterrent would work.
Agreed. Japan is just DADT about being nuclear armed. They have loud constituencies both ways. The pacifists tend to just be more prominent on English media, but they have pro-nuclear types who largely speak in local language.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by DavidD »

Suraj wrote:
DavidD wrote: Taiwan GDP per capita (2021): $30k, I assume if we just pick a big city e.g. Taipei it'd be higher.
Shanghai GDP per capita (2020): $24k
China GDP per capita (2020): $10k

For the older generation, many were either born on the mainland or have close family ties there, so there's some additional pull there. Losing those connections as well as growing up much wealthier decreases the pull in the younger generations. It'd take generations to reverse this trend, after China becomes wealthier, which might take another generation just for the bigger cities to do so. If both the youths and their parents spent their entire time alive being poorer than much of the mainland, you'll see more Taiwanese willing to merge.
Those numbers are useless. Nothing about Sino-Taiwanese dispute is about GDP numbers. Have you ever heard anyone argue “no no , absolutely no unification until GDP per capita hits X” . Doesn’t happen. Taiwan is wealthy, quite obviously, and yet Chinese cities look more showpiece to any visitor. Maybe if you’re mainland descent you feel the Taiwanese behavior is about wealth disparity, like how Pakistanis imagine all kinds of things about them, that we don’t.

The Taiwanese group most partial to unification are not the civil war and 40s-60s gen. It’s their kids - the 60s/70s gen who grew up amid the widest disparity in wealth during Taiwan’s economic growth. The gen born since then (Gen X/Y on) are the base of the DPP/Pan Greens. The first gen are mostly too old. second gen mostly dominate KMT political nodes and the youngsters are going the independence way.

If wealth disparity was an issue but kinship existed (eg Germany) he politics would play along, but the real politics fundamentally disagrees.

I’ve seen this up front . Interacted with 3 gens of Taiwanese across multiple families (used to date one), Been to a Bay Area KMT event of the grandpa where I came face to face with Ma Ying Jeou . And a separate DPP one where I saw Tsai IngWen. Taiwan is the only country whose heads of state I’ve seen IRL . I haven’t even seen Modi :)
Here in the Bay Area, it's chock full of bleeding heart liberals, and they all think they've got the interest of the poor and the immigrants in heart. But we also have a huge homeless problem here, because whenever it comes time to put the money where their mouth is, they never vote for housing reforms that would decrease their property values, worsen congestion, and reduce precious water supply to water their trees and lawns.

My point is that I look at what people do, not what people say. People lie, sometimes they even fully believe their lies. Most like to think their actions are guided by morality, but in the end, it's money that really matters. This relates to my previous post about why the Chinese are not demanding political reform, because they're making money. Democracy, political freedom, etc. have not been attractive to the world because of what they stand for, but because the countries who espouse them are wealthy. If China can show the world that it's not necessary to have one in order to have the other, opinions will change.
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Quad News and Discussion- June 2021

Post by g.sarkar »

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquir ... c4ecf4fab5
Removing Xi is how to play it
The only way to avoid a devastating conflict is to facilitate a coup within China’s Communist Party. This is how it could be done.
PAUL MONK, September 18, 2021

We have been distracted for several weeks by the debacle in Afghanistan. But China is the main game. Thursday’s announcement that we will acquire nuclear submarines instead of the French diesel ones signifies a dramatic new seriousness in our strategic thinking. The forthcoming Quad conference will add to the sense that the Indo-Pacific is responding coherently to China’s growing assertiveness. Xi Jinping’s Beijing seeks dominance in Asia and pre-eminence globally. It is on notice that the rest of us will not bow to that.
Xi’s crushing of the Uighurs, suppression of democratic dissent in Hong Kong, threats to Taiwan, militarisation of the South China Sea and economic warfare against us all demonstrate what Chinese hegemony looks like. For the common good, this must stop. To that end, Xi needs to be removed from power and a broad path to democratic reform opened up at long last in China. The Communist Party must make the shift to democratic rule that Taiwan and South Korea made from the late 1980s. The Quad should openly call for such a transition.
The Lowy Institute has warned that China now possesses military strike capabilities dwarfing those available to Japan in 1942 and that we must be alert to the threat these pose. Yet we are very distant from China’s shores. Chinese strike capabilities against its near neighbours are far more formidable, and growing.
It openly threatens to go to war to subdue Taiwan. This risks a major conflagration, despite the overwhelmingly constructive role of Taiwan in China’s own economic development since 1979 and the clear will of the democratically governed people of Taiwan to retain their autonomy.
Resistance to China’s aggression is growing. As our former prime minister Kevin Rudd pointed out in a recent essay for Foreign Affairs, the Quad (the United States, India, Japan and Australia) is coalescing steadily. It can provide a rallying point for all those concerned about Xi’s jingoism and arrogance.
As Rudd argues, Beijing was initially contemptuous of the Quad, as some in Australia, such as Hugh White and Geoff Raby have been. But the Quad is of growing concern to Beijing, which blusters that it is an Asian NATO and is being used to create a “new cold war”.
Xi has taken China backwards into totalitarian rule and is threatening so many of his neighbours. He is not wrong to point to a new cold war beginning. But it is wholly of his own making. It must now be won – as the last one was – without disastrous war.
Rudd argues that the Quad could be used by Xi as a lever to engineer the consolidation of his dictatorial powers a year from now, at the Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress. If that happens, it will mark the point at which the new cold war truly begins. Xi is the enemy of progress in China and of openness and the rule of law internationally. He must be opposed. The Quad can and must lead that opposition.
This is our strategic environment, as outlined by Rory Medcalf in Contest for the Indo-Pacific: Why China Won’t Map the Future (2020). The Xi dictatorship has aligned itself with Putin’s regime in Moscow and the hardline Raisi/IRGC regime in Tehran.
Slowly and reluctantly, the rest of us have woken to the danger this presents to world order, peace and prosperity. Every step that Xi takes to strengthen reactionary alliances, intimidate us or other Asian states or push the United States out of the East Asian littoral should only increase that wakefulness, alarm and resistance.
.....
Gautam
Added later: Interesting, but all wrong. But it shows the ideas circulating down-under.
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by g.sarkar »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ners-china
Secret group of US military trainers has been in Taiwan for at least a year
Small contingent of US special forces and marines training local forces in latest sign of rising US-China tensions
Julian Borger in Washington and Helen Davidson in Taipei, Thu 7 Oct 2021

The US has been secretly maintaining a small contingent of military trainers in Taiwan for at least a year, according to a new report, the latest sign of the rising stakes in US-China rivalry.
About two dozen US special forces soldiers and an unspecified number of marines are now training Taiwanese forces, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday. The trainers were first sent to Taiwan by the Trump administration but their presence had not been reported until now.
The report came as President Tsai Ing-wen said on Friday that Taiwan will “do whatever it takes to defend its freedom and democratic way of life”.
“Taiwan does not seek military confrontation,” she told a security forum in Taipei. “It hopes for a peaceful, stable, predictable and mutually beneficial coexistence with its neighbours. But Taiwan will also do whatever it takes to defend its freedom and democratic way of life.”
US troops have not been permanently based on the island since 1979, when Washington established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. A Pentagon spokesman, John Supple, would not comment directly on the report, but noted that “our support for and defense relationship with Taiwan remains aligned against the current threat” from China. “It is an important step but it’s intended primarily not to be provocative but actually improve the defence capability of Taiwan’s forces,” said Jacob Stokes, a fellow of the Indo-Pacific security programme of the Center for a New American Security. “There’s always this balance between symbolism and substance, and I think by doing it quietly it’s meant to be more substance.”
The presence of US Marines Raiders in Taiwan has been previously reported, and was later confirmed by the Taiwan Navy Command as a “routine Taiwan-US military exchange and cooperation training”, according to US defence media and local outlets. US officials said the November 2020 reports were “inaccurate” but did not elaborate.
China’s foreign ministry issued a statement urging the US to stop military aid to Taiwan.“China will take all necessary steps to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the statement said. Hawkish state media outlet, the Global Times said on Friday that China’s state council “strongly opposed any form of military collusion between Taiwan and the United States”. “We urge the US to abide Three Communiqués on the Taiwan issue and stop any provocations. The DPP authorities work with external forces to seek “independence” and reject reunification. This has led the people of Taiwan to disaster, and their attempts are bound to fail.”
The report of a US military presence in Taiwan comes after a series of escalatory signals in the Indo-Pacific. China flew nearly 150 military planes, including bombers and fighter jets, into Taiwan’s air defence zone, over the first four days of October.
.....
Gautam
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by Cyrano »

Democracy, political freedom, etc. have not been attractive to the world because of what they stand for, but because the countries who espouse them are wealthy. If China can show the world that it's not necessary to have one in order to have the other, opinions will change.
DavidD, This says it all, doesn't it?
You are saying this on an Indian forum, where people clung on to Democracy, political freedom, etc. irrespective of being an impoverished, ravaged country when the coloniser left 75 years ago, and who have used these very same tools to make a society capable of making immense strides forward and will hold these dear on the way ahead. India is the perfect counter example to your argument, that you fail to see.

Talking about the virtues of democracy, political freedom etc to the Chinese is like talking about the beauty of rainbows to the blind or about Mozart to the deaf. If these blind and deaf kept to themselves, it would be still OK, but there is a real problem when they start to believe they are somehow superior to those who can see rainbows or nod in ecstasy to Mozart and that they are acting rightfully when they try to blind and deafen the others.

Those defending this PoV like our friend DavidD are those whom I consider sadly as lobotomised.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

Post by DavidD »

Cyrano wrote:
Democracy, political freedom, etc. have not been attractive to the world because of what they stand for, but because the countries who espouse them are wealthy. If China can show the world that it's not necessary to have one in order to have the other, opinions will change.
DavidD, This says it all, doesn't it?
You are saying this on an Indian forum, where people clung on to Democracy, political freedom, etc. irrespective of being an impoverished, ravaged country when the coloniser left 75 years ago, and who have used these very same tools to make a society capable of making immense strides forward and will hold these dear on the way ahead. India is the perfect counter example to your argument, that you fail to see.

Talking about the virtues of democracy, political freedom etc to the Chinese is like talking about the beauty of rainbows to the blind or about Mozart to the deaf. If these blind and deaf kept to themselves, it would be still OK, but there is a real problem when they start to believe they are somehow superior to those who can see rainbows or nod in ecstasy to Mozart and that they are acting rightfully when they try to blind and deafen the others.

Those defending this PoV like our friend DavidD are those whom I consider sadly as lobotomised.
I'm not saying democracy doesn't work, and while I do think more authoritarianism works better for developing nations, I think there's more than one way to skin the cat.

Also, I don't like to see things in white and black. Every government has some elements of democracy and some elements of autocracy, same as how every economy has some level of capitalism and socialism. It's up to each country to find the right balance for itself.
Locked