Hypothetical situation: China invades Taiwan. What's our reaction?

[China_Guy]

*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly *
**Do you think that the vast majority of those 430,000 arrivals were perhaps just visiting? The link you’ve provided says further down on the page: "It is estimated that there are 15,000 Taiwanese living in Shanghai as permanent residents, and about 150,000 Taiwanese stay in the city for a short period of time. " So 90% of the 150,000 or 300,000 or (snort) 1 million or however many go back home, right? Seems to me that the Taiwanese regard the PRC as a nice place to visit, but they wouldn’t want to live there. **

DR, perhaps you can understand that because there are not formal sovereign relations between Taiwan and China, that one can not simply go to the Taiwanese embassy and find out how many citizens are registered. You will notice that the above links mention Shanghai. Another mentions Shanghai, Kunshan, Suzhou and Wuxi. I originally mentioned the Shanghai area to also include SuZhe or the neighboring provinces of Jiangsu and Zhejiang, which is the traditional lower Yangzi valley and a very common geographic designation. Shanghai numbers are likely to be limited to those who arrive by air to Shanghai, and I suspect not very complete. It would not count numbers from Taiwanese who go directly to the surrounding areas. Also, it specifically mentions arrivals to a single city, Shanghai, and not to China.

Now, if one refers cough to a map of China, http://www.chinatour.com/map/a.htm it can be seen that Shanghai or Shanghai SuZhe is only a small part of China. The Taiwanese have the greatest cultural and language ties to Fujian Province, which is also closest to Taiwan. There are more Taiwanese investment and people living there than elsewhere in China. Ask any Taiwanese as I’m not going to waste time finding further links. Add in Taiwanese who are scattered throughout the rest of China and you can get to a million pretty easily give or take a couple hundred thousand either way. Regardless, there is something like 5% of the entire Taiwanese population living and working in China.

Just to forestall any nitpickers out there, those million may not be considered *permanent residents *, however that is defined. I have lived and worked in Shanghai for the past 4 years, spouse has a Shanghai residence hukou, my daughter was born in Shanghai and is a dual citizen, I own properties here, am a business owner, have successfully sued in the local court system, but yet I am not a permanent resident nor are my peers.

DR, are you willing to concede that there is a very sizeable Taiwanese population living and working in China? If not, just what kind of proof or cites would you be willing to accept?

DR, since you just reject my points by focusing on sky color, perhaps you¡¯d like to elaborate out why you think that the Canada/US case is applicable to China/Taiwan? One major difference I didn¡¯t mention before between China/Taiwan and NZ/OZ and Canada/US is that those three countries are all part of the British Commonwealth. All four countries have been allies for over a century. The world has changed since the nations of US, Canada, NZ and Australia were formed. You also might want to take a look at the EU and what is happening there.

I would also be interested if you would flesh out some of the arguments why “Taiwan doesn’t have to talk to the mainland if it doesn’t want to” or what China needs from Taiwan that will allow formal Taiwanese independence or what else Taiwan can do to obtain de jeure independence, etc.? Remember, we’re living in the real world and not a theoretical one.

Back to the OP, I believe that China has nuclear first strike capability. Should China just want to destroy Taiwan, they’ve had that capability for many years. It is highly likely that Taiwan has the bomb. The Taiwanese have a defensive military advantage at present, but the PLA are modernizing. A conventional invasion would allow Taiwan time to launch their nuclear strikes as part of a MAD defense. Regardless, I just don’t see a military solution. Posturing yes, solution no.

US political support for Taiwan vis-a-vis China has been declining for 50 years. Many of the key congressional leaders that were among Taiwan’s biggest supporters, Jesse Helms is the one that readily springs to mind, are no longer in office. Someone please correct me if there is a new wave of strong congressional support out there.

As a member of the UN security council, I believe that China could forestall any UN opposition to a military attack. The US would then have to unilaterally make a move. My gut feel is that there would not be a major groundswell of public opinion in the US, a conventional US military response would be slow in coming, and the shooting would be over long before a major military operation could be mounted.

Again, I’ll return to my premise that there is huge downside for China to try retake Taiwan by force, and that the current economic integration will drive a political settlement within 1-2 decades.

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by China Guy *
Taiwan clearly has de facto but not de jeure independence, which is the whole problem. Historically, it is beyond dispute that Taiwan is the one whose choose not to seek de jeure independance.

And historically, monkeys might have once flown out of my butt. The question of de jure independence is a problem that can be solved with a stroke of a pen, or better yet an islandwide referendum. If China attemts military action against Taiwan or any of the various offshore islands it currently controls, President Chen has made it clear that this will serve as a pretext for declaring formal independence. (From Taiwan’s official government information site: “Chen . . . vowed not to declare independence unless the mainland used force against Taiwan.” Emphasis mine, of course.)

Sure it was a military dicatorship that pursued this policy, but the transition to Taiwan’s present nascent democracy (remember free national elections were first held less than one year ago) has not freed the current government from honoring any and all sovereign committments.

You just keep revealing more and more abysmal ignorance of how things really are on the island.

For the record, Taiwan held its first islandwide legislative elections in 1992. It held its first presidential election in 1996. It had its first transfer of ruling power to an opposition party over two years ago. It’s had uncountable municipal and county level elections in the interim. What’s wrong with you?

As for a supposedly inviolate principle of “sovereign commitments”, not even the Chinese Communists believe that. Otherwise, they’d still be claiming Outer Mongolia as their own. (Mongolia, like Taiwan, was once an outlying territory of the long-dead Manchu empire.) You probably don’t believe it yourself, unless you’re really willing to argue that (say) most of Eastern Europe still has an obligation to pledge alliegence to the house of Hapsburg.

Someone help me out and provide when it was in the past decade that Taiwan officially stopped claiming to be the legitimate government for all of China or has this ever been formally promulgated.

Taiwan effectively gave up the claim that it was the sole legitimate government of China when it passed formal policies toward reunification in 1991. Its official policy now states that “neither side should deny the other’s existence as a political entity”–a position far different than that carried under Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-guo.

This is not to say that Taiwan is precluded from obtaining de jeure independence now. However, at present, China effectively holds economic and military “veto” power over a unilateral move for de jeure recognition. Not saying that China should have this veto power, but the reality of the situation is that China wields veto power. And if you accept that China holds veto power, then Taiwan directly or indirectly is forced to make it’s case to China. I’m not trying to say one side is right and one side wrong, I am saying that this is the situation and it has to be dealt with.

shrug I guess you can frame it in those terms if you like, just as you could argue that Taiwan has equal power to “veto” any aggressive moves toward reunification by virtue of its own not-inconsiderable military power, economic clout, and home field advantage.

[TheRoadWarrior]

Likewise, the images of tanks rolling down on innocent defenseless people in Tiananmen Square are still fresh on the minds of many people in the U.S. (in fact there’s several billboards where I live with that same image still on them) and if China were to take an aggressive moves against a democracy, people would be throwing Chinese made goods out in the streets.

If the U.S. support for Taiwan were declining, then U.S. arms sales would not have been a thorn in the side of U.S.-Sino relations over the past few years.

Trust me, there’s more military hardware going to Taiwan than is reported on CNN.

We haven’t abandoned Israel and we sure won’t abandon an ally we’ve had since World War II.

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by China Guy *
DR, are you willing to concede that there is a very sizeable Taiwanese population living and working in China? If not, just what kind of proof or cites would you be willing to accept?

You make wild assertions and then come whining to me because you can’t find any substantial evidence to back them up? What am I supposed to say?

One major difference I didn¡¯t mention before between China/Taiwan and NZ/OZ and Canada/US is that those three countries are all part of the British Commonwealth. All four countries have been allies for over a century. The world has changed since the nations of US, Canada, NZ and Australia were formed. You also might want to take a look at the EU and what is happening there.

Uh . . . yeah . . . my point was that even when different countries have very similar social and political conditions, close economic ties do absolutely nothing to foster political mergers. Take a look at the EU yourself. Nobody is yet breathing out load the idea that Britain, France, Spain, et. al will someday be required to surrender national sovereignty to the Euro-bureaucrats. If the idea were credibly put forth at this stage, it would destroy the whole EU project.

And now look at China and Taiwan, countries with wildly different political and demographic profiles. You’re arguing that China will be able to push through in ten years what the EU hasn’t been able to accomplish in forty?

I would also be interested if you would flesh out some of the arguments why “Taiwan doesn’t have to talk to the mainland if it doesn’t want to”

Beijing has consistently demanded that Taiwan’s leadership accede to the mainland’s interpretation of “one China” before any talks can take place, and Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian have consistently refused–for a decade and a half now. They’re not talking under those terms. What further proof do you need?

US political support for Taiwan vis-a-vis China has been declining for 50 years. Many of the key congressional leaders that were among Taiwan’s biggest supporters, Jesse Helms is the one that readily springs to mind, are no longer in office. Someone please correct me if there is a new wave of strong congressional support out there.

Did you pay any attention to What-a-Mole’s link above? Did you not hear about President Bush saying that the US will do “whatever it takes” to defend Taiwan? Did you not get news about Taiwan’s defense minister making an official trip the US just in the past week–the first such visit in decades?

Again, I’ll return to my premise that . . . the current economic integration will drive a political settlement within 1-2 decades.

I still cannot fathom what logic you use to come to that conclusion.

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly *
You just keep revealing more and more abysmal ignorance of how things really are on the island . . . What’s wrong with you?

I’d like to apologize to China Guy and everyone else for letting my invective get the better of me in this response. I am just sensitive to seeing the Taiwanese people’s very real and very remarkable accomplishments slighted–as I perceived that China Guy had done in insinuating that democracy has been around in Taiwan for only a year. I stand by the content of my remarks, however.

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior *
China would be making a very serious, if not fatal, mistake to try to overtake another country anytime soon (which, Taiwan is another country since the ROC came into existence prior to the PRC).

Ah, such delightful selective observations.

Consider that:

1. Both the ROC and the PRC lay claim to the same territory. Taiwan has never given up claim to the mainland, they actually was still claiming Mongolia until recently.

2. That the PRC is internationally recognised as the successor to the ROC. What that means is the ROC no longer exists as a country.

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly *
shrug Why should the Taiwanese bother? It’s their island, let the Chinese come to terms with it however they want. And anyhow, it’s not as if those visiting mainlanders could go back home and (cough cough) vote on the issue.

I am not going to debate of what “Taiwanese” entails, but the fact remains that the economy of Taiwan has been in a tailspin for several years in a row. The big businessmen are blasting the government for hampering the economy by not allowing them to invest in China. The issue here is Taiwan needs China to survive, but China doesn’t need Taiwan.

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly *
Did you not hear about President Bush saying that the US will do “whatever it takes” to defend Taiwan?

Considering the flip-flops that has been happening in the last year or two during Dubya’s administration, I wouldn’t lend much weight to such political grandstanding.

Besides, the statement can be construed many ways.

*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly *
Did you not get news about Taiwan’s defense minister making an official trip the US just in the past week–the first such visit in decades?

Yeah, didn’t you hear Bush making some silly comments about “Axis of Evil?”

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly *
Taiwan effectively gave up the claim that it was the sole legitimate government of China when it passed formal policies toward reunification in 1991. Its official policy now states that “neither side should deny the other’s existence as a political entity”–a position far different than that carried under Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-guo.

When did the policy de jour overrides the constitution?

[TheRoadWarrior]

*Originally posted by Urban Ranger *
**

Ah, such delightful selective observations.

Consider that:
… That the PRC is internationally recognised as the successor to the ROC. What that means is the ROC no longer exists as a country. **

The State of Palestine isn’t internationally recognized either (yet), but, that doesn’t make it any less viable as a national entity, does it?

Taiwan is merely experiencing what our nation went through as we embraced the change from an industrial society to an information society. Taiwan is rebounding (having just been there a few months ago people are fairly upbeat from what I gathered) and as the transition from manufacturing to reseach continues, the economy will improve.

Just as Taiwan *needs China, so too, does China need the United States. However, the big loser in all this would be China if something were to happen to the status quo (which I think is what most people in all three countries would prefer to keep).

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by Urban Ranger *
Both the ROC and the PRC lay claim to the same territory. Taiwan has never given up claim to the mainland, they actually was still claiming Mongolia until recently.

The only reason that Taiwan hasn’t given up all claim to the mainland is that doing so would be tantamount to declaring independence. And why doesn’t China claim Mongolia, BTW? It was just as much a part of the old Manchu empire as Taiwan was.

Considering the flip-flops that has been happening in the last year or two during Dubya’s administration, I wouldn’t lend much weight to such political grandstanding.

What flip flops? What are you talking about?

Yeah, didn’t you hear Bush making some silly comments about “Axis of Evil?”

What on earth does that have to do with Taiwan’s defense minister coming to the United States?

Ted? Ted, is that you?

When did the policy de jour overrides the constitution?

Again, a formal amendment to Taiwan’s constitution would be tantamount to a declaration of independence, which would give China a hissy fit. Taiwan has done the next best thing, which is to stick with a consistent and widely-publicized high level policy document on the issue for the past eleven years. I don’t think you’re too clear on what du jour means.

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by Urban Ranger *
That the PRC is internationally recognised as the successor to the ROC. What that means is the ROC no longer exists as a country.

Doghouse Reilly takes out passport, looks at his thirty or so stamps from some entity calling itself the “Republic of China”. Um, where did these come from, then?

Doghouse Reilly rifles through his classmate’s purse, pulls out a little booklet embossed with the words, “Passport”, and “Republic of China on Taiwan”. Er, Who issued this thing?

Doghouse Reilly calls the Chinese embassy in Washington. “Hello? I’d like a visa to visit Taipei next month . . . dang, they slammed the phone down on my ear. What’s going on?”

[China_Guy]

DR, a lot of issues. First though, I would ask how much time you’ve spent in Taiwan and China, and roughly when. It would help me frame some of these issues since obviously you have some background.

Second, because this is a debate and I spent over an hour finding links, I believe you should either concede that there is a very sizeable Taiwanese population living and working in China or detail what kind of proof or cites would you be willing to accept? I mean, I think I’ve shown there are at least several hundred thousand Taiwanese in the Greater Shanghai area. Since you are reasonably familiar with Taiwan, you will of course know that Taiwanese investment into Fujian is very large and has been the spearhead of Taiwanese investment into China for the past 20 years.

Taiwan is a emerging democracy and as such had and has attendant issues, growing pains and problems. You can review any Taiwanese newspaper or news magazine for the past 10 years and see this very clearly. I happened to live in Taiwan during the pre- and nascent democracy stage and won’t bore readers with the standard recital of what the military dictatorship did during that time to hold onto power. This also is well known to the Taiwanese at least. Regardless of how far along the path to democracy Taiwan is, the people in China are not very aware of it. This goes back to my point that Taiwan has not tried to win the hearts and minds of the Mainland, and the Mainland is precisely the audience that Taiwan needs to convince.

My bad, Chen Shuibian was elected nearly two years ago and not one, and that for clarification was the first time IMHO that the Presidential race was decided in a free and fair fashion. Don’t take my word for it, again read the Taiwanese papers (and there are English language papers in Taiwan) for what the Taiwanese had to say. I don’t think I’m shocking anyone by the above statement.

I can’t see the Taiwan government site and it’s almost guaranteed to have been blocked. Again, I’d like to see where Taiwan has formally renounced it’s claim to be the rightful government for all of China, including the sovereign state of Outer Mongolia. It’s my understanding, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that Taiwan has not formally renounced this claim. I believe Taiwan could make a formal renounciation without changing the constitution, but I’m not sure of that. Declaring independence would be the same as renouncing claims to China. However, I would also point out that renouncing this claim is not the same as declaring independence. Therefore, semantics aside, I believe at present, Taiwan still formally claims to be the rightful government of China but chooses to not pursue the claim at this time.

Tammerlane, the SDMB expert on things Mongolian is very welcome to come in and explain why the whole Inner/Outer Mongolian thing came about (I believe it was different ruling tribes), and why Taiwan claimed both while China only claimed one.

De jeure independence is the whole problem. If it could be solved with the stroke of a pen, then it would not be an issue now.

As far as the European Union, I think you missed the part where the member countries got rid of their currencies and adopted the Euro. Along with that move, the member countries all gave partial or complete control over their money supply, interest rates and sovereign funding capabilities to the EU. The political overtones of giving up such control over their individual economies is changing Europe.

If you look at US-Sino relations and US-Taiwan relations over the past 50 years, you can see a definate trend. I’ll let you draw the conclusions. Also, please someone correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe that the pillar support in Congress for Taiwan are not longer in office. Jesse Helms is the obvious person I’m thinking of, but many of those cold war warriors are out of the picture. If you’ve studied and watched US relations over those 50 years, you will also notice a tendancy for new presidents to start with a hardline approach and then soften noticably after a year or two. You might also have noticed that President George Bush has made two post 9-11 trips to China.

DR, you’re going to have to flesh out your arguements so there is more than just nit picking, or we will just have to disagree on what is a probable outcome for cross straits relations.

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by China Guy *
DR, a lot of issues. First though, I would ask how much time you’ve spent in Taiwan and China, and roughly when. It would help me frame some of these issues since obviously you have some background.

I’ve lived my whole life in Hell’s Kitchen, on the waterfront. My real name is Pudd’ntane. Ask me again, and I’ll tell you the same.

Regardless of how far along the path to democracy Taiwan is, the people in China are not very aware of it. This goes back to my point that Taiwan has not tried to win the hearts and minds of the Mainland . . .

. . . I can’t see the Taiwan government site and it’s almost guaranteed to have been blocked . . .

This strikes me as a rather amusing juxtaposition of statements.

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly *
**
The only reason that Taiwan hasn’t given up all claim to the mainland is that doing so would be tantamount to declaring independence.

Formally speaking, you’re right. But Taiwan government officials did quietly stop making the claim to be “the” Chinese government in public statements sometime late in the Lee administration, and Chen has continued the policy. That clearly has to be part of the general cross-straits rapprochement over the last decade or so.

[colour_wolf]

*Originally posted by China Guy *
**
Taiwan still formally claims to be the rightful government of China but chooses to not pursue the claim at this time. **

Correct.

However, with regard to Mongolia, according to this article, Taiwan has

amended the Enforcement Rules of the Statute Governing the Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area The amendment means that Mongolia is no longer seen as part of the mainland area.

It’s not part of the mainland, so Taiwan’s jurisdiction does not extend to Mongolia now

You will notice, however(if you can access the link), that the editorial is not in favour of the change.

[China_Guy]

*Originally posted by colour wolf *
**

Correct.

However, with regard to Mongolia, according to this article, Taiwan has

It’s not part of the mainland, so Taiwan’s jurisdiction does not extend to Mongolia now

You will notice, however(if you can access the link), that the editorial is not in favour of the change. **

The link works and is quite interesting. Yep, certainly, the editorial thinks this is a bad move. What a coincidence as I was going to comment on a related matter and this article segues in nicely. Does this still mean that the Taiwanese government still assumes that at least Tibet is part of China? I am assuming yes.

Taiwan still has the official government Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission (MTAC) in existence, which has been the instrument used by the Republic of China to oversee Tibet and Mongolia since 1912. See this link http://www.sciencela.org/e_rocgov.htm for what I believe is the current Republic of China (Taiwan) Government Directory. This is the homepage for the MTAC http://www.mtac.gov.tw/ Here is some history on the MTAC http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/5397.html (this is a PRC site, so please point out inaccuracies). This body at least claimed to oversee the selection of the previous Panchen Lama and current Dalai Lama among other issues. [As an aside, I met several members of this commission in the late 1980¡¯s, and, if you can believe my word, they were almost rabid about how both Tibet and Mongolia were an integral part of China, and of course that the Republic of China in Taiwan was the legitimate government for all of China.] This would suggest that while Taiwan has *toned down * claims to being the legitimate government of China, it is still far from either formally or informally completely relinquishing all of those claims.

From the article cited by colour wolf: “Adding to this that Mongolia sent representatives to participate in the creation of the Constitution, there is no doubt that Mongolia is part of ROC territory.”

Sophomoric humor aside, is it necessary to point out the absolute ** irony** of Taiwan arguing for de facto and de jeure independence from China while at the same time still perpetuating the official government view that the Tibet and Mongolia (until just this month?) are an inalienable part of (the Republic of ) China. Tibet certainly is a cause celebre on US college campuses. Perhaps Pudd’ntane, as a student in the US, would like to comment on this? And please, we are not discussing China¡¯s views on Tibet and Mongolia, since that is not germane to this current issue of Taiwanese sovereignty. Happy to do that in another thread.

When also did Taiwan essentially dismantle the Taiwan provincial government? IIRC it was around 1993? For those that didn¡¯t know, the Republic of China in Taiwan had a national legislature that represented all of Mainland China, as well as a separate Taiwan Provincial government that governed the province of Taiwan. There was/is a separate Fukian (Fujian) Provincial government responsible for the islands of Quemoy and Matsu and theoretically responsible for the management of Fujian Province. The Taiwan Provincial government was dismanted and some wags would say that was part of a power play by then President Lee Teng-hui to reduce the power base of James Soong (the last leading political figure of the Chiang-Soong dynasty, pretender to the throne and contender for the 1999 presidential election.). Nonetheless, at least through the dismantling of this provincial body, Taiwan formally claimed sovereignty over China and still through the MTAC formally claims some sort of sovereignty over Tibet and both Inner and Outer Mongolia.

I¡¯ve got two points. One, de facto and de jeure arguments are not black and white. Two, Taiwan is having ¡°trouble¡± with the de jeure arguments, and that ¡°trouble¡± is at least partially of their own making.