Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[CougarKing]

I cannot recall any other place, and I travelled a lot in 65+ years, that celebrates humiliation quite the way China does. The ‘century of humiliation’ is taught in schools, displayed in museums and in shows and so on. There is a national humiliation day but the Chinese had to fight over  which humiliation was worst.

The points, as CougarDaddy notes are:

• Provide a low baseline against which the accomplishments of the CCP can be measured; and

• Instil a sense of anti-foreign grievance that was used to persuade Chinese that they didn’t want what the evil Westerners had and now is used to convince Chinese to work harder to make and get more of whatever the evil Westerners have.

It works.

The baseline is intentionally low. Note that I am not praising the party, but only pointing out how it is perceived; of course if one has a much higher baseline and takes into account things like standard of living, human rights, and so forth its record would be abysmal.

On another note, I am surprised this next incident has not been posted yet here: a mainland Chinese official Zhang Ming Qing (張銘清) in Taiwan got roughed up last week by angry Taiwanese locals.

Mr, Campbell,

In spite of your mentioning that you have discussed with Chinese academics (whom I assume to be da lu ren or mainlanders or at the very least even ardent Taiwan waishengren who are more than eager to reunite with the mainland), I infer that your agreeing that Taiwan is part of China is in part based on what they say. I met the same reception/opinion when I was in one of Pan Wei's classes; they are all of the same opinion that Taiwan will one day go back to the mainland. I think you have to look at another perspective of the equation to get a fuller picture of the situation; there is some simmering benshengren resentment just below the surface in Taiwan, and it is more than just what the MSM of both Taiwan and Western media seem to want to portray:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/asia/la-fg-taiwan22-2008oct22,0,6777951.story

Reported from Beijing -- China condemned an assault on one of its envoys by an angry crowd in Taiwan on Tuesday, an attack that came as the two longtime adversaries are trying to ease decades of tension.

Taiwanese television showed Zhang Mingqing, vice chairman of a mainland association handling cross-strait relations, lying on the ground beside his eyeglasses. Other footage showed an elderly woman hitting his car window with her cane and a pro-independence activist with a green headband stomping on the roof of the car.

That followed an incident Monday in which about 200 demonstrators yelled, cursed and heckled Zhang as he took the podium at Tainan National University of the Arts. Zhang was in Taiwan for an academic symposium, ostensibly in a nonofficial capacity. Taiwan and China often communicate through unofficial channels, given their strained relations.

Analysts said both sides have an interest in preventing public anger from raging out of control as they work to reduce tensions and boost transportation, cultural and business links.

"I strongly condemn the violence," P.K. Chiang, Taiwan's top negotiator on cross-strait policy, said at a news conference Tuesday. "We want people to be more rational when others come from mainland China."


Beijing, however, was not soothed. The official New China News Agency condemned the incident, quoting a protest letter from Zhang's semiofficial group, the Assn. for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits.

"We are astonished at this," it said. And a spokesman for China's Taiwan Affairs Office called for "severe punishment" for those involved.

China and Taiwan are scheduled to hold talks in the next few weeks on improving relations. They will be closely watched, and Chen Yunlin, chairman of the association, will head the Chinese side.

China views Taiwan as part of its territory. The two sides parted ways in 1949 after an extended civil war.

In recent months, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou has made improved relations a cornerstone of his administration, although the island remains politically divided.

Much of the anti-China anger in Taiwan comes from supporters of the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party, which until May presided over eight contentious years under the leadership of then-President Chen Shui-bian.

"It's pathetic to see how divided Taiwan is," said George Tsai, a professor at National Chengchi University in Taipei, the capital.

"Violence is wrong and must be condemned," he said. "It's not in anyone's interest if China and Taiwan go back to confrontation."

Opposition leader Tsai Ing-wen expressed regret over Zhang's harassment in an article in the Liberty Times. But she said China's negotiators should think twice before coming to Taiwan for further talks since "you should consider their feelings when visiting."

The attack on Zhang points to deep underlying tensions in Taiwan, said Lo Chih-cheng, a former official research director in Chen's administration, arguing that the new president is moving too fast.

"This has to do with the speed and scope of Ma Ying-jeou's opening to China," he said. "It generates concern among people, particularly in the south."

Zhang cut short his trip. "Why am I leaving early?" he said to reporters before his flight this morning. "The place where I was hurt is sore, and my head is a bit dizzy."

Many Taiwanese expressed concern about the attack.

"Regardless of what position [Zhang] holds, he's still our guest," said Hsu Hsi-tsun, a Taipei commercial driver. "We should arrest those people and convict them. This is bad for Taiwan's image."

The media on both sides of the Taiwan Strait played up the confrontation. Television stations on the island aired a continual loop of Zhang being jostled by protesters at the Confucius Temple in Tainan. "Zhang beaten, pushed to the ground," read a headline in the United Evening News.

One Taiwanese website, called Spicy News, suggested that Zhang wasn't pushed and that his tumble was planned to test the island's reaction.

China reported on the incident on the official wire service and major Web portals.

"I can't contain myself anymore," read an Internet posting by a writer identified as Gangan on the discussion group Tianyu. "Let the Taiwanese who work in China go back!"

The incident occurred as plans were unveiled to allow direct commercial flights between Taiwan and China starting next month, a move that will save 90 minutes and significant fuel and spur fare reductions. Planes now must pass through Hong Kong airspace.

Special correspondent Cindy Sui in Taipei contributed to this report.

Magnier is a Times staff writer.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a column by Jeffrey Simpson that is worth considering:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081028.wcosimp29/BNStory/specialComment

Ottawa should hit the restart button on relations with China

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
October 29, 2008 at 3:25 AM EDT

TORONTO — The gap between civil society and the Harper government over Canada's relations with China yawns wider than ever.

The Harper government can't seem to understand China's importance. The Prime Minister hasn't been there, nor have the Chinese sent a very high official to Canada. Instead, a group of premiers who form part of the Council of the Federation are heading to China this week to join Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who is already there.

It's a sad commentary when normally parochial premiers are in front of the federal government in working on relations with China. It's one thing for the Harper government to be so bereft of talent in foreign affairs that no obvious candidate for that portfolio exists; it's another thing for the government to let premiers frame relations with another country, especially one as important as China. If this is the Harper government's idea of “open federalism,” kill it now before it spreads.

Monday night, a sampling of civic society in the form of about 500 people gathered in Toronto at the Royal Ontario Museum for a fundraising dinner organized by the Canadian International Council (CIC). The dinner followed a two-day conference about China and was capped by the award of Globalist of the Year to a distinguished Chinese official, Cheng Siwei. The council is the brainchild of Research in Motion's brilliant co-founder Jim Balsillie, who understands the importance of deepening Canada's understanding of the world. Mr. Balsillie has helped finance the new council and the excellent Centre for International Governance Innovation in Waterloo, Ont.

Mr. Balsillie laid it on the line, with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty seated at the head table: “We need to hit the restart button on Canada-Chinese relations.” The audience agreed, applauding Mr. Balsillie's observation.

Mr. Harper said late in the election campaign that, yes, maybe he would like to visit China. A few of his ministers have been there, but the one who seemed to understand China's importance, foreign affairs minister David Emerson, did not seek re-election. (In fairness, the government has opened new trade-promotion offices in China.)

During the opening ceremony of the summer Olympics in Beijing, Mr. Harper's absence was noted on Chinese television. When Canada's deputy minister of foreign affairs went to Beijing, nobody of importance in the Chinese hierarchy would see him.

It seems obvious to just about everybody in the business and academic worlds that you don't have to like China's regime, or admire its human rights record, but you do have to deal seriously with the emerging economic superpower. A Canadian-inspired idea will make this evident Nov. 15 in Washington when leaders of 20 countries, including China, gather to discuss the global economic crisis. Canada, under prime minister Paul Martin, pushed hard for a G20, but the idea was predictably pooh-poohed by the big European countries and the U.S.

They have now accepted the idea, because it's obvious that China and other major players cannot be excluded from debating major questions, given their economic clout. In China's case, it is the principal foreign banker to the over-consuming, indebted and underproducing Americans.

The Harper government, completely inexperienced in foreign policy upon arriving in office, had no idea how to engage China, except by focusing on a few high-profile human-rights cases. The government seemed to believe that Canada mattered a lot to China whereas, in fact, Canada does not.

It was all very touching at the Toronto dinner to hear yet again about Norman Bethune and his medical work in China during the Maoist revolution. But if the memory of Dr. Bethune is the best Canada can do by way of linking itself to today's China, that fading link inferentially tells a story of today's neglect.

The Harper government made one of those partisan assumptions that because the previous Liberal government had “done” China, it would “do” India, a classic case of refusing to give a preceding government credit for doing something right.

Alas, the Harper government hasn't done India very well. What's happened, therefore, is that relations with India have not gone far, while those with China have gone backward.

Mr. Balsillie said it best: Push the “restart button.”

Simpson is partially right: Harper’s Conservatives are “doing India” because the evil Grits “did China,” but the problem is, also, that Harper is, intentionally, appealing to the Canadian branch of the (sadly quite large) Lou Dobbs lunatic fringe that sees reds under the beds, again.

Jim Balsillie is quite right: it is time to press the restart button with China. This does not mean hat we should move away from India, quite he contrary, we ought to be able to walk and chew gum by dealing with both files – and America and Europe, and, and, and ... – simultaneously. China is not a friend but nor is it an enemy. It is a major power and an important trading partner – more important than e.g. France or Germany or both together with Portugal and Ireland and a half-dozen others thrown in.

 

[Edward Campbell]

... Mr, Campbell,

In spite of your mentioning that you have discussed with Chinese academics (whom I assume to be da lu ren or mainlanders or at the very least even ardent Taiwan waishengren who are more than eager to reunite with the mainland), I infer that your agreeing that Taiwan is part of China is in part based on what they say. I met the same reception/opinion when I was in one of Pan Wei's classes; they are all of the same opinion that Taiwan will one day go back to the mainland. I think you have to look at another perspective of the equation to get a fuller picture of the situation; there is some simmering benshengren resentment just below the surface in Taiwan, and it is more than just what the MSM of both Taiwan and Western media seem to want to portray:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/asia/la-fg-taiwan22-2008oct22,0,6777951.story

I agree there is another perspective, I just don't think it matters very much.

I have never been to Taiwan and I have only discussed politics with a very, very few Taiwanese expats (enough to count on one hand with a finger or two left over) but I remain convinced that:

• China's claim to Taiwan is valid;

• The Taiwanese political elites are committed to eventual reintegration - many Taiwanese, especially indigenous people, might differ;

• The US is committed to eventual reintegration; and

• China and the majority of the Chinese people demand reintegration - but they are not worried about the time line. What China cannot and will not tolerate is any Taiwanese move away from an explicit commitment to reintegration.

 

[tomahawk6]

The PRC is and should be a trading partner.They should not be your only trade partner because there may come a time when they could become your enemy.Last time I looked the PRC IS a communist country whose ideology is in conflict with our own way of life. The reds under the bed are the worst kind - those that are at home working to change our society from the inside. The bold ones still call themselves communists but most prefer to be called socialist.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...Last time I looked the PRC IS a communist country whose ideology is in conflict with our own way of life. The reds under the bed are the worst kind - those that are at home working to change our society from the inside. The bold ones still call themselves communists but most prefer to be called socialist.

China is not a communist country and the overwhelming majority of Chinese with whom I have spoken are eternally grateful for that. The Chinese are not, culturally or philosophically, even socialist - they might be the world's most natural capitalistic entrepreneurs.

The Communist Party of China is not communist, either - except in name. It is just another dynasty; one that appeared after a slightly longer than average interregnum that included 30 years of a disastrous communist experiment - as dynasties have been appearing and disappearing for nearly 3,000 years.

For the time being the capitalistic CPC has an implicit mandate from the Chinese people. Eventually that mandate will be withdrawn; the Chinese hope the subsequent interregnum will be very short. The ones I know crave a Western style orderly and peaceful change of regimes, à la Taiwan.

 

[tomahawk6]

Well I for one take them at face value. The Communist Party exists and has some 73.36 million members. To be sure its a totalitarian system with its prison camps,block wardens,informants,secret police but they do have capitalism of a sort.The economic system has been relaxed but the Party remains in charge and for the foreseable future.Only party members get a shot at the good jobs just as was the case in Nazi Germany or the USSR.It remains the ultimate insiders club.

 

[Edward Campbell]

... Only party members get a shot at the good jobs just as was the case in Nazi Germany or the USSR.It remains the ultimate insiders club.

That was true 25 years ago, but, as I mentioned a few weeks back, some people are turning down Party membership offers because they (the memberships) are no longer very useful unless one wants to be a civil servant or politician.

Twenty-five years ago a parent’s Party membership might help a really bright youngster get into one of China’s top universities – now one can be the president of that top university (more exclusive than Harvard) or CEO of a major technology company without being a Party member.

I read, some weeks/months ago (I’m too lazy to go find the article) that the winning candidate(s) in one (some?) local (mayoral) election(s) was (were) not Party members.

China is changing. But it is a big, complex, diverse country and change is slow, sporadic and sometimes goes in unexpected and unplanned directions.

 

[tomahawk6]

Yet in the countryside nothing has changed.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Actually, it has. Deep, deep in the countryside I saw/experienced ”old China” but with satellite TV and cell phones.* People in the countryside now have 24/7 ‘access’ to the whole country and, within limits, the world. They see and hear primarily, but not exclusively, what the Communist Party wants them to see and hear. But: there is considerable ‘leakage’ of news and opinion on the dozen or so TV channels available in remote farmsteads.

Perhaps the most profound political changes are being made in the ‘countryside.’ It is there, not in towns and especially not in cities, that the Chinese are experimenting with real democracy. There were, in the recent past (several times since 1998), pretty free and, as far as I have heard, fair elections for local governments in smaller towns and rural districts. (There are ‘elections’ for some offices in big cities but I think they are all rigged.)

Of course, local democracy is designed, in part, to shift the blame for inept central administration to local, elected people. But, I think the rural folk are smart enough to see through that ruse.


--------------------
* In fact, in one place I visited when I commented on this I was made to “sing for my summer” by repeating a very, very old essay on ‘Rural Electrification in Canada’ to explain why I saw parallels in Canada circa 1930 and China circa 2005.

 

[Kirkhill]

But Edward, isn't that how China ended up with "the Century of Humiliation"?  Local interests ignored the Beijing/Peking Dynasty and made their own accomodations with foreign devils?

You argue that China is not Communist and that the Centre (Dynasts) are Communist in name only.  Yet it is not the countryside that is our problem.  It is the Centre, with the levers (and dare I say switches) it has to hand that it our problem.

The Centre seems to be working overtime to ensure that the countryside stays where they are, far away from the switches and levers.  And yet you seem to be relying on the countryside (periphery) to exert a balancing influence on the Centre.

Am I misreading you that badly?

Also, I think I find myself siding with CougarDaddy on the Taiwan issue.  The Taiwanese elites - would it not be fairer to describe them as Aristocratic Refugees?  Much after the fashion of White Russians in Paris after the Revolution (although the French never allowed them to develop into a political force).

 

[Edward Campbell]

But Edward, isn't that how China ended up with "the Century of Humiliation"?  Local interests ignored the Beijing/Peking Dynasty and made their own accomodations with foreign devils?

You argue that China is not Communist and that the Centre (Dynasts) are Communist in name only.   Yet it is not the countryside that is our problem.  It is the Centre, with the levers (and dare I say switches) it has to hand that it our problem.

The Centre seems to be working overtime to ensure that the countryside stays where they are, far away from the switches and levers.  And yet you seem to be relying on the countryside (periphery) to exert a balancing influence on the Centre.

Am I misreading you that badly?

Also, I think I find myself siding with CougarDaddy on the Taiwan issue.  The Taiwanese elites - would it not be fairer to describe them as Aristocratic Refugees?  Much after the fashion of White Russians in Paris after the Revolution (although the French never allowed them to develop into a political force).

Clearly, I’m not being clear.

???


The ‘centre,’ the Red Dynasty, is experimenting with local democracy and with several other ‘solutions’ to some of China’s most vexing problems: especially corruption and nepotism.

The centre is not philosophically democratic but it is not unalterably opposed to democracy, per se, so long as the dynasty’s ‘mandate’ is respected. If I’m correct, the thinking in the ‘centre’ is that the Party can build a sustain a constantly evolving honest meritocracy to manage the country so that participatory democracy will be unnecessary, even undesirable, at the national and provincial levels. Democracy may be more desirable at local levels because even the ‘centre’ understands that its ‘mandate’ can only be managed on a limited scale and the tens of thousands of local governments, each with its own problems and solutions, simply defy central management. The local people, it is thought, are best able to identify and select people of merit to manage their local affairs - without too much corruption. Eventually, the process of identifying meritorious people may be more open, more democratic.

The relationship of Paris to the provincials is analogous to the relationship of the ‘centres’ (in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Chongqing) and the regions in China. China is governed run – like a business - from the ‘centres’ and the locals are expected and expect to respond to the centres’ management.

But the ‘centres’ want the ever shrinking countryside to grow (or, at least, stabilize) and prosper – and that means they want the countryside to modernize: to become productive and prosperous – only then will the countryside no longer be a source of discontented people who might become radicals and rebels.

Over 550 Million of China’s 1.3 Billon people live in fairly medium (> 1.5 Million), large (> 5 Million) and giant (> 15 Million) cities; that means 800 Million – as many people as in America and Europe combined - live in small cities, towns, villages and farmsteads. They and their prosperity must be on the minds of the ‘leadership’ in the dynasty. Not all of the ½ Billion in the big cities are rich, either – but they, like their confreres in he country are much, much better informed than any Chinese in history have ever been and their discontent must be kept at a low level. This is, I think the constant preoccupation of the upper classes.

Finally: we can all agree to disagree on Taiwan.

 

[CougarKing]

The Taiwanese elites - would it not be fairer to describe them as Aristocratic Refugees?  Much after the fashion of White Russians in Paris after the Revolution (although the French never allowed them to develop into a political force).

Those are the waishengren (外省人) of Taiwan, though I wouldn't go as far as to call most of them "aristocratic" in the White Russian sense. They did include the bankers, the landholders, the rich businessmen (the Soong Family), the remnants of the scholar-official/進士 class and of course the Guominjun's best remaining soldiers and officials of the disgraced Guomindang who sought to follow Chiang Kai Shek to his island bastion. Even a generation later, many of them and their offspring still consider themselves more mainlander than Taiwanese and thus this helps explain why the GMD and the CCP have been concialiatory recently, with such top GMD leaders as Lien Chan even going to mainland China to meet PRC President Hu, IIRC.


But as recent history as has shown, the native Taiwanese or benshengren(本省人) have begun to enter into positions of power (where in the past the best Guomindang postions were often reserved for waishengren), with Lee Tung Hui and even Chen Shui Bian as prime examples of benshengren who have achieved the highest office in the ROC government. In contrast the current President Ma, is technically a waishengren since he is Hong Kong-born.

 

[Kirkhill]

Clearly, I’m not being clear.


.....
Finally: we can all agree to disagree on Taiwan.

Actually you are much clearer now.  Although I still think there is room for T6's scepticism over the Centre's motives - especially given that the Centre is itself a prize to be squabbled over and not an entity.  That is especially true, IMHO in a  society with deep hierarchical, authoritarian traditions.  There is a demonstrated willingness to accept the man on the white horse.  And I think that is ultimately what concerns me about any community - a willingness to suspend individual thought and play follow the leader.

I understand your realpolitik balancing act the Centre must play with the Regions and the rural.  But that white horse thing keeps getting in my way.....

And as far as agreeing to disagree on Taiwan, I think that is pretty much where most of the world is at today.

Cheers, Chris.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I’m not sure the “man on a white horse” is all that common in China.

He’s always there, of course, striking the fatal blow when a dynasty dies – loses the ‘mandate of heaven’ or, today, the ‘mandate of the people.’  Another one pops up to end the interregnum and start a new dynasty – e.g. Deng Xiaoping in 1980.

(Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong preside over a 70 years long interregnum.)

Since then we’ve had “men in grey flannel suits” like Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. I don’t want to suggest for even a µsecond that the competition to get to the top of the Party is anything but brutal and intense in the extreme, but these people, while being well beyond apparatchiks, are members of a new managerial class - they are anything but “men on white horses.”

While Hu Jintao has immense power – his finger is on all those switches, after all – he is also immensely constrained by the checks and balances provided by the Party apparatus, especially within the Political Bureau and the Military Committee. To the degree that there are “white horses” they are being ridden there – inside the Party’s backrooms.

But, I think, that the whole Party apparatus is focused on one thing: keeping “old hundred names” (lao bai xing 老百姓) – the ordinary folk – happy or, at least, contented, and the last thing the ordinary folk want is turmoil and upset (70 years was enough!) so a “man on a white horse” will, likely, be most unwelcome.

 

[Kirkhill]

And, in that case, long may it remain so.

 

[tomahawk6]

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/10/25/2003426904

War game prepares US forces for next threat

By Richard Halloran

Saturday, Oct 25, 2008, Page 8
In a war game called “Pacific Vision” run by the US Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) in Hawaii, aviators concluded that US air power would defeat a “near-peer competitor” in the Asia-Pacific region over the next seven years — provided a strategy of dispersal is adopted and certain investments are made.

For “near-peer competitor,” read China. But Air Force officers said that the adversary could also be a resurgent Russia. In any case, the war game was intended not only to test strategy but also to deter others from miscalculating US power and intentions.

General Carroll Chandler, who commands PACAF, said in an interview: “I asked them to look at what we think we need to carry out our mission, particularly when we have finite resources.” A staff officer said the general, in effect, “asked us to tell him where he should spend his next dollar.”

Meanwhile, the publication Defense News reported on a RAND study that suggested “US air power in the Pacific would be inadequate to thwart a Chinese attack on Taiwan in 2020.”

Among the conclusions drawn from the war game were:

Dispersal: Before hostilities begin, US fighters, bombers and aerial tankers should be dispersed to bases along an arc anchored in Alaska and wending south through Japan, South Korea and Guam and on to Southeast Asia and Australia. Said one officer: “This would complicate targeting for an adversary.”

Access: The US should intensify efforts to cultivate nations along that arc, including treaty allies, to ensure access to bases there and the freedom to operate in the event of hostilities.

Hardening: Aircraft hangers, command posts, electrical plants, ammunition depots and supply warehouses should be hardened to withstand attack, particularly from missiles rapidly being acquired or developed by China.

Repair: Crews and equipment to repair damaged bases should be trained and positioned so they can move quickly to bases where needed. Airfield runways, for instance, would need to be repaired quickly after an attack.

Tankers: The age of the Air Force’s tankers was documented. Because of distances in the Pacific, more tankers would be needed to defend the region than were needed in Europe to deter the former Soviet Union.

Stealth: Advantages of stealth technology that permits B-2 bombers and F-22 fighters to evade radar detection were validated. “We are sure that we can shoot them before they can see us,” a staff officer said.

Communications: The war game underscored the vulnerability of communications because the Air Force relies on unprotected commercial channels. Moreover, China destroyed an inactive satellite last year with an anti-satellite missile.

Integration: Aircraft carriers and submarines armed with cruise missiles would need to be dispersed like land-based aircraft. The Navy was represented in the war game but work was needed to integrate war plans.

Intelligence: The need for Global Hawk, an unmanned reconnaissance plane that can fly great distances, covering 100,000km² a day in all weather, was confirmed. The first of three Global Hawks will be sent to Guam next year.

Cyber Warfare: Officials discovered that the US is lagging in cyber warfare, from jamming radar to attacking computer networks as well as protecting radar and computers. China has emphasized cyber operations.

Control: The Air Operations Center in the 13th Air Force has been running for two years. PACAF and the 13th Air Force would fight an aerial war in the region through the center, which must improve controls over widely dispersed forces.

PACAF plans to apply these lessons. One officer said: “We’ve maintained a long period of peace because we continually prepare for war. That’s what Pacific Vision was all about.”

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is some interesting news from Taiwan:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=925445

Taiwan ready to open doors wider to China
Island to change investment rules radically

Duncan Mavin, Financial Post

Published: Saturday, November 01, 2008

HONG KONG - The Taiwanese government is expected to announce dramatic rule changes that will allow Chinese investment in the island, opening the door for China's institutional funds and wealthy investors.

The Chinese capital will be well-received by Taiwanese businesses, who hope the infusion will give a boost to the island's sluggish economy.

But the new rules, which could be unveiled as early as Monday, will likely face opposition from anti-China groups in Taiwan who fear the mainland's growing influence on the island.

"There's a lot of anticipation on the part of the Taiwanese business community," said Joseph Cheng, professor of political science at City University of Hong Kong. "Even before the financial tsunami, Taiwan's economy was not doing well and investment from China is very welcome."

Unemployment in Taiwan has risen to its highest level in three years and consumer confidence is at a record low as the island recovers from the bursting of a credit bubble that hit the economy hard in 2005. GDP growth has also been in decline all year and the country's export-driven economy is expected to contract further in a global slowdown.

"The bottom line is that Taiwan's growth will slow significantly from a global demand shock," said UBS analyst Sean Yokota.

The island's economic difficulties helped Ma Ying-jeou to a landslide presidential election victory in May, won on a platform of building better ties with China to improve the island's flagging economy. A cornerstone of the campaign was a pledge to open Taiwan to Chinese investment. Several deadlines for an announcement on the new rules have passed, with government officials citing unresolved issues. Sources said the much-anticipated investment guidelines, which are likely to be similar to existing regulations on foreign investment in Taiwan, could be announced next week.

China's top Taiwan negotiator, Chen Yunlin, and his Taiwanese counterpart, P. K. Chiang, are holding a series of meetings on the island starting on Monday. At the same time, a vice-governor from China's central bank will lead a delegation from China's top 10 commercial banks to the island to explore investment opportunities, according to reports in Taiwanese media.

Chinese investment in Taiwan has been on the agenda for a while, and is not as controversial as it seems, Prof. Cheng said. But he added there are concerns among some that Chinese investors could get access to the secrets of Taiwan's prized high-tech sector, as well as fears that Chinese state-owned funds could end up with significant influence over Taiwanese media companies and other politically sensitive sectors.

Indeed, despite the election victory of President Ma and his pro-China platform, Taiwanese opinion on China remains divided. Last weekend saw hundreds of thousands of anti-China protestors take to the streets of Taipei -- some estimates suggest as many as 600,000 people -- the biggest demonstration against Beijing since President Ma took office. A week earlier, a Chinese official on a visit to southern Taiwan was pushed to the ground by a group of protesters who reportedly shouted "Taiwan does not belong to China."

Trade and travel between China and Taiwan have been severely restricted since the two sides split in 1949 following a civil war. But, since taking office, President Ma has proceeded with a slew of policy changes to improve relations.

The new rules on Chinese investment in Taiwan will likely govern a wide range of investors, including China's powerful banks and China Investment Corp., the US$200-billion investment arm of the Chinese government.

The rules are likely to allow Chinese companies to set up subsidiaries in Taiwan and permit Chinese investors to buy shares in a wide range of businesses, including finance, shipping and telecommunications.

dmavin@nationalpost.com

This will be a major step away from threats of war and invasion - assuming it happens.

 

[CougarKing]

And the on-going cross-strait dialogue continues.  With its critics and opponents on both sides.

Agence France-Presse - 11/3/2008 7:02 AM GMT
China's envoy arrives in Taiwan for historic talks
The most senior Chinese official to visit Taiwan since the end of a civil war 60 years ago said Monday that historic talks to take place this week are the only way to build trust between the arch rivals.

Chen Yunlin arrived in Taipei on a charter flight from Beijing for talks on strengthening economic ties, even as supporters of independence for the island staged demonstrations and planned mass rallies against his visit.

He landed amid tight security at Taiwan's international airport just before midday (0400 GMT) for a five-day visit during which he will meet his Taiwanese counterparts, as well as the island's President Ma Ying-jeou.

In a sign of warming ties, Chen, head of China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS), was accompanied by a delegation of more than 60 officials and business leaders.

Chen waved to waiting reporters as he descended from his plane to be met by Kao Koong-lian, the vice chairman of Taiwan's Straits Exchange Foundation, the local equivalent of ARATS.

After arriving at Taipei's Grand Hotel, he told a brief welcoming ceremony the talks were a "milestone" in cross-strait relations.

"Peaceful development is the wish for both sides. Communication will promote mutual trust and cooperation will lead to a win-win situation," Chen said.

The talks would benefit both sides, he said, adding they would "not cover political issues".

This week's meetings aim to build on talks held in Beijing in June, the first direct dialogue� between the two sides after a 10-year gap, which led to the launch of regular direct flights across the Taiwan Strait and measures to boost tourism.

Chen confirmed agreements would be signed on direct passenger and cargo flights and shipping links, direct postal services, and food safety issues.

Boosting tourism would be also be discussed, Chen said. The June talks reached a daily quota of 3,000 Chinese tourists to Taiwan, but China still restricts travel to Taiwan by its citizens.

The two sides would "exchange views" on how to deal with the impact of the current global financial problems, he said, without further detail.

China and Taiwan have been split since 1949, when Mao Zedong's Communists vanquished the nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) who fled across the strait to the island.

Beijing still claims sovereignty over the island of 23 million, and has vowed to retake it, by force if necessary.

Officials say more than 7,000 police have been deployed to ensure Chen's safety, after his deputy Zhang Mingqing was jostled and knocked to the ground by anti-China protesters during a visit to Taiwan last month.

The envoys will also hold a joint press conference on exchanges of endangered species, with China making good on a 2005 offer to the island's main zoo of two giant pandas.

Chen's presence here has become a flashpoint for anti-China protesters who fear closer ties could erode the island's sovereignty, although analysts have pointed to the economic benefits they would bring.
Protesters outside his hotel unfurled banners reading: "The communists are coming."

They scuffled with police as they tried to release coloured balloons, on which were written slogans about tainted Chinese food products.

Taiwan is among many countries and territories to ban Chinese dairy products after they were found to contain an industrial chemical, melamine, which has sickened thousands of children in China, in a few cases fatally.

"I don't trust the Ma government," said a protester in her 60s, referring to the president's policy of moving the island closer to China.

"I think it is going to sell out Taiwan to China," she said.

Supporters of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party plan to stage large demonstrations throughout Chen's stay. Some anti-China groups have even offered cash rewards to protesters who throw eggs at Chen, with a direct hit to his face worth 1,000 Taiwan dollars (30 US).

http://news.ph.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1765415

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a ‘good news’ story:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081104.wchinataiwan1104/BNStory/International/home

China, Taiwan sign historic trade pact

DEBBY WU

Associated Press
November 4, 2008 at 6:00 AM EST

TAIPEI, TAIWAN — Setting aside decades of animosity, Taiwan and China on Tuesday agreed to expand passenger and cargo flights and allow shipping links across the Taiwan Strait, an area that has long threatened to become a war zone.

The historic deal highlighted the dramatic improvement in relations in the past half year between the rivals that split amid a bloody civil war in 1949. They agreed Tuesday to hold high-level talks every six months and focus on building closer financial ties in the next round of meetings.

After signing the pact, Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin smiled and shook hands with his Taiwanese counterpart, Chiang Pin-kung. They sipped champagne and held up two lines of framed calligraphy that said, “Peaceful negotiation creates a win-win situation.”

For nearly six decades, Taiwan banned direct flights and shipping with China, fearing China might attack with bombers and warships disguised as civilian vessels.

But the rivals began relaxing restrictions on flights in July when their envoys met in Beijing. They signed a confidence-building deal then that allowed 36 weekly flights from five mainland cities.

Tuesday's agreement, which becomes effective in 40 days, more than tripled the number of weekly flights to 108 and allows planes to take off from a total of 21 cities. Under the deal, cargo planes can also begin flying the route, with 60 allowed each month.

In the past, cargo ships had to sail to the Japanese island of Okinawa before going to the other side. Tuesday's agreement allows them to sail directly across the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait.

“The direct shipping will finally help Taiwan become a transport hub in Asia and better explore the mainland market,” Mr. Chiang told reporters after the meeting. “With each cruise they won't have to go to Okinawa and they save about 16 hours and cut costs by between 15 and 30 per cent.”

A Chinese official, Zheng Lizhong, said the air links will save the airlines about $60-million (U.S.) a year. He said the direct shipping links will trim their costs by $30-million annually.

Mr. Chiang said the two sides would seek an agreement that allows banks to set up branches on each side. They would also set up agencies that would help resolve trade disputes, he said.

The agreement also includes measures for greater co-operation on food safety. The deal allows faster recalls of unsafe products and better exchange of information.

The drastic warming in relations began after Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou was elected in March, pledging to ease military tensions and forge closer economic ties with China.

Mr. Ma's predecessor, Chen Shui-bian, was vilified and shunned by Beijing because he leaned toward independence. His eight years in office were also marred by policy blunders and corruption. China has repeatedly warned that Taiwan has two choices: eventual unification or a devastating attack.

Mr. Ma's Nationalist Party has long supported eventual unification with China, a policy that has helped the new president win Beijing's trust. But Mr. Ma himself has promised not to pursue unification talks or move the island toward independence.

This is ‘good news’ not because it serves the interests of China (or Taiwan, for that matter) but, rather, because it reduces tensions and, therefore, the probability of an unnecessary and potentially destructive conflict in the region.

 

[CougarKing]

An even more interesting question is what will happen to the ROC military/the Guo Min Jun/國民軍 if and when the ROC does reunify or at least become an autonomous province within one country two systems?

It will be very hard for the ROC military, which has mostly Western European traditions and some US influences, to be absorbed into the PLA(Jie Fang Jun) which many outsiders view as yet another former East Bloc-like military. Interestingly, 2 Russians did have a part in its creation when Chiang was still teaching and mobilizing his troops at Wei Fu/Whampoa Military Academy in the 1920s, before Chiang started relying on German Wehrmact advisors from the mid-30s onward and then US advisors like US Army General "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell and General Claire Chennault with the US entry into World War II.