do the Chinese really have a territorial right to own Taiwan?

[ralfy]

Everything about capitalism seems to be on a knife edge, one thing goes wrong and it sets off the house of cards falling.

China seems to want to change that, moving more towards "socialism with Chinese characteristics", the problem is that the way the Chinese govt works, it'll just end up either in disaster or going back to another DengXiaoPing having to reform everything and go back to Capitalism.

I think it's more like capitalism with Chinese characteristics. Critics have been complaining about that since the 1980s. What they don't know is that it's actually nationalist economics similar to what Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and others did.

What you're probably referring to isn't "Capitalism" but U.S.-style neoliberalism. Countries that tried that, like the Philippines, didn't succeed. Even Russia and Ukraine fell apart when they did similar via "shock therapy" advised by U.S. economists.

 

[ralfy]

The US is controlled by more than just Wall Street. That's the difference. One person controls China, but multiple interests control the US. The Koch brothers (only one of the two is still alive) have had a big impact, Soros too, plus others, mostly keeping themselves behind the scenes.

Those "multiple interests" are essentially the rich aka Wall Street.

 

[ralfy]

The Chinese Government relocated to Taiwan after being ousted by foreign backed Communists. The Communists NEVER had legitimacy.

Hence Taiwan has the rightful Government of China.

Greg

Even the U.S. doesn't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state.

 

[ralfy]

China's claim to Taiwan is validated by the fact the West did not recognize the CCP for decades nor did they proclaim Taiwan as an independent and sovereign state.

FWIW, they have been engaged for decads in major trade and in all sorts of bilateral deals with what they're not supposed to recognize.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think it's more like capitalism with Chinese characteristics. Critics have been complaining about that since the 1980s. What they don't know is that it's actually nationalist economics similar to what Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and others did.

What you're probably referring to isn't "Capitalism" but U.S.-style neoliberalism. Countries that tried that, like the Philippines, didn't succeed. Even Russia and Ukraine fell apart when they did similar via "shock therapy" advised by U.S. economists.

Xi wants to move more towards Socialism, he seems to think that is what the Communist system wants. The Chinese people certainly don't want it, but when have they ever mattered?
He's got his pet project that is draining funds from everything else (except the military and internal security, of course) which is the new city being built in a swamp, just so he can make himself look like other leaders who made Shenzhen and other places successful... and it's going to be, apparently, a Socialist city, the govt will own all the apartments, you rent them, not buy, and maybe all the jobs are govt run, will probably be China's next Great Wall.
Some countries that try the US way often find that other things lead to its downfall. Corruption is worse, there's just not the right mentality....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Even the U.S. doesn't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state.

But provides it military weaponry. The reason it doesn't say "yes, you're a country" isn't because it doesn't consider it a separate country.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Those "multiple interests" are essentially the rich aka Wall Street.

Yes, no, yes, no. There's a lot of interconnectivity. I think think you're wrong for calling it "Wall Street", but get why you do.

 

[ralfy]

and there are also plenty of reasons as to why China's claim to Taiwan should not be honored.
for instance the fact that the CCP drove the Taiwanese onto the Island of Taiwan after WW2.

The Nationalists lost due to corruption. The West, which had been bullying China for decades before, recognized them only to counter Communist China. After the latter engaged in economic reform, they became more agreeable to the mainland. So did Taiwan which became pro-business and started engaging in trade with China, too.

Side note: it becomes more difficult when one looks at geographical claims. For example, the island of Taiwan was part of the former Spanish colony of the Philippines, together with Guam and Sabah.

Meanwhile, it turns out that the Chinese nine-dash line which claims most of the West Philippine Sea originated from Taiwan.

 

[ralfy]

Rubbish. Stalin supported Mao. Read your damned History!!! You also want me to "accept" the CCCP?? NEVER.....and 1990 proved me correct. There is NEVER a reason to accept COMMUNISM!!!!

Greg

From what I remember, China later went against the Soviet Union, supporting Maoism over Leninism. That's also why several Communists in the Asian region sided with China.

Later, the U.S. engaged in detente with China to counter the Soviet Union, and then ditched recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign state in favor of its new friend, and which is now one of its major trading partners as China ditched Communism but not the Party.

In the end, one begines to realize that beyond ideology is realpolitik. When money talks....

 

[ralfy]

In fact, China is already number one, with nearly 30% of all manufacturing globally being done in China. Taiwan isn't even in the Top 10 with less than 1% of global manufacturing.

Taiwan is the largest manufacturer of high end processors (7 and 10 nm) but Israel and the USA combined manufacture more of those than Taiwan.

I do believe, China doesn't exactly see this as a financial advantage. They will lose more trying to take back Taiwan than they would ever gain by the takeover.

For China, this is just part of a VERY long-term goal to take back all of it's former territories, they have succeeded peacefully with Hong Kong and Macau. Putting Taiwan back into China would, so to speak, put the family back together.

Also, I read that China manufactures a lot in terms of larger microchips, and is also leading in patents overall for all sorts of applications.

 

[ralfy]

Let China run things for a few decades... the rest of the world will beg us to come back ... and we will say ...

View attachment 780089

They will if China makes the same mistakes as the U.S.

But why the U.S.? Likely other members of BRICS and emerging markets will dominate.

 

[peacefan]

The Nationalists lost due to corruption. The West, which had been bullying China for decades before, recognized them only to counter Communist China. After the latter engaged in economic reform, they became more agreeable to the mainland. So did Taiwan which became pro-business and started engaging in trade with China, too.

Side note: it becomes more difficult when one looks at geographical claims. For example, the island of Taiwan was part of the former Spanish colony of the Philippines, together with Guam and Sabah.

Meanwhile, it turns out that the Chinese nine-dash line which claims most of the West Philippine Sea originated from Taiwan.

i don't support their claim to that 9-dash line. the natural resources and islands are the property of *every* country bordering that sea between Vietnam and the Phillipines.
heck, i will from now on even refuse to call it "the south china sea".
and i dislike all major governments right now. lab-leaks (due to tight budgets and corruption? or just plainly to attack one another?)... endless wars fostered by American and EU and UK unipolaristic attitudes. economies in shatters.

 

[ralfy]

It's the original name of the sea. The Philippines referred to a large portion of it as the West Philippine Sea because of EEZ rights. There are five claimants to the WPS:

Taiwan and China (almost all of it)
Malaysia
Vietnam
Brunei

The country with the most installations in the sea is Vietnam.

The Philippines sued China through private arbitration. China did not participate. Arbitration ruled that no country has any claims because no territories are involved, and that countries must negotiate with each other over its use. The ruling ironically goes against arbitration.

Taiwan was not part of arbitration but was mentioned in the ruling. It publicly declared that it also rejects the ruling.

The other three state that they want to negotiate with the Philippines but don't want to give up their claims. Many more countries, including the U.S., declared that they support the ruling but don't want to be involved.

The Philippines has been asking the U.S. for help since the 1990s but the U.S. has not. Later, Pompeo stated that the reason why they can't help is because no territories are involved, and even if conflict breaks out, help is not automatic because given the War Powers Act Congress has to deliberate and vote first to see if the U.S. will help.

Some have pointed out that the reason why these countries were setting up installations in the sea is because they consider the U.S. as a threat. That is, it may through economic sanctions close off the Taiwan strait and control the sea, and it was seen as increasingly aggressive because of Obama's pivot to Asia (after Bush's adventurism in the Middle East). Without a blue water Navy, what they did was to set up what are essentially unsinkable ships in the area.

The Philippines has the weakest military in the region because it was not supported readily by the U.S. It was given overpriced military surplus as aid in exchange for using the bases, and even today it can at best receive only decades-old ships.

However, the country is probably the most fanatic U.S. ally in the region. Multiple surveys across the decades show that the U.S. and U.S. Presidents from both parties have very high ratings in the Philippines, and in several cases higher ratings than in the U.S. itself. It's a weird situation because in the early 1900s, the U.S. committed mass murder in the islands when it took over from Spain.

The problem is that that fanaticism has been tempered by the rise of Duterte, the so-called "Trump of Asia" (although he probably claims, given his 80+ approval rating, that it's Trump who's the "Duterte of North America"), who followed a nationalist stance similar to that of Asian neighbors. He was followed by Marcos, Jr., whose father was backed by the U.S., which in turn backed the father's opponents, to maintain U.S. bases, and who's following a similar although more diplomatic stance.

Meanwhile, the top trading partner of the Philippines is China, where approval ratings are only 15 pct. Its main donor is Japan, which also committed mass murder in the country during WW2. And its main investors include Singapore (which has military exercises with China but buys armaments from the U.S.) and, believe it or not, the Netherlands. One of its arms sellers is now India. Sweden wants to sell it jets, France subs, and Israel small arms and armored vehicles. That's also the same France that's now criticizing the U.S. for muscling in on its submarine sales to Australia.

About Japan, what's also weird is that the main supporter of the Philippines is probably not even the U.S. but Japan, which has been the nicest to it. It also helped that Abe was very friendly to Duterte and vice versa. And yet Japan is generally disliked by China, Taiwan, and South Korea because of what happened during WW2.

It's also the same Japan that appears to be pushed by the U.S. to encourage the Philippines to join Australia to form a united force against China, the same Australia that was mentioned above and has China as a major trading partner.

It's similar to Vietnam, where two million were killed during the war. And yet U.S. approval ratings in the country are high even though the top trading partner (and bully) of Vietnam is China, and its military ally is Russia. And the country that's been pushing to sell arms to it is the U.S.

Finally, it's similar to Taiwan, which has both China and the U.S. has major trading partners but is recognized as neither as a sovereign state. Also, before it became pro-neoliberal, it had almost four decades of martial law administered by a nationalist but pro-business (meaning, it engaged in deals with China to avoid conflict) dictatorship. Also reminds me of Japan, which has been controlled by a Liberal Democratic Party for more than five decades and is not exactly liberal or democratic.

Anyway, if anyone is confused after reading this and sense that I'm rambling, the only thing I can say is the confusion is caused by the incredible levels of complexity and contradictions in that region.

 

[fncceo]

However, the country is probably the most fanatic U.S. ally in the region.

I guess they shouldn't have closed down all those American military bases, huh?

 

[peacefan]

It's the original name of the sea. The Philippines referred to a large portion of it as the West Philippine Sea because of EEZ rights. There are five claimants to the WPS:

Taiwan and China (almost all of it)
Malaysia
Vietnam
Brunei

The country with the most installations in the sea is Vietnam.

The Philippines sued China through private arbitration. China did not participate. Arbitration ruled that no country has any claims because no territories are involved, and that countries must negotiate with each other over its use. The ruling ironically goes against arbitration.

Taiwan was not part of arbitration but was mentioned in the ruling. It publicly declared that it also rejects the ruling.

The other three state that they want to negotiate with the Philippines but don't want to give up their claims. Many more countries, including the U.S., declared that they support the ruling but don't want to be involved.

The Philippines has been asking the U.S. for help since the 1990s but the U.S. has not. Later, Pompeo stated that the reason why they can't help is because no territories are involved, and even if conflict breaks out, help is not automatic because given the War Powers Act Congress has to deliberate and vote first to see if the U.S. will help.

Some have pointed out that the reason why these countries were setting up installations in the sea is because they consider the U.S. as a threat. That is, it may through economic sanctions close off the Taiwan strait and control the sea, and it was seen as increasingly aggressive because of Obama's pivot to Asia (after Bush's adventurism in the Middle East). Without a blue water Navy, what they did was to set up what are essentially unsinkable ships in the area.

The Philippines has the weakest military in the region because it was not supported readily by the U.S. It was given overpriced military surplus as aid in exchange for using the bases, and even today it can at best receive only decades-old ships.

However, the country is probably the most fanatic U.S. ally in the region. Multiple surveys across the decades show that the U.S. and U.S. Presidents from both parties have very high ratings in the Philippines, and in several cases higher ratings than in the U.S. itself. It's a weird situation because in the early 1900s, the U.S. committed mass murder in the islands when it took over from Spain.

The problem is that that fanaticism has been tempered by the rise of Duterte, the so-called "Trump of Asia" (although he probably claims, given his 80+ approval rating, that it's Trump who's the "Duterte of North America"), who followed a nationalist stance similar to that of Asian neighbors. He was followed by Marcos, Jr., whose father was backed by the U.S., which in turn backed the father's opponents, to maintain U.S. bases, and who's following a similar although more diplomatic stance.

Meanwhile, the top trading partner of the Philippines is China, where approval ratings are only 15 pct. Its main donor is Japan, which also committed mass murder in the country during WW2. And its main investors include Singapore (which has military exercises with China but buys armaments from the U.S.) and, believe it or not, the Netherlands. One of its arms sellers is now India. Sweden wants to sell it jets, France subs, and Israel small arms and armored vehicles. That's also the same France that's now criticizing the U.S. for muscling in on its submarine sales to Australia.

About Japan, what's also weird is that the main supporter of the Philippines is probably not even the U.S. but Japan, which has been the nicest to it. It also helped that Abe was very friendly to Duterte and vice versa. And yet Japan is generally disliked by China, Taiwan, and South Korea because of what happened during WW2.

It's also the same Japan that appears to be pushed by the U.S. to encourage the Philippines to join Australia to form a united force against China, the same Australia that was mentioned above and has China as a major trading partner.

It's similar to Vietnam, where two million were killed during the war. And yet U.S. approval ratings in the country are high even though the top trading partner (and bully) of Vietnam is China, and its military ally is Russia. And the country that's been pushing to sell arms to it is the U.S.

Finally, it's similar to Taiwan, which has both China and the U.S. has major trading partners but is recognized as neither as a sovereign state. Also, before it became pro-neoliberal, it had almost four decades of martial law administered by a nationalist but pro-business (meaning, it engaged in deals with China to avoid conflict) dictatorship. Also reminds me of Japan, which has been controlled by a Liberal Democratic Party for more than five decades and is not exactly liberal or democratic.

Anyway, if anyone is confused after reading this and sense that I'm rambling, the only thing I can say is the confusion is caused by the incredible levels of complexity and contradictions in that region.

the way i see it, it makes sense for us to be using The Phillipines as a forward base to protect Taiwan.
and thus for arms sales to that country to be cheapened and put on an expidited delivery schedule, if we want to really stand up to China, and not use those poor people in that region as cannonfodder, like we did with the Ukranians.

or we just retreat from that region and hand it over to China's influence.
i think that *is* the better option. we can't annihilate/regime-change the Chinese, so we must recognize their claim to a seat at the table of world leading countries, each administrating their own backyard primarily.
it's just a thought. but a thought that might well end up haunting government leaders who do not recognize it's weight soon.

 

[ralfy]

I guess they shouldn't have closed down all those American military bases, huh?

The U.S. wasn't helping even then, as seen in the Johnson South Reef skirmish.

 

[ralfy]

the way i see it, it makes sense for us to be using The Phillipines as a forward base to protect Taiwan.
and thus for arms sales to that country to be cheapened and put on an expidited delivery schedule, if we want to really stand up to China, and not use those poor people in that region as cannonfodder, like we did with the Ukranians.

or we just retreat from that region and hand it over to China's influence.
i think that *is* the better option. we can't annihilate/regime-change the Chinese, so we must recognize their claim to a seat at the table of world leading countries, each administrating their own backyard primarily.
it's just a thought. but a thought that might well end up haunting government leaders who do not recognize it's weight soon.

FWIW, BRICS and emerging markets are taking over the global economy while G7 is going through late capitalism, so that's probably inevitable.

Meanwhile, the EIU reports that as China and others face similar, then countries like the Philippines, Bangladesh, and others will eventually take over due to young populations.

 

[Mac-7]

3) Taiwan claims to be "China", the official government of China, it also has a "one China" policy, which is that it should rule all of China, just like the CCP has.

Not true

The KMT claimed to rule all of china but that was when Taiwan was a one party dictatorship

But its a democracy now and does mot want to be part of china

 

[peacefan]

FWIW, BRICS and emerging markets are taking over the global economy while G7 is going through late capitalism, so that's probably inevitable.

Meanwhile, the EIU reports that as China and others face similar, then countries like the Philippines, Bangladesh, and others will eventually take over due to young populations.

i believe that once a country establishes a position as 'superpower', they won't let go of that position without a(n) (economic) fight.

with this in view, it's not misunderstood that China is putting nearly all of their eggs into becoming a real and recognized superpower *now*, before those populations in other countries (India too for instance) take over that region.
it's a real land-rush. sea border lines rush.

 

[basquebromance]