Charter Member of the Sub-Media

August 15, 2008

A Thought on the Beijing Olympics 2008 « China/Taiwan »

Nothing against China or Beijing or the PRC, but why did they call the stadium "The Bird's Nest"?

...cuz it looks like a chamber pot, to me.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 22, 2008

Ma Wins Taiwan Presidency; DPP Wallows in Confusion « China/Taiwan »

Reactions from That's Impossible pro-DPP Taiwan blog.

Reactions from Taiwan Matters pro-DPP Taiwan blog.

I think they're missing the point.

Chen owns the DPP right now. For the last 8 years, just about anything he said, the DPP did.

The DPP paid the price today. Hsieh would otherwise have been a decent candidate, but the DPP/Chen albatross around his neck ruined any chance.

In any case, the I think we'll see the DPP win some power back eventually. Much of Chen's failures in the last four years were because he simply couldn't understand he wasn't dealing with Jiang Zemin anymore; he was dealing with Hu Jintao, someone even better at splitting hairs to put the opponent at a disadvantage than Chen himself was. But some of Chen's failures were simply because Taiwan's socio-economic-political situation just isn't very good. When Ma fails at lots of stuff, too, people will begin to think maybe the DPP is a better choice, after all...

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:58 PM | Comments (5957) | TrackBack (0)
Taiwan's Next President: Ma Ying-jeou « China/Taiwan »

Ma is only "pro" mainland compared to the current President Chen.
He's the least "pro" mainland of any of the KMT top leaders.

I'm not sure what kind of leader he'll be; he tends to be rather passive and overly cautious. But he seems like he has some good policy initiatives that will, at the worst, keep peace between the PRC and the ROC.

He's already promised that Taiwan won't reunify with the mainland while he is President. But many of his policies do open up Taiwan society to mainland influence, and may result in a melding of economies.

Most importantly, it reduces the reasons for the PRC to attempt a military reunification of the territories.

A nation, long divided, must unite...

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:21 AM | Comments (411) | TrackBack (0)

January 28, 2008

And Now...a Little Chinese Music « China/Taiwan »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:52 AM | Comments (26) | TrackBack (0)

January 22, 2008

My Reaction to Taiwan's Election Results « China/Taiwan »

Anyone who says the KMT LY win was "a step closer to PRC" is just spreading propaganda.

The LY election was about economics.

Hu Jintao changed PRC's (Jiang Zemin's) policy from "Bring about re-unification" to "Prevent independence".

Chen's popularity and relevence started to plummet pretty quickly thereafter, because he thrives on combativeness.

Absent the threat of imminent invasion from the PRC, most Taiwanese worried about making money. They complain that they used to have double the per capita income of ROK, and now are $3000/year per capita behind ROK. They complain that their per capita income is now lagging behind Indonesia.

They see every other country in the world making money off of trade/economic interaction with the PRC, and wonder why Chen won't let them do that.

8% of Taiwanese want to reunify. 9% want complete, total, recognized independence now. The other 83% just want to make money and have a secure, comfortable life.

Chen was only good at treating the PRC as an enemy, and all his policies reflect that. The people want a government that will stop restricting their chances to make money on the mainland.

The nail in Chen's coffin (after the corruption scandals that made him vulnerable) was that he pushed a campaign to erase Chiang Kai-shek. While Chiang is not loved by many, he is responsible for Taiwan's separate existence from the PRC. He and his son are responsible for Taiwan's economic and social development. Even martial law is a historical fact, even if resented. Chen tried to throw Chiang down the memory hole, to ignore his accomplishments because of his failings. Chinese society teaches to respect your elders, even if you hate them, so Chen's attempts to imitate Marxist historical rewriting just irritated too many people.

Ma will win the election. Taiwan will not re-unify with the PRC under Ma's watch.

From what I think, the problem will be that yes, Taiwan can make money in economic engagement with the PRC just like any other country...but the PRC doesn't claim other countries as territory. Taiwan's economy is huge for their size...but dwarfed by the PRC's. At some point, Taiwan will lose its economic sovereignty, and the PRC will be able to say: Re-unify, or we'll send you into the worst depression history has ever known, and Taiwan will unify with the PRC without a shot fired.

...unless the PRC collapses from internal strife first.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:15 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

December 12, 2007

PRC, Taiwan, and the US: How I Understand Some Things « China/Taiwan »

The PRC government is basically like the Mafia. You don't make it to the top so much as get enough power that you can declare yourself to be at the top and make it stick. Decisions are made in closed-room meetings based on personal power bases and areas of expertise/interest. The most common way to leave power is either by dying or being sent to jail. Avoid one of those fates takes finesse and more back-room deals for immunity/protection.

The Taiwan government and political system is basically like the Tammany Hall, "Political Support for Patronage", Political Machine system. Corruption, vote-buying, Yellow Dog journalism, partisan journalism, etc.

And the world diplomatic stage is like Junior High, with Taiwan being the loud-mouthed kid who won't back up his antagonizing of a bully, the US wants to settle every slight and insult by meeting by the gym after school, and the PRC is the back-biting gossipy leader of a clique that's trying to become the top "in" crowd, complete with reputation destruction, back-stabbing while being friendly to the face, etc.

Now you understand everything you need to know.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:02 AM | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

September 16, 2007

Attractive Young Chinese Women III « China/Taiwan »

Continuing the theme.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

September 15, 2007

Attractive Young Chinese Women II « China/Taiwan »

Slideshow here.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 12:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 14, 2007

Attractive Young Chinese Women I « China/Taiwan » « The Brain Fertilizer Way »

Pictures of attractive young chinese women applying to become flight attendants.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:31 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

August 26, 2007

Evil China Again Threatening Taiwan « China/Taiwan »

This time with tall charity-bringers.

I can see why Taiwan would feel this is a direct attack on their sovereignty. [/sarcasm]

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:42 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

August 23, 2007

DPP's Political Advantage Does NOT Equal Democracy « China/Taiwan »

I've already established I don't agree with Michael Turton's politics.

Fine. We can disagree and not hate each other.

But he objected previously to my assertion that pro-Green pundits conflate independence, DPP interests, and democracy. Well, here is a good example. You'll have to scroll down to see what I mean, so here is a blockquote:

Finally, State thinks that Taiwan will be "emboldened" by military sales. To do what? Have more democracy? Note that we have a coalition of more than 20 pro-Taiwan groups pushing the referendums and wanting to overturn the referendum law, and that this referendum move is taking place without any reference to the military situation. The public wants to enter the UN. If State really thinks that the referendum is going to cause a problem, it needs to pull its head out and make sure that Taipei is adequately armed to protect itself -- because the referendum isn't going to be stopped. The DPP can't call it off now, not without taking a hit in the polls. I know its insane to call for diplomats to recognize reality, especially in the Taiwan case, but perhaps State needs to adjust its thinking to the situation on the ground....and, as always, observe the unbalanced State Department view: arms sales embolden Taipei -- but failure to sell arms doesn't embolden Beijing. Once again, we have that lurking Beijing-think, where democracy is a problem, but weapons buildups in China are a force for stability.

Let me take those point-by-point:
1) "Finally, State thinks that Taiwan will be "emboldened" by military sales. To do what? Have more democracy?"

Well, there it is, a perfect example. I don't want to lapse into insults, but I'm tempted here. Democracy is not the problem, was never the problem, and it is disingenuous or perhaps even invidious to imply so. No, the problem is declaring independence. In other words, the problem is Taiwan sticking a thumb in the PRC's eye to no real benefit. No one stops Taiwan from writing its own laws, voting for its leaders, throwing said leaders in jail for corruption, etc. Taiwan abrogated its responsibility in defending itself a long time ago, choosing (although with little other choice) to depend on the U.S. for its defense. Thus, if Taiwan provokes the PRC into an invasion, Taiwan will do so depending on the U.S. to come and defend it. Got that? U.S. lives will be lost to defend Taiwan, which elected a President who appeared to not care about defending the country for the first 7 years of Chen Shui-bian's presidency. Don't try to shift the argument to "defending democracy", because the fact that Taiwan has already had free elections proves that the U.S. has already successfully defended democracy in Taiwan. If the U.S. has to fight to preserve that democracy, it is simply because Chen Shui-bian and/or the DPP decided to risk that democratic freedom by provoking China for its own domestic political purposes. I don't blame Chen for attempting to use an advantage...but to claim that risking U.S. lives to establish Chen's legacy of the Father of Independence and/or help him avoid jail is "more democracy" is just ridiculous.

2) "Note that we have a coalition of more than 20 pro-Taiwan groups pushing the referendums and wanting to overturn the referendum law, and that this referendum move is taking place without any reference to the military situation. The public wants to enter the UN."

There was a coalition that pushed for Chen Shui-bian to step down, too. The "public" that wants to enter the UN (as evidenced by the referendum petition) was approximately the same number as the "public" that wanted Chen to step down (more than 1 million). Why is one group "democracy", but the other group just "thugs"? If Chen listens to the voices of the people, why does he only listen to the ones that tell him to do what he already wants to do? Whither democracy when it is anti-Chen?

3) "The DPP can't call it off now, not without taking a hit in the polls."

And there is my second point, in black and white. Even if the referendum might spark a war, even though Chen Shui-bian can't back up his bravado because he let the arms procurement bill languish throughout his entire first term, the DPP can't do what's right for the country because they are too busy doing what is right for themselves. And before anyone tries to move the goalposts again: no, a DPP victory isn't automatically "right for the country". "Right for the country" is preserving peace and democracy. Both of which Taiwan has right now as a direct extension of the Peace and Democracy they had before Chen was elected. He hasn't done a single thing to expand those two blessings, but he has done plenty to threaten them.

Chen doesn't know what side of his bread is buttered. He causes significant problems for the U.S. for his own political purposes, and then has Pan-Green adherents confusing independence and democracy and DPP electoral advantage to help obfuscate the fact that Chen has no right to drag his nation or the U.S. into a war simply for his own political benefit.

No, Taiwan doesn't deserve to be invaded and forced to be part of the PRC. But they aren't part of the PRC now, and they have full democracy. What, exactly, is Chen Shui-bian trying to change? When you already have what you want, any change just makes things worse. Thus, independence and full democracy are not what Chen truly wants. He wants the legacy of being the Father of Taiwan Independence, the primacy of the Min-Nan ethnic group over all others, and to avoid jail for his illegal enriching of all his associates.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I May Disagree With His Politics and Analysis « China/Taiwan »

But you gotta love his pictures.

Sometimes he has a little too much market stuff...they all blend together. I'd love to see some more east Taiwan coast and/or mountain scenic beauty. But his skill is obvious, and the clarity and vibrancy of his photos always impress me.

Now I'm going to tear apart one of his blog posts in my next entry (sorry, Michael!).

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Taiwan is a Part of China...Just Not Part of the PRC « China/Taiwan »

Should I link the original article? Well, the main point of it is to blame China for something (pollution) that Taiwan already does to itself quite well (Damn those mainland Chinese, sneaking in and poisoning all of Taiwan's rivers!)...but the issue I want to respond to is at the bottom. Maybe easier if I link to the post that highlights the issue the raises my dander:

Reunification? [emphasis in original] For once, I would like to read an article that says, "China says the island is a breakaway province, but the PRC flag has never flown over the island." I bet we would start seeing a significant change in the way people view Taiwan if these two little paragraphs that are in nearly every article about Taiwan were more accurate. Making clear that, yes, China does claim sovereignty over Taiwan, but there's no talk of "reunification" -- only unification -- seeing as the PRC never controlled (to my knowledge) any part of Taiwan. Also, Nationalist forces fleeing to Taiwan does not divide Taiwan from "the Mainland," seeing as there were already people on Taiwan before these outside forces came to Taiwan.

To be fair, I get tired of the cut'n'paste journalism standard over-simplification of the cross-Strait issue, too. And it could be worded better.

But it doesn't help when the Taiwan side distorts the issue for their own purposes.

Here are the facts:

Read More "Taiwan is a Part of China...Just Not Part of the PRC" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 17, 2007

Zero-Sum Games « China/Taiwan »

One of the many things that pisses me off about the Taiwan independence movement is the immature and unnecessary hypocrisy. The Taiwanese tend to look down on China, seeing it as a place to enrich themselves at the expense of low-wage Chinese workers. They want to continue to avoid the disadvantages of being labeled a foreign country for business purposes, but then want all the advantages of being a foreign country in every other way.

I've made snarky comments about the Taiwanese blaming everything even remotely bad that happens on China, from economic difficulties to even weather (at times). The Taiwanese don't seem to realize that they give sovereignty to China by default when they see everything through the prism of China's influence.

Chen Shui-bian is one of the worst about this.

When China passed the Anti-Secession Law, Chen squawked like a chicken with anger...thus making it clear to everyone that he thought China's laws carried weight in Taiwan.

Dumb move.

Chen also makes a huge mistake by pushing so much for membership in the UN and getting in dollar diplomacy wars with the PRC for diplomatic recognition from otherwise unimportant nations.

Do any of the 24 nations that currently recognize Taiwan do anything for Taiwan's defense? No.

Taiwan exists as an autonomous semi-nation because of the support of Japan and the US, almost exclusively. Both these nations also have close working relationships with China...which means they also have reason to resent China on some levels.

That's what Taiwan should do: find other nations that resent China for some reason or another, or would enjoy sticking a thumb in China's eye (diplomatically or economically speaking), then gently point out that the world's two biggest economic and military powerhouses, the US and Japan, both support Taiwan while nominally recognizing China, and close with suggesting the nation in question follow the lead set by the US and Japan. Thus, the countries could still get access to China's markets...but their sympathies would slowly drift in Taiwan's direction.

It wouldn't have to be dollar diplomacy...just a clear explanation that an independent Taiwan is good for everyone's national and economic security.

Maybe Chen is doing that. But I doubt it. He cares more about domestic power than doing what is actually good for Taiwan. If it was clearly and obviously good for Taiwan to elect Ma Ying-jeou, Chen would still oppose it with his dying breath.

Final point: I support Taiwan's right to not get attacked by China for refusing to re-unite. I do not support the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), their platform, or their methods. They remind me way too much of the US' Democratic Party: power is the goal, the end justifies the means, and they'll say and do anything to get their hands on the reins of control. Including manipulating tragedy, distorting facts, exploiting their supporters, engaging in dirty last-second election tricks, and merely taking over corruption-filled leadership positions when they won the elction on the promise of ending corruption.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 05:58 AM | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

August 14, 2007

Re-Direct « China/Taiwan »

Micheal Turton posts a sligthly more even-handed take than the post I linked earlier.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:54 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)
Ma Ying-jeou Acquitted « China/Taiwan »

Surprisingly, in the first trial.

I expected a conviction, and then for Ma to win on appeal (in Taiwan, you aren't really "convicted" unti you lose your 2nd appeal, the 3rd trial). Having him be acquitted in the first trial demonstrates how weak the case was.

Many prosecutors (some his Pan-Green opponents) said Ma should never have been indicted. Moreover, several Pan-Green politicians were acquitted or the prosecutor refused to indict for the exact same action/charge.

Yet the hardcore Pan-Green supporters still cry foul.

Reading a number of Green-leaning blogs (not just Mr. Turton's) and reading the Pan-Green media, one is given the impression that whatever the DPP does is good, and anything the KMT does is bad. The facts in a lawsuit can never actually be on the KMT side; thus any KMT victory in the courts can only be due to judicial malfeasance, bribed judges, etc. The only time justice is ever done is if the Pan-Green wins. (sigh)
Equating Ma's inadvertant financial accounting mistake with Chen Shui-bian's deliberate theft and cover-up (using not only his wife, but his wife using her friends to provide fraudulent receipts!) is just silly. Chen has half his family either in trial or convicted. If even just 1/10th of what has been revealed about Chen's dealings is true, he's one of the most corrupt politicians since Boss Tweed.

There are political hatchet jobs, and then there are people who treat politics like a spectator sport, complete with unreasonable loyalties and the logical blind spots that ensue. The Pan-Greens seem to have more than their share of blind partisans. Exaggeration for Effect Alert: Most of them seem to think that the best step to improve democracy in Taiwan is to not allow the late 40s immigrants, their descendents, and the military to vote.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:59 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

August 10, 2007

Men Are Bad/Stupid/Selfish Even in Hong Kong « China/Taiwan »

So says this article, at least.

The only possible reason the author could think of that Hong Kong men prefer mainland Chinese women is that the mainlanders are more "subservient".

Hah.

Anyone who knows Chinese women knows that there is nothing subservient about them.

Here are the judgments about why Honk Kong women are remaining single rather than marry into the surplus of mainland men:

But she added that the career-mindedness of Hong Kong women may put off potential mainland suitors.

"In general," she said, "the work culture in Hong Kong has resulted in a greater proportion of women who are career-focused and independent, which may counter some of the expectations of mainland men."

Huh? It's the mainland Chinese men's fault? They just don't want a woman who makes money, even if she begs him?

Hong Kong women, on the other hand, are far better educated and more independent than their mainland counterparts and do not want to be bossed around by patriarchal husbands. Moreover, many of the city's women are financially independent and no longer think of marriage in terms of economic security. A rising divorce rate can probably also be attributed to the growing assertiveness of Hong Kong women.

Oh. Hong Kong women are just too assertive for mainland men. Mainland men are just too patriarchal and bossy.

As Bik-kei - a 32-year-old administrative assistant enjoying the single life - put it: "For single women who are financially secure with a good education, I feel the environment in Hong Kong allows us to live happily and stay single instead of being submissive to someone. Marrying a mainland guy, there is a possibility of family pressure, while parents might feel he has a lower social status.

And the truth accidentally slips out.

Social status.

Simply put, women keenly assess their own social status, and are usually only willing to marry into a higher social class. Outside of small towns where the selections are few, women only rarly marry someone of equal status, and never marry someone beneath them. It's not "assertiveness" or "bossiness" or anything. Deep down, for most women, men are means to an end: more material comfort than they can achieve on their own. And if the man cannot provide it, or she finds she can provide it on her own, the relationship is likely over.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:43 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

August 08, 2007

Dilemma in Taiwan « China/Taiwan » « Snark »

They have no idea what to do or say. They are being hit with something really bad that can't be blamed on China in some way.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 31, 2007

China and Taiwan: an Important Comparison « China/Taiwan »

Beer.

Taiwan loses, flat out.

It's not even close.

On two separate visits to Taiwan, 10 days each, I was unable to find any place that served dark beer. Furthermore, Taiwan has no domestic dark beers. Even worse, their domestic lagers (light-colored, light-tasting) tasted about like Budweiser...maybe slightly better.

Compare that with Beijing:
Yanjing Beer (Beijing's local beer) is quite good. It is easily the equal of Heineken or Corona; maybe even better. Every major locality has its local beer that is pretty much as good, although Yanjing is just slightly the best I've had in China. One of the reasons for this is that when you buy beer in China, it is amazingly fresh. They had a local dark beer in Beijing that was pretty good, too.

It is even sweeter that you can buy a liter of beer in China for about $.40.

Tsingtao beer? That's the Chinese beer most Americans have heard of because it is imported here. To tell the truth, it isn't that good. What we get in the US is so old/stale, it is only slightly better than Taiwan beer. Even in China it was the worst of the local beers that I had.

Oh, and Chinese beers are better than the Philippines' San Miguel, better than Red Stripe, and better than any Japanese beer I've had.

China: the best of Asian beers.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:38 AM | Comments (354) | TrackBack (0)

July 30, 2007

ChongQing: The Chicago of China « China/Taiwan »

China has this thing about comparing various locations to more famous locations in the West.

For instance, Qingdao is China's Hawaii. Dalian is China's San Francisco. Shanghai is China's Paris (although I think China's New York might be a better comparison).

In any case, as the title says, ChongQing is now being compared to Chicago...although more in a hopeful sense, rather than with conviction.

On a side note, "Fengkuang de Shitou" ("Crazy Stone"), wonderfully complex and amusing heist film, is set in ChongQing.

For Mandarin speakers: beware! They use lots of ChongQing (Sichuan) dialect in the film. On the other hand, one of the thieves looks/acts like a Chinese Steve Buscemi!

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:23 AM | Comments (34) | TrackBack (0)

July 19, 2007

A Good Example of Why I Don't Like Chen Shui-bian « China/Taiwan »

He can be counted on to instinctively do what is good for his own political fortunes, to the detriment of Taiwan's long-term good.

It is similar to how many DPP supporters get confused and equate sovereignty/independence with democracy, so that even when Chen does anti-democratic things or hypocritical actions regarding democracy/popular opinion (like saying he has no choice but follow the will of the 1,000,000 people who sign a petition for a referendum, but dismissing the will of the 1,000,000 people who wanted him to resign), they defend him in the name of "democracy".

Instead, Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan's diplomatic corps should be pushing the justifications for why more countries should unofficially support Taiwan in the same manner US and Japan do. Instead, Chen pushes for official recognition, and just burns bridges.

Idiot. Politically savvy and an expert at taking care of himself. But greedy, manipulative, corrupt, too concerned with his own legacy, and an idiot when it comes to Taiwan's long-term sovereignty needs. In that, he reminds me of former US President Clinton.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:31 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
Chinese News Mistakes « China/Taiwan »

Just what the title says.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:05 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

July 18, 2007

Looking at Stats « China/Taiwan »

How many people does China execute every year?

And

750,000 Chinese die every year due to pollution...but is that actually a relatively low number?

Bonus questions: Does China's high capital murder number help keep China's violent crime rate low? If 1000 people are executed for violent crimes (rape, murder, aggravated assault), and the per capita murder rate is much lower than in other countries, does the correlation help justify the execution rate?
Which is worse, to be raped/murdered or executed for rape/murder by the govt? In both cases, you are dead.
Obviously, it sucks to be executed by the govt if you are innocent of the accused crime. But is it any better to be murdered for no reason? Or murdered because you stole money, got someone's husband/wife to cheat, or otherwise offended someone?

And how does this compare with the idea that 150x more people are "executed" (or "murdered") per year, simply due to pollution? What is the moral/social debt of pollution?

Is Al Gore guilty for the dozen people who die due to his use of airplanes to fly around the country preaching about global warming (no, I won't let people morph that into the less-specific "global climate change")?

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:43 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

July 06, 2007

Unrepentant Japan « China/Taiwan »

People who don't like China, or people who like Japan (often the same group of people), usually take Japan's side on historical issues:
When will Japan's apologies for WWII atrocities ever be enough?!?

I'm not sure, myself. We haven't seen a true acknowledgement and apology from Japan yet.

Their elected officials constantly undermine or invalidate previous statements of regret and responsibility.

And yet, Japan never weakens in their own complaint against the U.S. The U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. 214,000 people were killed from the blast and after-effects. That number is dwarfed by the atrocities Japan committed on civilians on the Chinese mainland, and the tortures committed by Japan as they murdered Chinese civilians were deliberate, personal, slow, and widespread.

Consider what Japan did in Nanjing alone. That was one city.

Add in what Japan did to the rest of China. To Korea. To the Philippines. To Taiwan (it is inexplicable that some in Taiwan still pine for Japanese rule). And to prisoners of war.

The Yasukuni Shrine and associated Yushukan Museum claim that Japan was the victim in pre-WWII maneuverings, and had to invade/conquer the rest of Asia to keep it safe from the U.S. predations.

So when I read that the Japanese Defense Minister was forced to resign because he merely stated that he understood the atomic bombs ended the war and could probably not have been avoided, well, I find myself more than a little sympathetic to the Chinese fear of Japan's intent to return to military expansionism.

I have no sympathy for the "poor" Japanese at all.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:06 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

March 22, 2007

Some Hope for Cross-Strait Peace « China/Taiwan »

If we can get through the next 12 months without major incident, that is.

China will continue to speak softly in managing its tricky relations with Taiwan, after brandishing the big stick seemed to backfire on Beijing, analysts said. China's communist government may offer to let the 2008 Beijing Olympic torch pass through Taiwan, and dangle economic goodies, in an attempt to undermine any moves towards independence on the prosperous island.

Previous hardline tactics, including missile launches and threats of force, only boosted anti-China politicians and sentiment in Taipei, experts say.

China angered Taiwanese two years ago by passing a law pledging potential use of force if Taiwan declared independence.

"Behind the scenes, there has been this kind of adjustment," said Niu Jun, an international studies professor at Peking University in Beijing.

Elections in Taiwan this year and next will be key tests of whether the carrot is working better than the stick did.

If voters uphold the opposition Nationalist (KMT) Party camp's parliamentary majority in elections later this year and give it the presidency next spring, cross-strait relations could improve, as the KMT has said it would reach out to Beijing.

The KMT, backed in part by Taiwan businesses active in China, takes a conciliatory but guarded view of the Communist government, while current President Chen Shui-bian's party distrusts Beijing and advocates moves toward independence.

Experts believe Beijing would prefer to deal with the KMT, its former rival.

In pursuit of reunification with the island that split from China in 1949 after a civil war, Beijing will keep to its soft line toward democratic, self-ruled Taiwan as long as the Chinese economy stays strong and Taiwan avoids all-out independence, experts say.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 20, 2006

Yanno? « China/Taiwan »

There's only a handful of people in the world who will get the following joke:

Read More "Yanno?" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:46 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

November 29, 2006

What Does China Want?!? « China/Taiwan »

Here's one likely answer, based on excellent analysis by Sun Bin.

In an early posting of this blog I have argued that it does not matter what China's intention is, because in the medium term (i.e. 20-50 years) it will focus on economic development (and maintaining the hope of re-uniting with Taiwan some day in future), beyond that China's leadership would have changed a few times and it won't matter what it wants now, the optimistic case is that it will probably become a democracy joining the West (or be like Singapore, if not Japan). Therefore, the major concern for the West is not what China intends to do today, but to prevent major disaster in China's path of reform and development, because that may derail the risk-averse do-nothing path it is taking currently.

Apparently the CCP leadership did form some ideas on what they want for China in the longer term (on top of the near term goal of feeding its people and playing "economic catch up"), i.e., not surprisingly, China still aspires to restore the glory it enjoyed centuries ago, and want to become a "Great Nation".

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 25, 2005

China: Free-Market Heaven? « China/Taiwan »

An interesting anecdote.

I wonder how that fits into the typical meme that China is this oppressive, Stalinist nation that stifles any expression of individuality?

The situation described in the above linked article has existed since 1998 at least (the first time I saw it happen), but has probably been going on since the mid-80s, if not earlier. But make sure you read quietly; we wouldn't want to disturb the people who need an Evil Empire to replace the Soviet Union...

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:11 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

July 13, 2005

Kii-yaa! « China/Taiwan »

There will probably never again be a massacre in China on the scale of the Tian An Men Square incident on June 4, 1989. This is because China took steps to develop a para-military force trained and equipped to handle riots and control crowds.

Well, now they've also developed an anti-terrorism force. The terrorists better watch out if they tend to...

Read More "Kii-yaa!" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
China's Social Strata « China/Taiwan »

This is interesting:

On the forum, experts pointed out that nowadays the stratum structure composed of ten social strata has formed in China.

The ten social strata include: national and social management, management level, owners of privately-owned enterprises, technical professionals, office workers, self-employed industrial and commercial households, workers of commercial services, industrial workers, agricultural workers, and jobless, unemployed and semi-unemployed persons in cities and towns.

I'm not sure of the significance, but it's interesting.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 12, 2005

Taking a Stand « China/Taiwan »

I like what this guy has to say.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 07, 2005

Chinese Freedom of the Press « China/Taiwan »

Oh, yes, it does exist. Sort of. For a limited time. Only through ingenuity and commitment.

And here, we worry about a few months spent and a minimum-security Club-Fed. In China, they are often fed the club.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 29, 2005

Shanghai Vice « China/Taiwan »

An interesting look into crime/punishment and even property rights in China. Warning: some stomach-turning photos.

Then again, handling property rights in the opposite way.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:12 AM | Comments (2)

June 22, 2005

Mistreatment of Citizens « China/Taiwan »

I don't know why, but I react badly to stories like this.

Maybe it's the implication that what is done to this one singular example happens to every single person of faith...which is plainly not true.

Maybe it's the propaganda angle, in which the story really gets pushed if they have a nice "before" picture of a pretty, smiling girl.

I hear rumors that in the United States, in some states, if you are convicted of child molestation, the guards often leave the door to your cell open, and you receive some "justice" far beyond what the judge intended in his sentence. Is that government brutality?

If the sign clearly states: don't spit on the sidewalk, and you deliberately walk up and spit on the policman standing right next to the sign, how much sympathy should I have?

Maybe that's not the case in this story. It's hard to tell without better independent verification. You can read my comments on the post to get a better idea of what I mean.

And yet, there are instances of human right abuses that I do get upset about. Here's a good example of things that make my blood boil:

When petitioners proceed to the various Petition Offices, they may have to run through a gauntlet of special agents from various localities. As they go through, they are threatened (sometimes via physical beatings) to disclose their places of origin and their cases. They may be arrested by the special agents from their localities and then extradited back to their home towns where they may be penalized for their activities. These acts of menace occur in the public under broad daylight.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:11 PM | Comments (1)

June 16, 2005

Rule Of Law « China/Taiwan »

Another step in the right direction.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:51 PM | Comments (2)
China/Taiwan « China/Taiwan »

China will not allow Taiwan to officially declare its independency. That's for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is the Asian concept of "Face".

But aside from the issue of logistically projecting enough power to take Taiwan militarily (and the damage that could do to Taiwan's infrastructure), there is one main issue blocking China's absorption of the island:

Leadership.

Hong Kong was subordinate to Britain. No one rising through the Hong Kong power structure ever had any hope of making it very high in the British power structure, and they always knew their position was at the behest of another power. That higher governmental power could be replaced by the PRC, and it was.

But Taiwan has its own power structure, with its own governance, and an undeclared independence...or autonomy at worst. How do you shoehorn that into the Mainland system?

Leaders have power from their position, but also from their supporters (I know that's a no-brainer...I'm going somewhere with it). Leaders do not give up power very easily. They must be forced to give it up, or enticed in some way. Someone who has been building a base and rising in power in Taiwan for their entire life won't be so willing to give it up just because a majority of the population in Taiwan wants to unite with the Mainland (assuming they ever do).

Simply put: The Chinese Communist Party must find a way to force the leaders out (probably through a costly war that would destroy much of what they want from Taiwan), or convince them to step down and support integration with the Mainland (an iffy proposition at best).*

We have the old parable about "not killing the goose that lays the golden egg", but we only cite it when it's obvious someone hasn't learned the lesson. Taiwan is certainly a golden-egg laying goose for Mainland China, what with all the monetary and technological investments flowing across the Strait.

Bottom Line: Maybe the Chi-Coms are smarter than most people give them credit for?

Read More "China/Taiwan" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:03 AM | Comments (0)

June 15, 2005

Illusion (UPDATED) « China/Taiwan » « Politics As Usual » « Social Issues » « Stuff Important to Me »

This article makes me suspect that Taiwan hasn't even become a truly democratic nation even since martial law was lifted and the native Taiwanese were nominally allowed to participate in politics.

A question: if a people don't really have a voice in their governance, but think they do, is it still democracy? Even more importantly, does it matter if it's not?*

Which, I must say, is why I'm not only not overly concerned about a Congressional attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban flag-desecration, I'm also somewhat encouraged by it.

See, I won't support the amendment, and I'll let my state legislature know about it.

But it is time to return some power to the state legislatures. It is time that we don't take the word of a judge as the final word, but act to change things to be more in line with what The People really want...even if that result is that the people don't really want it.

This bill is good for the exercise of Democracy.

UPDATE: Related.

Read More "Illusion (UPDATED)" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:29 AM | Comments (3)
China Interrogation « China/Taiwan »

Not as coercive as you might be led to believe. In any case, certainly not humorous, but also eminently safe for work.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:15 AM | Comments (0)

June 11, 2005

Bald Waitresses « China/Taiwan »

The story. Includes pictures. Safe for work.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 12:17 PM | Comments (2)
A Historical Consensus « China/Taiwan »

Some scholars from China, South Korea, and Japan got together to write a history book.

Here is a comparison of their take with what the Japanese Society for Textbook Reform came up with. Plus some commentary/explanation included. The difference is quite striking.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:51 AM | Comments (0)

June 10, 2005

This is a Good Thing « China/Taiwan »
China has successfully shut down more than 1,800 pornographic websites since the nationwide campaign was launched to crack down the online sex last June, sources with Chinese official online reporting center said on Friday.

The Whole Thing: You Can Read It.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 12:43 PM | Comments (0)

June 09, 2005

Context (UPDATED) « China/Taiwan »

So I bet you've heard that the Chinese Communist government killed 20 million of its own citizens in the 50s and 60s. You might hear 30 million, the top credible report.

If you point out that it wasn't a deliberate decision of the government as much as overenthusiastic one-upmanship that resulted in three successive years of crop failures...well, you will be told that such a situation is still the fault of the Communist Government, because they were in charge and didn't fix/help the situation.

Interestingly, however, you don't hear the anti-PRC activists admitting that the government of Taiwan is then directly responsible for more than 9 million deaths on the Chinese mainland. Not to mention probably another 30 million people dying from the aftereffects of such disasters, including disease and starvation.

Even though that chart blames it on the People's Republic of China, the dates show that more than 9 million of the deaths occurred during the period that the Nationalist Party was in charge.

So as bad as the Communists have been, the 20 years under an oppressive Nationalist Party (our friends in Democracy!) were even worse.

Not to mention what the Japanese (our friends in Democracy!) did to the Chinese people in their seven years of occupation on the Mainland.

For some reason, we are not supposed to ever forget what the Communist Government did, but we aren't supposed to ever mention what Our Friends in Democracy! did only a few years before. Why is that?

That's why I have no confidence in the "Two Democracies have never gone to war against each other" theory. It depends too much on torturous definitions of "democracy" and "war". Right off the top of my head: Pakistan and India have fought, and both have had democracy (although Pakistan's is currently in suspension right now, as the military conducted a coup several years ago to prevent a Fundamentalist Islam government from taking over).

...which isn't to say I think all is sunlight and roses in China.

But the vast bulk of Chinese citizens aren't being oppressed, and seem to be pretty happy with life. Most have the freedom to get rich, and then to spend that money on whatever they want, and worship where/when they want, and criticize the government, and leave the country, and travel around the country. The level of freedom enjoyed by most Chinese people would more than satisfy 95% of the world.

Put another way: there's principle, and then there's being a dickhead. A dickhead "knows his rights" and in the United States, its resulted in things like mass murderers being set free because they bumped their head when being put in a patrol car. In China, being a dickhead would probably get you a decade of hard labor, true.

The lesson? Don't be a dickhead.

In the United States, we have the freedom to be dickheads. That sure has made rush hour in any big city a pleasant experience. Related, in a way.

No, I'm not seriously saying I think China's way is better. There are serious problems in China. They seriously need the establishment of the Rule of Law there. If some local police bigwig in China decides to overstep his authority with you, you have no recourse, and no method of redress. You could be dead before anyting can be done. That happens in the US, too, but usually something can be done before you end up dead or in jail. Usually. With a slightly lower rate of success when the IRS or FBI get involved.

I guess my point, if I even have one, is that if China were that horrible, the deaths of 1,000 to 2,000 wouldn't deter them in rising up and demanding freedom. If things were that horrible in China, you wouldn't have people wanting to return there to live. If things were that horrible in China, the military would rise up and overthrow the government.

And if things were that great here in the US, we wouldn't have Kent State, Selma, The Watts Riots, abortion (more than 30 million dead over the last 30 years), Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidian Compound...

Just consider, please. That's all. If, after considering, you still feel the same way, fine. But don't just swallow statistics that lend comfort to your prejudices, okay?

UPDATE:
Gordon gives me some good-natured grief over here. Feel free to pile on me on this; that's what blogging's all about. [grin]

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:51 PM | Comments (8)
» asiapundit links with: 'our friends' bombed pearl harbor
Weird Government Entitlement « China/Taiwan »

This says it all:

Wang Xiuluan, a 68-year-old farmer in central China's Henan Province, and her 70-year-old husband never expected a reward for a decision they made 30 years ago.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 04:14 PM | Comments (2)
Doing Their Dooty* « China/Taiwan » « Fun With News Headlines » « Puns »

Chinese Farmers hold "Meetings on Stools"

Read More "Doing Their Dooty*" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:57 PM | Comments (0)

April 23, 2005

China: Non-Free Freedom « China/Taiwan »

Or, Economic freedom without Political freedom.

The average Chinese individual doesn't give a hoot about politics. With how fierce everyone has gotten about such things as homosexual marriage, abortion rights, the role of religion in society, evolution, etc, I think there's something to be said for that attitude.

But what the Chinese people really need is the strengthening of the Rule of Law in China. America needs that to happen in China, too, so that our corporations can successfully do business there.

But the main freedom they lack that they want is to get a consistent punishment for a consistent enforcement of consistent laws. That way they can make informed decisions about actions in everyday life.

In many ways, this is the most basic of freedoms.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 02:39 PM | Comments (1)
» thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com links with: A step in the right direction
Oops! I Screwed Up Again! « China/Taiwan »

You can read the whole train wreck here.

I didn't want to post a defense over there, because it's their blog and I've irritated Jay Tea enough.

Look, I am proud of my knowledge of China. I've put lots of work into studying and understanding China over the last 11 years, and it may well be the focus of the rest of my career and life. I thought I had a perspective worth sharing, to help people understand more. Y'know, share the benefit of my knowledge. It does no one any good sitting in my skull.

Maybe I adopted the wrong tone? Too didactic, perhaps? In fact, the last thing I want is for someone to ever just take my word for it on an issue like China (or old rifles, or guitar playing, or great family sedans, or anything else I feel like I've studied deeply). I just want my opinion to be noted. To be given respect for my understanding. I don't care if someone disagrees with me, but one of my hot buttons is if someone tells me I need to research more before I can hold my opinion, implying I don't understand it enough...that if I just actually studied the issue, I'd agree with them. Grrr!

The other interesting thing I see whenever China is brought up is the hypocrisy.

The attitude I encounter seems to be:

China is evil because of all the horrible things the Chinese Communist government has done over the last 60 years. Each one of them is horrible, and unforgiveable, and evidence that China is the worst nation in the world.

Okay, fair enough. But the people making that accusation don't care about what the US did 35 years ago (Kent State and Tian'anmen Square were identical situations, albeit different scales). They defend "free" Taiwan against the "oppressive" China, totally ignoring how oppressive the KMT govt was toward the native Taiwanese. Sure, Taiwan does have completely democratic elections now that everyone can participate in...but that didn't come about until just under a decade ago...do we just ignore Taiwan's evil? If we defend Taiwan just because they are democratic, what was the basis of our support from 1949 to 1995, then? The Taiwan govt forced the people to live under martial law for nearly fifty years! If we catalogue China's crimes (and we should, let me be clear on that), then shouldn't we also catalogue Taiwan's and our own crimes, too?

Because there are darn good reasons to oppose China, to be worried about the aggressive stance they are taking.

But a catalogue of their crimes against humanity while ignoring our own, or those of our chosen allies, is hypocrisy. And makes it more likely that we will continue to ignore crimes against humanity in the future. I don't want that. When we catalogue crimes, I want them all noted, so we never forget, never whitewash.

When I do that, I tend to get accused of moral relativism. I don't think that's accurate.

I'm not excusing China for what they've done. I am trying to say approaching the argument from that direction is a non-starter, because of the whole glass houses/"those without sin can cast the first stone" issue.

Here's an example. It was 19 years from the Kent State Massacre to the Tian'an Men Square Massacre. It has been 16 years since the Tian'an Men Square Massacre to today. Do you think we would stand for China criticizing another country's massacre of student protesters if one happens three years from now? Of course not! We'd be all over China's hypocrisy...conveniently ignoring our own on that issue. Both massacres happened because the people in power were afraid of student protests getting out of hand, and sent in a military force to do police work/riot control. A disaster is just about inevitable in that situation. China learned from the mistake, however, and developed a nationwide riot-police to deal with such situations...and we've had no masscres in China for 16 years and counting.
So here's the thing: if China knows that 30 years from now they will still be blamed/punished for the Tian'an Men Square Massacre, what reason do they have to try and do the right thing? To prevent further massacres? To be considered an equal with other nations?
The US didn't do a thing to the KMT (Chiang Kai-shek's party/govt that fled the mainland when the Chi-Coms took over) when they massacred thousands of native Taiwanese to solidify their rule. Why? Because we feared the Communists, and so ignored it. Not a single censure. How many of you had even heard of the 2-28 Incident?

But I'm not trying to excuse China for their past. I just don't want us to excuse ourselves and our allies, either. We actually try to do better because sunlight has been shone on our past mistakes. So I'm going to continue to shine sunlight, in hopes that we don't go into the shadows again.

Another problem I have with looking to past actions as the basis for current postures and future oppositions is: how far in the past do you go?

Americans think that 100 years is a LOOONG time, and so we ignore the US' greedy and expansionistic past, when we picked a fight with a weakening Spain so we could take their territories, establish our Empire, and compete in the colonial exploitation game.
Heck, specifically regarding China, when the European powers were carving up China in the 1800s because it was rich but weak, the US rode in...but not to protect China's territorial sovereignty, but to demand that we get our fair share of the booty, too.
To us, that's just 150 years ago. Too far in the past to blame us for...
But what is 150 years to a nation that counts its history in millenia? 150 years is yesterday. I'm not saying their view is more correct than ours, but we can't insist on our own view without at least acknowledging that their view has some validity, as well. Or at least remembering and accounting for their opinion.

And if we accurately understand exactly what mistakes every nation has made in the past, then we can focus in more on current and future behavior.

My goal is that our govt and public opinion would adopt and communicate an attitude toward China like this:

Okay, guys, the past is the past. But we're watching you, and we won't stand for anything like the Tian'an Men Square Massacre again. We won't stand for you messing with Taiwan, either. Not because they are better than you (their past is just as bad), but because even though they are being jerks about the whole re-unification thing, that doesn't justify an armed invasion and the attendant deaths. Find a better way to do it. If you go that far, we'll fight you, and it will hurt you more than us.

And I'd like us to say to Taiwan:
Quit farting around, hoseheads. We'll defend your freedoms with our lives, but we'd rather not have to, y'know? Can't you find a less-risky path to get what you want?

But I'm tired of the vilification of China. No one in China has the power that Stalin had. Mao had more power than Gorbachev, sure, but no one currently has that much power these days. It's all power brokering and compromise and people trying to maintain their own personal security. If they could figure out a way to retain wealth and freedom while converting to Democracy, I think the Chinese govt would go for it. But they seem to fear (justified, I think) something like the French Revolution happening, where the first act of a new Chinese govt would be to execute the old one. I can't say I blame 'em for not stepping down under those likely circumstances.

But if we continue to engage China, give them disincentives for attacking Taiwan and provide incentives for them to continue giving their people more freedom, they might just hit a tipping point and transform the nation in a matter of months.

That's what I want to see. But in my heart, demonizing China is counterproductive to that.

It's almost like people want there to be another evil empire like the USSR to hate and oppose; that someone else has to be wholly evil so they can feel good about the US. I don't think there's justification to consider China that bad. I think that the communist movement, being liberal, was inherently immature; I'd like to encourage their maturation, to convince them that more political freedom and strengthening the Rule of Law in their nation is a desirable goal.

So that's where I'm coming from. If it isn't clear, well, let me know where and I'll try to clarify.

Read More "Oops! I Screwed Up Again!" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 12:48 PM | Comments (8)
» thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com links with: Instead of demonizing China.....

April 16, 2005

The Situation in China is Growing Grave « China/Taiwan »

"Anti-Japanese" Protests Threatening to Get Out of Hand.

As one activist put it in the article:

"Nationalism is a double-edged sword," said a leading campaigner for peasant rights and rural health care.

The activist, speaking on condition of anonymity, said government critics already had begun to take advantage of a rare easing of tight political controls. "It can help the government gain support, but it can also help people who see the government as part of the problem," he said.

That's the thing. The massive sit-in protests that resulted in the Tian'anmen Square Massacre began as just people honoring a deceased official.

But when people are restricted from expressing frustration with a govt, they get quite good at proxy/indirect protests.

This may be starting out as the Chinese govt trying to send a message to Japan: "Look, you guys are so bad, even the common Chinese citizen goes out and protests how much they dislike you. This really hurts your reputation. So concede on this economic/diplomatic issue, will you?" But when you get a bunch of people together and encourage them to get a little angry, other issues start cropping up...

This could get messy/nasty for the Chinese govt.

Fortunately, they did learn something from the Tian'anmen Square Massacre: military troops make lousy riot troops. So they created the People's Armed Police and gave 'em bunches of riot gear. It has worked so far; there have been dozens of large-scale protests --even a few riots!-- since 1989, and there still hasn't been even a small-scale massacre to date. Plenty of police brutality, I'm sure, and I'd be willing to bet a good number of people not getting out of present except feet-first. Not ideal, no, but still better than 1-2k shot within a matter of hours.

I'll be praying for China, and request you do, too, if you're the praying kind. They're gonna need it.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:10 AM | Comments (1)

April 15, 2005

Not Looking Good in China « China/Taiwan »

More Spontaneously Planned Anti-Japan Protests on the way in China.

This could get nasty.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:14 AM | Comments (0)

April 14, 2005

National Identity « China/Taiwan »

The Horse's Mouth wants to start up a discussion of China's Identity.

I hope I didn't already take the answer you were going to make. Go add your thoughts.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:42 AM | Comments (1)
China Vs Japan « China/Taiwan »

Just yesterday, I said this:

And the only other thing that would come close would be the military defeat of Japan.

So what's in the news today?

Naval Clash Feared Between China and Japan:

A ROW between Japan and China intensified yesterday as Tokyo took steps towards granting Japanese companies the right to test-drill for oil and gas in a disputed area of the East China Sea.

China protested furiously. “Japan has come up with a provocation to China’s rights and the norm of international relations,” Qin Gang, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, said. “China has already made a protest to Japan, and reserves the right to take further reaction,” he added.

You simply have to read the whole article to understand some of the issues involved. Please do so.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:52 AM | Comments (5)

April 13, 2005

Developments in China « China/Taiwan »

Via Drudge Report comes this account of a riot in Southeastern China. Reading his title, I didn't expect much, and nearly didn't follow the link.

I'm glad I did.

By this afternoon, three days after the riot, witnesses say crowds had convened in Huaxi Village in Zhejiang Province to gawk at a tableau of destroyed police cars and shattered windows. Police officers outside the village were reportedly blocking reporters from entering the scene but local people, reached by telephone, said villagers controlled the riot area.

"The villagers will not give up if there is no concrete action to move the factories away," said Mr. Lu, a villager who witnessed part of the confrontation and refused to give his full name. "The crowd is growing. There are at least 50,000 or 60,000 people."


But the riot described in Huaxi Village is seen as a symptom of the widening social unrest in the Chinese countryside that has become a serious concern for government leaders. Last year, tens of thousands of protesters in western Sichuan Province clashed with the police in a protest over a long-disputed dam project. Smaller rural protests are becoming commonplace and are often violent.

Huaxi Village is a few hours' drive south of Hangzhou, the provincial capital of coastal Zhejiang. It is a short distance from the Zhuxi Industrial Function Zone, the local industrial park that villagers say is home to 13 chemical factories.

"The air stinks from the factories," said a villager, Wang Yuehe. She said the local river was filled with pollutants that had contaminated surrounding farmland.

"We can't grow our crops. The factories had promised to do a good environmental job, but they have done almost nothing."

Mrs. Wang said that villagers had pooled their money for two years and sent representatives to file complaints at government petition offices in Zhejiang Province and in Beijing. "But there have been no results so far," she said.


A reporter for an English-language newspaper in Hong Kong, the South China Morning Post, managed to visit the riot scene and described overturned buses and shattered cars, adding that "a police uniform is draped over one car - a trophy." The reporter , whose account was published today, was detained by the police after leaving the village but released after her notes were confiscated.

So maybe it won't be the internet that brings freedom to China after all.

People, this really is serious.

The people in China did not become Communist out of altruism. They wanted to get filthy, stinking rich. They hung onto that for decades, because the leaders told them their sacrifices were paying off, and they were always just around the corner from true wealth.

When the people finally got sick of that, the government had no choice but to open up the economy. People grew rich, or at least had the opportunity to try; that was good enough for a while.

But people are dying in mines. People in the countryside are apparently being poisoned. And the rural poor are still poor, with no end in sight. They will not be poisoned just so the urban dwellers can get rich. Things will get worse, and riots will get more serious, and more threatening to the govt.

Which is a good thing...

...sort of. Because the more threatened the govt feels, the more they will feel pressured to deliver some concrete gift to the people to buy a few more years or decades of living at the top. The best gift they can think of would be bringing Taiwan back in...forcefully.

And the only other thing that would come close would be the military defeat of Japan.

Neither one bodes well for the stability and security of the globe...

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:13 PM | Comments (0)

March 21, 2005

China's Statecraft « China/Taiwan »

Derided by some, but I dunno: it seems to me that China's govt has been quite adept at isolating Taiwan.

There are just too many things going on lately which, taken by themselves mean absolutely nothing, but when taken in aggregate, seem to loom darkly over Taiwan's future...

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:30 PM | Comments (0)

March 17, 2005

This Is Starting To Scare Me « China/Taiwan »

"Beijing, skillfully changing the format of the exercise, has tried to re-orient the [Russia's and China's] armies to practicing an invasion of Taiwan.
"

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:49 AM | Comments (0)

March 16, 2005

What'S Going On With China? « China/Taiwan »

An article I could have written, but didn't.

Yes, yes, it's Derb. Don't let that faze you, nary a mention of math puzzles or homosexuality to be found. I respect the man, and for reasons like this article.

I've expressed many of the ideas before that he brings up; naturally, I think he's pretty much 100% correct on his assumptions. He has more experience in China and in life than me, and the depth of his knowledge and understanding shows in some things I probably would not have picked up on without this article.

Anyone wishing to have an intelligent discussion about China should be reading what Derb has to say about it. No one is 100% correct on anything, but he's got good reasons for the things he says.

Another frequent question, one much easier to answer, is: What does China want? The ordinary people of China of course want what ordinary people everywhere want: peace and prosperity. If that were all we had to consider, though, history would present a much more pleasant spectacle. What does the Chinese leadership want?

That, as I said, is easy. What they want is regional hegemony. They want to be in East Asia — perhaps in all of Eurasia — what the U.S.A. has been in the Americas this past couple of hundred years. In their dreams, Russia will be their Canada: huge, underpopulated, cold, and not very consequential. India will be their Brazil.** Laos (say) will be their Guatemala (say). There are some holes in the analogy. The U.S.A. never had to contend with an offshore nation a tenth as populous yet ten times wealthier than itself, as China has to keep Japan in mind. Nor do the Indians look to be slipping quietly into their assigned role as providers of coffee, nuts, and salacious dances to the new superpower. Still, it is plain from their visible diplomatic strategy that the Chinese think they can pull it off.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:45 AM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2005

China Passes New Anti-Secession Law « China/Taiwan »

Various takes on China's new Anti-Secession Law

This article seems to be one of the best and most balanced.

I find it disturbing that China passed a law authorizing the use of force to prevent Taiwan from declaring independence. Then again, if Taiwan President Chen Shuibian hadn't decided to base his political career on brinkmanship regarding independence, China wouldn't feel forced toward this course of action.

I'm wondering if the lesson China took from the US invasion of Iraq is that a nation may use military force in defiance of the UN in order to secure its own national interest. There is now that plausible precedent. We could argue that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 created a unique situation for the United States that resulted in the invasion of Iraq, but they could always counter that we had resolved that issue with our invasion of Afghanistan. I'm also fairly certain Taiwan is covertly pursuing a nuclear weapon for deterrence purposes (much like Israel is assumed to have done), so if China had any evidence of that (or could fabricate some), they could claim "ensuring Taiwan isn't preparing WMD" as a pretext.

This is getting a little scary, to tell the truth.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:06 AM | Comments (2)

February 22, 2005

Red Tourism « China/Taiwan »

This strikes me as wrong on the face of it.

Historical tourism, yes. Historical tourism that highlights events of the past 50-60 years, sure. But to try to add legitimacy and increase loyalty to a communism the current government itself only pays lip service to? That seems like a possible disaster in the making, to me.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:24 AM | Comments (0)
Wal-Mart Communism « China/Taiwan »

If you peruse what I've written about China, or if you can find the archives of my older blogs online, you'll see that several times I've insisted that calling the Mainland Chinese "Communist" is inaccurate. They haven't really been communist for more than a decade.

However, they are still Totalitarian. You don't need to be communist to be a despotic government.

Market reforms have come to much of China, and the urban elite are getting rich, achieving materialistic dreams.

But the rural peasants are being left behind. And they are getting resentful.

Communism gained favor in China because communist leaders promised the people they would own their land and everyone could get rich. They toppled the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) that supported wealthy landowners oppressing tenant farmers to institute land reform and let the people own the land! ...and then treated the brand new peasant landowners like tenants, taxing them heavily and telling them how much they could sell their agricultural products for. But the People put up with it, because after all, they now owned the land, and the heavy taxes and price controls were just a temporary sacrifice to help everyone get rich!

We've seen how well that worked out.

On a trip to Beijing two years ago, I met some of my wife's cousins from the countryside. They were engaged in making counterfeit bags, from what I gather. They were getting married, and it was pretty much an arranged marriage, having been decided since the kids were young that the marriage would be an excellent business alliance: one family made the bag parts, the other assembled them into the nearly-finished product. It was up to the kids to reject the marriage if they wanted to, but it seemed to me they were pretty excited about going through with it. They had come to Beijing to see the city and buy music and clothes and such.

We had a great talk, and they invited us to come to their home on our next trip to China. I really liked them, and in trying to be polite and warm, I invited them to come visit us in the United States someday, even if it took them 10 years or so. They looked uncomfortable and said, "That would be beyond our reach, even if we saved for our whole lives." We talked about financial realities and the difference between urban and rural economies a few minutes, and I pointed out that it was impossible to predict what the situation might be in 5 or 10 years, that if wealth ever reached the countryside, they might find the whole situation changing to their advantage. They looked skeptical and shook their head.

I still feel bad about that.

Because nearly 5 years later, despite Beijing's economy growing to the point that nearly everyone has cars now and prices for apartments/homes in the city now rival that of Seattle, the world changes if you go 50 miles out of the city. Maybe China needs a Wal-Mart that will be cheap goods to the countryside?

The point is, the government still controls the prices on many things. China is in a difficult situation, with 1/5th the world's population, but only 1/10th of the world's arable land. Food is always an issue in China. They still great each other with "Have you eaten?" and some of the most important and elaborate points of etiquette revolve around offering and refusing food between guest and host.

With a true market system of supply and demand, the peasants could get rich. They could bleed off some of the wealth from urban areas and make it worthwhile for someone to stay in the country. Perhaps the internet might help the rural poor sidestep market controls to sell their product more directly? Perhaps what little wealth they have as a group could use the internet to attract products to create a market in reaching out to the rural poor?

I'm serious about rural China needing a Wal-Mart. Is the US the economic juggernaut it is today because we had the Sears, Roebuck and Co. mail-order catalog? Because Wal-Mart was its successor in spirit? You can only have true wealth if your most isolated can use a collective buying power to obtain cheap and reliable goods.

By bringing wealth* to the rural areas, is Wal-Mart the capitalist version of the most basic communist goal?

Read More "Wal-Mart Communism" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:06 AM | Comments (3)

February 18, 2005

Revealing Increase in Tensions « China/Taiwan »

This doesn't look good folks:
China has accused the United States of sending a false signal to Taiwan by disclosing a CIA assessment indicating the military balance between the rivals is shifting in Beijing's favor.

Nothing soon, of course, but after the Olympics...?

Maybe I should clarify, particularly in light of the negative tone I take in this post:

I don't approve of nor trust the Mainland Chinese government. On the other hand, I think much of the tension between China and Taiwan is due to Chen Shuibian putting his own political expediency ahead of the needs of the people of Taiwan.

I criticize Taiwan for its past, but it is actually doing a pretty good job of being a democracy since 1996. I also think the best way to defuse some rising tensions with Mainland China is to give them the same benefit of the doubt we give other nations. Beating someone up about a past mistake they've taken pains to correct does no one any good.

I'm also very split on the Taiwan issue. There is a great deal of hypocrisy on both sides. Mainland China doesn't collect taxes or make any decisions regarding Taiwan's laws or welfare, so it is ridiculous to claim it is a "renegade province" or "part of China". On the other hand, Taiwan wants all the benefits of having close ties to China without acknowledging the connection. You know the rules about "No direct flights"? That's due to "free" Taiwan, rather than the "evil Communists". Taiwan is getting rich off of investing in China, and cheap labor. They still have billions of dollars of wealth that was plundered from China when they fled...if they are not part of China, shouldn't they return what they stole? If they are part of China, wouldn't they want it where it belongs? Taiwan wants the US to risk its military members to protect it as it provokes China into a military confrontation, which doesn't win any points with me, either.

Bottom line for me is, Taiwan and Mainland China have a closer connection and more in common than just about anyone but maybe the US and Canada, and in some ways, more connection (common history, values, etc). There is no reason they could not be peacefully reunited to the benefit of both, except that the current leadership of Taiwan will not consider it.

Then again, there are good strategic reasons to have an independent nation sitting 60 miles off one of the most populated portion of China's coast.

It's a little complicated to look at it as a whole, and while I think I have the experience to point out the complexity and a few aspects of the problem, I don't pretend to have the knowledge or experience to unravel this Gordian knot. I fear the results if it is cut, however.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:21 AM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2005

Taiwan: Our "Friends" in "Democracy" « China/Taiwan »

The Kaohsiung Incident.

Only 10 years before the Tian'anmen Square Incident in Mainland China, Taiwan had finally allowed the people the some ability to express discontent publicly. A riot occurred, and the Kuomintang govt (exiled from the mainland) arrested several leaders and tortured them for several months.

Keep in mind, these were people denied any place in the political process until 1996, and under martial law until 1987. And let us not forget that thousands ("10s of thousands" is probably an exaggeration...) who were killed by Kuomintang troops on 28 February 1947.

Oh, yeah: you probably can't 'not forget' was was never told to you, never really discussed in the US. But we hear about the Tian'anmen Square incident, don't we? That's because Realpolitic dictates that we support evil, despotic regimes when they oppose evil, despotic Communist regimes.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 12:07 PM | Comments (1)

December 03, 2004

Taiwan-China War in 2010 « China/Taiwan »

Everything is falling into line with 2010 being the optimal year for China to invade Taiwan.

Sure, It might be a little earlier. They might go right after the Olympics are completed, depending on some residual good-will to temper criticism. It also might be a little later.

But there are two essential problems facing China: securing Taiwan militarily, and keeping the US out of the fray until they can accomplish said securing of Tawain.

The United States has agreed to the One China Policy. We don't act like it, because we sell arms to Taiwan and otherwise treat them as the separate state they are (does China collect any taxes from Taiwan? No? They aren't one nation then, are they?). But faced with a forcibly re-united Taiwan and a piece of paper signed by the President and approved by Congress that says Taiwan is a part of China, what could we do?

Our main strategy in earlier tense moments was to send a carrier fleet into the Taiwan Strait, betting that China couldn't do anything without infringing on our personal space, which would give us the pretext we needed to get involved on Taiwan's side.

But now they have Sunburn Anti-ship missiles, Su-27s and Su-30s, advanced attack submarines, and are increasing the accuracy of their short range ballistic missiles.

And now this.

All of the new and advanced weapon systems will be ready to go, on-line, and integrated into their battle plan between 2009-2012. I'm picking 2010 as a nice round figure.

Hopefully, some things can be done to defuse the situation before it gets that far, but not with the way Chen Shuibian has been acting...

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:22 AM | Comments (4)
» The LLama Butchers links with: Well, That sucks

December 02, 2004

Standing Up To China « China/Taiwan »

As much as I like the Chinese people, I hope he's right and this will be yet another reason why Sec State Rice will be more effective and better for US interests than Colin Powell in that cabinet position.

Excerpt:

If her writings of four years ago are any guide, Ms. Rice does not share Mr. Powell's sentimentalism about the rise of China. That offers cause for optimism that America's new secretary of state will work quietly, but determinedly to counter Beijing's rising influence, and arrest the slide in America's prestige and influence in Asia.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 01:04 PM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2004

Understanding China « China/Taiwan »

Simon Says:

Hu and Wen have one main priority above all else: to keep the CCP in power. Everything else flows from that.

Yep. But it goes farther than that. I'm going to take this opportunity to get up on my soapbox and reiterate what I've come to understand about Mainland China's government.

See, if you look at the history of the world and even the United States, every government's top priority, number one function, and prime directive is to keep itself in power. You can see some of that motivation even in the way AG Reno handled David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.

China has a few aspects that make their situation unique.

First, as a people, it seems to me like the Chinese are more obsessed with getting rich than any other people on earth. I'm not sure why that is, but I'm working on some theories. Some definite elements are:

a) China was established as an empire and a conceptual single entity before any of the world's major religions sprang up. And while Buddhism had a deep and profound impact on China, it isn't responsible for China's growth and greatness at all, the way Islam is associated with and drove the rise of the Middle East, the way Hindu is associated with and drove the rise of India, the way Christianity is associated with and drove the rise of western Europe.

b) China has a centuries-old mechanism for allowing the intelligent to elevate themselves and enrich their family through the civil service examinations. If a family could scrape enough money together to educate an intelligent son enough for him to even pass the first of the tests, they could free themselves from toil and trouble. Sure, royalty and nobility were out of reach to the common person, but wealth and comfort was not. Just as the periods of starvation can be seen in Chinese attitudes toward food and how they are willing to eat just about anything that will hold still long enough to add seasoning, the method of "getting rich through education to attain a level involving govt kickbacks" has really seeped into the national consciousness.

Going back to how this makes China's government situation unique, in more modern times, the Chinese really believed that Communism could make them all rich. Not just comfortable, not just enough to eat, but actually rich. And they were willing to make sacrifices as an entire nation and an entire people in order to achieve that goal. They toiled in near (or sometimes actual and abject) poverty for more than a generation, waiting for the windfall. When it never came, Deng Xiaoping had no choice but to allow "modified" socialism, i.e., some elements of capitalism, and once that "wolf" was in the door, it has relentlessly gobbled up the elements of socialism. And the more it has excreted wealth, the more people are eager to let it in to their homes and lives.

Wonderful, right? The people are getting rich like they always wanted, and the govt is responsible for helping it along. What could be the problem?

Well, the legitimacy of the govt of China is based pretty much only on the original mandate to bring about communism. They kind of played a shell game to stay in power while abandoning that original goal. Still, no real problem. But it does seem to mean that they can't figure out how to transform the govt structure and methods as deftly as they've transformed the economy; they still use force, rule of whim, and opacity to protect themselves. And if the people ever did tire of communist party rule and want them to step down, they have a less sturdy basis on which to refuse. Hence, the over-reaction at Tian'an Men square in 1989...

And the way that Mao Zedong maintained his power was unfortunate: anyone who threatened his power and position was branded as a corrupt capitalist. It might have kept him in power and maintained his hero status in the People's Heart, but while it was good for him, it did some permanent damage to the People's Trust of the govt. After all, they had been sacrificing for years to be able to get rich, and that day of enrichment was being delayed by govt officials who selfishly lined their own pockets.

And in that is the element that makes Chinese politics so wacky: for millenia (literally!), the accepted and respected way to get rich was to educate yourself, get a position in govt, and let your whole family live off the sweetheart deals you could make as part of the govt system. Nearly every current communist party official got his position by getting an education and working his way up through the party system. His family members then demand to use his position and access to enrich themselves. He's fulfilling the national dream! He's carrying out the historical imperative!

...but if the People ever found out that he's getting rich on their backs, they'll have him executed and throw his family in jail.

(When you understand how important the family is in China, you'll see how the second part of that is probably the most devastating)

And so the difficulty of every government official is getting down off the tiger with life, wealth, and family intact. When Jiang Zemin had to step down from his position, he tried to retain power...Li Peng was the #3 most powerful guy, but wanted to totally retire. He threw his power to Jiang Zemin to protect his family, kind of leaving Zhu Rongji's protege, Wen Jiabao, in a weakened position. But then Jiang Zemin tangled with his putative successor, Hu Jintao, and apparently lost. Hu was apparently able to use a threat of a corruption charge on Jiang or one of Jiang's family members to get Jiang to back off, and once you show weakness in China's govt system, you are dead in the water.

So that's the additional element that makes China's govt so schizophrenic: By achieving what they are supposed to achieve (as they are pretty much told from birth...it's in all the literature and history), they find themselves in the situation that all they are doing is considered a betrayal that they must keep secret to continue living, and they have to find a good exit strategy to keep their family and comfort. And the first sign of weakness brings a feeding frenzy of other Machiavellian officials who want to burnish their own star at your expense...

It's messy, to be sure.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:20 AM | Comments (0)
» Simon World links with: Asia by Blog

October 13, 2004

China Is Becoming More Capitalist Than The United States (UPDATED) « China/Taiwan »

Competing for customers, "Upscale" hospitals in China are finding creative ways to attract business.

And idiots in the US want to impose singe-payer, govt-financed/run/provided health care.

Remember Godwin's Law? Well, Brain Fertilizer's Corollary states: "Anyone who insists China is still a communist/socialist nation automatically loses all credibility on the issue of capitalism and/or socialism."*

UPDATE: I should probably explain. There are people who hate the People's Republic of China because it is an oppressive, evil, Communist police state. It certainly used to be. It is no longer Communist. It is no longer even socialist, for the most part. In fact, as I have pointed out, the United States is moving ever closer toward socialism while China is moving ever closer toward pure capitalism. They have no universal health care, no HMOs, little taxation, few social programs; they have dismantled all of the State-run corporations. People are largely allowed to seek their own path to wealth, to seek their own way in life.
The biggest problem there is the lack of a developed Rule of Law. There isn't always a channel for legal redress, especially against the government. That's bad, and it makes it difficult for western corporations to do business there. I think market pressures will do far more to fix that problem than anything diplomacy can accomplish.
It is still a police state, in that it is very easy for the government to imprison a person on minor charges...or even no charges. It happens so rarely, however, that the average individual in China lives in far less fear of his government or his neighbor than we do. IRS audit, anyone? Or would you prefer to walk through a 'bad neighborhood' at night wearing a Rolex? You can just about do the "virgin with a bag of gold at midnight" thing in most parts of Beijing, a city of 16 million people. Compare that to our capital city...
People often cite the Tiananmen Massacre of 1989 as proof that China is an evil nation and must be opposed to defend Taiwan, at least. I usually counter with our Kent State Massacre, and get derided for using "moral equivalence". Well, I think "moral equivalence" is when you use a lesser crime to excuse a greater crime...and that's not what I'm doing. I don't excuse what China's government did at Tiananmen. But I also don't excuse what our government did at Kent State. Or in Chicago in 1968. Or in Selma. Or what "Our friends in Democracy", the KuoMinTang did in Taiwan in 1947 (the little-known 2-28 incident), in which the Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek murdered at least 10,000 Taiwanese people (some say as high as 30k...Taiwan still hasn't declassified the documents to allow anyone to know for sure) in order to solidify their rule there...and then didn't let them vote or participate in governmental processes until 1996. My point is that it is entirely possible to hate the governmental system without hating the people, or even without hating the nation. As Americans, we have supported many heinous and/or evil governments. That doesn't mean you have to accept China's, but you should address why this specific government is so much more worthy of your hate than other governments that have committed equally bad or worse atrocities, or else you face justifiable charges of hypocrisy.
This is not to excuse China's government for their crimes, or the people for not overthrowing their government yet. One of the biggest faults of the Chinese, in my opinion, is that they are so focused on becoming wealthy that they are mollified by a corrupt government that buys them off with opportunities to get rich. That's how they got into Communism in the first place, you know, by believing that Communism could make your family rich, rather than any altruistic notion of ensuring that no one starved. On the other hand, however, in reaction to the demands of the people, China is allowing free markets and allowing the market itself to determine how business and life are conducted. As a result, they are experiencing unprecedented growth and enrichment. It's amazing to see the differences there just over the last 6 years.
They have a tragic past, but they are clearly heading in the right direction. I wish I could say the same for the United States, but as long as we have a significant percentage of our population that actually wants us to be like Europe, or have a gun control laws like Great Britain, or a health care system like Canada, I have to say I fear for our future.**

Read More "China Is Becoming More Capitalist Than The United States (UPDATED)" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 01:18 PM | Comments (1)
» Simon World links with: Asia by Blog
» The White Peril links with: Old sins cast long shadows
» The White Peril 白禍 links with: Old sins cast long shadows

September 09, 2004

Left in the Comments « China/Taiwan »

Continuing on about China...

A trackback at Dean's site (why the discussion and linking happened there, rather than at the source, i.e., here, is beyond me) regarding this post, made a few assumptions about my nature, so I left a few thoughts there. I thought one portion might be worth repeating here:

It also might be interesting for you to note that a Christian heretic (taught by millenialists that fled the US) led a rebellion that caused more deaths in China than Mao Zedong, so their distrust of a Christianity they don't fully understand is at least understandable.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:01 AM | Comments (1)
» Sharp as a Marble links with: Recipe Idiosyncrasies

August 19, 2004

China Expands Strategic Bomber Fleet « China/Taiwan »

I'm not sure I believe it, but Global Security's website is reporting that China has formalized plans to acquire Russian Tu-22M Backfire bombers.

The acquisition would significantly increase stand-off ranges against the US Navy in the event of a conflict over/invasion of Taiwan.

Please understand (if you don't already), China has no plans to attack or get involved in an extended war with the United States. The United States' policy toward China and Taiwan is somewhat schizophrenic, agreeing that Taiwan is part of China on hand but promising to defend Taiwan from an invasion by China on the other. China apparently plans on exploiting that ambiguity by presenting a strong enough defense to make defending Taiwan costly in terms of US military lives. China seems to hope that they can capture and consolidate Taiwan before the United States could summon up enough political will to get involved, and present the world with a fait accompli.

They could do that without these aircraft, and the addition of the aircraft themselves doesn't make this scenario appreciably more likely...but if true, it is simply one more indication of the plans China has for the future.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:02 AM | Comments (0)